PT's Parking Blog

WOW! Check out our New Web Site

OK, he is my son, but he and Webmaster Suda have done a fantastic job. Our new web site is designed so we can change content at will. Even troglodytes like me can (with appropriate password) add news, ads, content, without involving someone who speaks in HTML.

You need to see a couple of things. First, the neatest. We have taken the magazine and digitized it, and made all the links work, plus savy advertisers can add just a little extra…Wanna check out PT March, a full two weeks before you will receive it at work, click here. Don't stop before you get to page 6. How's that for a magazine ad?

Play with it a bit with your mouse. It's really fairly intuitive. Click and it enlarges, and you can move the page around. Gee

You know my rules, if you need instructions, it's not designed properly.

Plus, you can check out our homepage here:

www.parkingtoday.com

Great Job, Andy and Suda…

JVH

DFW Seeks Firm to Guide search for new Parking Control System

I just got word that Dallas Fort Worth International Airport has a document on the street asking for a company or team to design, procure, install, implement, test, and perform training on a replacement revenue control system for the airport. DFW has had a rather rocky history with systems it has installed in the recent past.

The airport has some unique requirements, the first being the tremendous amount of traffic involved. The way the airport is laid out, there is a toll road that runs through the property, and all cars on the toll road are considered "parkers" while they are on airport land.

When you enter the toll road, which connects two major arteries between Dallas and Fort Worth, and pass the toll plaza, you can then drive directly into the parking facilities, or elect to stay on the road, and exit the airport. This means that there are tens of thousands of cards that are dealt with daily that are not parking, but are in and out of the parking control system.

There are many other nuances involved (how to differentiate between cars that don't park, those that park in short term and long term, etc) plus extremely complex counting, display, and communications systems. That only scratches the surface.

If I remember correctly, the airport's last foray into this complex purchasing process was driven by their IT department and assumptions were made from an IT point of view, which most likely needed to be tempered with the vagaries of parking issues, incredible communication traffic, and plus the normal minor problems of putting high tech computers in parking lanes which can be 120 degrees in the summer and under snow in the winter.

The team or firm that gets this contract will certainly have its challenges.

JVH

Charge for Parking…Blame Economy

The University of Iowa Medical Center is eliminating free parking. It had been paying the University itself about $1.2 million a year to cover patient parking costs. Now, I assume, the university will simply collect the money directly from the parkers.

Everyone is horrified at this change, but "THE ECONOMY" had mandated that it be done.

Why not just good practice? Why not because parking costs money and that cost should be borne by those who use it? This is government's problem. They can't figure out how to charge people for the services they provide.

If you are going to build a building, or remodel your kitchen. You need a permit. And you will pay, usually an amount relative to the size of the job. This is to pay for the inspectors to come out and be sure your new sink doesn't jump out of the counter when the garbage disposal is turned on.

If you go down to city hall and ask for a copy of your deed, or marriage license, or divorce decree, you get it, for a fee. Similarly if you want to get a driver's license, or take the bar exam, or some such other you vs the city event. I will say that the amount charged is probably not enough to cover the costs and should be higher but I won't, for now.

So why is it so disastrous to charge for parking? It creates a huge expense. Costs many hours of labor, and often is surrounded in hubhub and hubris. But the hospital has been picking up the cost of parking to the tune of over a million a year. Where did that come from?

I'll tell you where – The government was awash in money a couple of years ago when things were spinning, so they decided to provide free services. Now times are hard, particularly for governing bodies, so they are looking for places to find income. Parking does come to mind.

If the government had spent wisely when they had money, lowered taxes and fees, and put some money aside for a rainy day, then when the downturn came, all would have been well. However they spent like drunken sailors and, well, California is the poster child for the result.

Everyone is wringing their hands over the 'cuts' that are having to be made to meet our budget. But I guarantee you that the average citizen won't be affect one darn bit. The most affected will be those employed by the state and local governments who will have their hours reduced or lose their jobs.

The street in front of my house hasn't been repaved in 25 years. The fire station will not be closed. Cops will still have cars, parks will be open. Sure, perhaps the parks will have to be mowed every other week, and overtime may be cut back and it might take two days to get the pot holes filled.

I'm in a cynical mood…

JVH

OMG – A “controversial” user fee

The Sacramento (CA) regional transit is "dusting off" a controversial "user fee" for people who park in their lots and right their buses and trains. They are hard pressed in "desperate times." Read the article here.

They tabled the suggestion a couple of years ago when a board member noted that it could mean widespread boycotting of the service. After all people were in their cars, and if they had to pay, they would just stay in their cars and drive to work. PLUS, they may park in local garages and on streets in neighborhoods around the stations, causing mayhem and more political problems for the transit board.

At least one board member had it right when he said that "Parking is not free."

They are doing this to generate revenue. They might try just being fair. They fold the cost of parking in the transit fare. Plus they are subsidized by local sales tax. People who don't drive pay for part of the parking for those who do.

And of course, if someone stayed in their car and drove to work, they would have to pay when they got there. Plus the cost of gas, and the rest.

Oh, I forgot. The proposed price of parking -- $1. My guess is that won't even cover the cost of maintaining, lighting, securing, and cleaning the parking lots.

JVH

Receipts to Void Parking Tickets?

The city of Urbana, IL, is discussing an interesting idea. If you receive a parking ticket in its downtown area, and can bring in receipts to prove you were shopping during that time, the ticket would be voided. Read about it here.

This is the same approach shopping centers often use. You get an hour or two free parking and they begin to charge after that. However, if you can show that you purchased over a certain amount, say $150, you get an extra hour free.

We are talking on street validations. And why not? There are some issues that need to be addressed. First of all, who makes the determination as to the amount. If someone simply parks downtown all day and buys a newspaper, is that enough? Is the Hope Diamond enough? Somewhere in between? If it deals with only voiding tickets, it will certainly be inconsistent since most violations aren't caught.

The program needs to be considered and then put in place with the stores validating parking, but buying validations from the city. This will force them to treat them with the respect they deserve. Customers will be asked how long they were parked and issued a "Citation get out of fine free" card for that day. If those cards aren't worth something to the merchant, all sorts of cheating will abound.

The card could be mailed in with the citation and the city would then void the ticket, assuming all the criteria of the program are met.

I think it could be a good plan. Merchants pay for the onstreet parking of their customers. Why not? It happens in shopping centers, why not in central business districts.

JVH

Hat Tip: MR

Hagarstown Needs an Audit

Well, nothing says audit like something in the paper. The Associated press has this little gem:

Documents show that two Hagerstown businesses owe more than a total of $32,000 in parking debts, and a councilwoman wants to know why. Councilwoman Penny Nigh says Award Beauty School and Demcore Development should have started paying the parking debts years ago.

Demcore owes Hagerstown $16,394.70 in parking debts that have accrued since 2005. Award owes the city $15,778.50 from fees that began to accrue in 2007 City Administrator Bruce Zimmerman says the two businesses have had their privileges revoked at the garages this month.

Mike Deming, president of Demcore, said last week he was knew the money was due and it will be paid as soon as possible. An employee at Award Beauty School says the business didn't know about the debt until about five weeks ago.

As correspondent Mark points out – Why did it take them two years to figure out that these folks owed money from assumed non payment of monthly parking permits. I wonder how many others are in the same boat.

I'll bet we could find another story in the local paper about how the town is laying off people due to a downturn in tax revenues. Sigh

JVH

Reporters – they just don’t know enough to ask a question. – On Street Variable Pricing

 

From this story in the LA Times

 

Traffic engineers across the country are turning to an unlikely weapon in their fight against congestion on city streets -- parking meters.

And drivers will feel the pain in their pocketbooks.

To reduce traffic caused by drivers circling the block to find parking, cities are testing new technology to direct people to open spots and experimenting with a concept known as congestion pricing.

The strategy calls for hiking meter rates during peak hours when parking is scarce and lowering the cost when spaces are plentiful.

Transportation officials believe the higher prices will discourage drivers from staying put for too long.

That, in turn, could increase the turnover of spaces and reduce carbon emissions caused by cars on the prowl for curbside spots.

They suggest the extra money from the meters could be used to improve mass transit.

 

It drones on and one for two pages, but you get the point. The problem is that the reporter didn't know the questions to ask, or made up answers that were not correct.

 

True, fancy meters will enable the cities to alter pricing more on a free market model, but the result isn't necessarily turn over, its enticing people to make parking decisions based on their pocket book.

 

If there are cheap spaces off street, and expensive spaces on street, most people will immediately to go the cheap spaces, thus getting them out of the cruising mode. Congestion is reduced because people park quickly. Turnover is caused by setting limits, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you will have less cruising. Its quick parking choices that eliminate cruising.

 

So the reporter neglected to ask whether or not the pricing on street was going to move parkers off street and if there was parking off street to handle the change. In addition, the money from the meters to improve mass transit is, from my point of view, a non starter.

 

The money should be used in the neighborhood for infrastructure to help make each local area a better street scene. Better for merchants, better for visitors, better for residents. Mass transit should pay for itself. Yeah, right.

 

JVH

Parking in Quincy

I am tempted to give at least runner up status to Quincy, MA and its city dads for some of the most illogical parking thinking on the planet.

Everything was fine in the downtown. Then the parking enforcement officer left. Suddenly there is not enough parking.

".....the city's parking enforcement officer is no longer patroling the downtown, and hasn't been for several months.  "When she was enforcing the law, parking really wasn't much of an issue downtown," said Randy Stocker, downtown business owner and member of the District.  "People didn't want those $5 tickets, and they parked in the free lots. A few months after she left, they started parking closer to businesses there....."

The city says it costs them $18,000 a year out of pocket to enforce the parking rules. The deal is, I think, that there is a 2 hour limit downtown. Two Hours Free. Then there is a $5 ticket. There are two solutions, and I think they should work in tandem.

Charge for parking on the street – even a nominal amount – and double the fines. $5, come on. If you did that there would be enough money to cover enforcement costs and probably have a bit left over to pay for street lights, or watering the flowers.

However the police chief and the city moms and pops are scratching their heads over this. Sigh

Hat Tip – Mark

JVH

Clarity Trumps Agreement – and a question for Peter

Peter and I seem to have an ongoing disagreement, or at least a heated discussion, over the number of parking spaces "required" for a vehicle vs the number of spaces that exist for a vehicle. This goes back a couple of weeks to a talk Peter gave at Oxford (I was in attendance.) It was really a critical venue as those in the audience had a lot of gray hair and were professors of transportation planning. They invited Peter to speak because they realized that although they know a lot about transportation and intermodal design, they knew little about parking.

Peter opened with a statement that I understood to mean that there were three spaces for each vehicle. One at home, one at work, and one for all the other places it goes. I commented here (below) that this was absurd on its face, that certainly not nearly that many spaces were required for parking vehicles. Don Shoup entered the discussion commenting that surveys have been done that in fact prove that a lot of our land is paved over for parking space that isn't used, and the three for one number is probably correct.

Peter has responded that I may have misinterpreted his comment, since he too was saying that there was a three to one ratio. He was not trying to say that that ratio is correct. That is where it stands.

Let me try to clarify. Don has caused much pain within the planning community because he believes that requirements for parking based on building usage is an inappropriate planning model. Developers should be able to provide the amount of parking THEY feel appropriate and let it go at that. The planning groups should stay out of parking.

In 'The High Cost of Free Parking" he spends a third of the book bringing forth facts and figures that show the problems caused by these parking requirements. These requirements lead to the provision of far more parking than is necessary at any given location.

Back to Oxford… Perhaps I didn't understand Peter's point, fair enough. But if I didn't, did the planners in the room? I don't know. Peter was giving a very general overview of parking, not getting into specifics of usage. But these guys live for bullet points. If they took that little tidbit away...

Let's be clear. Three parking spaces per car exist in the US and most likely the UK, and most other developed countries. That is most likely too many. The problem is not available parking, but allocation of parking. Who parks where and when?

In the UK, hospitals began charging for parking to keep local residents and merchants from poaching in their structures, taking spaces needed for staff and patients. It worked. However the government in its infinite wisdom decided that this was "unfair" to patients. It was called a "tax on illness." So they are removing the charges. The result – parking problems are back at the hospitals.

This problem/solution model can be seen to work in downtown after downtown. Cars are moved from short term parking to long term parking (if that's appropriate). Commuters make decisions on whether to drive, or carpool, or take the bus, based on their personal needs and the free market pricing of parking. When this occurs, parking is freed up.

With the exception of shopping centers at Christmas, the parking lots fill at a rate based on need and usage, and are seldom full. (You don't build a church for the requirements of Easter Sunday.)

I'm not sure Peter and I are in agreement, that's not important. But it is important to be clear in what we are discussing.

My question to Peter – Can you recommend a way to help the planners at Oxford deal with parking issues?

JVH

Wow – They got it right

The Sandpoint. ID,. City council has voted to remove all parking zoning restrictions on its downtown area. They may be channeling Don Shoup but they say, and I agree, that it will revitalize the downtown area and give businesses a leg up.

Of course they are right. The problem with zoning requirements is first of all that they are simply guesses by planners and have no relation on reality. Second they fit the business that was originally in the spot. If the business was a hardware store and is becoming a restaurant, the chances are the parking would prevent the restaurant.

It seems to me that if the new restaurant owner can figure out how to park cars for his business, that should in fact be his or her business. Those concerned that the resulting parking 'mess' would drive away business should consider what empty stores do to downtowns.

Way to go Sandpoint.