E Street Plaza Parking Lot to Return to “Paid” Status

Parking-GarageCity Still Lacks Integrated Plan For Downtown Parking and Transportation –

The City of Davis sent out a press release yesterday to let the public know that upon the completion of the Second Street Corridor Improvements project, parking restrictions in the E Street Plaza parking lot will return to “paid” status on Monday, May 9, 2011.

While it seems the true purpose of the press release was to discuss the Second Street Corridor Improvements project, which was funded through federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and City of Davis Redevelopment Agency funds at a time when the city is lacking funding to do basic road repair work, it gives us the opportunity to discuss parking once again.

On Tuesday night a member of the public, during the joint council meeting the Safety and Parking Commission, mentioned that there had been an informal study done that examined the city’s parking situation over a period of time.  From their data they found that in the parking garages there were an average of 300 available parking spaces at any one point in time.

The city has long been proposing adding a new parking structure perhaps, on that property between E and F and 3rd and 4th, which currently houses, among other things, Kinkos.  That would be a costly redevelopment project were it to go through.

The suggestion made on Tuesday night, however, suggests a different approach may be needed – an informational campaign to let people know that there is plentiful parking and not very far away from their destinations.

Rather than spending more money to put in a new and elaborate parking structure, perhaps the city ought to study ways in which to inform and convince people to park in the existing parking structures.

Instead, we have seen a bunch of piecemeal approaches that have had limited success.  One of them is the paid parking lot in the E Street Plaza.  Davis has always avoided the parking meter approach that other cities have taken to both parking allotment and revenue.

Instead, the city has imposed a very restrictive two-hour parking limitation on street parking with provisions against reparking on the same block.  The result of that was a loss of revenue for the city, as the enforcement mechanisms proved too strong a deterrent.  Moreover, they would seem to hinder the shopping experience.

Another problem is that while we say we want our downtown and core to be bike and pedestrian friendly, there are no bike lanes and, in fact, bike travel is rather dangerous given the traffic, lack of visibility and other problems.

The city received grant funding for re-doing Second Street.  According to the press release, The Second Street Corridor Improvements project included installation of “bulb-outs” at the intersections of C, D, E, F and G; improved storm drainage; enhanced crosswalk markings and LED lighting throughout; and street resurfacing between B and H Streets. Restriping parking areas resulted in a net increase of 9 parking spaces. New on-street bicycle parking was installed in front of the Varsity Theater, accommodating 11 bikes.”

While that may sound like a good idea, it is still problematic to ride one’s bike down Second Street.

One radical solution might be to eliminate street parking, except for a few short-term loading and pick-up areas, and to create bike lanes.

That might have the effect of giving people the incentive to fully utilize the parking structure, while opening up the streets to bikes and pedestrians.

My guess, though, is that the downtown businesses would balk, fearing probably, with a good deal of justification, that by eliminating street-side parking, their business would be reduced.

One thing that seems clear, however, is that redesigning Second Street, outside of a broader plan for downtown, was a waste of money, even if the money was not our own to waste.  We needed to develop an integrated plan to accommodate multi-modal transportation, an innovative approach to parking along with business needs and other transportation needs.

Absent that, we are simply spinning our wheels and throwing money around in a fashion that in the end might actually go against what we are trying to do.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

4 comments

  1. and I believe the ‘bulb outs’ or what we call ‘designer sidewalks’ are dangerous to bikes and especially cars trying to get around them and the bikes too. What a waste. Could that money not have been spent in a more needed way? That is what is wrong with our silo mentality and one reason I tend to agree with Jerry Brown about RDAs.

  2. [quote]We needed to develop an integrated plan to accommodate multi-modal transportation, an innovative approach to parking along with business needs and other transportation needs.

    Absent that, we are simply spinning our wheels and throwing money around in a fashion that in the end might actually go against what we are trying to do.[/quote]

    This is exactly why city staff called for a Transportation Task Force/Commission, to better integrate all the transportation ideas/projects. I am part of this Transportation Task Force, and look forward to developing a better approach to transportation planning. There are some excellent and very experienced people on the Task Force (much more knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be). Yet as I remember it, there was great resistance to forming another commission…

  3. [i]Another problem is that while we say we want our downtown and core to be bike and pedestrian friendly, there are no bike lanes and, in fact, bike travel is rather dangerous given the traffic, lack of visibility and other problems.
    [/i]

    I totally agree. It’s absolutely shameful that the downtown core is so inaccessible to bicycles. But we don’t have to (and probably shouldn’t) completely eliminate parking there. If we get rid of the angled parking by replacing it with parallel spaces, we could add bike lanes and expand the sidewalks to accommodate more pedestrians and outdoor seating while losing only a few parking spaces.

    If folks are really worried about parking downtown, why not build a garage in the Amtrak lot?

  4. to Danthelawyer: Why another parking garage if we are truly underutilizing the one we already have? That is a question I think that needs to be seriously looked at…

Leave a Comment