At Stanford University, parking is segregated based on how much you pay. Drivers can purchase Permit A for $133 per month or Permit C for $38 per month. Each permit dictates where you are allowed to park. Permit A holders must park in Permit A-designated areas, while Permit C holders are restricted to Permit C zones.

This tiered system ensures that those who pay more get closer and more convenient parking, while lower-paying permit holders have to park farther away. For example, in the five-story outdoor Via Ortega Garage, the lower two floors are reserved for Permit A holders, while the upper three floors are designated for Permit C holders.
The same pricing structure applies to indoor, underground parking facilities like Roble Field Garage. Permit C holders should drive farther down to find an available spot than permit A holders.

Permit A parking lots are often partially empty, while Permit C lots are crowded. Those who pay more not only get better locations but also enjoy less competition for spaces. The message is clear: convenience comes at a price.

While searching for an empty space in the Permit C parking lot, a thought crossed my mind: Why not pay $100 more to enjoy convenience?
Then, it struck me that I had become so absorbed in choosing between two permits that I completely ignored a third, unspoken option which I once enjoyed: riding a bicycle. The very act of choosing between two permits kept me from questioning whether I needed to drive at all.

We are born to choose. Once presented with options, we become fixated on making a choice, failing to recognize that the choice itself may be artificially constructed. Differentiated parking fees may subtly reinforce car dependency instead of encouraging biking.
***
Reference
Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457-463.
Belief in one’s ability to exert control over the environment and to produce desired results is essential for an individual’s well-being. It has repeatedly been argued that perception of control is not only desirable, but is also probably a psychological and biological necessity. In this article, we review the literature supporting this claim and present evidence of a biological basis for the need for control and for choice—that is, the means by which we exercise control over the environment. Converging evidence from animal research, clinical studies, and neuroimaging suggests that the need for control is a biological imperative for survival, and a corticostriatal network is implicated as the neural substrate of this adaptive behavior.
