PT's Parking Blog

Birthdays

I have never been much for birthdays. Sometimes they fly by unnoticed. I seldom remember anyone else's except the wife's (well mostly). I guess I don't see the point. There are some milestones – 13 (teenager), 21 (I can drink and vote, preferably not at the same time), 40 (I'm approaching middle age), 65 (Medicare here I come) and the like.

The problem is that today, folks are taking so much better care of themselves (and so is the medical profession) that 60 is the "new" 40 and many born after 1945 and who take care of themselves can expect to live to be 100. There are some problems you can't fix (age your parents and grandparents died, etc.) You can check yourself out here. I did two tests at that site one which was fairly close to myself (I'll live to be 102) and one which was not such a goodie two shoes (overweight, higher blood pressure, pack a day smoker, heavy drinker, no exercise, bad driver). That poor sucker will barely make it to 68. For those with family history problems, I skewed the test with parents that had diseases or died young, and it only took about 10 or 15 years off the expectancy age. But do it yourself. First hedge a little, just cuz, and then tell the truth.

The point is, however, that if you have good genes, take relatively good care of yourself, don't drink to excess, don't smoke, and exercise (God, why live at all), instead of having 3 years to live when you are 65, you can have 20, 30 40 or even more. Plus those years can be fun, productive, and worth living.

So for the poor soul that is not going to make it to 68, he had 28 years to go at 40, But if you are heading for 90 or 100, you have 30 or 40 years to go when you are 60. That means that 60 is the new 40. We have lots of time left to screw up the world for our children.

Now I'm going out and probably get hit by a bus

JVH

Wow – DC sets up test programs

Parkeon, Verrus, Parkmobile, Cale, Duncan, and I believe IPS are currently involved in Parking Pilot Programs in the District of Columbia. Read all about it here

The city has carved out areas and each company has installed its equipment. The idea is that DC will be able to see just how each type of system works – Some are pay by cell, others pay and display, others pay by inputting license number. They are concerned about long range decisions and these test programs should give them good data when making such choices.

I guess that this is not a program to find out which is the preferable supplier, but which technology would be most acceptable to the populace.

My suggestion is that cities not tie themselves too closely to one solution, but they have the flexibility to offer many payment methods, types of solutions (Pay and display, in car meter, license number, single space meter, etc.)

If people have a myriad of solutions, you are offering choices. What is best for one driver (pay by cell for a techonut) may not be good for a company with a fleet of trucks (where debit card might be preferable.) Visitors who come once a year might like familiar meters or pay by cash, while those driving in town every day might love a pay by cell application. The more choices, the more convenient.

JVH

Parking Doesn’t Matter

At least to those who attended the Building Owners and Managers association annual convention in Long Beach, CA. Barbara Chance of Chance Management Advisors and Clyde Wilson of the Parking Network presented a fantastic seminar concerning how building managers should look at the parking operation as a tenant, and not as an amenity. They went into great detail as to how much revenue is generated as compared to lease space, and how often building managers , through their desire to keep costs down, browbeat operators into attempting to run the garages on much less than is required to do so. The presentation was backed up by their cumulative five decades in parking and statistics from audits the two firms had performed in building exactly like those run by the folks attending BOMA.

Twenty (20) people showed up.

The attendance proved their point. Parking to a building manager is an afterthought. It's not worth the attention of tenant or asset managers, even though it is in most large complexes, a business that generated millions per annum.

I will note, however, that I spoke to some of those who did come, and they were impressed. One group, from Ottawa, noted that this presentation was worth the entire amount of time and money they spent coming to the convention. And, they were right.

The IPI, which had a booth at the show and also promoted Barbara and Clyde, has a new program (of which this presentation was a part) called "Parking Matters." More power to them. It's a turned out program and professionally done. The more we can pitch our story, the better.

My problem is not with "Parking Matters" but with a industry as a whole. We are going to have to change how we approach our business. We need to attract quality people and require that they do a quality job. Not an easy task, and one that requires more than good PR.

JVH

 

Go for a Hike, Use your Disabled Placard

Went up to Runyon canyon to go hiking this morning. It's a city/state park in the center of LA near Hollywood. There are a lot of trails and it's an off leash area for dogs. On weekends there are hundreds of people and a like number of dogs. What a great place. Everyone is a dog owner, which means they are mostly friendly.

You are forced to park in the neighborhoods just off Hollywood Boulevard. It's not very parking friendly as there are few places to park unless you have a local residential permit. I have scouted a place where I park legally and all is well.

When we returned to the car, a fellow hiker in my group noted that parked around our car were three Mercedes SUVs, all of which had handicapped permits. They weren't there when we parked. Now this is not a handicapped friendly area with hills, rough climbing and the like. No one believed that these folks were actually disabled. We were disgusted. It was like the guy with the SUV and surf boards on the top parking in handicapped spaces. In this case, it allowed them to park in the residential area without fear of citation.

We discussed what to do. I vetoed letting the air out of their tires on the off chance that someone may actually be handicapped. We could call a cop, but then they would have to actually be there and talk to the parker. My guess is that they would rather be out catching bad guys. So I leave it to you, my readers. What is the approved action to take? Let me know.

And another thing – the city just added signs so you couldn't park in the area before 8 AM. The hikers were probably bothering the neighbors early on Sunday Morning. I though that a better idea would be to charge for parking in the area. If you wanted to park before 8, it could be a higher rate. Folks would be motivated to start their hike later, however if you wanted to get moving early, you could pay a bit more. The money could go back into fixing the cracked sidewalks, crumbling curbs, and trimming the overgrown trees in the neighboorhood. Residents could be exempted with their permits.

JVH

Houston..er Dallas – we have a problem!

The famous line from Apollo 13 could apply to DFW, that huge airport halfway between Dallas and Ft Worth. They are embarking on a $2billion improvement program (read about it here). How are they going to pay for it? Simple: raise parking fees and figure out ways to screw the off airport parking operators. So, they are going to improve the airport on the back of those that elect to drive. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I can imagine how they will take on the off airport operators, which offer parking services at budget pricing. They will simply tax them to death. Yep – If you want to drive you van on our airport and deliver your customers, you will pay and pay and pay. That will force the operators either out of business or force them to raise prices to a parity with the airport, which will have the same effect.

I'm told that airports even go after hotels and restaurants nearby. They justify it by saying that if the airport wasn't there, they wouldn't have any business, so they should get a piece of the action. WOW! I thought the purpose of an airport was to provide a place for planes to take off and land and a way to get people on and off them, not control the entire economy of the area.

I think the concept of having a modern, well run good looking airport is great. Fair enough. But shouldn't all the folks using the airport pay for it. If An airport has 50 million people using it every year why not simply charge them and additional five bucks each – generate a quarter of a billion, and build your upgrade. I know, I'm certain there are laws preventing it, but there shouldn't be. Airports should be built with money provided by those using it, the passengers and the airlines. Not the group that elects to park. Removing a person's choice of parking (by driving off airport parking out of business) can create more problems that it solves.

Remember what happened in Detroit. They raised the rates, and lost customers.

JVH

The Government Is the Problem

For those of you unfamiliar with "housing estates" as they are called in the UK – they are usually made up of "semi-detached" houses, that is duplexes, that are positioned cheek by jowl on extremely narrow and curvy streets. The problem is that when cars park on those streets, it makes it almost impossible for deliveries, ambulances, fire trucks, and even trash collection. There simply is no room. In this case the residents petitioned the local government to do something and of course, little was done.

They took matters into their own hands and surveyed the cars that were parked there and found low and behold, that the cars primarily came from the very local authority they were asking for help. The residents want "no parking" installed in the area but I have another plan. The article infers that the government workers don't want to park in parking lots near their workplace. My guess is that is because it costs to park there and its free in the neighborhoods.

The solution – set up a residential permit area. If you have a resident permit, parking is OK, if you don't you get towed. Problem solved.

JVH

The Laundromat Solution….

If you have been following the discourse below you will no doubt be wondering what the Laundromat should do to solve the problem. Discussions here at PT have brought this potential solution for the Laundromat owner – no charge:

The Laundromat owner puts a sign up in the lot saying that they have an aggressive towing policy and if you aren't a Laundromat Customer you will be towed (Or fined.) Inside the Laundromat is a similar sign that says that if you are park in the lot, you should write down your license number and the machines you are using on a nearby clipboard. The tow truck driver simply goes inside and checks the list. If there are any cars not on the list, or if there is someone signed up and the washer number is empty, he proceeds and tows.

Problem Solved

JVH

Economics and Government Regulation

My discussion with Charles DeBow below has brought some pushback. Check this out:

JVH misses the point by only commenting on the "laundry mat problem" and that the solution is for the owner to "get its act together". The laundry mat example serves to make the point that instances exist where the public is better served by regulation that controls the purely market-based control. Can you comment on that, which is the point of the post? Thanks.

Asking me to comment is like putting a bone in front of a dog. The free market isn't for the faint of heart. It doesn't work overnight. One of the features of the free market is that it is free. People can elect to go on and be walked over by businesses, they can complain and perhaps get the business to fix the problem, or they can quietly vote with their feet. The company can then do nothing and most likely go out of business, can listen to the complaints and then do something about them, or can see their numbers going into the dumpster and go out and find out why. In a free economy all three are perfectly acceptable. The good companies succeed, the bad one's don't.

However when you add regulation into the mix, it skews the marketplace. Consider our current economic troubles. It all began with the government attempting social engineering by coercing banks into loaning money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Government regulators threatened banks that didn't make "subprime" loans with audits or worse. The government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to buy these subprime loans from the banks and the banks jumped into the fray and figured "why not." We'll make these loans and then sell them to the government, we have no risk. In a free market, the government would have kept out of the mix, the banks would have said "no" to the people who were buying houses they couldn't afford, and Wall Street would have had no loans to bundle, turn into derivatives, and economically ruin cities in Norway and Iceland. By the way, this all began a decade ago in the late 90's, carried on through the last 10 years, and here we are. Simplistic? Perhaps, but not too far off the mark

Without government interference, most banks would have been more cautious, and the entire recession and financial collapse would have been avoided, or at least mitigated.

But what about regulating the parking enforcement at the Laundromat? PDW wants to jump in "fix" the problem. Charles is more cautious, but is leaning in that direction. Let's see what might happen…

Laundromats operate on a tight margin – it's a big capital investment and the goal is to keep the labor cost at a minimum. There is one down the street from my house and the owner also owns the Quick Pick market next door and has the manager of the market oversee both.

I have never seen a government regulation that didn't require the group regulated to fill out forms, make reports, and pay fees. It's just how it works. In many cases companies have entire divisions that deal with the government. This is costly. When we regulate towing or ticketing services, we add to the cost of providing those services. The Laundromat now has more expenses, and also has flexibility that it may need to attract customers removed. Whenever you are regulated, you lose freedom of action.

I understand that some regulation is necessary. Perhaps it's a good thing to have health inspectors checkout the grease traps in restaurants but frankly if we could survive the salmonella epidemic long enough, people would learn that if they ate at "Mom's" they would get sick and "Mom" and her ilk would go out of business. So maybe a visit by the health department is a good thing. However, I can't see how a aggressive ticketing or towing company is going to bring down civilization as we know it.

A couple of phone calls from an offended party, a downward spiral in income, and my guess is that the Laundromat owner would fix the problem immediately.

Government regulation should be the last resort after all other remedies have failed or there simply isn't enough time to let them work.

JVH

Oh Please

The folks in Norman, OK, need to get with the program. Read about it here. They have a couple of nice big parking structures. They are filling up. The city wants to charge for long stay in the parking structures. So far so good. No, not really. The merchants are afraid that the long stay folks, if they have to pay, will park on street and take those free spaces and there will be no room for customers to park. Yes, that will most likely happen. What to do, What to do?

Just as at DTW, parkers will find the cheaper place to park and leave the more expensive for someone else. So if they charge say $.25 an hour to park in the structure, and $.50 an hour (Max 2 hours) to park on street what will happen. Folks who want to stay longer than 2 hours will park in the structure and everyone else will have a choice as to what they want to do. The marketplace will take care of the problem.

The merchants are ringing their hands that people will not come downtown if they charge for parking. Balderdash. If there is convenient on street parking available for a buck, I doubt very seriously if anyone who was coming downtown anyway, would balk. If they do, then the problem is that there is no reason for them to come downtown and that's an entirely different issue.

If you build it they will come – and frankly, will pay a buck to park

JVH

OH, my guess is that a lot of those parking on street in front of the stores now in those free spaces are employees – so not only will a pay system solve the problem of folks moving from the structure to on street, but it will free up spaces on street.

Parking Pricing Hike Reversed at Detroit Airport

So, they decided they needed more money at DTW. They wanted to keep airline ticket prices down, so they raised the parking fees. Read about it here. They raised prices 60%. That's right, Sixty percent. In one go. And a strange thing happened. People voted with their pocketbooks. They carpooled. They dropped people off. They parked in cheaper off airport lots. And the revenue actually decreased.

WHAT THE HELL DID THEY THINK WOULD HAPPEN? Here's a classic situation where the government makes decisions without regard to the market place. They simply needed more money, so they raised the prices to fit. Of course their customers said NO!

Drivers aren't stupid. They don't pay just because you ask. If there is a cheaper alternative, many will find it. The marketplace rules. DTW learned a valuable lesson. Had they raised rates slowly, a buck or two, it just might have worked.

JVH