Parking World

WOW

 

 

There’s a company called Extraordinary Design in the UK.  They do uniform designs and have the one shown nearby as their latest for Traffic Wardens. I have only one comment – I doubt if those shoes would make it.  They are exhibiting at the Parkex show next month in the UK.  I’ll be attending and will check them out. I wonder if she will be there…hmmmm

Nano Nano

No, I'm not channeling Mork. It's the new US$2200 car going on sale in India. PW's Ops Director Andy mentioned this critter the other day. His comment was something like "They are going to sell millions of these in India, and they will have to find a place to park them."

It looks like a "Smart Car" but very down market. The car's creator, billionaire Indian industrialist Ratan Tata says that he asked a journalist at a trade show how much a car should cost to reach the vast emerging market in India. The response: "100,000 rupees, about $2000."

They set a price, and then told their engineers to build a car they could sell profitably for that price. It's about one third the cost of the next cheapest model in India. Its basic transportation but according to Tata, for a person whose experience is four on a motorbike, a bicycle, or a cow, it would seem like a Lincoln Navigator.

The $2200 model won't export to North America or Europe due to its very lack of any amenities (no AC, radio, passenger side mirror, one windshield wiper, rubber floor covering, bus style seat covers) and can't meet the strict safety standards, but for most of the world world, it seems a winner. – Don't worry, Tata says that there will be a US and European model, but you can rest assured that it will cost more than two grand.

Oh, and it get 56 miles per gallon and puts out less pollution than a typical motorcycle in India.

As for those of us in the parking industry, formal parking will be needed for this egalitarian mode of transportation for the great masses in India. Our next great parking marketplace?

JVH

I know, I know… Mork (When on the TV series of the 1970s Mork and Mindy, spelled it Nanoo Nanoo. And – comedian Robin Williams who played the Role of Mork, is recovering this month from heart surgery very similar to the one I had 18 months ago. I understand that 4 hours after the surgery he had the hospital staff in stitches. A better man than I am, Gunga Din.

The Sweet Smell of Parking

National Car Parks in the UK, responding to a poll of their customers, is starting a program to introduce "popular smells" into their parking structures.

And I quote:

NCP Chief Executive Officer Andrew Potter said his company was seeking to incorporate more popular smells, such as flowers and cut grass, into their facilities.

The article noted that respondents associated garages "with the smell of urine." Well Duh

I wonder if the folks at NCP thought of another smell – none. The city of Santa Monica has attacked the problem in its garages by steam cleaning the stairwells, often. I admit the concept of a clean garage is anathema to many, but it would seem that before one embarked on a program of masking the smells with flowers and cut grass, perhaps a bit of cleaning might help the problem.

What next?

JVH

And I quote:

NCP Chief Executive Officer Andrew Potter said his company was seeking to incorporate more popular smells, such as flowers and cut grass, into their facilities.

The article noted that respondents associated garages "with the smell of urine." Well Duh

I wonder if the folks at NCP thought of another smell – none. The city of Santa Monica has attacked the problem in its garages by steam cleaning the stairwells, often. I admit the concept of a clean garage is anathema to many, but it would seem that before one embarked on a program of masking the smells with flowers and cut grass, perhaps a bit of cleaning might help the problem.

What next?

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 to last month and 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

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

Three Spaces per Car,,,Con't

Don Shoup has a few comments on my blog post below 

My comment was directed at the statement by Peter that this three spaces per car was what the planning community felt was a "requirement." I'm sure that Peter is right in quoting Dr. Goodwin in the UK. However I'm not certain that Dr Goodwin would be "highly respected" if he claims that three spaces are "required" or needed. I would hope that his reputation rested on only that they exist, as proven by the links provided by Don above.

My comments go more to the logic behind the requirements. Note that Don's sources found that there were three spaces per car, not including on street or home garages OR structured garages. These existed because the planning codes required the parking, not because they were "necessary".

Logic simply says that three spaces per car is at least one too many. Period. Research seems to confirm that.

As for the claim that cars are parked 95% of the time, I would look at my wife as typical. She commutes one hour each way per day. That's about 8.3% of the time driving, not counting shopping and the like on weekends. So, assuming she's typical, some more, some less, the 95% would be accurate. Though I'm not sure what that means. Either we are driving too much, not enough, or like Goldilocks, just right.

Of course Don Shoup doesn't really care much about driving; he rides a bike and lives about two or three miles from his work. My commute, on the other hand, is 10 seconds assuming I don't trip over the dog or stub my toe.

Eat your commuting hearts out.

JVH

My comment was directed at the statement by Peter that this three spaces per car was what the planning community felt was a "requirement." I'm sure that Peter is right in quoting Dr. Goodwin in the UK. However I'm not certain that Dr Goodwin would be "highly respected" if he claims that three spaces are "required" or needed. I would hope that his reputation rested on only that they exist, as proven by the links provided by Don above.

My comments go more to the logic behind the requirements. Note that Don's sources found that there were three spaces per car, not including on street or home garages OR structured garages. These existed because the planning codes required the parking, not because they were "necessary".

Logic simply says that three spaces per car is at least one too many. Period. Research seems to confirm that.

As for the claim that cars are parked 95% of the time, I would look at my wife as typical. She commutes one hour each way per day. That's about 8.3% of the time driving, not counting shopping and the like on weekends. So, assuming she's typical, some more, some less, the 95% would be accurate. Though I'm not sure what that means. Either we are driving too much, not enough, or like Goldilocks, just right.

Of course Don Shoup doesn't really care much about driving; he rides a bike and lives about two or three miles from his work. My commute, on the other hand, is 10 seconds assuming I don't trip over the dog or stub my toe.

Eat your commuting hearts out.

JVH

Three Spaces per Car

I attended Peter Guest's presentation at Oxford University last month. Peter is a parking consultant, former president of the British Parking Association, and PW's all knowledgeable correspondent in Europe and the Middle East.

He spoke to a group of transportation planners from the university. He was invited because the group felt it knew a lot about transportation, but very little about parking. I would suggest that many of the transportation decisions made would bear out the truth of that statement.

While I agreed with most of the overview on parking that Peter gave, I question one reference. That is that each car needs three parking spaces – Home, Work, and Play (or shopping, etc). That statement troubles me a bit.

First of all, many people own cars but use public transportation to go to work, or car pool. That being the case, those people only need two spaces, home and play.

Second, when we go to play, we often go with another couple, therefore removing one car from the play scenario.

Third there are always some cars on the move – except for maybe 2-4 AM. This means that except for home, many cars are 'in between' at some point and if you are ever on the Santa Monica Freeway, you know that it's not just a "few", but a ton. That also applies to London's famous "ring road", the M 25.

Fourth – although this may not "count" many cars are parked in places that aren't formal parking spaces (open fields, vacant lots, front lawns, and parked illegally on streets.)

Fifth, most parking lots are empty most of the time. And even at peek hours, are seldom full.

I don't want to do the 'numbers' since I have no studies (Peter's main point in his presentation, that frankly there are few learned studies that focus on parking) to back them up. However I think that logic would, considering the five points above, lower the number of spaces per car to at least two, and in fact, probably under two a bit.

So, if planners plan for three spaces per car, they would over plan by at least a third.

What I'm saying is that if we simply use our God given minds and add a bit of logic, some 'facts' we take for granted fall away as urban legends and can be seen, on their face, as simply not "spot on" as they say here.

JVH

He spoke to a group of transportation planners from the university. He was invited because the group felt it knew a lot about transportation, but very little about parking. I would suggest that many of the transportation decisions made would bear out the truth of that statement.

While I agreed with most of the overview on parking that Peter gave, I question one reference. That is that each car needs three parking spaces – Home, Work, and Play (or shopping, etc). That statement troubles me a bit.

First of all, many people own cars but use public transportation to go to work, or car pool. That being the case, those people only need two spaces, home and play.

Second, when we go to play, we often go with another couple, therefore removing one car from the play scenario.

Third there are always some cars on the move – except for maybe 2-4 AM. This means that except for home, many cars are 'in between' at some point and if you are ever on the Santa Monica Freeway, you know that it's not just a "few", but a ton. That also applies to London's famous "ring road", the M 25.

Fourth – although this may not "count" many cars are parked in places that aren't formal parking spaces (open fields, vacant lots, front lawns, and parked illegally on streets.)

Fifth, most parking lots are empty most of the time. And even at peek hours, are seldom full.

I don't want to do the 'numbers' since I have no studies (Peter's main point in his presentation, that frankly there are few learned studies that focus on parking) to back them up. However I think that logic would, considering the five points above, lower the number of spaces per car to at least two, and in fact, probably under two a bit.

So, if planners plan for three spaces per car, they would over plan by at least a third.

What I'm saying is that if we simply use our God given minds and add a bit of logic, some 'facts' we take for granted fall away as urban legends and can be seen, on their face, as simply not "spot on" as they say here.

JVH

That's "Interesting"

I have decided that the world "interesting" should be banned from the English language. The dictionary defines it as "holding attention, arousing interest." That assumes that your definition of "interest" is outside the financial end.

I find that people use "interesting" as a cover, a blind. They start down a path describing something religious, political, or breed of dogs, and then end the conversation by saying that the topic is "interesting." That's like being kissed by your sister, or brother, as the case may be.

It allows the speaker or writer to dodge the issue. They talk for paragraphs about a subject but give no opinion. You are waiting for the decision, the big ending, the meat. And the best they can come up with is "interesting."

Did you like it, didn't you like it? Are you for it or again it? Is it good or bad? Black or white? No none of those, just interesting. The word is a way to ensure that your audience has no clue what you think or feel.

You meet a girl and at the end of the night you tell her that you found her "interesting." What the heck does that mean? It sounds like you are describing a lab specimen. Yecchh

Why can't people just come out and say what they think? It's ok to be wrong. And if you learn more, it's ok to change your mind. What's the point of discussing things just because they are "interesting."

Disagreeing is the fiber of life. Do you want to be surrounded by sycophants who just agree agree agree. Have an opinion, make people think. Don't be "interesting."

Great novels, great paintings, great music, great speeches. They are GREAT because they say something; they have a side, an opinion, a cause, a topic, a story, a feature, a movement. They are not great because they are "interesting." War and Peace, Tale of Two Cities, and For Whom the Bell Tolls are great works because they provide a sense of the author, a side, an opinion, not simply an "interest." We all know the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth symphony because they grab our hearts and hold them. Mark Anthony gives Shakespeare's words life with "Friends Romans, Countrymen" – we all know that not because we have a passing interest, but because he tells us how to deal with the remembrances of the dead. We aren't "interested" we are enthralled, focused, and we walk away with something, even sometimes something we don't like.

We all have opinions about some things, and don't care about others. Fair enough. So don't get into things that you don't care about. To hell with things that are "interesting." There just isn't enough time left…

Of course if you don't agree, you can just find it interesting.

JVH

I find that people use "interesting" as a cover, a blind. They start down a path describing something religious, political, or breed of dogs, and then end the conversation by saying that the topic is "interesting." That's like being kissed by your sister, or brother, as the case may be.

It allows the speaker or writer to dodge the issue. They talk for paragraphs about a subject but give no opinion. You are waiting for the decision, the big ending, the meat. And the best they can come up with is "interesting."

Did you like it, didn't you like it? Are you for it or again it? Is it good or bad? Black or white? No none of those, just interesting. The word is a way to ensure that your audience has no clue what you think or feel.

You meet a girl and at the end of the night you tell her that you found her "interesting." What the heck does that mean? It sounds like you are describing a lab specimen. Yecchh

Why can't people just come out and say what they think? It's ok to be wrong. And if you learn more, it's ok to change your mind. What's the point of discussing things just because they are "interesting."

Disagreeing is the fiber of life. Do you want to be surrounded by sycophants who just agree agree agree. Have an opinion, make people think. Don't be "interesting."

Great novels, great paintings, great music, great speeches. They are GREAT because they say something; they have a side, an opinion, a cause, a topic, a story, a feature, a movement. They are not great because they are "interesting." War and Peace, Tale of Two Cities, and For Whom the Bell Tolls are great works because they provide a sense of the author, a side, an opinion, not simply an "interest." We all know the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth symphony because they grab our hearts and hold them. Mark Anthony gives Shakespeare's words life with "Friends Romans, Countrymen" – we all know that not because we have a passing interest, but because he tells us how to deal with the remembrances of the dead. We aren't "interested" we are enthralled, focused, and we walk away with something, even sometimes something we don't like.

We all have opinions about some things, and don't care about others. Fair enough. So don't get into things that you don't care about. To hell with things that are "interesting." There just isn't enough time left…

Of course if you don't agree, you can just find it interesting.

JVH

It Boils Down to One Word

What do manufacturers do when they want to come up with a new product? It seems easy enough. They go out and talk to the people who will use it. They form focus groups and ask questions about what is needed and how it is to be used. They then make mock ups and models and have users come in and try it out. Then after they find exactly what the market needs, they come up with "Betamax," electric cars, ethanol, or an "Edsel" or "New Coke or " Parking Reservation Systems." In every case, the product, may in itself, be great, but it didn't fill a need that the users had. The designers missed the target.

In all those cases, my guess is that a technocrat sat in a office, decided they had a problem that needed fixing, and then sat about to fix it. They did an admirable job. In most cases the product was better than the competition's. But it never caught on, They created a solution in search of a problem.

We find this, I think, in our industry. When we walk through the IPI exhibition in Denver month after next, we will see a lot of systems, paradigms, solutions, and esoteric discussions of ways to solve problems. Owners and senior managers will be wowed by the wonders of it all and order books will be filled with solutions, mostly high tech, that are intended to solve problems that these managers see daily. But they won't.

I think that the issues these technical marvels are to solve come from the top down. Owners think that if they install a revenue control system, with all the whistles and bells, their revenue will increase. They think that if the machines can spew out reports they will have the knowledge they need to make decisions on the future of their businesses. They think that if they have Brand X in one garage and Brand Y in another, that these new technologies will make them all live in harmony and provide similar information and reports.

I sat with senior managers of one of the largest and most respected parking equipment manufacturers this week and I asked what was the most important thing that they could provide. This manager, who comes from the marketing and not engineering side of the company, was spot on. He said one word – "Training."

He understood the problem. Although senior managers in parking operations and in parking ownership are looking for technical solutions, they may miss the fact that their front line people are sorely in need to technical training. Simply plopping someone down in front of a PC and showing them how to use a mouse doesn't do it.

Many front line managers in our business come from the rank and file. They are promoted from within, or they don't have deep backgrounds in day to day computer operations. They don't know a spreadsheet from a word processor. To them a GUI is a toffy that has been sitting in the sun. Often they cut their teeth on PCs that came over with the Pilgrims and in many garages that's what is sitting on the desk today.

They have to worry about scratched cars, monthly permits, an owner that has issues with attendants, maintenance, lighting, financial issues, bank deposits, daily reports, personnel, and really don't have time to teach themselves about an extremely complex piece of technology that has been dropped into their office.

The fellow I spoke to was worried that no matter how easy they make their equipment to use, and how few choices they give the front line personnel, they wouldn't be able to make it work.

His sales manager, sitting next to me, laughed. "It's just like the old mechanical counters we had years ago in garages. They didn't work well and required a lot of attention to detail. Most of them were simply turned off. No one had the time to deal with them."

So here it is. We have a technical solution to our problems. But do we have the people in place to use it? Of course in some major operations there are people there who know how to use these marvels. But is that true across the board? In the small 450 car garages that produce a million bucks a year? Does that manager have the personal tools to make it happen? Or will they simply be "turned off" and left to lie fallow?

We have a lot of work to do and those in operations need to start with training and education before the technology is dropped in place.

JVH

In all those cases, my guess is that a technocrat sat in a office, decided they had a problem that needed fixing, and then sat about to fix it. They did an admirable job. In most cases the product was better than the competition's. But it never caught on, They created a solution in search of a problem.

We find this, I think, in our industry. When we walk through the IPI exhibition in Denver month after next, we will see a lot of systems, paradigms, solutions, and esoteric discussions of ways to solve problems. Owners and senior managers will be wowed by the wonders of it all and order books will be filled with solutions, mostly high tech, that are intended to solve problems that these managers see daily. But they won't.

I think that the issues these technical marvels are to solve come from the top down. Owners think that if they install a revenue control system, with all the whistles and bells, their revenue will increase. They think that if the machines can spew out reports they will have the knowledge they need to make decisions on the future of their businesses. They think that if they have Brand X in one garage and Brand Y in another, that these new technologies will make them all live in harmony and provide similar information and reports.

I sat with senior managers of one of the largest and most respected parking equipment manufacturers this week and I asked what was the most important thing that they could provide. This manager, who comes from the marketing and not engineering side of the company, was spot on. He said one word – "Training."

He understood the problem. Although senior managers in parking operations and in parking ownership are looking for technical solutions, they may miss the fact that their front line people are sorely in need to technical training. Simply plopping someone down in front of a PC and showing them how to use a mouse doesn't do it.

Many front line managers in our business come from the rank and file. They are promoted from within, or they don't have deep backgrounds in day to day computer operations. They don't know a spreadsheet from a word processor. To them a GUI is a toffy that has been sitting in the sun. Often they cut their teeth on PCs that came over with the Pilgrims and in many garages that's what is sitting on the desk today.

They have to worry about scratched cars, monthly permits, an owner that has issues with attendants, maintenance, lighting, financial issues, bank deposits, daily reports, personnel, and really don't have time to teach themselves about an extremely complex piece of technology that has been dropped into their office.

The fellow I spoke to was worried that no matter how easy they make their equipment to use, and how few choices they give the front line personnel, they wouldn't be able to make it work.

His sales manager, sitting next to me, laughed. "It's just like the old mechanical counters we had years ago in garages. They didn't work well and required a lot of attention to detail. Most of them were simply turned off. No one had the time to deal with them."

So here it is. We have a technical solution to our problems. But do we have the people in place to use it? Of course in some major operations there are people there who know how to use these marvels. But is that true across the board? In the small 450 car garages that produce a million bucks a year? Does that manager have the personal tools to make it happen? Or will they simply be "turned off" and left to lie fallow?

We have a lot of work to do and those in operations need to start with training and education before the technology is dropped in place.

JVH

Its Just a LIne from a Movie

I was taken aback the other day when the head of a large manufacturer said that "If you build it they will come" is just a line from a movie. But then I got to thinking about it. He's right, to a point.

In his business, building a widget and putting it in front of the customer doesn't work. Marketing is how a company is driven. First research must be done, then the needs of the marketplace must be ascertained, then the product properly designed, built, priced, and promoted. If all the stars are in alignment, it will be a success. It's a lot of work.

However, my continuing reference isn't to technological advances, it's to point out that providing free parking won't bring shoppers downtown, and charging for parking won't keep them away.

If you have an attraction, and it's a good one, people will park blocks away and walk, or will pay a lot to park. (Remember how much they charge for parking at Dodger Stadium, more than the price of a seat, or across the Street from Madison Square Garden, more than the price of admission. The price of parking certainly doesn't slow one down a bit.) However if you have a tired, rundown, half empty downtown, people won't come if you pay THEM to park.

Century City and The Grove here in LA both are upscale destination shopping centers. The both charge for parking. They are very successful. Westside Pavilion just up the street is a nice mall, but it doesn't hold a candle to the other two. It has been struggling and only recently began to turn around. It added a 12 plex Cinema. Parking has always been free, but that made no difference. It was the renovation and the movies that brought the crowd.

A consultant I know was helping a city with its parking issues. They had a very popular street faire that ran every weekend in the summer. People paid $5 and parked in a muddy field and walked six blocks to the faire. No one complained. The city just felt that they weren't providing good customer service. My consultant friend agreed that it might "look" better to provide a nice multimillion dollar parking structure, but that it wasn't really necessary. The faire couldn't be more successful.

There are hundreds of examples. Anyone know of a place where changing to free parking made a difference? If so, let me know.

If you build it, they will come.

JVH

In his business, building a widget and putting it in front of the customer doesn't work. Marketing is how a company is driven. First research must be done, then the needs of the marketplace must be ascertained, then the product properly designed, built, priced, and promoted. If all the stars are in alignment, it will be a success. It's a lot of work.

However, my continuing reference isn't to technological advances, it's to point out that providing free parking won't bring shoppers downtown, and charging for parking won't keep them away.

If you have an attraction, and it's a good one, people will park blocks away and walk, or will pay a lot to park. (Remember how much they charge for parking at Dodger Stadium, more than the price of a seat, or across the Street from Madison Square Garden, more than the price of admission. The price of parking certainly doesn't slow one down a bit.) However if you have a tired, rundown, half empty downtown, people won't come if you pay THEM to park.

Century City and The Grove here in LA both are upscale destination shopping centers. The both charge for parking. They are very successful. Westside Pavilion just up the street is a nice mall, but it doesn't hold a candle to the other two. It has been struggling and only recently began to turn around. It added a 12 plex Cinema. Parking has always been free, but that made no difference. It was the renovation and the movies that brought the crowd.

A consultant I know was helping a city with its parking issues. They had a very popular street faire that ran every weekend in the summer. People paid $5 and parked in a muddy field and walked six blocks to the faire. No one complained. The city just felt that they weren't providing good customer service. My consultant friend agreed that it might "look" better to provide a nice multimillion dollar parking structure, but that it wasn't really necessary. The faire couldn't be more successful.

There are hundreds of examples. Anyone know of a place where changing to free parking made a difference? If so, let me know.

If you build it, they will come.

JVH