Carless in Chicago » transit economics

Economics of Parking

Jason — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:30:42 +0000

In the book, I briefly mention Donald Schoup’s excellent book, The High Price of Free Parking, but I don’t go into great detail about how changing the way we price parking might improve our quality of life. As it happens, a couple weeks ago, economist Tyler Cowen wrote a great Op-Ed about this very topic, which also led to some interesting follow-up debate. One advantage of being a slightly lazy blogger is that I can list all of these discussions together in a comprehensive post.

Free Parking Comes at a Price by Tyler Cowen.

Arnold Kling responds, and Cowen responds back.

Robin Hanson responds to both, and Kling replies.

On a roll, Cowen also provides a little more ‘color commentary’ here and here.

Of course, here in Chicago we’re living through the great parking meter privatization experiment. Aaron Renn (the Urbanophile) provides some excellent commentary, focusing largely on how Chicago’s parking meter deal locks the city into a pretty inflexible model for parking policy.

For the moment, I’ll spare readers my own entirely correct but quite unpopular opinions about what Chicago should be doing differently parking-wise.

Chicago B-Cycle Launches (Note: potentially unfair and premature judgement enclosed)

Jason — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:48:35 +0000

Last weekend I was in Minneapolis for a wedding, and was blown away by the new Nice Ride bike sharing program. I was particularly impressed with the ubiquity of the program: I saw bikes downtown, in Uptown, in Longfellow, and in several other neighborhoods. I was all set to write a post about it when I got home, but then heard about the imminent launch of Chicago B-Cycle, Chicago’s first bike sharing program. I decided to wait until the details came out and see how the approaches differed.

Both programs share the same basic model: Users buy a subscription entitling them to check bikes out from any automated kiosk and return them to any other automated kiosk. Both subscriptions entitle riders to an unlimited number of free short term rides (up to one hour for Chicago B-Cycle and up to half an hour for Nice Ride) and then charge additional fees based on total ride time. (Chicago B-Cycle also offers a no-subscription hourly rate, but at a pretty hefty premium.) Both pricing models encourage shorter rides (and thus keeping lots of bikes circulating), although Nice Ride is a bit more aggressive in this regard.

I don’t want to be unfair, but a couple of things stand out looking at these two programs. First, Nice Ride is all over Minneapolis. As of now, B-Cycle is concentrated downtown and around North Michigan (with one additional kiosk at McCormick Place). This, combined with the high one-time rates, seems targeted more to tourists than commuters. I’m surprised that they didn’t choose at least a couple of residential neighborhoods to include in the initial launch. (In comparison, Nice Ride launched this spring and now has 65 stations with lots of planned expansion.)

Chicago B-Cycle is also just a lot more expensive overall. Nice Ride offers 24-hour subscriptions starting at $5, and a year for $60. Chicago B-Cycle’s subscriptions start at $35 for 30 days, and max out at $55 for 90 days, for an equivalent yearly cost of $220.

To be fair: Nice Ride is a few months old now, and also a non-profit operation that gets a hefty chunk of money from government grants and in particular, tobacco settlement money managed by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Chicago B-Cycle operates on a for-profit model, and has to fully cover their operating expenses through subscriptions, fees, and sponsorships. I’m not privy to their expansion plans, but I hope they thrive and move into other parts of the city quickly (and hopefully, reduce cost through efficiencies).

But I have to wonder about the viability of the for-profit model on something like this if its really intended to become part of our transportation infrastructure (which seems to be the goal underlying Nice Ride). As a country, state, and city, we subsidize mass transit (although not enough). And we spend vast amounts of public money subsidizing driving, through roads, through tax breaks to oil companies, through lots of free and inexpensive parking, and other mechanisms. And we’re right to do so (yes, even with some of our subsidization of driving, although I’d like to see it reduced); our transit infrastructure is a major economic driver. So if we really want bikes to become a viable, essential part of our city’s transit system, shouldn’t we be looking at subsidized models for those initiatives also?

Chicago B-Cycle is a nice addition to the city, and I’m excited to try it out. But even as someone who ought to be smack dab in the middle of their target demographic, I have a hard time imagining doing so for any reason other than the novelty.

I’d be very curious to hear other people’s opinions about this. Please leave your thoughts in comments.

Medium Speed Rail

Jason — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:54:37 +0000

I am unashamed of my desire to see new high speed rail links brought to the Chicago region and elsewhere. But recently, two commentators have reminded us that as exciting as HSR projects would be, they may not really represent our most pressing transit needs.

Just today, John McCarron pens a Tribune Op-Ed arguing that putting stimulus dollars into what he refers to as “medium speed rail” like the El and Metra systems would benefit a lot of people a lot more quickly that many of the projects that congress is currently evaluating.

Writing a little more broadly, Ben Adler of The Nation points out that most of the public transit dollars in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act go to new projects, rather than providing much needed operating support to local agencies.

I think anyone who’s lived through the numerous “doomsday” scenarios of the past few years would have hard time arguing with these points. I’d speculate that we’re likely to see another stimulus bill in some shape or form in the next twelve months. If you’re inclined to do so, consider writing your representatives to let them know your priorities as a carless citizen.

CTA Capital Spending

Jason — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:40:02 +0000

The Sun Times published a nifty interactive graphic on its web site this week that gives approximate costs to the various kinds of regular capital expenditures made by the CTA. (I can’t quite determine what article it relates to, but this gives me an excuse to link to the Sun Times’ transportation blog, The Ride, added to the blogroll today.