Two weeks ago, I responded with dismay to George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen’s op‐​ed against free parking. This led to a variety of responses in the blogosphere, none of which address my point. Instead, they all argue against the minimum‐​parking requirements found in many zoning regulations.

In particular, Cowen himself points to a study that found that Los Angeles’ minimum‐​parking requirements forced some developers to build more parking than they would have without such requirements. But Cowen’s op‐​ed was titled, “Free Parking Comes at a Price,” not “Minimum‐​Parking Requirements Come at a Price.” The op‐​ed was based on a book by Donald Shoup titled The High Cost of Free Parking, not The High Cost of Minimum‐​Parking Requirements.

Nothing I wrote defended minimum‐​parking requirements. Instead, I pointed out that, even without such requirements, most businesses still provide free parking for their employees and customers. It is one thing to oppose minimum‐​parking requirements as an unnecessary form of government regulation. It is another thing to favor government regulation mandating that private businesses charge for parking.

That certainly seems to be what Cowen favors. His article concluded, “if we’re going to wean ourselves away from excess use of fossil fuels,” then “imposing higher fees for parking may make further changes more palatable by helping to promote higher residential density and support for mass transit.” There are a lot of fallacies in those statements. Will higher residential density significantly reduce use of fossil fuels? Probably not. Will support for mass transit significantly reduce use of fossil fuels? Probably not. Even if you believe we excessively use fossil fuels, do indirect tools such as “imposing parking fees” make sense when more direct tools are available? Certainly not.

Claims that parking is subsidized would carry a lot more weight if 5 percent of the people drove and the other 95 percent had to pay 75 percent of the cost. Those are, in fact, the ratios for transit (less than 5 percent of American workers take transit to work but fares cover less than 25 percent of transit costs), which Cowen wants to promote. With driving, the numbers are practically reversed: discounting air travel, more than 90 percent of travel is by car and auto drivers pay more than 90 percent of the costs of driving.

I suspect someone has made the case for minimum‐​parking requirements: without such requirements, businesses might try to externalize some of their costs by letting someone else provide parking for them. But let’s ignore that. Cities should get rid of zoning codes that have minimum‐​parking requirements. (Cities should get rid of zoning codes period.) Cities should charge market rates for on‐​street parking and any publicly owned off‐​street parking. But even if these things happen, private businesses will still provide free parking to their employees and customers in many areas — in fact, practically everywhere outside of old downtowns.

Note: My previous post on this subject quoted Cowan quoting Donald Shoup saying, “On average [in the U.S.] a new parking space has cost 17 percent more than a new car.” I commented that this was ridiculous. Someone sent an email saying that Shoup actually estimates there are four parking spaces for every car, and the combined cost of those spaces is more than the average car. Without searching Shoup’s 733‐​page tome to check his arithmetic, I am still not certain why this is important.

Most people who buy homes want to room to park their cars. People also need room to park at work and elsewhere. Should we only have one bathroom for every four houses because the average bathroom is in use only a couple of hours every day? Is it a waste that almost every home in the country has a kitchen, when there are plenty of kitchens in restaurants (not to mention many workplaces) as well? Then why is it a waste that homes, as well as offices, stores, and other businesses, have parking?