Earlier in this series, I provided some background on the MBTA debt crisis and offered some justification for introducing a Parking Space Tax (PST) as part of a comprehensive transportation policy for the greater Boston metro area. I also suggested that any possible solution to the MBTA debt crisis must meet three criteria: (1) effectively addressing the debt itself (rather than merely shuffling it around), (2) improving the overall commuter experience, and (3) increasing MBTA revenues without unfairly burdening individual riders through constantly increasing fares.
In this final post in the series, I will offer some specific stipulations and suggestions regarding the structure and scope of any PST introduced in Massachusetts. I offer each of these recommendations with the hope that they ensure that the financial burden of the PST is spread equitably and that the corollary transportation incentives of the PST are targeted effectively.
PST Considerations
First and foremost, I feel compelled to acknowledge that there are many legitimate uses of cars and that as a result there is some legitimate need for parking spaces. Growing up in suburban Pennsylvania, I experienced innumerable situations where attempting to use any other form of transportation would have been simply impractical. I can only assume that in Massachusetts there are analogous issues that must be considered. With this concession in mind, here are some principles worth considering:
- Handicap Access - No matter how many elevators, ramps, and kneeling buses a mass transit system may introduce, there will be instances where forcing handicapped individuals not to drive (or have access to parking) will put an unreasonable burden on those individuals and their families. Thus, I recommend any PST or similar program waive all fees, costs, and limitations related to handicap parking spaces.
- Population Density - That is to say that in areas with especially low population densities, a mass transit system may not be a viable option. In some situations, a rural population may only have enough people traveling to a shopping center each day to fill a bus three times per day. Of course, only having access to the shopping center three times per day or running a half-filled bus six times per day would not be helpful for the shopping center businesses, convenient for the local residents, or economical for a bus company or transit authority. In these areas, personal cars and parking spaces truly are the best option.
At the same time, there are numerous suburban and urban areas where personal cars may seem like a necessity. However, this perceived necessity is typically much greater than the actual utility of personal cars. Specifically, by improving current transportation alternatives or introducing new alternatives, the local population could easily and effectively make (better) use of a mass transit system to the benefit of commuters as well as local residents and businesses.
Thus, understanding the relationship between population density and the utility of personal car use, I strongly urge that any PST or similar program be directly correlated with population density, such that areas with higher population densities bare a larger burden than areas with lower population densities. In fact, areas with sufficiently low population densities should not bare any PST or mass transit burden. - Free over Fare - While there may be no right to parking, I would contend that there is a right to free travel. That is, no matter how rich or poor someone is, they should never be trapped by the cost of transportation or overwhelmingly obstructed by the infrastructure of non-free transportation (i.e. no mode of transportation that costs money should prevent someone from using free modes of transportation).
Despite how beneficial cars, subways, buses, or any other mode of transportation may be, it should not trump the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. On the contrary, improvements to fare-based transportation should only serve to augment the ability of people looking to walk or bike to their destination. Thus, bike racks, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and benches should all be considered alternatives to parking spaces, and in related policies the introduction of new free-travel improvements should be an opportunity to reduce a community's PST burden. - Validated Parking - Often urban shopping centers, entertainment venues, and groceries stores 'validate parking' to alleviate the burden of the cost of parking for their customers. I would like to reconsider this concept in two ways in order to address some potential criticisms of a PST.
Rather than validating parking in densely populated neighborhoods and towns, why don't stores 'validate' mass transit costs? Stores with parking lots or garages might easily charge a dollar or more per hour for parking, because in these cases, the stores have spent (or are spending) money to build or maintain the parking spaces, a cost that could be passed on to customers directly. However, they realize that it is beneficial to their bottom-line to subsidize this parking cost for customers that may be spending hundreds of dollars during a shopping trip. Wouldn't it make as much sense (or more sense) for those stores to validate mass transit fares instead and fore-go the expense of maintaining a parking lot or garage? Just imagine if for every $20 you spent on groceries, you could have a quarter added to your Charlie Card!
On the other hand, many people live in the city where mass transit exists but work in the suburbs and country side in massive office complexes, which are not accessible (or barely accessible) via public transportation and are well out of the range of an average cyclist. In these cases, someone's livelihood may depend on their ability to have access to a car for their daily commute, which may mean that a hefty PST at home needs to be paid solely so they can get to work. As such, it would be entirely feasible for employers (especially large corporate employers), who have decided to locate their operations in a suburban locations, to validate their employee's residential parking costs. This may seem outlandish at first, but consider that many urban employers already offer similar commuter benefits to encourage their employees to utilize mass transit services. - Other Concerns - While I do not have a catchy name for this point, I would discourage any stipulations that taxed the use of private driveways at residences. Part of my justification for PST legitimacy is the over-use of public spaces, which admittedly has been stretched somewhat to include commercial spaces, as parking spaces. However, it seems inappropriate to try to assess parking taxes on farms or private residences. The purpose of the PST is not to make car ownership impossible, it is only to discourage excessive car use and encourage alternative forms of transportation whenever appropriate. Thus, I would also consider making provisions for car share programs, taxis, parking spaces at commuter rail stations, and even car dealerships and some long-term vehicle storage facilities.
One way to structure a PST would include calculating the rate of taxation at the municipal level on a per parking space basis, which is scaled to the local population density. For example, the tax could be designed such that the PST rate in each municipality is equal to $0.01 per day for each taxable parking space, multiplied by the local population density divided by 1000. In this calculation, a municipality's population density would be rounded down to the nearest thousand. The tax rates for the most densely populated municipalities in Massachusetts under such a scenario are listed in the box below.
| Municipality | Pop. Density Per Sq. Mi. | Daily PST Rate Per Parking Space | Annual PST Cost per Parking Space |
| Somerville | 18,448 | $0.18 | $65.70 |
| Cambridge | 16,358 | $0.16 | $58.40 |
| Chelsea | 16,081 | $0.16 | $58.40 |
| Boston | 12,753 | $0.12 | $43.80 |
| Everett | 12,314 | $0.12 | $43.80 |
| Malden | 11,716 | $0.11 | $40.15 |
| Lawrence | 10,974 | $0.10 | $36.50 |
| Winthrop | 8,803 | $0.08 | $29.20 |
| Revere | 8,750 | $0.08 | $29.20 |
| Brookline | 8,649 | $0.08 | $29.20 |
| Population density figures based on 2010 census data posted on the arlington-mass.com website. |
Each of the municipalities listed in the table above are already served in some way by the MBTA and would most greatly benefit from improvements to T service. Of course, there are some densely populated areas that are not served by the MBTA, see the map below. However, each of these areas could probably make use of some mass transit funding in the future. Furthermore, as you may note in the map below, there are also large regions of the state with population densities below 1,000 residents per square mile, which would not be subject to any PST rate at all.
Of course, as every urban planner and policymaker knows, every location is different. With this in mind, I will suggest that a state-wide PST follow the guidelines listed in the above section and establish a rate structure similar to the one in this section. Then, as long as the related legislation clearly defines what is and is not considered a taxable parking space, the actual administration and collection of the PST may be left up to the municipal authorities (with some small percentage of the revenues being returned to the municipalities to cover their administrative costs).
This will offer municipalities and local residents the ability to determine how to divide up the financial burden of the PST and develop innovative ways of reducing the number of parking spaces in their own municipality - while still meeting the needs of citizens and businesses. For example one town may decide to collect the revenues through residential parking permit fees, whereas another may elect to put the burden on commercial properties by increasing real estate taxes or charging a parking lot fee. Likewise, some municipalities may decide to erect new no-parking signs on certain streets, replace parking spaces with bike racks, or allow restaurants to block off old parking spaces for use as outdoor seating.
In any event, implementing a Parking Space Tax will involve a little bit of creativity. However, if done right, it can meet the three criteria necessary to solve the MBTA debt crisis and offer a sustainable alternative to the current de facto transportation policy in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Sean Diamond
No comments:
Post a Comment