Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In

It Shouldn’t Cost 31x More to Take Transit Than to Park a Car

a vast parking lot full of cars
Joe Cortright
Joe Cortright

Everything you need to know about equity and privilege in urban transportation is reflected in how much we charge for parking compared to transit.

The triumph of asphalt socialism is reflected in providing unlimited free or underpriced private car storage on public streets — a scarce and valuable commodity — while charging people to make use of transit — a public good with positive externalities, and plenty of excess capacity.

The benefits of free private car storage of city streets accrue to those wealthy enough to own cars. Those who can’t afford cars get no benefit, plus they have to pay to use the only feasible alternative for many trips: transit.

No one should invoke the term “equity” in urban transportation without insisting that we start asking those who convert public property to private use for car storage pay for the privilege.

University of Northern Illinois professor Chris Goodman recently compiled data for the nation’s 30 largest cities on the price cities charge for on street parking permits compared to the price of a transit pass. In every single city, the price of a transit pass exceeds the price of parking by a factor of ten to twenty or more. For the median city in Goodman’s sample, the monthly cost of a parking pass was $2.25, compared to the a cost of $77.00 for a monthly transit pass. (Our calculation of the median price of parking permit includes only those cities that charge for on-street parking permits; ten of the top 30 cities don’t). Even when cities charge for on street parking, the monthly cost is usually less than a single bus ticket.


We’ve reproduced Goodman’s tabulations in graphic form here. Cities are ranked according to the amount charged for transit passes, from lowest to highest.

For an interactive version of this chart, click here.
For an interactive version of this chart, click here.

It’s worth noting that the prices of parking permits are only for those areas where cities require permits, and on most streets, in most cities — including, bizarrely New York City — street parking is completely unpriced almost everywhere. In effect, the prices shown for parking in Goodman’s sample overstate what city’s actually charge for parking: it’s mostly zero.

The disparity between what people pay to park their cars on the public street (nothing or very little) and what they have to pay to use transit speaks volumes about privilege and equity in transportation. To take advantage of free or low cost on street parking, you have to own a car, which automatically means the poorest households receive little or no benefit; meanwhile, because car ownership is highly correlated with income, more of the benefits go to high income households.

It’s also worth noting that private car storage on the street has all the aspects of a private good: In economic terms its rivalrous and excludable. When you park your car along a street you deprive others of the opportunity to use that space. Others can include other car owners who might like to park there, as well as other road users, who might want to walk, cycle, or say, in the era of Covid, set up tables for a bar or restaurant.

In contrast, transit has many of the characteristics of a public good. Except at peak hours (in pre-Covid times, that is,) buses and trains almost always have excess capacity, so your use of a train or bus seldom deprives others of its utility. And again, transit has positive externalities: it results it less traffic congestion and pollution, and lower energy use than car travel, and supports walkable urban destinations. Finally, it's worth noting that the only places where transit really works well in the United States are in the areas where cities charge for parking. When street parking is free, people own cars and drive, depriving transit systems of customers and revenue, and skewing the transit ridership to the dispossessed and powerless.

From an economic and an equity standpoint, it would make vastly more sense to make on-street parking expensive (to reflect its real costs) and to make transit cheap or free.

The way we price transit, and don’t price private car storage in the public realm, is evidence of “Asphalt Socialism“–subsidies for cars and driving, and high prices and penalties for those who take transit. As Dr. King once observed, we have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise discipline of the market for the poor. In an era when so many urbanists and transportation advocates profess great concern for equity, the subsidies to parking are one of the most inequitable aspects of the urban realm.

Joe Cortright is President and principal economist of Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters. This article originally appeared on his site, City Observatory, and is republished here with permission.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

Advocates Share What It Takes to Fight Highway Expansions in Court 

What does it take to sue your state DOT? Time, money, the right partners, and a little creativity, a recent survey of activists found.

July 19, 2024

Friday Video: Paris Does it Again

Come for the bike-friendly streets, but stay for adopt-a-tree program and all the car-free school roadways.

July 19, 2024

Neighbors Want a BART Stop in San Antonio

It's one of the most densely populated parts of the Bay Area. BART goes right through it. So why not stop there?

July 19, 2024

Friday’s Headlines

Rep. Waters hates the people mover; SacRT's new transportation hub; Lessons learned from a long bike ride; More

July 19, 2024

The Active Transportation Program Has to Strategize About its Severely Reduced Funding

Funding for Cycle 7 of the Active Transportation Program is less than $200 million, and already there have been requests for fifteen times the amount of available funding

July 18, 2024
See all posts