PT's Parking Blog

Andy in China The Shanghai Exposition

I asked to guest blog during my trip to Shanghai for the InterParking Shanghai 2010 and the annual meeting of the International Parking Association.   The first question asked: Do the Chinese see parking differently than Americans and Europeans. The resounding answer is no. 

I have had multiple conversations with various people who are from China and they are shocked that I can have a career in parking and much less have a magazine/website dedicated to it.  But once they begin to think about it you can see the light bulb go on.

One of these conversations actually turned into an interview.  I was being interviewed.  Han Yo and his business partners had just put in a large convention center in Shanghai and they just decided on a parking operator.  There were three companies who were in for the bid (2 Australian companies and 1 Chinese company).  Ultimately the Chinese company won the bid (one of the business partners who put in the convention center also has a business interest in the Chinese parking company-so not a surprise who won the day). 

While Han Yo was making conversation he also asked my opinion on what they should do next.  "Set up quarterly checks on what the operator is doing and have some one who knows parking independently audit the parking operation a minimum of every 6 month and"……It was at this point that Han Yo's eyes began to glaze over, he said "Since my business partner is also a partner in the parking company then everything should be fine." 

Even though I am half a world away, the same issues in regards to parking are still alive and well.  A person who should be strongly invested in knowing what is happening in the parking operation (the owner) is now going to leave it to the operator to run things.  That might work out but it might not.  The parking operator knows parking but may not know the priorities of the owner.  What is most important-profits, customer service, safety, etc.?  A hands off owner does a disservice to the parking operator, the owner and ultimately the customer.  And that is true in Shanghai, London, Rio De Janeiro or Los Angeles.

Access and Revenue Controls are needed everywhere

Here are some pictures of a parking lot in one of the busiest tourist areas

The sign says "Restaurant Parking" but anyone can park there for a fee.  How much that fee is varies on many factors and the person who owns the lot may not care.  There are no revenue controls, so this is definitely the "Wild West" of parking.  This area of Shanghai has been recently renovated and has turned into a major tourist destination.  Parking seems to be an afterthought and was placed where it can. 

My guides mention that they do not drive to thisarea (they either take taxi's or the subway) because there is no where to park.  This part of town is located on the west side of the river (Pushi) and has been the main part of Shanghai for as long as it has been in existence.  Trying to retrofit an area is much harder than building anew.  The east side of the river (Pudong) has changed from farm land to a major metropolitan and business center in the last 30 years.  Most of the parking on this side is subterranean and has access and revenue controls.  Every parking structure that I entered on the east side of the river was well lit, clean and we knew what we were going to pay (many parking payments can be done by a card that also can be used for taxis, subways, ferries, etc. at least in the areas that have revenue control systems).  This is not an east side vs. west side (cue the Leonard Bernstein music) but rather controls vs. lack of them.  As a customer I appreciate knowing that my car is safe, well cared for and I am willing to pay a price to make sure of that.

 

World Expo and what will happen next

The World Expo in Shanghai has been around for approximately 5 months and will end in about 2 more.  By then more than 40 million people will have been to then event.  As a parking person I was curious as to how they got that many people into this huge event.   First they have made it much easier to take another form of transportation than to drive your own car.  There are 24 parking lots but 5 off those are not within walking distance (have to take an expo bus) and 3 are quite a hike from the event itself.  There are 36 different bus or shuttle lines that people can take from all over Shanghai that either are direct bus lines (16 of those) and 20 other routes that have multiple stops but will get you to the Expo, eventually.  There are three subway lines that take you to stops within walking distance and 2 different ferry routes that take you directly to the expo.  If you are staying in one of the many fine hotels in Shanghai you are probably within a short walk of public transportation (bus, ferry, or subway) that will take you to the expo or your hotel has a special shuttle service that will take you straight to the Expo.  If you live in Shanghai, you can drive to one of these locations to take public transportation or you can drive to one of the parking lots.  If you are taking a tour then your bus will drop you at the Expo and pick you up. The plans were well thought out for an area where most people are used to public transportation.

 

Now unless you took the ferry or subway, you took a method of transportation that needs to park at some point (and even those need to park).  I have seen some large bus parking areas that are being used.  These are unpaved surface lots like these:

I asked what would happen when the Expo closes, the answer was that the lot would be turned into a building of some kind because the land was too valuable to use as a parking lot.  Looking at where many of the car parking lots are located that may also be true for those as well.  I only hope that there is enough foresight to include parking for these new buildings as well.

More on the exhibition tomorrow

AVH

San Francisco Stop “free” parking for city Employees

Wow – Baghdad by the Bay's new parking group has made it official. City employees must pay for parking. This will do two things, first it will generate money for the city but more importantly it will set an example for the rest of the citizens of the city by the Bay. I salute them for their gumption and wonder how they got this by the union.

Mark notes the following:

If they would quit calling it "free" parking and instead start calling it what it really is, which is "subsidized" parking then maybe people would start to get it.

".......can no longer afford to provide free parking........."

 By continuing to refer to it as free parking the implication is that there is no cost associated with it.  That makes it hard for most people the grasp the concept that you can no longer afford something that has no cost.

JVH

   

Well Said – A Police Chief who Knows his Parking

Mark sends in this wonderful piece and pulls out the money quote:

"Instead, every two hours, they run out of their work place and move their vehicle to another location to avoid a violation. If they ever figured out that all of that running in and out requires a lot more walking than just parking in a lot to start with, maybe they would reconsider their strategy."

More Great PR…It is a Target Rich Environment

Big Mama is closing down. Her famous eatery is not more in Pittsburgh. Great headline " Big Mama Closes Cuisine, Blames Pittsburgh Parking."

We broke the story here. A number commented on that blog. I predicted that after the story hit the papers, the city would jump on the problem, and would work out a solution. The major issue, I think, was deliveries, and citations on her delivery trucks. Oh well, I was wrong. The city held the line, and now we get another raft of headlines. Remember one Aw S**t cancels out 10 Attaboys.

It seems like many in our industry go out of their way to generate bad PR. Isn't there someone out there who can offer a way that Pittsburgh might have kept its dignity and at the same time helped Big Mama out and generated a positive headline? Brandy?

JVH

PS – Yes, I'm sure it's possible, maybe probable that Big Mama is closing for other reasons and was looking for a scapegoat. That doesn't help our PR problem.

Do They Wonder Why People Hate Them?

Fellow is handicapped. Has a handicapped placard. It allows him to park virtually anywhere in the UK, even in no parking zones. He goes to the store, parks out front since the handicapped spots in a nearby lot are 100 yards away at the other end of the lot, shops, comes out and there is a ticket on his car. Fast forward to his conversation with the local parking folks.

A council spokeswoman said the Birstall car park pre-dated the Tesco Express store, hence the disabled bays were located at the opposite end. She added: "All vehicles in this car park must park in clearly marked bays and this motorist did not do so."

And rules are rules. MS suffers must follow them just as does the local footballer. Was this the same woman who said, after being arrested for throwing a live cat in a covered trash can: "I can't see what all the fuss is about, it's only a cat?"

Here was a perfect opportunity, missed as usual by parking bureaucrats in the UK, to make a positive headline. First, void the ticket. Second, send someone out with some paint and move the handicapped spots near the front of the store. Third call the local newspaper and get some good PR.

JVH

Buy a Foreign Car, Park Somewhere Else

I have been thinking about the issue raised by Pete below based on a blog we ran on signs at auto assembly plants around the country banning non GM, Ford or Chrysler products. I noted that Ford owned Jaguar and that Chrysler was owned by Fiat and that GM was manufacturing cars in Brazil, Mexico, and dare I say it, China. Half the parts in these cars are made overseas by non union workers. But none of this seems to carry much weight with the UAW.

Let's see if I can parse this situation a bit. GM and Chrysler were in such bad shape, financially, that had not the US government bailed them out, they both would have been bankrupt, closed, and the union members would have lost their jobs. Now why is that? From what I can see, it's mostly because of the long term benefits paid to UAW workers, long after they stopped working. All three companies owe many billions in unfunded retirement and medical benefits to millions of retired workers. I'm not begrudging these benefits however the companies that are giving them must be able to pay for them. That is a problem. I understand that management agreed to the benefits, and probably shouldn't have, but no matter what the reason, there simply isn't enough money. There is also the issue of work rules. Just as you can't park your Toyota in the lot next to the plant, you can't flip a light switch unless you are an electrician, or turn off the water unless you are a plumber. (Well, it may not be that bad, but people tell stories like this all the time.)

In come the Japanese companies who make excellent vehicles, pay the same wage rates as the big three auto companies, but are more conservative in their benefits and liberal in their work rules. Their cars are great, their employees happy, and they are profitable. And they are built right here in the US.

There was a time, 70 years ago, that working conditions in factories weren't the best. Unions sprang up (can you say Norma Rae) and workers rights were protected. Businesses today seem to have learned their lesson. The adversarial relationships between worker and management seem to me to be a tad out of date.

This childish notion that people who don't buy cars made by a certain company need to be pilloried in the town square, or made to park down the road is absurd. It is a philosophy of the playground, of bullies that have never grown up. It would seem to me that if you can't convince someone that it's in their best interest to buy a product from the company that employees them with intelligent reason and adult discussions, then you have already lost.

What if the union member had welcomed the reporter, taken him on a tour of the plant, showed him all the benefits of the cars that were made there, and then ended with "Next time consider a Chevy. They are really a great car."

I don't know if the reporter would have bought a Chevy next time, but I will tell you that there is no way in hell he's going to buy one after the treatment he got on that hot day in June when he had to park on the side of the highway instead of in a nice safe parking lot.

Just Saying…

JVH

 

State of the Union

While investigating my August 23 blog about US parking lots that do not allow foreign cars, I stumbled on a controversy that has been going on in the media this month.

Kansas City Business Journal reporter James Dornbrook was kicked out of a UAW parking lot on July 15 while covering Missouri Governor Jay Nixon's signing ceremony for the Missouri Automotive Manufacturing Jobs Act. The reason for the ejection – he was driving a Toyota.

.Read Dornbrook's blog here:

I don't think the reporter expected to receive a personal response from UAW President Bob King, who sent a letter which was also posted on the UAW site.

While King makes some interesting points, Dornbrook's response shows that an across-the-lot ban on foreign cars should probably be examined more carefully.

Pete Goldin

Get a Parking Space…THEN Buy the Car

A region in India has begun a program of requiring those purchasing cars prove they have a parking space before the car can be licensed. Read about it here. This is not a new idea, China has been using the idea for a number of years. Even so, they have a 60 mile long traffic jam outside Beijing. It's a way to limit the purchase of vehicles. It also ensures that only a certain "class" of person can acquire a vehicle. If you have to have a parking spot, you probably also own a house or a business. Seems a bit elitist.

My suggestion is that the government could relax its regulations and assist the private sector in building parking facilities. I understand that this is a chicken or egg kind of thing, but if you are going to require a parking space, and cars are popular, then the business of building parking spaces would seem to be booming. To "jump start" it, the government might fast track the permit process for garages, loosen the zoning requirements, and be certain the inspection process is quick and fair. I'll bet that investment money would flow into parking facilities.

Of course if the idea is to keep the number of cars under control in the world's second largest country, then the opposite approach might be effective.

JVH

Indianapolis Goes with a Hybrid – May have a winner

Indianapolis Goes with a Hybrid – May have a winner

The City of Indianapolis has recommended to its city council a hybrid contract made up of Xerox owned ACS and two local companies Evens Time, and Denison Global Parking. You can read the complete story here. From the news releases:

The ACS proposal, which consists of a hybrid revenue sharing model, will provide the City with a $35 million upfront payment with a continuing a stream of revenue from parking rate increases and violations. ACS expects the City to collect approximately $400 million in ongoing revenue share over the length of the contract. Proceeds from the parking system will be used for infrastructure projects, including streets, sidewalks, bridges and parks, in the downtown and Broad Ripple.

"This collaboration with ACS will enhance our City's already vibrant economic environment and, in addition, create 200 new jobs for our residents," said Mayor Ballard. "Because of this proposal, significant infrastructure improvements will be completed in the downtown and Broad Ripple areas, but also Rebuilds Indy in another way—through modernizing our parking system and bringing new convenient technology to Indianapolis."

I don't know the entire story, but it seems the city of Indianapolis didn't lease its parking operations for a huge up front payment that would be used to cover budget shortfalls. It has a small payment and then ongoing income that will be used for streets, sidewalks, parks, and the like. This means that the City will continue to be closely involved in the team that is providing the parking services.

I know the owners of both Evens Time and Denison Global Parking personally and couldn't be happier for them. They are both quality companies and being local, they have a vested interest in succeeding, not only business wise, but also as members of the community.

The jury is still out, of course, but if this is approved, it seems to be an excellent deal for all concerned.

JVH

UPDATE: I'm reminded by Sherry Evens of Evens Time that there is another partner in the group, PR firm Sease Gerig. Wow -- Having a PR firm as a partner. Does this mean they are thinking about the PR issues involved in this type of program? Good move.

Someone Agrees with JVH – Hospital Parking

I'm honored to be quoted and to have this blog links at Paul Barter's "Reinventing Parking" blog. Paul is an academic, living and teaching in Singapore, and has studied and researched urban issues, including parking throughout the far East. Paul comments in part:

Can you imagine a parking policy in which we do NOT expect hospitals to subsidize parking in general? Can you imagine not expecting universities or schools or park agencies or any building managers to do so? Under such a parking policy, we would expect both onsite and off-site parking to be run as a business with maximising revenue as the primary objective. This would be best done by professionals whose core business and mission is parking, not health.

Would this mean a lack of compassion for patients and their families? I don't see why.

Read all of his excellent post here.

JVH