A great Idea, but….

I went to Niagara Falls last year to see their hot new parking system. It was installed by Photo Violation Technologies and was based on the concept that the parking enforcement team could see the violators through a camera located in the meter. It would photograph the car's license plate and the citation could be mailed to the violator. There was exotic software that allowed the city to give grace periods and all sorts of relief to parkers. There was one minor problem – it didn't work.

The city stopped the free test program and the meters were removed late last year.

OK, let's be honest here – I liked the concept. I even liked the folks that put them in. They certainly had a flare for public relations, if nothing else. The meters were featured on CSI. They had snippets on the nightly news, wherever they went, TV cameras seemed to follow. There was only one minor problem – they didn't work. I am certain the owners will say that it does work, if only…

I fellow I worked with once told me, most inventions are just "that far" from working. The problem is that the distance between his thumb and first finger was often insurmountable. Maybe they were one idea from success, or one dollar, or maybe they had a fatal flaw that they ignored in their zeal for their product.

Read the story here. The lack of success in Niagara Falls wasn't solely the fault of PVT. In fact it might have been the other way around.

The politicos in the city where people go to honeymoon and watch the wonder of the falls don't have a handle on their parking problems. They get what, millions of tourists a year, most driving in to see one of the wonders of the world, and in the end, they can't figure out how to make their parking system work.

I was told when I was there that there are two parking garages side by side, one private, one public. The private one was successful, the public one was empty. (The public one is mentioned in the article) HMMMMMMM.

Cities need to get folks who know about parking and listen to them. (I note the person quoted is economic development director, whatever that is.) My guess is that it's difficult for him to justify a proper parking program when his goal is to attract new money. I suspect he may be caught in the trap that says pay parking chases people away, although the opposite is almost always proven true.

Niagara Falls learned that technology can't solve parking problems, even when it works. It has to be an integrated part of a larger plan. More about this later

JVH

Follow me on twitter @jvhpt

Comments

[Bruce Cousin]

It always appears that municipalities have the opinion that they can do better to provide for their citizens than anyone else, after all they were elected to do so. Niagara Falls has private operators doing well because their focus is on maximizing revenue, primarily. They don't do this by charging significantly higher fees as this would end up emptying their facilities. Curiously most municipalities even charge less than private operators to encourage patronage of the downtown core, and yet this municipality is empty?

There can be a balance between providing what is required to satisfy the merchants and citizens of the city with the fiscal responsibility to maximize your asset. Completing an review by internal personnel, I assume, that are not even making money on a large ramp seems to be a continuation of the problem.

Changing to P&D in the ramp may not be cost effective as you have to enforce so you may have the same labor cost in the end. How P&D allows parking to be "better monitored" would have to be compared to the current equipment in the attendant operation (I suggest a full audit, if not already done, may be in order as all the leaks may not be structural in nature)

Get a second opinion, hire a consultant that knows both sides of the fences and can establish a plan to maximize with compromise. The cost of the consultancy will be recovered in the first twelve months if done correctly.

[Peter Guest]

PVT meter plus post it note equals non-enforcement.