Chicago Parking Reform: An Interview with Lindsay Bayley

Lindsay Bayley is the Co-Founder and Advisory Board Member of the Parking Reform Network, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public about the impact of parking policy on climate change, equity, housing, and traffic. Lindsay is also the Program Lead for Safe & Complete Streets at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Mehul Gupta, staff writer at the Chicago Policy Review, interviewed Lindsay about the unique challenges and opportunities the city of Chicago faces in parking policy and reform. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Chicago Policy Review: In my interview with Henry Grabar, he said that Chicago’s greatest contribution to parking discourse is the Chicago Parking Meter (CPM) deal. What have been the long-term consequences of the deal on the city? What role does the deal play in status-quo policymaking?

Lindsay Bayley: We often hear about all the horrible ways the CPM deal has tied Chicago’s hands, but not a lot of people talk about the positive sides of the deal. One is that it took the meters which were 50 cents an hour in The Loop, or 25 cents out in the neighborhoods, and priced them to reflect their value more accurately. That was something that the city never seemed to have the courage to do. If Chicago could have raised the rates and have been taking that money in, that would have been much better, obviously. It would still have control over their streets. But Chicago didn’t feel like it could invest in the electronic equipment needed to collect the money.

The long-term implication is that for the metered streets that CPM collects money from, the city will need permission to close the streets to car traffic, and any sort of reconstruction, roadway maintenance, costs the city money. It is allowed a certain percent in service. And so, there’s some flexibility, but if it exceeds that, then Chicago has to make payments. To not make those payments, the city has options of adding more metered spaces, and working its way towards cutting that back.

When I had conversations with the finance department, we wanted to try some innovative stuff. They said we could do that, but not until we have those true-up payments down to zero. [Note: “True-up” payments are reimbursements from the City of Chicago to the CPM investors when a parking space is taken out of service due to a road closure.] The finance department was working at it, and I think they might be there now. In the West Loop, the city added a lot of meters. Randolph Street didn’t have meters before. I used to occasionally walk to work through the West Loop to get downtown. It was utter chaos because it was all free parking and it’s very congested. Cars were parked on sidewalks all over the place.

The meter cost is very high in The Loop, maybe more than what people really are willing to pay, in order to get that maximum capacity. However, you don’t want it 100% full, you want it about 85% occupied. The city is allowed to adjust the rates. It doesn’t want to though because if it messes with the rates and CPM makes less money, it has to pay the difference.

Chicago could add metered spaces. There are two types of meters – reserve meters and concession meters. Reserve meters send 85% of the revenue to the city and 15% to CPM for installation of the pay boxes. They have to look the same as all the other meters and not compete with nearby CPM meters. But that’s what we [CMAP] wanted to work with the city on. One benefit of this kind of program is that money can stay in the neighborhood. For example, we were working in Chinatown where parking is often full, and the unmetered streets don’t see any turnover. There was a street where we could add metered spaces to help nearby businesses so their customers would have a place to park. The city would get the revenue and a certain percentage of it could be put back into the neighborhood. We’re still hoping that Chicago will do a pilot like that, but not until it is cleared on the true-up payments.

I really think it’s something that almost every neighborhood with parking congestion could benefit from. Once it shows itself to be successful, it would spread and help improve parking, because you would have more metered spaces. You could have the price set accordingly so that you have the right amount of turnover. That meter revenue could be used for enhancements on the street, whether it’s better sidewalks, streetscaping, or whatever the local special service area would help decide. It’s the Donald Shoup approach of ‘get the right price and then put it back in the street’. That is something we’re missing in our system right now. Everyone’s mad that they must pay so much, and that the money is going to somebody else. I think that we could really improve upon that.

Chicago Policy Review: Large cities, like Chicago, claim to need cheap, subsidized parking for suburban commuters who work in the city. COVID-19 and work from home have shifted the traditional model, which has also decreased commercial real estate occupancy. How should the city respond to underutilized parking that’s come about as a result of COVID-19?

Lindsay Bayley: Luckily for Chicago, the city mostly got out of the business of operating parking lots and garages. It seems more appropriate that it should be on the side of the businesses to be providing that parking and not a city to subsidize people coming in from other places. The negative externalities of people that don’t live in the city coming in with their car hurt the people that do live in the city. So why would the city subsidize this activity that harms its residents, whether it’s the tire particles or the traffic congestion? It’s just not a good thing. We could subsidize transit instead.

Chicago Policy Review: Congestion pricing is currently a hot-topic issue. For example, the lawsuit between New Jersey and the Federal Highway Administration over the MTA pricing program. Is there a model where Chicago would benefit from congestion pricing? What effects would it have for parking?

Lindsay Bayley: I think it’s a fascinating idea. I’ve only followed how London has done it with the Cordon pricing, and it seems to have worked really well. London is making a lot of money that it can now put into transit.

The implications for parking would be wherever you establish that boundary, there will be a lot more demand for parking. I feel like then people might try to ride transit. Commercial parking entities in The Loop might be mad about that since they rely on their customers driving in, and that would be cut back. I’m not going to shed too many tears for them because I don’t think that having storage for private vehicles in the center of our downtown is the “highest and best use” of land in a vibrant, thriving city. It also doesn’t generate much tax revenue, it’s not a productive use, and it causes all these negative externalities.

Congestion pricing does deter people. We might be able to use that money more effectively by collecting what people would be willing to pay for congestion pricing to put it toward improved mobility and transit. Or at least provide options, like where you can pay a lot to go in the fast lane or not so much on the outside. Similar to how we have express lanes in Chicago, but without the tolls.

Chicago Policy Review: Are there specific examples within Chicago where parking is particularly well managed? If so, how can that be scaled up?

Lindsay Bayley: I can’t really say that, within Chicago, there’s a spot where we’re doing it well. Because of the CPM deal so many people are just like, “Oh, there’s nothing we can do.” They’re not really thinking about the system. I’d love it if Chicago had a department that was just focused on parking management, that could be like, “Maybe on this block we need to increase our rates. Over here, we could lower them. And we need to add meters in this section or permits over here.” Because it really is a complete and complex system.

Chinatown has great transit access to downtown with the Red Line and their parking lots are basically subsidized by the local businesses. The lots themselves were sold to the Chinatown Parking Corporation. There are people who park at those lots just to go downtown without visiting the businesses. Maybe on occasion, they’ll stop and get like a bubble tea so that they can get that real cheap rate. But it’s still really cheap, and they’re very full most of the time.

They have an opportunity to do more tiered parking. If you’re willing to pay for those best, most convenient spots, give people the opportunity to do that. I don’t think this is an elitist thing where only the richest people should have it. It’s just to give people options.

My one good suburban example has gone the wrong way. The Chicago Botanic Garden used to have extremely expensive parking and free entrance. If you read the reviews for the Botanic Gardens, almost all of them mentioned how expensive parking was. They were encouraging people to not drive and use a different mode of transport. Now I think they charge an entrance fee. Their parking is probably still expensive, but I liked it better where you could not drive and then the entrance is free.

When it comes to apartments, I would like to see more buildings that don’t have parking included. I believe that would incentivize more people renting who don’t own cars; that’s who you’re going to attract. If you have a car and you want to park it, you’re probably going to look for a place that has parking or has easy street parking near it. There are ways to just get people to be less reliant on their cars. We have a lot of folks that move from the suburbs, and driving everywhere is all they’ve ever known. Fines and fees do work. It would be good if they were more equitably imposed.

Chicago Policy Review: What are some of the targeted parking reforms Chicago can accomplish within the next three to five years? While it is important to work towards dense, walkable urban areas, policymaking is a byproduct of what is happening in the status quo.

Lindsay Bayley: As mentioned earlier, my number one goal is to get the city to do pilot reserved meter installation, where a portion of the revenue stays in the neighborhood. The money could go to Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) so that they could improve sidewalks and streetscaping.

I fully support the Bike Grid Now’s vision of a connected network of safe protected bike lanes across the city. And I’m sure that will require moving some parking and including some metered spaces. But that is an important part of providing the options so that when parking is more expensive, and there are a lot of people that could bike, they could get around. They don’t feel safe riding on the streets as they are now. But if you make a safer, friendlier, comfortable route, I think a lot more people would ride.

The other thing is parking cash out. Washington DC passed a parking cash-out ordinance that said businesses with 20 employees or more must offer parking cash out as a benefit if they provide parking for their employees. That means if you could drive to work and have your free parking spot, or the employer gives you $100 a month and you don’t drive. Then you may look at this option like,
“Oh, sitting in traffic all day or taking $100? I’ll take $100.” It is one of those policies where it just makes so much sense. Paying people not to drive increases taxable income that could be spent locally, versus abroad or to oil companies who benefit from more people driving.