Comments on: Gov. Supplies Teeth, but No Eyes, to Cash Out Parking Requirement http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/27/gov-supplies-teeth-but-no-eyes-to-cash-out-parking-requirement/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Sun, 21 Mar 2010 07:37:21 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Joe Linton http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/27/gov-supplies-teeth-but-no-eyes-to-cash-out-parking-requirement/comment-page-1/#comment-45181 Joe Linton Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:17:30 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=17571#comment-45181 @Spokker - For random shifts (assuming that you can arrive by other than a car at least occasionally), it is possible for your employer to cash-out on a per-day (or per-diem) basis, which is actually the best way to do parking cash-out. Per diem benefits benefit the occasional non-car commuter, to the extent that she/he doesn't drive/park. A few local companies administer employee transportation benefits like this, including some big employers like Fox - they provide a bike/bus/carpool/etc. benefit to employees based on the days that they actually ride, and not for days that they drive/park. You might try suggesting a deal for your employer: offer to not park in the structure and have your employer pay you half of what it would have cost them for you to park that day. Like other parking cash-out programs, it's a win/win prospect for both you and your employer. My understanding is that current state parking cash-out law doesn't apply to companies that own their own parking facilities. Parking cash-out would still be a financial benefit to companies which own their own parking - because there is a maintenance and an opportunity cost to providing "free" parking. If the employer artificially inflates the demand for parking (by paying parking overhead costs at no charge to the person parking - and not subsidizing other modes to the same extent), then the company ends up dedicating more space to parking than is actually needed. That space could otherwise be productive - earning revenue for the company, instead of costing them. In the long run, it's not in employers' economic interest to subsidize employee "free" parking more than they subsidize other travel modes. @Spokker - For random shifts (assuming that you can arrive by other than a car at least occasionally), it is possible for your employer to cash-out on a per-day (or per-diem) basis, which is actually the best way to do parking cash-out. Per diem benefits benefit the occasional non-car commuter, to the extent that she/he doesn't drive/park. A few local companies administer employee transportation benefits like this, including some big employers like Fox - they provide a bike/bus/carpool/etc. benefit to employees based on the days that they actually ride, and not for days that they drive/park.

You might try suggesting a deal for your employer: offer to not park in the structure and have your employer pay you half of what it would have cost them for you to park that day. Like other parking cash-out programs, it's a win/win prospect for both you and your employer.

My understanding is that current state parking cash-out law doesn't apply to companies that own their own parking facilities. Parking cash-out would still be a financial benefit to companies which own their own parking - because there is a maintenance and an opportunity cost to providing "free" parking. If the employer artificially inflates the demand for parking (by paying parking overhead costs at no charge to the person parking - and not subsidizing other modes to the same extent), then the company ends up dedicating more space to parking than is actually needed. That space could otherwise be productive - earning revenue for the company, instead of costing them. In the long run, it's not in employers' economic interest to subsidize employee "free" parking more than they subsidize other travel modes.

]]> By: Spokker http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/27/gov-supplies-teeth-but-no-eyes-to-cash-out-parking-requirement/comment-page-1/#comment-44961 Spokker Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:52:51 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=17571#comment-44961 At one of my jobs, the parking structure is owned by a parking management company, and my employer pays them a fee for me to park there. I assume I can cash out here (which I can't do anyway because my shifts are random). At my other job, the parking structures are owned by the company I work for. They don't exactly pay themselves for their employers to park there. Can I cash out here? At one of my jobs, the parking structure is owned by a parking management company, and my employer pays them a fee for me to park there. I assume I can cash out here (which I can't do anyway because my shifts are random).

At my other job, the parking structures are owned by the company I work for. They don't exactly pay themselves for their employers to park there. Can I cash out here?

]]> By: Joe Linton http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/27/gov-supplies-teeth-but-no-eyes-to-cash-out-parking-requirement/comment-page-1/#comment-44951 Joe Linton Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:49:59 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=17571#comment-44951 The veto of Blumenfield's bill is unfortunate, but I think that Lowenthal's new parking cash-out law, combined with activist work to make it real and effective, can make for better non-car commuting incentives in Los Angles. Looking forward to working on this in the year ahead! The veto of Blumenfield's bill is unfortunate, but I think that Lowenthal's new parking cash-out law, combined with activist work to make it real and effective, can make for better non-car commuting incentives in Los Angles. Looking forward to working on this in the year ahead!

]]> By: ubrayj02 http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/27/gov-supplies-teeth-but-no-eyes-to-cash-out-parking-requirement/comment-page-1/#comment-44911 ubrayj02 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:05:10 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=17571#comment-44911 So I guess the authors of AB1186 don't have 2/3's in both houses? The Legislature can override a veto by a two-thirds majority vote in both the Assembly and the Senate. So I guess the authors of AB1186 don't have 2/3's in both houses? The Legislature can override a veto by a two-thirds majority vote in both the Assembly and the Senate.

]]>