Parking World

Parking Authority vs. a Higher Authority

In Quezon City, the largest city in Metro Manila, the Catholic Church is going up against the City Council to fight against establishment of pay parking and a parking authority.

 

Proposed Ordinance No. 2009-04, entitled “An Ordinance Establishing a Street Pay Parking In Places of Special Interest Within the Territorial Jurisdiction of Quezon City” proposes the implementation of pay parking areas, both on and off-street, and the establishment of a Quezon City Street Parking Authority, including a staff to administer the new program.

 

The ordinance defines “places of special interest” as places where people congregate, including schools, shopping malls, hospitals -- and churches.

 

Manila’s Catholic Church is supporting a citizen group, KLAPP-QC (Koalisyon Laban sa Pay Parking sa Quezon City), that has been formed to protest the ordinance.

 

“It is oppressive because it will be a burden to those who will be directly affected, who will pay parking fees for economic activities, which are largely unavoidable in their daily existence,” says Honesto Ongtioco, Bishop of Cubao.

 

The Bishop also says the proponents of the ordinance have not educated the public properly and they have not clarified who is exempt. This point may be important to the Church because a revised version of the ordinance allows each local government unit, called a “barangay”, to decide if churchgoers are exempt.

 

Following the Bishop’s lead, priests under the Diocese of Cubao have initiated a signature campaign against pay parking in Quezon City.

 

If the Church was focusing on the hardship placed on church members who are simply going to mass, it would be hard to argue the point. But it seems the Bishop is against the concept of citizen’s paying for parking while going about their daily “economic activities”. I have said before that someone has to pay for the parking, whether it be users, taxpayers or businesses. This makes me think of the sage advice: Render unto Caesar ...

Whistler, Take 2

In an August 2 blog, Parking World reported that the City Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler in Canada had turned over its decision to charge for parking in a garage that has always been free. This decision was made due to intense public pressure.

 

Two months later the smoke has cleared, and Whistler is doing what it should have done in the first place – develop a strategy, study usage, and talk to residents. But the goal is still the same. Even though the public won round one, Whistler still plans to re-implement pay parking in the garage eventually.

 

In fact, according to Sandra Smith, Supervisor of Bylaw Services for Whistler, all parking in the city will be pay parking – even the currently free lots for day skiers – by the time the Winter Olympics commence in Vancouver in February 2010. Whistler Blackcomb will be the Official Alpine Skiing venue for the Olympics.

 

What the public may not have realized, however, is that they have been paying for the garage all along.

 

“There is no such thing as free parking,” says Smith. “If the city is providing free parking, the people are paying for it through their taxes. It is subsidized by everyone to provide for people that want to use vehicles.”

 

 

A Matter of Trust – Part 2

A Matter of Trust – Part 2

 

In my blog entry a couple of days ago, entitle a Matter of Trust, I suggested that Changeable Message Signs (CMS) or Variable Message Signs (VMS) used for parking are vulnerable to accuracy issues. Let’s look at Melbourne, Australia.

 

Melbourne operates a number of CMS to display availability in downtown lots, and Australian parking specialists say that the accuracy of these signs is questioned by local drivers, although I am not sure whether this is based on actual inaccuracies or simply a lack of confidence. However, where third-party lot operators are providing availability data on their own parking lots to government authorities like Melbourne, accuracy may be questionable.

 

“Each car park involved has its own computer system which tracks the number of parking spaces available/occupied by movements through the boom gates,” explains Melbourne City Councillor Kevin Louey, Chair of the Connected City Committee. “The correct information is largely dependant on the accuracy of the car park operator.”

 

“As information is provided through the car park’s computer system, any errors are translated to the signs,” Louey adds. “In addition, the operator is able to alter the number of spaces to encourage or discourage users.”

 

It appears that parking lot operators could easily provide inaccurate data through negligence, inadvertently or even deliberately.

 

An interesting additional note -- Louey says, “The system was first initiated in response to surveys which indicated that there was a perception the Central Business District did not have sufficient off street parking capacity to cater for visitors despite the fact some 40,000 spaces were available at that time.”

 

So Melbourne, like many urban areas, was already dealing with a lack of confidence in the availability of parking. It seems to combat this issue, the first priority for an urban area that maintains these types of message signs should be a strict policy to ensure accuracy of the parking availability information.

 

And Now the Good News

I spent the day in Vienna at the European Parking Association's Biennial conference. Two conversations stood out.

I spoke with an international consultant. He told me that last year about this time his business just dried up. Projects were put on hold. "There is no money." Two weeks ago, his phone began ringing off the hook. He now has more business than he can handle. "They are calling from everywhere, from Jamaica, From Lebanon, and from the UK. There is a lot of work to be done in parking."

The second group was from one of the largest manufacturers of parking equipment in Europe. They said that for them, too, the market has rebounded strong. "Deals that were put on hold are active again. With the exception of Spain, and Italy, Europe is booming, as is the Middle East, Australia, and East Asia"

Wow – that's terrific news.

The EPA is extremely happy with its show this year. Comments from the vendors were that the IPI was slow, but the EPA was rocking. Good Traffic, and high quality attendees. I looked at the content of the presentations. They were top of the line. That brings good people.

Parking is coming back.

JVH

A Matter of Trust

Changeable Message Signs (CMS) or Variable Message Signs (VMS) are becoming a key component of smart parking solutions deployed around the world. But do drivers trust the information on the signs?

 

A study done by Susan Shaheen and Charlene Kemmerer from the Transportation Sustainability Research Center of the University of California at Berkeley has documented a trust issue specifically regarding CMS displaying parking availability data. The focus of the study was a smart parking deployment for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco, California.

 

The study reports that there was “a fair amount of mistrust about the accuracy of the signs. Participants feared the empty parking spots would be filled before they arrived at the station, even though they could call to reserve a spot as soon as they saw a sign.”

 

Shaheen and Kemmerer say the mistrust of signs could possibly be attributed to drivers’ inexperience with the new technology. If this is the case, then familiarity might alleviate this issue over time.

 

But what if the signs simply are not accurate, and the mistrust is based on reality? In the case of the BART study, the group maintaining the signs was also responsible for counting the cars coming in and out of the lot, so presumably accuracy was relatively high.

 

In cases where third-party lot operators are providing availability data on their own parking lots to government authorities that are responsible for the signs, however, accuracy may be questionable.

 

CMS/VMS can be an important element of smart parking deployments that help urban areas alleviate congestion and reduce emissions caused by drivers searching for parking. However, there seems to be a confidence issue – and a potential accuracy issue -- that must be solved before these types of technology are truly effective.

Does reducing parking really reduce emissions?

In my blog on August 31 about the GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia) – which encourages the reduction of parking availability in Australian buildings to reduce emissions – I disputed the assumption that less parking spaces means less emissions. After interviewing an executive director of GBCA, I still have not seen any evidence to support this claim.

 

Robin Mellon, Green Star Executive Director, GBCA, explains exactly how the points are awarded, in terms of parking: “The ‘Provision of Car Parking’ credit awards 1 point where either the number of car parking spaces is either at least 25% less than the maximum local planning allowances applicable, or not exceeding the minimum planning allowance by more than 10%; 2 points are available where the number of spaces is 50% less that the maximum allowances, or no more than the minimum allowances.”

 

Mellon goes on to explain why these points are awarded.

 

“The bottom line is that developments to which the majority of users must travel by car have a greater environmental impact than developments which are served by good public transport and which have good alternative transport options available,” Mellon claims. “Emissions and land use are obviously critical factors.”

 

Although I will admit that this statement is probably true, the link to parking is still missing. In fact, this idea seems to support the comment by Cristina Lynn of Parking Consultants, in the previous blog, that it really is more about the availability of alternative transportation than about the lack of availability of parking.

 

“If fewer people can park at or near the building, and the alternative transport options are encouraged, the environmental impact of the building will be less,” Mellon adds.

 

In my opinion, the GBCA is jumping to conclusions with regard to the first part of that statement. Is it possible that alternative transport options alone can make the same impact, regardless of parking availability?

 

My search for the link between available parking spaces and emissions goes on ...