PT's Parking Blog

Macquarie Files for Chapter 11 to Sell its Airport Parking Group

According to this article Australian owned Macquaire Infrastructure Management is finalizing its exit from the airport parking business by filing Chapter 11 and selling its Parking Corporation of America off airport operations (31 locations at 20 airports) to Bainbridge ZKS, a San Diego based fund that owns other off airport operations in Seattle, Oakland, San Jose and San Diego. One of the company's Partners, Gary Cootes, is President and Founder of Cootes Consulting Inc. and Airport Parking Consultants, Inc. - both parking real estate acquisition and asset management companies located in Los Angeles. Airport Parking Consultants provides acquisition, development and disposition advisory services for MetLife off-airport properties.

This is not news (except maybe the Bainbridge part) since Macquarie announced last year that it was ridding itself of its parking operation.

 

Perhaps they have discovered that parking operations are more difficult to run from afar. Ours is a hands on business that requires tremendous attention to detail, and intimate knowledge of how parking works. You need people who know the business, how money is made and lost, and how to ensure that income is maximized and loss is eliminated.

 

Macquaire joins a long list of investment firms that have bought cash rich parking companies only to divest themselves usually at a loss, of the operations a few years down the road. Bainbridge has some experience, and a partner in the business. Probably a good move, and at fire sale prices.

Who would have thought that the parking business was difficult? After all, what can be so hard about putting a car in a space and collecting the rent on the space? Hmmmmm

 

JVH

Etched on a cricket bat

It is always rumored that enforcement officers have quotas and this is usually hotly denied by local government. However New Zealand has finally come clean. Witness these quotes from a local paper:

His comments come after it was claimed last week parking wardens in Wellington - working for a private company contracted to the city council - were offered incentives including iPods and holidays, the Dominion Post reported.

Christchurch wardens were expected to write seven tickets an hour, and high-scoring wardens had their names etched on a cricket bat, The Press reported

OK, I can understand the incentives. Write a hundred tickets, get an IPOD write a 1000, get a day off. But cricket can be a true incentive. Imagine – having you name etched on a cricket bat. OMG

Let's take a look at the seven tickets an hour – That's one ticket every eight and a half minutes. I'm no expert but that seems really pressing it. Even with the cricket bat incentive.

Let me be clear – I have no problem with incentives. I think it's a great idea to give bonuses or ipods or cricket bats etchings for successful enforcement officers. The only rule is that the citations have to be proper. My 10% rule (only about 1 in 10 violations are ever cited) means it's a target rich environment. Plenty of violations to go around.

My buddy Chad Lynn at the City of Beverly Hills says that the number of citations written is driven by just how strict a community wants to be. If you want to hire more officers, you can write more tickets. However then you may be seen as "over enforcing." Let's face it if the number of citations written in a community were to triple or quadruple, valid or not, one could have a revolution on one's hands.

And you might have to buy another cricket bat.

JVH

Galveston gets it right…In spite of petition

A local academic in the city of Galveston has been an "advocate" for free parking and has a petition to keep parking free in this island city. Funny thing is, everyone else is opposed to the petition, merchants, city council, and chamber of commerce:

Dolph Tillotson, president and publisher of The Daily News who also chairs the chamber's advocacy committee, said: "The crucial issue is the turnover of vehicles in the commercial district. At present, people who want to visit businesses there can't park nearby because of all-day parking by residents, employees, contractors and others.

Well said. In the end the academic agreed to drop the petition if parking would remain free on Sunday. Everyone agreed and the council voted to proceed with replacement of hurricane damaged meters and hire Ampco System Parking to run the project.

Check out this month's Parking Today. Peter and I go head to head over "democracy" deciding parking rules. I think its balderdash, Peter thinks it's the right thing to do. In this case, the "democratic" petition raised enough hell that the city came close to making the wrong decision.

Of course they should charge for parking, for all the reasons quoted above. And they should charge on Sunday, too. They are going to find that people will come and shop downtown the other six days a week but will shy away on Sunday because there won't be enough available parking. But our "advocate" had his way. Business will suffer, drivers will suffer, and non driving taxpayers will pay for the parking for those who should be paying for it, the drivers. I guess our academic feels that its "more fair."

But there is another issue – Ampco bid the contract assuming they would charge for parking on Sunday. This little tudu has cost them 1/7^th of their potential income. They are going to proceed, but personally I think they should be able to rebid the deal. The rules changed in mid stream.

JVH

Keep the Government out of Parking Charge Requirements.

The LA Times this morning has this headline:

State Lawmakers Take Aim at Free Parking

The story is here:

The article reads like Don Shoup's book, The High Cost of Free Parking. These legislators have gotten the word and now are considering REQUIRING that local governments and private organizations to charge for parking. They use all the great Shoupista arguments, but somehow I'm worried.

I have never trusted politicians and think we should wait for the other shoe to drop. Yes I firmly believe that all parking should be charged to the driver, and not "free." And let the free market decide the rates. However having the state MANDATE that a locality should charge for parking is scary at best.

This is like letting the nose of the camel into the tent. Before you know it, you are sleeping with the camel. My guess is that these legislators will mandate parking charges and then low and behold, they will also mandate a state tax on all parking charges. Think about it. They will realize that parking generated tons of money and they will want their share.

But that's only the beginning – Once they begin a parking charge mandate will they also begin to "regulate" parking on the state level, setting rules as to what type of parking you can have (pay and display, pay by space, single meter, etc etc etc) and then what records you need to keep and what about private parking – will they require that the charges for parking not be included in the cost of your theater ticket but be charged direct, so they can calculate their pound of flesh. And if not, will they set a charge that they see as "fair" and charge you the tax anyway, whether you collect the parking fees from the patron or the theater.

If you think the above is complex, that's only the beginning. The government's middle name is complexity. I can see property owners, operators, universities, and cities having to hire people to do nothing but keep records on their parking fees to prove that the amount they pay to the state is correct (can you say sales tax, property tax, income tax, excise tax, etc)

I realize that the article says this is a "green" program, to force cities and employers to charge for parking so people will be enticed to walk, ride bicycles or rapid transit. Yeah, right. It's a thinly guised attempt to get their hands on our wallets, just you wait and see.

Cities are coming around, trust me. The entire reason P and D is so popular is because it can take credit cards and banknotes so cities can raise their parking rates. I can see no need for the state government and of all people the Sierra Club to get involved in parking charges.

So there…

JVH

They Love Parking Garages in Houston

There is a major brouhaha beginning here at PT headquarters and with some readers. I have received three different links from correspondents about this article. It's an unusually favorable article about parking garages set in Houston. Author Lisa Gray got it right and beautifully written, too. A few graphs:

Ugly garages. Gorgeous garages. Above ground and underground. Garages that match their buildings. Garages that are part of their buildings. Garages that stand on their own. Garages that, generally, we don't pay much attention to.

Even the best of them is never your real destination, only part of the journey. And because we're so used to free parking, paying to park in a garage bugs us. It feels like being charged to breathe.

But garages are worth thinking about. Maybe more than any other kind of building, they show the city that we're becoming: a city that's growing up in a different way than the old-style cities of Europe and the East Coast. Instead of starting out with a tight-packed core and then sprawling, we started out sprawling, and are now developing tight-packed cores

She juxtaposes the ubiquitous surface parking lot with the parking buildings she describes above. It's a good article and worth following the link.

Just to be clear, however, I commented on the article four days ago here. OK, it wasn't in the headline, any maybe people didn't read it because the head glorified my ego rather than a Texas city, but thanks to Mark I am on top of things, sort of.

I did notice in the article that there is a factual error but didn't comment. John Hammerschlag did and went back to the author and a correction was made (having to do with the square footage of a normal parking space.). It turns out it was a typo, and there you go. In the mean time a fellow Texan from a nearby university got in the mix, and Andy ended up having to defend himself to me that he had in fact read the blog.

None of which I really have great concerns about. I'm glad people send in articles, and keep them coming. If you see errors, let me know. But in the mean time, let it be said that I do read the Houston Chronicle, sometimes, and did get this one right, even though it took me two days to get it up here on PT's blog.

So there…..

JVH

Pet Peeves II

OK, maybe I'm a tad grumpy this morning, but I also don't like having CNN shoved down my throat at airports. Now I'm as interested in news as the next guy, but being forced to listen to it over and over while waiting for an airplane is torture. They put a subtitle on it that interested parties can read, why not just turn off the sound and let the rest of us read our newspapers or blog in peace.

And what about all those announcements of flight so in so is boarding and if you don't get on right now the world will come to an end. I say one announcement is enough. After that, we are all on our own. Let people learn that if they aren't at the appointed gate at the appointed time, they will miss the plane. If you do that a few times, folks will get the idea. Frankly there are so many announcements that they are ignored anyway, or not understandable in the cacophony that is an airport terminal.

Of course, the designer of the TSA lines never had to go through the line themselves. The "pre" tables are too short in most cases, and the "post" areas are also on the tiny side. As for help, the folks at the TSA are absolutely no help. They yell at you about all the things you should be doing, but when they are yelling, its usually too late. You are already committed to one direction and they give instructions to take another.

The UK has it right. At Heathrow, there are video screens that can be seen from the queues and they give complete instructions as to what to do when you get to the screening area. "Take off your coat, shoes, computer out, etc" They also add little tidbits like put your change and cell phone in your jacket pocket so you don't set off the screeners. Then there is a person who actually helps you put your stuff in the little bins and pushes them through the screening area. What a concept. Sure runs a lot smoother.

And last but not least, why do airlines charge you to take an earlier flight. I can see no reason for that charge. If there is an empty seat, it is to the airlines advantage to put someone on it. It frees up a seat for a "walk up" to the later flight, it clears the boarding area, and it makes a happy customer. Charging $50 or $100 to simply let you on an earlier flight and do 30 seconds of keyboard entry is absurd. Even my buddies at Southwest have succumbed. Sigh

JVH

Phoenix and Pet Peeves

I am impressed with Phoenix Sky Harbor rental car facility. Its modern, easy to navigate, and top of the line. I see only one problem – If you enter the airport from the east (Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale) you have to drive completely through the terminal area to get to the RCF. So far so good.

The problem is that there are at least a dozen turning decisions you have to make, following signs, to get to the facility. If you make one wrong, you are lost. I made it, but frankly at 5 AM after a relatively sleepless night, it wasn't easy. I don't know if this is a design flaw or simply the only alternative, but all these folks, everyone unfamiliar with the airport, driving through the terminal area, getting lost, doesn't seem to me to be too good an idea.

Also – my pet travelling peeve of the week – Little voices that tell you how to do things you already know how to do – At the escalator there is a disembodied voice that says "You are stepping on the escalator, take care" or some such. As if I didn't know. Or the famous "TSA has designated certain items that are illegal to bring past security. If you don't know what they are, check with your air carrier." This one is heard after you have stood in line for 15 minutes and in no way could get to a "air carrier" if you wanted to.

These little messages and many like them provide no information people need, are summarily ignored and simply add to the din at the terminal. Do away with them and let all us hapless rubes fumble our way to the plane. We'll make it, we promise.

JVH

Taxing Taxes, the IPI and NPA

In British Columbia, the local government has instituted a 21% tax on parking. This also triggered a General Sales Tax on both the parking and the 21% Provincial Sales Tax. Giving one a total of 27.05% tax on parking. That may be a tad on the high side, but we see 15% and 20% taxes on parking pretty much across the board.

I was talking to someone the other day about the possibilities of the IPI and NPA joining forces and was told in no uncertain terms that this parking tax issue was a big one between the two groups.The NPA would be opposed to parking taxes, and the municipal members of the IPI would be the ones that would be tasked with imposing the tax on the parking owners .

My comment was that I knew many municipal parking folks who weren't too happy with being forced to collect this tax, since it didn't go into the parking program, but usually just disappeared into the general fund. However I could see where the two groups might be on different sides of the same issue in this, and in perhaps other similar cases.

Nevertheless, the idea of taxing taxes is ludicrous.

JVH

City employees should pay for parking.

The blog below on Oakland is reinforced by this article about Ketchner, Ontario. Its almost a duplicate. City is loosing tons of money giving away parking to city employees and is going to stop doing it. If the employee is required to use their car as a part of their job (Say a building inspector) then the city will pick up the parking.

Of course, being Canadian, they are taking a more green view of the issue. Why should the city subsidize parking when at the same time they are trying to get people out of their cars and using public transportation? Good point. Of course a lot of this in the US has to do with the fact that "free" parking is really a perk and should be charged as income and the IRS is catching up on this program.

You are going to see more and more of this across the fruited plain. Sorry, your honor, your parking fee is due. And rightly so.

JVH

I’m Right so often, it’s almost embarrassing

I like this article, send in by Mark… It gives a different view of parking buildings and parking lots as seen in Houston, arguably the poster child for urban sprawl. Think of it this way:

But garages are worth thinking about. Maybe more than any other kind of building, they show the city that we're becoming: a city that's growing up in a different way than the old-style cities of Europe and the East Coast. Instead of starting out with a tight-packed core and then sprawling, we started out sprawling, and are now developing tight-packed cores.

Check out my blog back in August and a comment it generated today:

my dear americans, the model of an north american city, the vast areas covered by single family houses, the ghost office down town places, it is all a product of a car ridden society. Because of the car you could afford to built this fucked up urbanizm where everybody is forced to commute great distances. the low construction density does not allow for public transport to be effective, hence you are stuck up with the cars. your society runs on cars, hence the imminent interest of your government in oil producing countries. well the oil is running out and your government is trying desperately to shift your transport habits away from the car. well it will never work in your spread out low density cities. anything else your hear is a lie.

My Response:

Sorry, Ian  -- it's not that simple – in fact our urban centers are reinventing themselves – people are moving back into the cities by the tens of thousands – LA, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Atlanta are all seeing rapid downtown growth. The lure of the single family house is not as great as it was a few decades ago. All the demographics show that downtowns (yes even LA) are booming. Your view is based on fantasy, not facts. (By the way, we are not running out of oil, we have more available now than any time in history -0- we are getting better finding it.) I think you will find that the population, left to its own devices, will find solutions to the density problem in spite of what the government does to try to "solve" the problems.

The gist is that we are lost and cannot be found. The article Mark send in indicates that we are in fact not only found, but moving past our "sprawl" stage JVH, right again…

JVH