PT's Parking Blog

The Faces of Parking Technology

I was out taking the cover shot for August Parking Today. The theme is "dealers and Installers" and I asked a local LA dealer if he could send a couple of his technicians out to a job site so I could take their picture. Tim Morris of Integrated Access Systems in Sun Valley, CA sent these two. Not only do they look great but they seemed to know their business.

That's Michelle Morris and WIlson Tan. Michelle is Tim's daughter and has worked in practically every part of the company, from administration to sales to service. She told me her fist job was delivering wine to customers at Christmas. Wilson has a technology background and has been with the company a year.

If this isn't a recruiting poster for parking technicians, I've never seen one.

JVH

Mixed Emotions

I have real mixed emotions about this one. It comes up every so often. Police or parking enforcement want the ability to cite people who park on their lawns. There's someone in our neighborhood that parks sometimes on his lawn.  It doesn't really look horrible and doesn't bother me. My concern is the private property laws.

OK, If you have a fire hazard, the city can come in and abate the weeds and send you a bill. I would suggest that if a person abandons a car on their yard or if they continually park on their lawn and there are complaints, the city could send them a warning in the mail. But coming on to a person's property and issuring a citation, I just don't know.

What do you think?

JVH

Everyone a winner.

IN an effort to make parking enforcement more friendly to the public, the city of Lansing is requiring its enforcement officers to walk their routes rather than drive their cars. Can you guess the response of the enforcement officers. They are "concerned" that their security is threatened.  The evil people of Lansing might jump em and beat em up.

Well, perhaps the city dad's could consider another approach. If someone comes up, the officer could smile and say she was glad they arrived and are moving their car, but she will have to issue them a "warning."  No harm no foul, but the city would track warnings and after a certain number, they would be issued a citation.

Everyone is happy. The person is happy, the parking enforcement people get a positive stroke, and the city gets good PR.  No one is threatened, everyone a winner....

JVH

More Parking Stories from LA

I understand there is a sign near Hollywood that says "Trashy Parking". Nope, its not for beaters, its the parking lot for "Trashy Lingerie." Don'tcha love it

Gavin MacLeod of Love Boat fame is the honorary mayor of Pacific Palisades, an LA 'burb overlooking the Pacific on the way to Malibu. One of his jobs is swearing in the board of the local Chamber of Commerce. As part of the oath of office, he included "and I pledge not to park at Gelson's or Ralphs while shopping elsewhere. I pledge to happily pay my $40 parking ticket to the wonderful city of LA."

It also seems that the Seal Beach Sun's (newspaper) crime log published a sighting of a dog that was evidently driving  -- the items said

ANIMAL NOISE = 1:38 am -- Green Avneu The caller said the neighbor's dog was parking. The caller said this was an ongoing problem.:

And according to a witness, it wasn't the critters first turn behind the wheel -- What's next -- Rover rage?

Thanks to Steve Harvey, LA times.

JVH

Paris and Parking

Hilton that is...

Paris Hilton's neighbors complained about the media circus that surrounded her surrender to be taken to jail a couple of weeks ago and have repeated their concerns about their tony neighborhood above Hollywood on her release today. So the officials here in LA are bringing out the big guns. LA Parking Enforcement.

Yep, they make the entire are a no parking zone and have a fleet of tow trucks at the bottom of the street. Parking enforcement officers will be out in force and media trucks and paparazzi cars will be instantly ticketed and towed. When the LAPD needs help, they call the best, Parking Enforcement.

Of course I see two problems with this approach. First, photographers can be paid upwards of 25 grand for the right picture so what's a couple of hundred in parking fees.  Second, and I know this is tantamount to heresy in car based LA, why can't they simply walk up to the house.Park in a parking structure in Hollywood and hike the two miles to the house?

This fiasco brings to mind the problems Brentwood had when OJ was on trial. The traffic was so thick bollards and temporary barriers had to be installed to protect the neighborhood. And these were tourists, not photographers, and it went on for months. I have friends who live in the neighborhood and they took it in stride. If you want to live in these types of areas, you have to put up with the riffraff, riffraff neighbors, not visitors.

At least the cops made the right choice. The parking enforcement staff are treated as gestapo by locals here so they obviously have set the bar high with their ticket writing and towing skills. This way the LAPD gets the job done and someone else gets the blame. I wonder if Chief Bratton used this technique when he was working for Rudy in New York.

JVH

But...They have it all backwards

Read this story and then get back to me. Here's the deal. The local merchants are lobbying, and winning, for reduced on street parking rates. They seem to think that if they have "free" parking, people will flock to their stores. One of the areas discussed is Bondi Beach, another is the "rocks". These are areas around Sydney, Australia. I've been to both. Bondi is great -- Lots of scantily clad Sheila's and handsome Aussie boys cavorting. Families having fun and the like. But that's in the summer. For some strange reason its not as popular in the winter. Reducing parking charges will certainly help. 

The "rocks" is an area of pubs, clubs and restaurants. Its chaos in the evenings. Reducing parking charges will certainly help the congestion and chaos. ...Not!!!

Once again I invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences. The parking charges will be lowered. Local workers will park on the street taking space that was being used by customers. Customers will cruise for parking, streets will be jammed, no one will be able to park, and they will go elsewhere. However the parking charges will force workers to park in off street lots or walk, will enable those who want to park to find a space, and others can park in cheaper parking around the corner.

OK, $6 an hour may be a bit high. They simply have to take a look and see if they have a few spaces always available. If they do, then lower it a bit. Let the market work. Of course everyone wants to park for free. I would rather not pay for my Big Mac, but I do. Get real Oz, under priced parking caused your problems, returning to it won't fix them.

JVH

See, This is the Problem...

OK, we all know Koo Stark -- we don''t?  She was running around with Prince Andrew a few years back, and is now a single mother  -- I don't think the two are related. However she has a problem...She drives a Prius and thinks she can park in London for free. And so it seems, does the local city fathers, well kinda.  Read the story here.

When she bought the car, she understood from no less than the Mayor of London, Ken Livingston, that it was a "green" car and she could park it for free. She then began to rack up parking tickets. When she complained, she got a letter saying "so sorry, you are right, you should be able to park for free." In fact, she got two letters.

Then she was told "so sorry, but we made a mistake. You can park at some spaces for free, but not at others." So her car was impounded. She raised a stink, and got her car back, but as of this moment the city doesn't seem to know what to do. They are handling her tickets on a "case by case basis."

I have been railing about giving free parking to "green" or "eco friendly" cars because they are "green" or "eco friendly" for years. I think it's discriminatory. The cars take up space on the street. They cause congestion and traffic. They have four wheels and a seat. Why shouldn't they pay to park just like everyone else?

Now if the city can't even figure out what is "eco friendly" and what isn't and can't fairly enforce its own rules, how can one expect the rest of us to understand what's what.  In some places motorcycles are exempt from certain charges. Some of the two wheeled monsters should be charged double, simply for the noise they make. But that's another story.

The free market will work, without the help of the state, thank you very much. Mayor Ken in London passed the rule for "electric" cars. And in a country of 50 million vehicles, they have just over 1000 running around. That's completely electric and that's where Koo made her mistake. Hybrids (gas and electric) aren't covered. The popular Prius is selling faster than they can make em, however the state sponsored electrics are gathering dust on the showroom floor. (This is also true in California where the state said it would give a tax credit for the cars up to a certain number sold and so those that bought their cars early paid less than those that took a few months to make the decision. Good, now that's fair.)

But back to the problem in London. The rules on these cars are so complicated the people who enforce them can't understand them. Car owners are being harassed for following what they, and some of the enforcers, think are the rules. We are making an entirely new set of lawbreakers.

I don't have a problem taxing cars based on size. If they take up more room, then they should pay more. We've been doing that for years, charging more for limos than for regular cars. Makes perfect sense. If you have a Mini, and car park two in the space that it takes for a Range Rover, then you should pay less. Supply and demand and all that.  But to get a break because you have some kind of different way of propelling your vehicle. Nope.  Koo's issue exemplifies the problem. And by the way, the jury is out as to whether the amount of energy generated to charge up a battery is more or less than the amount of energy generated to actually propel the car. And if you add the infrastructure (charging stations, wiring, etc) who knows? My guess is that it's a wash.

And don't get me started on car pool lanes...

I feel for Koo. According to the story she has enough problems without having to deal with trumped up laws and bureaucrats who can't find the law library. The law of unintended consequences. We start down a path and have no idea where its going to lead. We have the best of intentions, but end up with the worst of results.

JVH

PIttsburgh drops parking tax rate 5% - Want's to keep revenue from Operators

The City of Pittsburgh has dropped its parking tax from 50% to 45% and are stunned that the cost of parking didn't drop by the same amount. Read about it here.

The city, which still has the highest tax rate on parking in the country, by far, lowered its rates earlier this year and the local city controller noted that the operators didn't lower their rates accordingly. I just love his quote

Since the operators didn't lower their rates, Pokora (the city controller) said the city should keep its tax high so the city will still get that revenue instead of the parking operators.

Let's see, that means that the purpose of taxation is to gain revenue for the city, not to take the money and use it for public use. It is confiscatory. Well, at least he is finally telling it like it is.

Parking fees charges by cities, whether they are for on street parking, off street parking, or fines, are simply another type of tax. They aren't there to help provide a good or service to the citizenry. Most cities see parking revenue as simply another source of money for the city coffers and NOT as a way to care of a most important resource, parking.

It's this attitude that leads to the attitude of the public that parking regulations are to be despised and the parking profession should be hated. If the city bureaucracy not only thinks this way, but discusses their feelings openly, why shouldn't the residents of the community feel that they are again having their pockets picked, albeit with a different hand.

As for the operators not lowering their prices, the price is set by supply and demand, not by the operators. They set the price at whatever it is and then pay the tax out of that price. If the tax were added ON TOP of the price to park, ie, $1 an hour PLUS 50 cents tax for a total for a total of $1.50 my guess is that if the tax were lowered to 45% the price would have been $1 per hour plus 45 cents tax.

There is another issue -- in New York the prices are posed exactly that way. People know when they pay $40 to park, $8 or so goes to the city. Its right there on the sign. If they paid $50 to park and they saw that $25 went to the city, my guess is that there would be a revolution. 

If you ask any driver in NYC what the tax was on their parking, they would probably be able to tell you. My guess is that in Pittsburgh they would not. I haven't been in the city at the confluence of the Allegheny and the Monongahela for years and for all I know, the signs do report the 50% tax, but frankly, I doubt it.

This all goes along with sales tax.  You all know that sales tax is added on at the cash register. So you know that you are paying 6% or 8% tax. It shows up right there on the receipt. In Europe and Canada they pay a sales tax that is upwards of 20% or more. They call it VAT but its a sales tax, nevertheless. You pay it. However it is "included" in the price of the goods. So if you pay $100 for an item, approximately $20 is tax. But you don't know it.  Its the same with gasoline here.

A similar issue is withholding on your salary. If you had to write a check every month to the government for 25% of your salary, I wonder if tax rates would be quite so high. As it is, they sneak it out bit by bit and you never notice it.

All this means that if there were giant signs on every parking garage and lot in every city that said "20% of the money you pay goes to the city government in tax" or "$1 of every four you pay for parking goes to the city as tax"  I wonder if the drivers would start to yell at the city council rather than the attendant?

Just saying...

JVH

"Baghdad by the Bay" Nominee -- Microsoft

A private company getting nominated for the coveted "Baghdad by the Bay" award for the worst parking decisions? Yep.

(For new readers, the "Baghdad by the Bay" award was named for the city of San Francisco who is living up to the honor as we speak if you read the entries below. Our goal is to use it to shine some light on some of the wonderful parking decisions made not only by our municipal city dads and moms, but on other priceless parking goofs that come to our attention.)

In this case, its Microsoft, led by humanitarian and very green campaigner, Bill Gates. The company is building a 5000 car garage in downtown Redmond, Washington to help alleviate its current and future parking crunch. The "free" parking spaces, paid for no doubt by a few cents every time you buy your "Windows" upgrade, take up about six square blocks of the areaa.

I have no problem with private companies doing whatever they want. That's what the word "private" means. However whether or not this does anything to help alleviate the parking issues in the area remains to be seen.

It would seem that a company like Microsoft with almost unlimited resources might be a perfect place to attempt to put some Shoupista philosophy into place. I wonder what would have happened if they had begun to charge for parking for their employees (and used the money to provide free lunches, or gyms, or new Macs for their research labs)...  A fee of say $20 a week might have motivated many of the Microsoft denizens to car pool, take public transportation, ride bikes, walk, move closer to work, etc. A reduction even of 20% in the number of vehicles would most likely have alleviated the problem that caused them to consider a structure in the first place and all would have been right with the world.

The garage, which will most likely sit empty two thirds of the time, could have been built elsewhere where its truly needed. 

OK, this nomination is marginal, but certainly worth considering. Comments, anyone?

JVH

PS Hat tip: Mark RImmer

But...How did we get into this mess

The City of Baltimore City has a problem. It has over $100 million in past due parking fines and fees. To solve it the wise folks in Maryland hired an outside firm to collect the money. They started with threatening letters.
Fair Enough.

My question is: Is anyone asking how the city got into that position in the first place? How were all those people able to get by all this time ignoring the law? How did it get so bad that they had to go outside and hire a company to help them "collect?"  Let me guess.

Tip O'neal said famously "all politics are local." In this case, all parking is political. No one wants to go out on a limb and enforce the parking laws. They aren't really laws, they are "suggestions." Everyone knows that parking should be free and that enforcement is evil. Just ask anyone on the street.

There is no doubt in my mind that a philosophical shift is necessary in the parking business. That has to come from our side, not our customer's side. That's right, customers.  Cities need to look on the parking space available as a product and those using it as customers. Can you imagine Wal-Mart or Neiman Marcus or MacDonalds or Starbucks letting people walk out without paying, every day, and running up millions and millions of losses. That their policies are set in such a way that people can simply walk in, pick up something and walk out.  If you are caught shoplifting in Neiman Marcus you go to jail. If you don't pay your fine or ignore it, you get a quiet word in the form of a ltter.

Two things -- First, Lets change the attitude of the cities. Lets make this a business transaction rather than a legal one. Make it easy for people to pay, and begin to make them understand that the money they pay goes for something more than another payment in the "black hole" of typical political activity. And second, if they don't pay, simply make it so they can't park in city lots or surface streets any longer. If that means immobilizing their car, or towing and selling it,so be it.

JVH

Congestion Pricing -- A Brit's View

I wrote below that congestion pricing is simply another way to tax, and raise havoc with a city's economy. Here's a comment by Manny Resores, Mr. Parking Consultancy, in the UK

In common with the retail industry, The effect on Parking was significant, with some parking lots income within the congestion charge dropping by as much as 25% and metered parking by a similar amount.

After over 4 years of the scheme, many parking lots usage and income has not yet recovered to the levels prior to the scheme.

In terms of traffic, we still have the same bottleneck of traffic driving to London, but now 20 - 30% of drivers leave their vehicle outside the congestion charge, use cheaper parking and get the bus or subway for the last part of the journey saving not only the congestion charge cost but the higher cost of parking.

Based on the London experience, the $8 charge in Manhattan will soon be double or even treble. My suggestion to those operating parking lots in New York, is to promptly look at good locations for parking lots outside the zone and get a deal in place soon.

Manny Rasores

Interesting. Manny says parking facility owners in the Big Apple should simply bail out and find parking lots to own in the burbs, or just over the "congestion charge" line. I would hope that they take a careful look. If the free market is allowed to work, why wouldn't the parking facilities just outside the congestion parking area simply begin charging market rates when the cars trying to get around the congestion parking charges show up? Supply and demand. It will always work.

Of course you should also remember that in London, not only did they raise the congestion charge, but they also increased the area on which it was applied. I can see the area in Manhattan moving north until the entire island is covered.

Once again, from my point of view, this is simply another way to tax the public. People aren't stupid, They won't just keep coming into an area, like lemmings, and sit in traffic. They will find an alternative.  It may be that they will move back into downtown areas to be closer to their jobs, or they will find jobs closer to their homes. Its already happening in LA, for sure.

Companies move out of downtown areas because they want to be near their work force. The Internet has made telecommuting a reality. Now "independent" Mayor Bloomberg should simply have patience. The marketplace will work. Of course sometimes government needs to get out of the way.

JVH

Make it easy on yourself

You can subscribe to this blog and receive one email each day that I ad a post. Just put your email address in the little box in the upper left hand corner, hit submit, and we'll do the rest.

The email you get gives you the title of the post(s) for that day and you can click on it and go directly here. That way you don't have to keep coming back periodically to check, unless you just miss me.

JVH

Congestion Pricing -- Is it just another tax?

I have been thinking a lot about congestion pricing, the concept of charging people to drive in certain areas at certain times. The idea is to reduce congestion, pollution, and generally make the world safe for democracy and free from original sin. They are doing it in London, and Mayor Bloomberg is touting the plan for Manhattan.

 

But what is REALLY going to be accomplished.  It seems to me that this is a plan to collect another tax. Look at it this way. The city can't raise its income and property taxes any higher (they would be pilloried) so they are looking for a tax that doesn't seem like a tax. In this case, its a tax on drivers. The charge would be $8 a car. People living on the edge of the congestion zone fear that folks will drive into the city, park in their neighborhoods, and then take public transportation to work. Well of course they will.

So Hizzonner is proposing a permit program for the area just outside the congestion zone to handle this unintended consequence. Of course the money from the permits will go into the general fund (another tax?) and the amount of the permit costs is going to be discussed later.

It seems that the city is simply creating a large bureaucracy to collect money to pay for that large bureaucracy. Why not charge market rates for on street parking in New York? Wouldn't that have the same effect?  Wouldn't people think twice about driving into the city if they knew they were going to have to pay $30 or $40 to park on street?  Off street rates would go up in kind, legitimate residents could pay a lower fee or whatever.

But to make this palatable, the money would have to be plowed back into the neighborhoods from whence it came. This way, those driving would pay the proper amount for the services (parking) they are provided by the city and the city would use the money to keep the streets in good repair (needed I think in NYC) clean the sidewalks, plant trees, create parks, and etc. However the money, it seems, will simply be dropped into that wonderful black hole known as the "general fund" and never seen again.

This could be done with the infrastructure that is in place. A new taxing plan would not have to be implemented. No one would have to pass laws. There would be no need for "congestion police" to go after those who hadn't a clue, and we wouldn't be creating a whole new class of lawbreaker.

This isn't a problem unique to the uninformed who actually WANT to drive in Manhattan, Arnie wants to do something like it in California and other cities are eying the prospect.

"Well, it works in London."  I'm not so sure -- I have ridden in taxis in London since the plan was introduced and can't see a major change in the congestion in the central city. It may be better but who can tell?  And remember, London (and Manhattan) are basically cities that have a complete, in place, working public transportation system. That's not necessarily true of LA, or Houston, Or Miami, or St Louis. 

But back to the issue. People who have the bucks will pay whatever it takes to use their car. Those that don't, won't. Since very few actually drive to Manhattan for the fun of driving in the city but drive to visit something. They have to park. Setting parking rates to keep 15% of the on street parking available seems to me to the the best way to lower congestion, stop cruising for spaces, and solve the problem.

According to my information, the Metropolitian NYC Parking Association and Parking Guru Shelly Mallah are supporting candidates that oppose the congestion plan, concerned about their livelihood. Fair enough. But It would seem to me that they should be touting market rate on street parking charges. With them everyone wins. 

Frankly, if it were me, I would stop all delivery services in the city between 8 AM and 10 PM. My experience has been that most traffic problem in New York are caused by delivery services double parking and unloading, thus blocking cross town traffic.If you want to deliver stuff in NY, do it at night when you aren't causing problems for the rest of us.

Just my opinion

JVH

Parking and Elvis

I have had at least a dozen people contact me about this story. This gal who worked for a city in Lincolnshire stole over $1million and used the money to buy Elvis Memorabilia. She was the clerk that was tasked with counting the coin that came from parking meters in the area. She simply took the coin and swapped it with bills from other receipts in the local authority and walked out with about $20,000 a month.

She is in jail for three years and the Crown Prosecution Service has seized the Elvis stuff and is selling it at auction. Experts say that although there are a few "good" pieces, most are routine and its possible that the auction won't garner the amount lost.

The real problem for me is the attitude of the person who commented on the story. Its so striking that I will print the entire comment here:

Well this is what can happen when collecting beccomes an obsession.I really feel sorry for the lady.I think taking away her collection would have been punishment enough after all she was only taking the money the council had "robbed" from people.

Parking fees are money that has been "robbed" from the people.  I suggest that that attitude is pervasive, particularly in the UK. As an industry we need to work on this problem. Parking is a resource and it needs to be nurtured, protected, and the people who do it need to have an attitude of caring and helping the citizenry, not one of police action and enforcement. Change the attitude and my guess is that Julie Wall, 46, would have through again before she dipped into the till and stole the money she obviously felt was "robbed" from the local citizens. Note that she didn't steal from the other revenue collected by the local authority to which she had access, but only the parking money.

JVH

San Fran and 5 Star and Millions of Dollars

I have heard little tidbits about this "situation" in San Francisco over the past few months. The story is this -- Five Star Parking has been running a couple of garages in the city since 2002.  During that period at least some of their staff on site have been dipping into the till to the tune of Millions of Dollars. Read all about it here.

The city discovered that there was a loss and called in outside auditors to review the garages. The losses were incredible.  My information is that the losses are much greater than the $4.8 million that Five Star is putting forward. That number was negotiated by Five Star's lawyers in the negotiations with the city of SF. 

The result is that Five Star paid the $4.8 million, and that the senior management of the company (read that Joe Lumer) has moved out of the picture and new management is in place.  My understanding is that they agreed to the 4.8 fairly quickly.

Read the article carefully -- The city controller, the one responsible for auditing the garages says "there are always problems when cash is involved."  Yep -- that's right. And its a bigger problem when its a parking facility. The auditors need to know what they are doing and what to look for.  I have had experienced parking auditors tell me that they can sit outside a garage for two days and tell within 10 percent how much money should be in the till every night. And they are usually right.  City auditors, used to looking at bank statements and columns of figures aren't equipped to do that. Note that it took "outside" consultants to really find the problems and suggest solutions. I know who those consultants are and if you want to know, drop me a line.

The next part of the article is more telling. The city has agreed to let 5 Star continue working with the city on its contract thru 2008 and then EXTEND the contract another year to 2009.  HUH?  Lets see -- I have a company that cleans an office building. It comes out that many of my staff, including some managers, are stealing regularly from the offices in the building. How long do you think my company would be working at that building, or for that matter, any other building that the developer owned. Five Star's new CEO must be one great salesman. He walked into a meeting with his company accused of malfeasance and under suspicion of a huge theft and walked out with an extension on his contract after paying a fine which is rumored to be less than the total actually missing and admitting no guilt. Also, it seems that the company had been playing fast and loose with its billing practices with the city. That's just been forgotten.

I have some sympathy for Five Star.  I understand the problem with managing garages. However the parking industry's reputation doesn't get any better if we are not held to any normal business standard. I'm not sure what happened behind closed doors, but it looks like the City of SF decided to "take the money and run." If I was the operator, I would have said, "Look, without admitting much, we'll change our senior management, pay you a bunch of money and all you have to do is let us continue to work for you and in the future to bid on jobs as they come along. And we won't fight the amount of the fee we are paying. If you don't agree and litigate, it will cost you millions and we'll probably end up here anyway."

When Lockheed got sideways with the City of New York a few years ago, they were banned from dealing with the city for, I think,  5 years.  In this case, the operator is being allowed to continue as if nothing has happened.

I'm not for a moment saying that the leaders of the operator should be flogged in the courthouse square, however I do think the company should pay the price for having done a bad job. That price is being fired and not being allowed to bid on future deals, at least for a time. If that was the result of doing a poor job, maybe we as an industry would be forced to clean up our act.

And what about the City of SF? Everyone seems to be ducking and diving. The parking Commission isn't returning reporter's calls. The City Attorney says it sends "a strong message. What message is that? The City Controller agrees that "its an issue."  Next week the Transportation Board will agree to the deal and by Friday it will be forgotten.

This doesn't help our industry at all. If there is no real consequences for running an operation that can't do its job properly and after all, what is a parking operators job except to be certain that it collects all the money and puts it in the owners bank?

If the free market isn't allowed to work, how can we clean up our act. This, by the way, isn't just Five Star. Virtually every major parking company, has, at one time or another, been able to adjudicate a problem by paying a large amount of restitution and kept their jobs. There is so much money involved, the owners feel that if they can get some of that lost money, they are ahead. That may be true in the short term, but does it make us better?

I think not.

I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees.

JVH

"Because you're all dead..."

Those in attendance at the Infrastructure Privatization Summary of Chicago's Downtown Parking System, at least those in the back row, were treated to an "off the cuff comment."

When Thomas Lanctot of the William Blair Company said: "We could have made this 25 years, or 50 years, or 75 years, but we made it 99 years.  And do you know why?  Do you know why?"  At this point he is holding one finger in the air to emphasize to the audience how important his statement is going to be.

From the back comes dead-pan delivery: "Because you're all dead then."

It is reported that some had to leave the room before collapsing in laughter.

JVH

Private Sector helps at Sky Harbor

Parking Spot has opened a new "off airport" location in Phoenix and will have upwards of 1300 spaces to add to the inventory at Sky Harbor International Airport. This will assist the airport in reducing its dearth of space.

Parking Spot Prez Marty Nesbitt told the local press that the company's goal was to make their customer's flying experience better. "We consider ourselves part of the hospitality industry," he said.

A refreshing approach. The Parking Spot has focused on customer service and product branding since its inception.I think their approach, thought not unique, is right on.

My point, however, is that the private sector can provide considerable relief for the parking issues at an airport. In this case, the City of Phoenix can put off building additional garages and the private sector can provide good service to those who want it.

Everyone wins

JVH

Religious Descrimination

This is a tough one -- A parking company in Atlanta has been required to pay nearly $30K to settle a discrimination law suit.  The plaintiff who is Muslim, says that she asked to wear her head scarf during Ramadan and they told her no, suspended her and later fired her.  That's all the information I have.

However here's the issue. If the company had a dress code, and if all employees were told of the code, then it would seem to me that the plaintiff should have known before the fact that she could not wear head scarfs while at work. She should have told them of her religious requirements and worked out a deal with them, or not taken the job. Its like the waitresses at Hooters or Islands.  They have to wear specific clothes at all times while on the job. If they don't like it, they can take another job.

On  the other hand, if the dress code was ambiguous, or if she was in fact singled out because of her religion, then the operator deserved what they got. Period.

Personally, I have no problem with head scarves. Many Jewish women wear scarves and wigs, men wear yamakas,  Hindus wear head gear,  so be it. However a business owner has to have the right to set dress codes as they wish. But they must do it up front and be open about it. Changing the rules after the fact doesn't cut it.

JVH

What's wrong with this picture

Read the story -- do you see any problem?

Well I do -- The Chief of police in this little hamlet stole upward of $30 K from the parking meters over a period of two years and he has to simply pay back the money. No jail time, no nothing...And he gets to make time payments

This is a person who was in a position of trust. He abused that trust. I think that the crime in this case is worse than if he had been simply a clerk in the counting room pocketing the money. He was Chief of Police, for crying out loud. He was to set an example. He was given the keys to the kingdom.

He obviously planned the theft to coincide with his retirement. It was discovered by his successor, when the income increased sharply after the crook retired. His lawyer said that the "incident" was a downturn for the chief and he "feels it desperately."

Yeah, right. Its just some quarters from the parking meter. Pay it back and that's it.

Somehow it doesn't seem right to me.

JVH

Amnesty

No, that THAT amnesty, amnesty for parking tickets. New Orleans is holding a week long amnesty. If you have a past due ticket you can come in and pay it without paying all the fees and upcharges because you were late. What do you think about this?

Many cities do this periodically. So what, says you.  Well, says I, what does that mean to the people that actually paid their fines and fees on time, or paid the penalty because they were a couple of weeks late. Some nincompoop decides to ignore the rules, runs up thousands in fees and fines, and then waltzes in during the amnesty and pay the tickets.  I don't like it.

Sure, the city will get their money, at least some of it. But doesn't it smack of letting people "get by" with breaking the law, twice. First they didn't pay at the meter, then they didn't pay the fine for not paying at the meter, now they aren't paying the fine for not paying the fine.  Why have rules at all?  As my British friend says, "are these laws, rules, or simply suggestions?"

Personally I think that the laws should be enforced, and if you don't pay the fine your car should be immobilized or towed and if you want it back you have to pay all the fees. When you go to register the car at the DMV they should check to see if there are any outstanding parking tickets and if there are, you won't be able to register the car. If the cops see you driving an unregistered vehicle, they have the car impounded until you follow the law. My guess is that the problems with unpaid parking tickets will go away, as will the problem with cars that aren't registered.

This is like the broken window theory. If you clean up the broken windows and graffiti, you don't have as many assaults, robberies, and murders -- its proven, it works.  Why should parking be the same. My guess is that if you enforce parking rules and regulations, you don't have as much littering, vandalism, and cars that don't meet minimum safety standards.

Amnesty, I think, doesn't work in any case, including parking.

JVH

Charge for Parking, Cut the Crime Rate

San Jose has always had free parking downtown. Now they are considering charging for parking, get this, after 10 PM in their structures. Read all about it here.

Yep, they are going to charge $5 to park after 10 PM. Thursday thru Saturday.The Reason -- there is a group of people (probably young people) who are partying in the garages after hours, drinking, and throwing bottles. It is thought that the $5 charge will deter them from coming in the facilities and the problem will go away.

HUH?  First an obvious technical problem -- how do you enforce it.  You have to charge on exit, since parking is free from 5 to 10 pm. If I arrive at say 6 PM and leave at 11, I should pay a $5 charge. However, if I arrive at 5 and leave at 9:55 I park for free.  What happens if I arrive at 6 on one evening and then leave at 6 the next evening?  How does the money get collected.  So its pay on exit.

How is paying on exit going to stop the kids?  They already cause mayhem. So why won't they just come on in, do their thing, then drive out and not pay. If they are drinking and throwing bottles and rioting, what's to keep them from just driving to the exit gate, breaking it off, flipping the bird to the attendant and leaving. They have no respect for authority or the law, what's a $5 parking fee.

Now you know that I believe that parking should not be free.  According to the article there are not enough parking spaces in downtown San Jose in the evenings.  That's probably because on street parking is free and the employees of clubs and restaurants park there and take up all the spaces. Obviously there's a lot of space in the garages of the gangs wouldn't have room to carouse and cause mayhem.  Solution -- charge for parking on street, people will then move into the garages, and they will become active and there will be no large "barn like" areas where the problems can occur.

Of course, if there was a minimal charge all the time for garage parking, but substantially lower than on street, that would  begin to deter people from entering the garage that wanted to do more than simply park.

Of course, the police could do their jobs and arrest these animals and put em in jail and get them out of civilized society. It sounds to me like they have the cops in San Jose a bit buffaloed.  They need to rethink their entire parking pricing policy AND enforce their public drunkenness laws with consistency and strength. A few days in the slammer would probably cause much of the problem to go away.  I got the idea that people were "cited" and released. Sounds like the problem is way past a citation.

JVH

Let's see if I've got this straight --

Here's the article --

This store owner is complaining that parking is no longer free across the street. The garage that was full now requires that he pay. However if he parks a couple of blocks away, she can park for a lower price, and even a bit further, she can park for free. 

The process opens up spaces for her customers, who, it is assumed, had difficulty finding parking space.

My word to Chef Andrea -- your customers should come first. Take a short walk, save some money, give your customers a place to park, and make the best pizza in the world. Guess what? The world will beat a path to your door, no matter what the parking across the street costs.

I guarantee it.

JVH

Handicapped Enforcement

The city of Burlington, NC, is getting tough on people who park in Handicapped Spaces. Read about it here.

They are forming a volunteer force to enforce this single parking law,  and I think its a great idea. I would take it one step further.

I would invite those with handicaps to be on the force. they could monitor the spaces and over cell phone or radio direct other enforcement staff to actually come over and write the citations. I'm certain that the people who are being affected by the jerks that take handicapped spaces would aggressively pursue the problem and help ensure they have the access they need.

You might note that if you go to the local Committee of Persons with Local Disabilities  or ADA, you will find that many of the people on the committee have disabilities. Makes sense. So why not have people that enforce the parking codes come from the same group.

Just saying...

JVH

Enforcement Vehicles Ticketed

The parking public loves stories like this one. In the city of Huntington WV the parking division thought it had a great idea. Buy some mini gas powered vehicles to replace the electric carts the enforcement folks had been using.   

The board thought the two gas-powered vehicles would be more cost-effective than the electric carts attendants used because they get about 50 miles per gallon and don't have to be taken off the streets at least two hours a day to be recharged, said Johnette Nelson, the parking board executive director.

They also don't require a new $1,200 battery every 18 months or so.

"Our profit margin increased about $5,000 during the month that we used the trucks," she said. "That's not including the additional revenue that the city received."

However, the local gendarmes didn't think the idea was quite so wonderful. It seems the vehicles are "off road" vehicles and not street legal. They can't be licensed by the state and the police have issued tickets. They are now sitting in a garage while everyone tries to figure out what to do.

My suggestion -- the Mayor should get the cops and the parking folks in a room and they should cut a deal so the vehicles can be used. It seems to me that trained enforcement officers could be able to drive them "on street" and go about their business.  The law, it seems to me, was to keep Joe Sixpack from diving his three wheeler on the streets endangering life and limb. A little common sense could handle this. If the state wants its money, send them a check as if they were light use pickup trucks and let everyone get on with their lives.

JVH

Of course, this won't happen. The bureaucracy rules.

A brief Hiatus from blogging-- But still talking about parking

They say a hiatus is good for the soul but the problem is getting going again.  Being lazy is easy, starting to think again is hard.

In the past few days I have had meetings with the staff, and attended and spoken to the Intelligent Transportation Society's annual meeting held this year in Palm Springs.  I was on the dais with and frankly humbled by folks who seem to know a bit about parking, certainly a bit more than I.

The topic was "Free Market pricing of Parking" and the other speakers had some real world experience.

Dan Zack from the City of Redwood City (not the City of Redwood, as our host described his employer), told of how he had actually implemented a Pricing program that was in the process of solving the downtown ills of the San Francisco 'burb.

Todd Dykstra of Streetline regaled us on the technology of monitoring on street parking spaces and detailed the results of a study done for the Port of San Francisco.  Its surprising, or maybe not, but most of the time cars occupy parking spaces for which they haven't paid.

And Tilly Chang of the San Francisco Transportation Authority told us of the City's ills as it relates to parking and humbled us with some facts and figures as to the size of a problem none of the other three on the stage had ever attempted to tackle.

I began the lecture with an overview of Don Shoup's theories. Its great to talk about theories. Who can argue?

This was the first time I knew of that the transportation industry and the parking industry actually glanced off each other. My experience is that each sees the other as a separate entity. The opposite is of course the truth.

Parking is as much a part of transportation as is a bridge, traffic signal, or construction crew on the 405. We are a bridge that connects two parts of transportation, car to feet, car to airplane, car to elevator, etc.

If we do our job well, we are transparent to the process. But if we screw it up, we are the part that is remembered. And usually not with a lot of kindness.

JVH

Nudity and Parking

Yes, its true -- and of course could only happen in Amsterdam. US Photographer Steven Tunick posed a lot of nude men and women in a parking structure in the Dutch City. See it here.

I've heard of parking garages being used for movie sets, garage sales, used car lots, storage, fine dining, dances, parties, and practically every other possible use, including parking cars. But this is a first.

JVH

Videos from the IPI

They are up on our web site -- Clips from the three days and some interesting interviews with vendors. Its just like being there, well almost:::  Check it out here.

JVH