Why does New York charge more to ride the subway than to store a car?
New York’s transportation politics have entered a new era. After years of debate, congestion pricing has demonstrated that there are public benefits to charging for the use of scarce street space. Yet one of the city’s largest transportation subsidies remains almost untouched: curb parking.
Across most of New York City, public land worth billions is still given away for free to store private cars. This implicit subsidy privileges drivers, contributes to congestion and curb overcrowding and leaves substantial public revenue untapped even as the Metropolitan Transit Authority faces persistent funding gaps.
New York City’s finances are under pressure; its curb parking is a major opportunity. While revenue should be seen as a byproduct of better curb management, rather than the main goal, the fiscal upside is hard to ignore. According to transportation engineer Sam Schwartz (no relation), chair of the Transportation Research Program at Roosevelt House, the city has over one million curb spaces that are free to use, for practically unlimited amounts of time. (Sam Schwartz’s estimate of one million spaces is based on his experience as New York City’s traffic commissioner and subtracts curb space in illegal zones, i.e. bus lanes, No Standing areas, curb cuts, space around hydrants and areas where there would be little or no demand for parking. Previous attempts to count the number of spaces, which have put the number at closer to 3 million, set a theoretical limit based on linear curb space.)
Charging an average of just $35 per space per week — the most you would pay in a week for unlimited transit — could generate nearly $2 billion annually. That’s more than three times the revenue from the City’s new congestion pricing program.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on a platform of economic justice. While it’s not the only reason to change parking policy, charging for curb space aligns with that goal. Fewer than half of New York City households own a car, and throughout the city, car-owning households have nearly twice the median income of non-car households. By keeping curb parking free, the City gives up revenue that could support public services for everyone and instead delivers a multi-million-dollar subsidy that lets wealthier residents store their cars.
A famous study of Manhattan’s Upper West Side by Donald Shoup, the UCLA professor whose research inspired the creation of the Center for Parking Policy, estimated that free curb parking amounts to a subsidy of over $9,000 per parking space per year. But there is only one space for every 18 residents, so not everyone benefits, and those who do are disproportionately affluent. Only 27% of households own a car, and their average income is about $200,000, compared with $105,000 for households without cars.
It may help to think about it this way. Imagine the City proposed using public money to reimburse people for renting a parking space in a private garage. Most people would see that as inappropriate. But keeping curb parking free has the same effect; it’s just less visible. Free parking mostly benefits people who are not poor, and most low-income residents get no benefit.
Free curb parking is more than a fiscal issue. As highlighted in a recent New York Times article, it also shapes how streets function. When street parking is free or underpriced relative to nearby garages, drivers often circle the area waiting for a curb space to open up. This cruising wastes drivers’ time and adds to traffic congestion for everyone on the road. Full curbs also lead to double parking and illegal stopping in loading areas and red zones, which slows traffic and creates risks for pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers.
Regardless of the many benefits for cities on the whole of charging for street parking — and even for drivers, many of whom appreciate more efficient allocation of parking spaces — many drivers balk at the possibility of paying to park. However, support can grow when revenues are clearly reinvested in services people value. In Portland, for example, parking revenues fund “transportation wallets” that residents and employees can use for transit, bike share, car share and other mobility options.
For low-income residents who rely on cars, the City might choose to offer targeted support. For example, Vancouver now charges market-rate prices for parking permits in its West End neighborhood but offers discounts for legacy permit holders and low-income residents. New York already adjusts transit fares and congestion pricing based on income, and parking policy could follow a similar approach.
Every square foot of curb space reflects a policy choice. Right now, New York is choosing to subsidize private car storage even as it struggles to fund public transit. With its new Office of Curb Management, the City has an opening to rethink the curb and recognize the high costs of free parking. To illustrate the opportunity cost of the status quo and situate curb management within the broader transportation landscape, Vital City consulted with parking experts to develop a revenue calculator that shows the revenue potential of different curb management strategies, highlights what the revenue could fund, and compares curb pricing approaches across peer cities.
