DDA Lifts Parking Rates, Sets 2012 Calendar

Ray Fullerton remembered as advocate for open space, cycling

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting (Jan 4, 2012): The DDA board dispatched with its January meeting in just under a half hour. The discussion by the board and the public about its main agenda item – parking rate increases – had already taken place at previous meetings.

Roger Hewitt

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member Roger Hewitt cleans his spectacles before the start of the DDA’s Jan. 4 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The parking rate increases that will affect many downtown visitors will not take effect until Sept. 1. Among the increases to take effect eight months from now are an increase in on-street metered parking from $1.40/hour to $1.50/hour and an increase in the hourly rate for parking structures from $1.10/hour to $1.20/hour.

Other increases are set to take effect on Feb. 1: an increase in the premium permit parking rate by $5/month (from $175 to $180); an increase in the Ann & Ashley and Liberty Square structure evening/Saturday rates by $1/entry (from $2 to $3); a $1 increase in the 415 W. Washington lot entry (from $3 to $4) and a $5 increase in monthly permit rates (from $80 to $90/month) there; and an increase in First & William lot permits by $10/month (from $105 to $115).

A change of the effective start date – from Feb. 1 to Jan. 21 – will apply only to the meter bag rates. They’re set to increase by $5/day (from $15 to $20).

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, the board approved its 2012 calendar. Board meetings are set for the first Wednesday of the month, when they’ve typically been held, except for July 4. That meeting date was shifted to Monday, July 2.

The board also heard the usual set of reports from various subcommittees covering a range of topics, from the future of the midtown area – which includes the AATA’s Blake Transit Center and the Ann Arbor District Library building – to electric charging stations.

During his regular report from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter remembered Ray Fullerton, a former member of that body, who passed away on Dec. 18.

DDA Meeting Calendar

The board considered a resolution establishing its annual meeting schedule. The usual meeting time is the first Wednesday of the month. Board chair Bob Guenzel noted that in July, the first Wednesday of the month is July 4. He suggested moving the meeting to Monday, July 2, and board members were amenable to that.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt its 2012 meeting schedule. 

Parking: Rates

The DDA board considered a set of parking rate increases – some effective starting Jan. 21 and Feb. 1, 2012, with others starting Sept. 1. The new contract under which the DDA operates the public parking system for the city of Ann Arbor gives the DDA the sole authority to set rates, but also requires the DDA to hold an annual joint working session with the city council on the subject of its parking plan. The working session took place on Nov. 14.

Another key feature of the contract is that 17% of gross parking revenues are paid directly to the city of Ann Arbor.

The mid-January and early February rate changes are estimated to generate a total of $133,000 in additional revenue annually. Increases and anticipated revenues are: raise meter bag rates by $5/day ($68,800); increase the premium permit parking rate by $5/month ($3,300); increase Ann & Ashley and Liberty Square structure evening/Saturday rates by $1/entry ($41,500); increase 415 W. Washington lot entry by $1 and increase permit rates by $5/month ($14,400); and increase First & William lot permits by $10/month ($5,000).

The change of the effective start date for the early-year rate changes (to Jan. 21 instead of Feb. 1) will apply only to the meter bag rates. The other set of early-year changes will be implemented starting Feb. 1.

Highlights of the more significant changes – to be enacted in September 2012 – include predominantly $.10/hour increases: hourly parking structure rates would increase from $1.10/hour to $1.20/hour; hourly parking lot rates would increase from $1.30 ($1.50 after 3 hours) to $1.40 ($1.60 after 3 hours); hourly parking meter rates would increase from $1.40/hour to $1.50/hour; and monthly parking permit rates would increase from $140/month to $145/month.

Of the categories of parking, monthly permits will increase percentage-wise the least (3.57%), while hourly structure rates will increase the most (8.33%).

The rate increases were the subject of a public hearing that started at the DDA board’s Nov. 2, 2011 meeting and continued through its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.

At the Jan. 4 board meeting, it was Roger Hewitt who introduced the resolution to increase parking rates. He noted that the specific increases were laid out in the resolution. The increases had been previously discussed in committee and by the board, and had also been presented to the city council. A public hearing had been held on the subject that spanned two board meetings. He noted all four merchant associations in the downtown support the increases, and he described the rate increases as having been “thoroughly examined” by the public.

Prompted by a question from board member Nader Nassif, the clarification was provided that “hourly” parking does not refer to meters, but rather to the hourly rate charged at lots and structures.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously approved the parking rate increases.

Parking: Monthly Report

Roger Hewitt gave the monthly parking report for November 2011 – the report is a standard part of every DDA board meeting. He noted that the revenues for the First & Washington lot were down to almost zero – it’s been closed because the land has been sold to Village Green to develop the City Apartments project. Overall revenues compared to November 2010 were up almost 11%, he reported. There had been a rate increase in the range of 6%, so revenues were up significantly above the rate increase.

The number of hourly patrons was also up, he said. Meter bag revenue was down because of construction being complete, he said. [Meter bags can be purchased to place over meters when spaces are needed for construction projects, for example.] Demand for parking remains strong, even in an economy that is not booming, Hewitt said. In the last 5 years, the number of hourly parkers increased by a total of around 500,000 people. So despite the sluggish economy, Hewitt said, a lot more people are coming to downtown Ann Arbor, and there’s a lot more activity downtown. Hewitt concluded that the new underground parking garage would be needed when it comes on line later this year.


Year-over-year comparisons of the number of Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons since 2009. (Image links to higher resolution file.)


Year-over-year comparison of Ann Arbor public parking system revenue since 2009.  (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Communications, Committee Reports

The DDA board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: New Members of Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council

Ray Detter gave the report from the DACAC, which typically meets the evening before DDA board meetings. Detter described how the DACAC is looking for additional members. By way of background, the enabling statute for downtown development authorities provides for the establishment of such a group:

125.1672 Development area citizens council; advisory body.
Sec. 22. A development area citizens council established pursuant to this act shall act an advisory body to the authority and the governing body in the adoption of the development or tax increment financing plans.

A city council resolution passed on Feb. 22, 2005 gave the DACAC its current definition, which includes a maximum of 15 members, all of whom need to be residents of the downtown area. Detter reviewed the membership requirement and said that the body had developed a list of 10 possible new members. At this point, Detter said, the DACAC needs three new members. Detter invited board members to convey any suggestions to city councilmembers, the mayor or to him.

Comm/Comm: Future of Midtown, Underground Garage

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter noted that three students from Skyline High School and three from Huron High School had attended DACAC’s meeting. They’d gotten a lesson in downtown streets and geography, he said. Detter noted that the high school students were aware of the significance of the AATA’s Blake Transit Center and the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, and said they agreed that those two locations were central to downtown vitality.

Detter questioned the idea of putting 38 parking spaces on top of the new South Fifth Avenue underground structure as the process of determining the future of the structure’s top moves forward. Detter said he felt there should be some kind of “bow” to the desire that had been expressed in the community to have some kind of patio on top of the space.

During his report on the construction update for the underground parking garage, DDA board member John Splitt noted that the tower crane had been taken down. Street lights were being installed in front of the library. Work on the mechanical systems is proceeding inside the garage – a permanent electrical line will be installed sometime this month. Concrete will continue to be poured in the walls, but surface work will not continue until the spring.

Board member Sandi Smith reported out from the Midtown Discovery project – that’s the name given to the process the DDA is facilitating to find alternative uses for city-owned surface parking lots, including the top of the underground parking garage. Smith reported that the DDA’s leadership and outreach committee had done the groundwork of assembling all the different previous plans for downtown, including the Calthorpe report and the A2D2 rezoning project. The committee has reviewed those, and the next step is to think about how to engage the public.

Smith reported a presentation from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to the DDA partnerships committee about the reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center and the connection across Fifth Avenue to Library Lane, a new east/west street that will be located between Fifth and Division, just north of the library building. She noted that the newly configured Blake Transit Center was planned to include a mid-block pedestrian connection of Fifth and Fourth avenues, running between the AATA parcel and the federal building to the north. Smith reported that the AATA is keeping its eye on potential for a new building on the former YMCA lot – north of William and south of the Blake Transit Center site – and is building the new transit center to anticipate future development there.

The partnerships committee had also heard from AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein about the AATA’s countywide plan, Smith reported. Bernstein told the partnerships committee that the Blake Transit Center would remain a center of activity for the AATA. [For Chronicle coverage of the new Blake Transit Center design, see "AATA Preps Stage for Future Transit Choice"]

Smith also noted that the committee had heard from Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker, who noted that AADL continues to have a tremendous amount of visitors for lectures and entertainment – not just checking out books. Smith also told her board colleagues that the AADL board had voted to begin looking again at the question of the downtown building. When the economic situation had changed a few years back, the board had paused the plan to replace the building. [For Chronicle coverage see: "Library to Restart Downtown Facility Review"]

Comm/Comm: Huron River

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter said the DACAC had discussed the idea of connecting the consciousness of the downtown to the Huron River. A mechanism for achieving that would be to use the wayfinding signs already in place in the downtown. Detter mentioned the idea of pointing people to the new bypass around the Argo Dam. Detter said the bypass would be a “dramatic addition.”

Comm/Comm: Recharging Stations

DDA board member John Mouat inquired about the status of the plan to install recharging stations for electric cars in some of the city’s parking structures. Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, said that technology is evolving very quickly. Dave Konkle, retired energy coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor (who works as a consultant to the DDA for its energy saving grant program), had held an interview session with four different companies that could supply charging hardware, Pollay reported. Some charge faster, but use more energy. Some charge slower, and are designed for overnight use. She and Konkle are working with Republic Parking, the DDA’s parking manager, and will have a recommendation on charging equipment next week.

Pollay said the University of Michigan is working on the same issue and the DDA would like to use the same technology so that people have a uniform experience if they visit downtown. She said the new underground garage is designed so that as many as 300 cars could plug in. However, the DDA is not going to purchase the hardware to service nearly that many cars initially, she said.

Comm/Comm: Ray Fullerton

In his summary from the DACAC, Detter reported the death of Ray Fullerton, one of the DACAC’s former members. Fullerton passed away a few weeks ago [on Dec. 18], Detter reported.

Ray Fullerton

At a Feb. 8, 2011 meeting, Ray Fullerton passed out a letter to Ann Arbor city planning commissioners that made suggestions for revising the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. (Chronicle file photo)

Services will be held on Saturday, Jan. 7, at 11 a.m. at the First Baptist Church, 517 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor.

Detter described Fullerton as an advocate for open space, bicycling and walking. Fullerton would be very hard to replace, said Detter.

The Chronicle archive has recorded Fullerton’s remarks during public meetings – delivered to the DDA board, the Ann Arbor city council, the park advisory commission, and the city planning commission.

Fullerton was a board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. His remarks in support of a city council resolution on the Allen Creek greenway, made on Aug. 4, 2011, were summarized in that meeting report this way:

The greenway concept has been around for 30 years, [Fullerton] said. The conservancy was not asking for money, he noted, just a statement of support. Fullerton said that he and Jennifer S. Hall, another conservancy board member, had started in January to put all the bits of the resolution together. [Hall is a former Downtown Development Authority board member as well as former member of the city's planning commission and greenbelt advisory commission.]

In March, the resolution had been presented to their board. Fullerton stated he hoped that in the council’s wisdom it would see fit to go forward. He asked the council to trust the conservancy. A big question is which side of the railroad to put the greenway on. Fullerton said he looked forward to the good times that families can have walking and biking along the greenway.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Orian Zakai addressed the board on behalf of a group that’s been discussing an all-day winter community center. She described how the idea evolved from conversations in the Occupy Ann Arbor camp at Liberty Plaza at Division and Liberty streets. That conversation took place between people who have a warm space to go to and people who spend their time on the streets, she said. A space is needed where people can support and empower each other and where they can teach and learn from each other, she said. The energy and enthusiasm for the idea comes from conversations that have taken place at Liberty Plaza, at the breakfast at St. Andrews, and at the downtown district library, Zakai said.

However, Zakai reported that officials they’ve approached have been discouraging. She noted that the Delonis Center –a homeless shelter on West Huron Street – is not a day-time warming center. Second, she said, the overall attitude of some of the people that the Delonis Center might serve could be summarized by someone who explained why they did not want use the Delonis Center. That person asked and answered a question: Do you want to live in an institution? Neither do I.

Zakai reported that another person described the shelter as similar to a prison or a hospital. Zakai described speaking with officials of the Delonis Center who said they don’t want a community of homeless people – they want people to be placed in housing, with jobs. But Zakai contended that when people wind up in places where they are clearly unwanted, it erodes their self-esteem and leaves them with little self-confidence and little energy for finding jobs or housing.

Zakai said that organizers of the all-day warming shelter have a plan and have volunteers to implement it. She said their biggest concern is locating a site. She described prejudice and fear of change as the greatest obstacles. She asked the board for help in locating a space that could be donated or leased for the project.

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!


  1. By Paul Bancel
    January 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm | permalink

    Dear Chronicle,
    Is the new underground parking structure over budget, under budget, on time, late. What is the status of the project. For its size, budget and impact there is a paucity of information coming forth on its actual progress. The committee reports and the construction managers report seem pretty cavalier.

    Is there going to be big surprise one of these days?

  2. By Steve Bean
    January 8, 2012 at 9:22 am | permalink

    Dave, any idea why July was omitted from the Hourly Patrons graph?

    It would also be nice to see available spaces superimposed on that one–both of them, actually–but then that’s not your job. (-:

    It’s interesting how Hourly Patrons continues to be used as a measure of demand while not apparently being looked at as one of efficiency of use.

  3. By Rod Johnson
    January 8, 2012 at 10:28 am | permalink

    Steve: Art Fair?

  4. January 8, 2012 at 10:30 am | permalink

    Re: [2] Why was July omitted?

    That’s the Chronicle’s error – we make the charts from the monthly reports the DDA attaches to the monthly board meeting information packet. For now, I’ve swapped in a corrected chart for the larger version to which the small-inline image links.

    Available spaces systemwide are also included in the monthly report. I can think about adding them to the charts we make in the future. I think we’ll need to use a different vertical scale.

    Steve, I think you’re alluding to the fact that the DDA dipped its toe in the water on efficiency of use measures, but has not adopted them as a part of its monthly report. [link to chart] ["DDA Elects Officers, Gets More Parking Data"] I think some board members were concerned that because the “efficiency” is defined over a 24/7 period (much of the time during which parking decks are not open because it’s the middle of the night), the percentage efficiency looks low. My recollection is that those board members were interested in seeing a measure developed that was more sensitive to the specific open hours of each deck.

  5. By Steve Bean
    January 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm | permalink

    Thanks, Dave. I’m more alluding to the fact that “hourly patrons” isn’t a measure of demand relative to capacity. For starters, the factor of length of stay isn’t included. Just to clarify, by “available spaces” in this context I was referring to the number of spaces in the system each month, not whether and when they were used (which _would_ illuminate demand as opposed to efficiency.) For example, the overall system capacity (maybe that’s the better term) is now lower than it was prior to November, due to the sale of the First and Washington lot.

  6. January 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm | permalink

    I was reading somewhere that parking in the structures will now be billed in integral multiples of an hour. If true, the “$1.20 an hour” is misleading. The actual rate will vary between $1.20 and $2.40 an hour depending on how long you stay. Any word on this?

  7. January 11, 2012 at 12:35 am | permalink

    Re: [6] billing in integral (whole number) multiples of an hour, as opposed to an hourly rate pro-rated (per half-hour or 15-minutes or some smaller fraction of an hour)

    My initial understanding from my reporting this round of rate increases was that billing was already based on this whole-number methodology — with one wrinkle. And the wrinkle was that structure parking for a half hour or less is pro-rated to the half-hour rate. And it was my understanding that part of the now-approved rate increases to be implemented by Feb. 1 is to eliminate that wrinkle: “All hourly parking rates [in structures] will be charged by one-hour increment.”

    However, in searching for a confirmation of this understanding, I came across the following from the March 4, 2009 DDA board minutes, when the DDA passed a resolution responding to the city council’s request for additional information on the DDA’s finances, to ensure that the DDA could meet the financial obligations of the new underground parking garage [emphasis added]:

    Whereas, The DDA Operations Committee also determined that it has tools available to it to increase parking revenues if needed including the following (in recommended order):
    -increase the daily cost of meter bags $5/day from $15/day to $20/day (anticipated to increase revenues by $181,000/year). The DDA could also limit the amount of meter bag fee waivers it provides nonprofits and government agencies, which is currently in excess of $150,000)
    -Return to charging for parking by one-hour increments rather than 30-minute increments (anticipated to increase revenues by $400,000/year). The change to 30-minute increments was made in 2003.

    At that point (in early 2009), the DDA was not proposing to implement that change, it was just contemplating what tools it had to raise revenue. Based on the amount of increased revenue projected at that time, it looks to me like the half-hour increment is currently (before the approved rate increases take effect in few weeks) applied universally across all time periods, not just to the first half hour. (I don’t think the billing methodology has already been changed in the intervening period since 2009.)

    Here’s the math. I started with the roughly 2 million hourly patrons a year the parking system had for the year: August 2009 through July 2010. Comparing the hour-increment billing method, versus the half-hour billing method, let’s assume that parking times are evenly distributed among those people who parked between N and (N + 0.5) hours and those who parked between (N + 0.5) and (N + 1) hours. On the hour-increment billing method, the first group would pay for N + 1 hours, or roughly $0.40 more (in 2009 the hourly rate was $0.80) than under the half-hour-increment method, under which they’d pay just for N + 0.5 hours. The second group would pay for N + 1 hours under either billing method. So by changing from half-hourly to hourly increments, half of the 2 million patrons would pay $.40 more – generating roughly $400,000 more revenue, which matches the DDA’s 2009 projection for the change. That leads me to conclude that this change in billing methodology actually reflects moving from a universally-applied half-hour-increment (not just to the first hour) to an hour-increment. You’d expect the additional revenues to be a LOT less if the change applied just to those people who parked for less than a half hour … who parks for that short a time in a structure?

    So Jim, to answer your specific question, it’s certain that billing will be in hourly increments: “All hourly parking rates [in structures] will be charged by one-hour increment.” The only open question is to confirm what the current billing method is: half hour increments for all time periods, or just for the first half hour. So, I’ll mark that down as something to confirm.

    In previous reporting, I estimated a range for increased revenue due to the rate increases to be implemented in September 2012: between $0.54 million and $1.25 million annually, assuming no change in demand or capacity. The total of the other rate increases, to be implemented very shortly now, was estimated by the DDA to generate around $133,000. So it looks like this change in billing methodology (assuming I’ve interpreted this correctly) stands to generate one of the more significant chunks of extra revenue associated with this round of rate increases. Specifically, at the approved hourly structure rate to be implemented in September, the hour-increment method would generate around $600,000 more per year than the half-hour method. Under the new (May 2011) contract the DDA signed with the city to operate the public parking system, $102,000 of that $600,000 (17%) is paid to the city of Ann Arbor.

  8. January 11, 2012 at 8:48 am | permalink

    Will the signs at the entrances to the structures be changed to indicate that $1.20 is a minimum, and that the actual rate you pay may be up to double that?

  9. January 11, 2012 at 10:42 am | permalink

    Re: [6] followup confirmation

    By inspection this morning, the current signs indicate that the rate is $0.55 per half hour or any part thereafter. And I confirmed with DDA staff that the half-hour increment does, in fact, apply currently across all times, not just the first hour. So the revenue increase from this change in billing to hour increments will be significant – upwards of $0.5 million.

    Re: [8] signage

    The new signs will likely be a straightforward modification of the current signs, to indicate that the rate is $1.20 per hour or any part thereafter. According to the DDA, there’s a grace period of around 5 minutes (they’ll settle on something more precise before the Feb. 1 implementation) – it’s meant to cover the possibility that if someone enters the structure, drives around, doesn’t find a space to their liking or changes their mind, they can exit without paying.

  10. January 11, 2012 at 10:43 am | permalink

    Integral hour billing at the structures will make meter parking even more desirable, since you can pay in much smaller increments. It makes meter parking less expensive than structure parking, depending on how long you park.

  11. By Rod Johnson
    January 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm | permalink

    Right. The DDA should be providing incentives to park in the lots (i.e., it should be cheaper). Instead they’re doing exactly the opposite. Plus, well, they’re not offering any added value for this change. It’s just transparently a revenue grab.

  12. January 11, 2012 at 6:08 pm | permalink

    Two things bother me here. One is the lack of transparency. The DDA says they’re raising the rate from $1.10 to $1.20, which would imply a 9% increase. But the half million in extra revenue from the billing increment change is also an increase. I can’t tell what percentage it is, but my guess is another 5%. This increase wasn’t mentioned in the DDA public hearing announcement of 27 Oct. Since the only reason the DDA gave was to increase revenue, I have to conclude this is an attempt to disguise a rate increase.

    The other is the increase in inequity. If we define our inequity metric as the maximum difference paid by two drivers who arrive and leave the same structure at arbitrarily close to the same time, then inequity has increased from $.55 under the old system to $1.20 under the new. In a democratic society we should strive to reduce inequity.

  13. By DrData
    January 11, 2012 at 6:57 pm | permalink

    Years ago the library surface lot and perhaps all city parking had this billing system. It would be maddening to leave the library in time to be under an hour and then be charged for 2 hours or I perhaps 1.5 hours (I can’t quite remember what the increment was), because of the line of cars exiting the lot.

    As noted by others, the parking structures should be the cheapest alternative and on-street parking the most expensive. This little trick will reverse that.

  14. By Steve Bean
    January 11, 2012 at 10:20 pm | permalink

    Trick or not, get used to the increases. As parking demand falls off in coming years the DDA will have to choose between allowing revenues to simply fall as a result (not likely), and raising rates further, thereby accelerating demand destruction. For example, commuters opting for a free go!pass from their employer (who pays $10 per year per pass) in place of a $145 annual permit. This while trying to develop surface lots (good luck), which would further reduce capacity (and therefore revenues), and beginning full bond payments on the new underground structure.

  15. By Ruth Kraut
    January 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm | permalink

    As it is, when I go into a parking structure, I anticipate it will take me an additional 10 minutes coming in and 10 minutes going out then if I parked on the street or in a surface lot. That accounts for the time circling up and up the ramps, and then walking down to the sidewalk on either end. So it’s not worth it to me unless I’m going to be there for a while. I wonder if the DDA planners consider that in their estimations of costs?

  16. January 12, 2012 at 6:44 am | permalink

    Re (11): the DDA has been charging more for surface lots for years, in order to discourage their use. The public almost always prefers surface lots and the DDA wants us to park in structures, thus the differential. As Steve Bean notes, they are also trying to develop all the surface lots.

    Since they are going to demand pricing, maybe they should double the rates at surface lots and see whether we are willing to pay that. Maybe it would make them consider keeping them. Oh, wait, they want the development because they are seeking TIF funds.

  17. January 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm | permalink

    Thanks everyone for the thoughtful comments on this topic. Its unfortunate that the DDA team hasn’t read Shoup’s, “The high price of free parking“. The discussions of demand pricing of meters, lots and structures would have informed their decision making.

  18. By DrData
    January 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm | permalink

    [17]And the book you reference “The High Price of Free Parking” is holding its own on Amazon. Its new price is $39/$29 new/used in hardcover and $22/$22 for the paper back version. This is pretty remarkable for a 2005 publication.

    Perhaps this guy is on to something.

  19. By Rod Johnson
    January 12, 2012 at 2:57 pm | permalink

    For the nth time, I recommend Tom Vanderbilt’s “Traffic,” which has a lucid chapter on the costs of parking, among lots of other good stuff.