Free Parking Is Anything But

Being the first to arrive in the office today, my car was the first to arrive in the parking lot (boy, I really hope my boss reads today's post).

I didn't think much of it, and you probably don't either, but my car is now just sitting there, taking up precious land space outside of the office. And I am not paying a single dime for it.

Or so I think. But the truth is, like freedom, parking is never "free".

That's where subsidies come into play.

But do these subsidies make sense anymore? In an era where people are concerned about their carbon footprint, why do we still subsidize parking, which only allows for more congestion and pollution? Indeed, a full third of all NYC traffic is simply cars looking for a place to park.

That's a lot of wasted time and energy. As The New York Times points out this week, "we end up overusing land for cars — and overusing cars too. You don’t have to hate sprawl, or automobiles, to want to stop subsidizing that way of life."

A more sensible approach would to be to allow parking rates to fluctuate depending on demand at the time, an idea that is being piloted in San Francisco. You simply pay for what you use, like any other commodity.

Designing neighborhoods and cities for people instead of cars will only happen if people think wisely about when they use their cars. Free parking may seem nice, but like free ice cream, it has its consequences.

After all, we're trying to be careful with our resources (going paperless with DotLoop, for example). Isn't it time we start being careful with our land use, too?