For all of the complaints about paid parking, I walk through the E Street Parking Lot all the time as the Vanguard offices have always been in close proximity, and the parking lot is well utilized, so the idea that people will avoid convenient parking spaces in search of free ones seems ill-founded.
For years when I grew up in San Luis Obispo you had two options – you could feed the meter every few hours or you could park several blocks away and walk. Then they started building parking garages where you have the first 90 minutes free, and then paid an hourly rate. I think that is now down to 60 minutes, but the concept remains.
People do not necessarily like change, but they do get used to it.
Frankly, the changes are rather modest. The council settled on adding the north F Street, north G Street, south G Street, and Boy Scout Cabin lots to the city’s supply of paid parking, and extending the parking time limit from two to four hours in these locations.
That seems like a reasonable compromise. If you want to park short-term, you can do so for free. But you’ll have to move your car after 90 minutes or two hours. If you want to park longer term, you can do so in one of the parking garages (three hours) and walk a bit more. Or you can now utilize the paid parking.
The council also supported expending city funds this fiscal year to:
- Develop the city-owned parking lot at the northwest corner of Richards & Olive Drive for downtown employee parking.
- Work with the property owners to expand employee parking into the Fourth & G garage.
- Pursue a downtown parking guidance system.
- Explore options to offset parking costs with a validation system for downtown purchases
I like the idea of a city owned parking lot at the NW corner of Richards & Olive. That would put employees out of spots that should go for people who are going to be paying customers and consumers of the Davis Downtown.
I have frequently advocated that the city use that space by the Design House, get some funding for a multilevel parking structure that goes over the railroad tracks and drops down to the Boy Scout Cabin lot at 1st Street. That would get people out of their cars in the core, it would remove traffic from the Richards Tunnel and provide a large amount of parking.
As someone who used to work on F Street across from AT&T, that’s a location that puts you within two blocks of the heart of downtown.
But that large a project would have required RDA (redevelopment agency) money that just isn’t available now. So having an employee lot near Design House makes a lot of sense.
Parking and traffic downtown remains a problem. Frequently people show up late for meetings at the Vanguard offices because of lack of nearby parking. People frequently complain that they do not like to come downtown because of parking and congestion.
There are those who do not believe these are real issues. They’ll cite the overwhelming vacancy of the two existing garages and they have a point. The F Street structure is frequently fully utilized, however, particularly when there is a big movie coming out.
The one off of G and 4th, however, is definitely underutilized. Part of that is location and how far away “it appears to be” from the rest of downtown. That’s certainly a legitimate issue for many people.
My own view is that what the council has done is rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It might help around the margins. But what we really need is another parking structure at a more central location.
Without RDA, money is going to be a big problem and I am not going to pretend we can solve this anytime soon.
One idea that I do have is to convene a group of stakeholders in the downtown and see if there is an option for collaboration and investment where a group of people can pool their resources and try to find a creative way to finance a structure.
But, realistically, I think that is unlikely. Until California commits on a successor to RDA, we are going to be hard-pressed in Davis to see major projects of this sort.
Barring that, the council has done what it can to produce a little more in the way of available parking. The biggest change may be getting employees out of spaces that should be utilized by customers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“My own view is that what the council has done is rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It might help around the margins. But what we really need is another parking structure at a more central location.”
I could not disagree more. We have become a convenience obsessed society. The last thing that we need to do is to encourage even more people to drive as close as possible to their downtown destination so as to avoid walking a block or two. We are already a car dominated society which has caused a tremendous decline in our environment and our health. What I believe would serve us far better is to provide a central walking mall such as is found in Boulder with paid parking around the perimeter and some sort of transportation service to the center for the elderly, those who are disabled or making the trip with small children. The rest of us should count the short walk as part of our exercise plan.
Tia, while I appreciate your view and I favor reducing car usage, it is a bit easier to hold that view when you have a five minute walk to my office on G as a opposed to a ten minute drive (which is my commute).
I will add that when I lived in DC in the 1990s, I didn’t own a car, and happily took the Metro to most locations.
I’m sure the business owners disagree. And with an aging demographic, making it harder to get to retail stores will simply drive (pun intended) shoppers to outlying retail options.
Don
I am sure that the business owners disagree. But perhaps they should consider looking at the long term success of cities such as Santa Fe which had no free parking in the central city area for as far back as when I was ten. I remember specifically because we forget to keep feeding the meter as instructed while waiting for a friends mother to return. And yet the streets were bustling and their were few closed buildings which I also recall since the downtown was so very different from my hometown of 2000 people. This is example is provided only for the time line.
Other cities, such as Boulder, Seattle and Portland all have some version of a car free or strictly limited shopping area. I would say that local business owners might actually benefit from thinking outside their own box. By the way, all of the named cities also have peripheral shopping areas and yet their downtowns also thrive.
Maybe that would be a good story – look at what they do in Boulder, Seattle and Portland and see if we can do it here
“making it harder to get to retail stores will simply drive (pun intended) shoppers to outlying retail options.”
It concerns me to keep hearing that paid parking is something that makes it “harder” for people to get to downtown locations. Paid parking (done correctly by charging for the most convenient on-street spaces, not as proposed currently) frees up spaces for those who need them. It doesn’t encourage more people to try and park close with endless circling, it merely *allows* them to more easily park close if they must. Isn’t that what we want?
Paid parking is not something new that’s never been tried before. It’s been implemented all across the country and studied to death. We know how it works. And it benefits the city, the customers, the businesses, our air quality, the safety of our streets… yadda, yadda.
“Need” is a word that should be reserved for those things that we need. You seem to be a proponent of paving our way out of automobile congestion. This solution worked back in the early days of motor vehicle infrastructure, and simply does not work in modern times. Research any recent freeway expansion to see the results of this thinking. At what point do we stop spending millions (well, billions and trillions in the case of freeways) to accommodate more motor vehicles, and start thinking at least mildly out of the cars=people box.
Do we really “need” a new parking structure that’s maybe one block closer to downtown than the one we have that’s currently under-utilized? How many millions should we spend in order to save that one block of walking? Now may be the best time to bring up autonomous automobiles. Let’s stop planning to store so many cars for 20+ hours per day as we’ve historically needed to do, and start planning to use cars to their potential. Let’s build for the future, not the past that got us into this mess.
What we need is a way to conveniently get people into our downtown. We have to stop equating private automobiles with people. A parking space in a new parking structure costs $35,000. Parking for a bike generously costs $350. Is the benefit of accommodating a single person in an automobile two orders of magnitude greater than accommodating a single person on a bicycle? Or a bus? Or an autonomous taxi? How do we best create a situation that encourages people to leave their car at home when the car is not needed in town? The answer is not: “subsidize and encourage driving a private automobile into town.” When fewer people drive, the people who do need their cars don’t have to struggle and drive in circles. Same with our visitors from out of town. If locals are taking up all the parking, where do our out-of-town guests park? When we subsidize parking for everybody, we create a town that’s more about cars than it is about people. We’re saying that the most important thing for our downtown is… more cars.
Some folks just hate the idea of “social engineering” by taxing those things that are bad for us (cigarettes, sugary drinks). These same folks generally dislike subsidies for those things that are good for us (BEVs, solar energy, etc). Yet so many of these people see no problem with our gasoline being sold well below its cost, and they feel that “free” parking is a right instead of the subsidy that it is. If we take the free-market approach to automobile use and parking, we’d be having a much different discussion.
Two orders of magnitude, anybody?
(Oh, and no, the “gas tax” that drivers pay does not pay for the roads or parking structures in Davis. So, please let’s not go there.)
I was on the downtown parking committee in the early 2000’s, nearly 15 years ago now. All of these ideas and problems were on the table. The Regal Lot was considered for laying down gravel, but it was discovered that it needed full ADA design and pavement if any changes were made at all, and there was no money. The Design House was considered, but the cost was a problem, access via bridge to the station was a problem (I realize you are not advocating for station parking, but that was the goal), and how to get a turn lane to the lot which is just feet from the intersection was a huge problem as well.
The goal of getting employees not to take up downtown parking is the same as it ever was. The problem is, it’s a bunch of single users (who now won’t use the surface lots, so will go to street only), and they are doing this one person at a time, every two hours, and doing nothing actually illegal. There is no legal way to say “you are an employee, you can’t park here”, and some business owners are loathe to buy permits, some employees won’t even walk the extra blocks to use the X spaces, and trying collectively to enforce a bunch of individual decisions is beyond possible. No one ever came up with a practical way to solve this. There was a lot of animosity back then against the businesses that allowed this by those that bought X permits, and I suspect there still is, but still it’s even hard to know where this is really happening. So if someone has a great and doable solution that everyone for years on the parking committeee has never solved, chime in.
I am chiming in (as my real self) to say SLO was very frustrating to drive in when our daughter was in school there. Lots of meters, don’t think credit card machines and had to circle numerous times. Am sure it did not have to do with the paid part of the parking but was a pain (and a paid one) nonetheless.
I have always been grateful for our free parking. And when I had an office downtown and bought an X permit, parking was no problem in the Boy Scout lot. Not sure why it is a problem for employees, maybe because employers won’t pay and employees don’t want to themselves? It isn’t very expensive as I remember from a few years ago.
PS: Will the new system allow us to be signed in for a few days? I again am having to log in each time I go to the DV site if I want to make a comment (and at 12 characters for the password, that is frustrating!)
SLO… our daughter went there… we found parking (downtown) in the parking structures easy (with validation… when we were downtown, we often shopped, went to the movies, etc.) and pretty cheap… they also had a “tram”/shuttle… we never used it, as downtown SLO was very walkable… even on ‘farmers’ market days’… we never got frustrated about parking… that was ~ 2001-2006.
Yes Howard, thx for reminding me about walkability and tram; did use both a number of times.
yes.. my older son had a scholarship there.. My only sibling attended there.. he (RIP was also an SE. my older son didn’t last the quarter.. not the level of students he had been used to being with in the Davis Gate.. he came home and went to work and ultimately got his EEE with honors from SSU…my older niece graduated from there.. and married an ME.. like her dad and all the other males on all sides of the family.. My other son and I, the ME also with honors, only got to go twice..
To drop him off and get him. I loved SLO and that was the ONLY place he wanted to go…and the only place he applied and he as sooo disappointed…
He drove home a few times…..my brother tried hard to encourage him to stay.. but too much luck of the draw.. my younger son was dually finishing DHS, and taking advanced Engineering the linear algerba et al. decades ago it was the 22 A-E series at UCD>>> the early admit/high potential program. I hear that is no longer around..
I digress.. we can learn a TON of lessons from SLO but most of them were stolen from UCDavis
The dorms which DG posted about are very like Miller dorm on the corner of Russell..
We already have the upgraded old Castilian dorms as models also. I heard it has a new name?
One only has to look in OUR backyard for the models which are working.
It used to be Village homes.. . now it is NN Davis and Woodland and Winters and even Dixon..
I am happy to see more out of the box ideas.. and PS> SF is a model if ya like the EU model.
and SFO HAS the infrastructure and the millenieals who never learned to cut the grass and why would they wanna learn now?
My Dad’s office is still standing on the Embarcadero .. or they could have moved but they are still very active in this boom since the last crash…
The SFO Building and planning has really gone to pot (pun intended perhaps).. but even when he was alive and working he never trusted any of those folks.
I share because we have the same thing in Davis.. though Davis doesn’t have the largest skyscraper in SF and one of the priciest also sitting on sand/infill of the worst kind .. when the others are on granite.. and is now leaning and very precariously already….
nor the Bay Bridge where the bolts are already rusting and deteriorating..
but now that there are allowed to be highrises in town…well if we don’t truly get more folks with a clue in CHARGE.. it will only be only be the same kind of issues in this town…
PS> I didn’t want to be linked to FB so I can still log in the old way.. DG knows who I am and where I live.. just ask him…send him and email and it is easier 🙂 and safer and more secure .. ya may seem weird as the DV is public but more creeps find ya on FB than the DV.. or at least.. that is my story and I am sticking to it 🙂
Here are a couple of other points from the Council meeting that may be of interest to people:
1) The City is going to lease more parking spaces in the 4th and G lot for X permits – this is the closest to creating additional parking spaces of any part of the plan.
2) The Regal Olive Drive lot may actually see a reduction in parking spaces after paving and striping because unregulated parking in the gravel lot can allow for tighter parking, but the lot will now be an X lot and be regulated so it will be a net gain of spots for downtown workers.
3) The city is exploring allowing X permit street parking in Old North and Old East.
4) The council is exploring paid parking at the triangle train station lot, but may have an issue in requiring Amtrak parkers to pay because of past agreements
5) It sounded like there will be a 12 month study period after implementation of the changes agreed to by the Council before any further implementation of paid parking downtown will be considered.
Colin…your point 2) is spot on… very true… there was a gravel lot @ NW corner of First and F (where the theater is now)… we did a parking survey as part of the design for improving it as a formal parking lot… during the design, we realized that parking ‘capacity’ would be reduced by ~15% when we paved/striped it. People figured it out on their own.
your point 1)… would be interesting to know who is paying for the additional leased parking spots… am hoping it is the downtown businesses.
Point 3) should be interesting, given Old North’s past behaviours/demands about parking…
Point 4) is also correct as to ambiguity as to whether the City can do that… Alan M will probably weigh in, as he is very familiar with the history on that.
The rest, have no opinion on.
Good points, Colin…
Yes. Well, wouldn’t that be great? Unless I’m wildly off-base, I have to assume that this is general-fund stuff like all the rest of our “free” parking.
Unfortunately, I share that assumption…that’s why I posited it the way I did. Still hope we’re wrong in our assumptions…
I think student behavior needs to be studied and factored in more. In my experience, they will park downtown and move their cars as necessary, even if it means missing part of class.
If you want the City to study “student behavior” more, perhaps you should share your experience(s) with City staff to provide more data for the study. Just a suggestion… [meant to be constructive, if not collaborative]
BTW, the student behavior has been observed for ~ 25 years… just look at all the preferential parking districts anywhere near the campus. The big problem is UCD’s parking fee structure.
That’s not a bad suggestion, but I do think that it’s worthwhile to discuss first (as we are doing now) without me bothering staff with every thought that pops into my head.
And also, to be clear, my point was not to blame/criticize students, but just to say that when we hypothesize how people will react to changes in parking rules, “people” needs to include students. If lots are filled with students who are parking there for less than the 2 hrs, then the proposed changes will have less of an impact than expected.
Roberta
“without me bothering staff with every thought that pops into my head.”
Thanks for the smile Roberta. I often use the Vanguard as a sounding board rather than peppering the poor staff with my usual flood of ideas.
Tia, 🙂
Thinking further, and crossing topics… UCD does not see parking for students/faculty/staff nor housing for same as part of its Core Mission. Why would anyone think either will change?
I predict that UCD will continue to overprice parking charges (and point to ‘available spaces’ to not meet that need) and continue to either stall on building, and/or overprice housing, to the same end.
It is the ‘nature’ of the creature… see the classic Aesop’s fable of the frog and the scorpion.
Howard
“UCD does not see parking for students/faculty/staff nor housing for same as part of its Core Mission. Why would anyone think either will change?”
I am always hopeful that people may be amenable to changing their minds based on new information or a exposure to a different perspective. One example involving both city and campus was the initial opposition to a merger of the fire departments including a signed letter by a significant number of our elected officials opposing this move. With more information and demonstrated success, the merger has become largely accepted.
Roberta Millstein said . . . “In my experience, they will park downtown and move their cars as necessary, even if it means missing part of class.”
That has been my experience as well . . . and it is one of the key reasons why I am such a strong supporter of the mobile license plate recognition system for controlling the use of parking spaces both in the downtown and also in the neighborhoods close to the campus. With more frequent patrols of those streets armed with the recognition system and a database of license plates, students who park and then walk to campus would more often than not come back to find a ticket waiting for them on the windshield of their parked car. $42.00 to park in a neighborhood for an hour is a whole lot more expensive than $9.00 to park on the campus.
I have no problem at all with UCD students parking in Downtown if they are transacting business in Downtown, but parking in Downtown with no intention whatsoever of transacting business at one of the Downtown service/retail businesses is selfish, inconsiderate behavior.
Similarly, I have no problem at all with UCD students parking in residential neighborhoods if they are coming to visit people who live in that neighborhood, but parking in a residential neighborhood with no intention whatsoever of visiting anyone in that neighborhood is selfish, inconsiderate behavior. The database of license plates associated with the recognition system would contain the license plates of the residents of that neighborhood, so as the mobile scanning vehicle moves through a neighborhood, the driver would not be forced to look to see whether a vehicle has the appropriate permit sticker, the scanning system would let the driver/officer know that the licese plate just scanned was “good to go” or otherwise. My recent experience with the parking lot at the Ferry terminal in Vallejo has shown me an example of such a system working efficiently and effectively.
Matt… if UCD priced their parking at or below what the City does/proposes to do, problem solved. They won’t.
It will be hard to convince me that the cost to the City to develop/maintain parking is higher than that UCD faces. The city does indeed subsidize parking. UCD is using it as a ‘revenue source’.
It could also be argued that UCD prices its parking high so as to discourage driving to campus.
Howard, the University does price its parking at or below what the City does/proposes to do. The highest priced permit is $56.00 per month. That is $2.00 a day (February) or less (all other months). http://taps.ucdavis.edu/parking/permits/rates
The problem isn’t the cost of UCD’s parking. The problem is the unwillingness of the UCD students to plan their hourly/daily/monthly/yearly activities so that they have (and use) a UCD parking permit.
My argument is that proactive license plate scanning patrols of the residential neighborhoods and the Downtown, and the issuance of $42.00 parking tickets would modify the students’ current unwillingness to plan ahead.
As an aside, regular license plate patrols in places where apartment-living students might try and “stash” their car for free if their apartment charges a monthly fee for parking on site. A $42.00 per day cost for that kind of “stashing” would eliminate that inconsiderate, un-neighborly behavior very quickly.
Matt… thanks for for the link… you’re a tad off on the “daily cost”, given avg # of days of classes a student has, breaks, etc., but close enough to make a valid point… had not realized that it was as low cost for the monthly permit options… compared to the price of vehicle operation (cost, gas, insurance, etc.), not as big a deal as I had believed.
Never had a parking issue when I was @ UCD… then again, it was all my parents and I could do to afford books, lodging, food etc., so having a car was not even a thought. Tuition was minor, and I had a scholarship for that.
Matt, I don’t quite understand what you are proposing. As you admit, students do sometimes transact business downtown and are sometimes legitimately visiting friends, etc., in residential neighborhoods. So, how would the license plate recognition system “know” whether the person was parking for “legitimate” reasons or not?
The key to your statement (and mine) is “sometimes.” UCD students who are using the neighborhoods and Downtown for their parking do it on a daily basis (unless they are taking less than a full load of classes).
— The scanning system and its attendant database would see the same license plate appearing consistently on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday … even a few Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
— Since the database would have the residents’ license plates registered to give them the technological equivalent of the current “permit only” spaces, a non-resident vehicle would be immediately identified.
— A courtesy warning would be put on the windshield of the visiting car noting that the parking on that street is dedicated to residents and Downtown business employee cars (which would no longer have X permit stickers, but rather have their license plate registered in the database).
— When the scanning system “sees” a non-resident license plate it would display the past parking history of that license plate. Pattern recognition within the database would alert the driver/officer to a pattern that represents “sometimes” parking versus inconsiderate, un-neighborly parking.
— As was both suggested (by me and others) and discussed (by Council) having a Downtown affinity card system that retail/service businesses can use to rebate parking costs to their customers will support local businesses, while at the same time providing the scanning system “clues” about whether a particular license plate is transacting business within the Downtown or simply acting as a place to put a car prior to walking to class at UCD.
Ok, thanks, that helps. The system would need to recognize, though, that students often seek to have schedules that don’t have them taking classes every day, e.g., MWF or TTh, or other possible patterns.
And then, are we considering students to be non-residents? What about staff and faculty? (who may do this too, for all I know, although it seems less likely).
And what happens when a “suspicious” pattern is found? You can’t issue a ticket on that basis, can you? No law is violated, and even if it were, how could you prove that the person was going to campus rather than to a downtown business?
(I’m not trying to put the kibosh on the idea, just still trying to understand how it would work and if it would work).
I like the idea of a Downtown affinity card system.
Roberta said . . . “The system would need to recognize, though, that students often seek to have schedules that don’t have them taking classes every day, e.g., MWF or TTh, or other possible patterns.”
Roberta, since you are a professor you have much more first-hand knowledge than I do, but based on my Cornell experience there really wasn’t any way I could arrange the five courses of my “full load” into only MWF or TTh. It is one thing for the students to “seek” that goal and another to accomplish it.
Roberta said . . . “And then, are we considering students to be non-residents? What about staff and faculty? (who may do this too, for all I know, although it seems less likely).”
Let’s use a specific neighborhood to answer your question … the University Avenue neighborhood bounded by 1st Street on the south and 5th Street on the north and B Street on the east and A Street on the west. For the parking in that neighborhood, anyone who doesn’t have their residence there would be a non-resident. The one exception would be that there are some professional offices in that neighborhood and the people working in those offices would be thought of as residents (possibly only in the daytime) of the neighborhood as well.
Roberta said . . . “And what happens when a “suspicious” pattern is found? You can’t issue a ticket on that basis, can you? No law is violated, and even if it were, how could you prove that the person was going to campus rather than to a downtown business?”
Again, let’s use the University Avenue neighborhood as a specific example. I would fully expect that the City would seek the guidance of the residents of that neighborhood in establishing the parking standards. I know that if I were a resident of that neighborhood I would be arguing for a “Residents, Visitors, and Downtown Employees Only” standard for parking, and use a behavior pattern survey of all the neighborhood residents to determine just how many Downtown employee vehicles could be reasonably accommodated in the daytime hours to fill the spaces left empty by neighborhood residents who leave the neighborhood each day to go to their place of work. With that kind of upfront determination of capacity management, the registration of the license plates of neighborhood cars in the City’s parking/vehicle database, and active enforcement by the scanning vehicles, the non-residents who have been in the habit of parking in the neighborhood for free would find the availability of spaces was extremely limited, and the risk of getting a ticket for violating the “Residents, Visitors, and Downtown Employees Only” standard would be very high. The first “ticket” would be a warning, informing the vehicle owner that their license plate is not in the database as either a registered resident or registered Downtown employee. They would be advised in the warning that the second violation would be a $42.00 ticket, and that if they are indeed a resident or a Downtown employee they need to register their vehicle.
That is how I conceptually envision it.
Matt, to retain full time status a student must be enrolled for 13 units, with 4 unit classes being typical but not ubiquitous, and labs, etc., having variable amount of units. I’d guess that it’s most common for students to take 4 courses at a time. UCD is on the quarter system, and typically students take fewer courses per quarter on the quarter system because more material is covered in a shorter amount of time. So yes, students are not typically on campus every day – but again, this is just my impression and where a study would help.
I was particularly confused because I thought you were suggesting that we could regulate downtown parking near businesses in terms of who is a resident – not talking about residential neighborhoods, even downtown ones. How would that work?
I think the residential neighborhoods, even the ones downtown, are already covered with permit parking. The behavior I see is that students (and maybe faculty and staff, too) will seek out the closest non-permit parking to park in, then move after 2 hrs.
Roberta, my belief is that the issue with Downtown parking is two-fold. The biggest negative impact comes from the employees of Downtown businesses doing the “two-hour dance” moving from parking space to parking space instead of getting a X-permit The mobile license plate scanning systems would solve that, because a “reparked” employee vehicle would be quickly identified by its license plate. The second impact is from students parking (as you have noted) in non-permit spaces. Here too the mobile license plate scanning systems would solve that, because a “reparked” student vehicle would be quickly identified by its license plate.
With full deployment of the scanning systems, dedicated residential permit spaces would go away. The resident’s license plate would be registered as a valid vehicle for parking in any space in the neighborhood. That way the number of “empty” permit spaces would be drastically reduced and those freed up spaces could be deployed for valid downtown business employees parking in those unused residential neighborhood spaces.
Full deployment of mobile license scanning enforcement would effectively make the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the UCD campus 100% permit parking in the day time, thereby making the behavior you have described (students and maybe faculty and staff, too seeking out the closest non-permit parking to park in, then move after 2 hrs) virtually impossible to do without risking a $42.00 parking ticket.
“Selfish” and “inconsiderate” imply more analysis on the part of the one doing the parking than I think is warranted. I’d characterize the behavior as merely expedient and habitual; most California drivers consider any street not marked as restricted to be perfectly suitable for parking of any duration. If you want to change their behavior you need to impose clear restrictions and couple it with reliable enforcement. The scanner/database system you described could be a key component of such a regime.
Jim, where is the dividing line in human behavior between expedient and selfish? Or the dividing line between habitual and selfish? Or the dividing line between either of your terms and inconsiderate?
With those questions asked, I agree with you 100% that there would need to be clear restrictions prominently displayed . . . and enforcement would be absolutely essential.
BTW, it isn’t just neighborhoods close to the campus (like University Avenue) that would benefit from this approach. The fears that Rancho Yolo residents have expressed about Sterling Apartments residents parking in the Rancho Yolo neighborhood could easily and straightforwardly be dealt with by enforcing Rancho Yolo as a residents and visitors only parking neighborhood. The scanning technology would make that very easy to do . . . even easier than in the University Avenue neighborhood.
Please understand that the roads in Rancho Yolo are private, not public streets… many also constitute “fire lanes”… different rules…
Rancho Yolo has nothing to fear about Sterling Apt resident parking….
Howard, you can logically argue that Rancho Yolo has nothing to fear about Sterling Apt resident parking, but that logical argument doesn’t change the fact that many Rancho Yolo residents do have that fear.
I’d put the first dividing line at awareness. It’s not reasonable to expect all — or even a majority of — drivers to appreciate that by taking a downtown spot they may be costing a downtown business money. The average Davis resident, and certainly the average UCD student, just doesn’t pay attention to things like that.
The next dividing line comes at consequences. People in the U.S. are accustomed to the notion that something is okay if it isn’t explicitly prohibited. A driver looking for a place to park is likely to feel that his trip is just as important as any other driver’s trip, so if there’s an open parking spot he has as much right to use it as anyone else unless made aware that an unpleasant consequence may follow.
Well said Jim.
Awareness is indeed the first threshold. I would argue that any UCD student using a car to get to their daily classes at UCD who isn’t aware of the parking and traffic challenges faced by the Davis community is either obtuse or inconsiderate.
I would agree with your final paragraph if there weren’t a highly available alternative available through TAPS (see http://taps.ucdavis.edu/parking/permits/rates). If we look at the problem from the perspective of “looking for a parking space” we are missing the mark. The perspective should be one of “planning for a parking space.” However, asking university students to plan ahead proactively may be a bridge too far.
Matt
I have a very different view of this. Public streets are just that….public. If here is a time limit, that should be honored. If there is permitted parking, that should be honored. But a public parking space is just that and should be available whether you are walking a couple of blocks to a downtown restaurant or whether you are walking a few more to a class. If an individual owns a parking lot on their property, I believe that they are completely justified in controlling who can and cannot park there. But public spaces should not be reserved free for businesses.
Tia, your post brings two questions to mind:
1) Are you saying that you oppose the City’s program of X Permits for business employee parking?
2) Your comment is silent about resident parking. Do you also believe that public spaces should not be reserved free for residents?
On this we agree…
But I will go one step further… for the very reasons you cite, the whole “preferential parking” thing is bogus. No property owner is “entitled” to curb parking, or control of curb parking, adjacent to their property… unless and until they take full responsibility for the repair, maintenance, etc. for that curb parking area. And even then, it would be “iffy”.
So, Old East, Old North, etc. have no “rights” to on-street “permit” parking… preferential parking zones are an artifact of political coercion…
In the Core Area, the 20 minute zones were instituted by political coercion of DDBA and/or Chamber. As were the other time restrictions.
Time limits have been, and are arbitrary…
I wouldn’t call them arbitrary, but rather empirical. Parking behavior doesn’t lend itself to fine-grained scientific analysis, so some trial-and-error is understandable.
I wouldn’t call preferential parking districts bogus, either. They’re certainly the result of political pressure brought upon city officials, but that pressure is in response to a degree of on-street parking intensity that most residential neighborhoods don’t have to deal with. I live in the U District a block from campus, and several times a year — during special events — we get to see what we’d have to deal with every weekday were it not for the district. It’s bad enough that every legitimate on-street space is taken all day long, but the hyper demand often results in blocked driveways. (“I can’t spare any more time searching for a place to park, and I can *almost* fit into that spot, and those people probably don’t want to leave their driveway anyway.”)
I agree with Howard P., the special ‘no parking without permit’ districts are bogus. Nobody has the right to park on the street in front of their house.
Further, the attitude expressed by Matt W., calling students selfish for parking on the street, is just another example of the anti-student bias that exists in Davis. Parking spaces on public streets are available to all, regardless of the reason someone wishes to use one. Time restrictions should be modified if there is a need to increase turnover of parking spots. Paid parking on the street will do the same.
As to Jim F’s concern about blocked driveways, it is illegal to block someone’s driveway and calling the police results in the offending car being ticketed and towed. The added cost of the tow will quickly deter that sort of behavior.
Mark, the University provides parking for the students on the campus with free transportation from the parking lots to the core campus. Expecting the students to use that University-provided parking is not anti-student at all. It is simply expecting them to behave like good neighbors and use the University’s resources, which are dedicated to them rather than using the City’s resources, which are dedicated to the patrons of the City residents, businesses and customers of the businesses. I have absolutely no problem at all with students parking in downtown when they are patronizing the downtown businesses or visiting friends who are residents of various neighborhoods in the City.
I agree with the concept of controlling parking in the downtown, and implementing paid parking. I do not however agree with this statement above by Matt Williams as I understand it. It is inappropriate to require commercial activity (beyond possibly paying for parking) as a prerequisite for the right to park in the downtown. For example, people should be able to come “hang out with their friends, window shop, hold a peace vigil, take a brisk morning walk, watch the trains, visit a friend, go to church, or take part in many other non commercial activities in downtown Davis. These are absolutely not inconsiderate behaviors.
Colin Walsh said . . . “I do not however agree with this statement above […] as I understand it.”
Colin, first, let me say it is a pleasure to see you posting here. Second, you are right, if that statement were a stand-alone it would suffer from the challenge you have described above. However, it wasn’t a stand-alone statement. It was part of the following:
When you take those two parts in aggregate and reconcile them with the City’s trajectory vis-a-vis parking, your concern evaporates.
— In downtown people will be able to drive their vehicle downtown to “hang out with their friends, window shop, hold a peace vigil, take a brisk morning walk, watch the trains, visit a friend, go to church, or take part in many other non commercial activities in downtown Davis.” They will pull that vehicle into one of the paid parking spaces, deposit their money and go about their chosen activities. Alternatively, they will be able to pull their vehicle into one of the parking garage spaces and go about their chosen activities. Ideally, to go about their chosen activities, they will walk or bicycle downtown, neither of which will have a cost for parking.
— In a residential neighborhood (where parking meters are highly unlikely to ever exist), in most cases the activities you have described would fall under the category of “visiting” one of the people who lives in the neighborhood, who was also hanging out with their friends, window shopping, holding a peace vigil, taking a brisk morning walk, watching the trains, visiting a friend, going to church, or taking part in many other activities in the neighborhood.
Hopefully that clarifies my intent. Thank you for illuminating the possible confusion that a partial reading can cause.
Matt,
Thank you for your clarifying post. I think it is important to recognize that commercial activity, though important, is not the only reason to go to Downtown Davis I think it is pretty easy to misunderstand your posts since you specifically linked parking in the downtown to commercial activity multiple times, while only wrote about visiting in relation to neighborhood parking. For example:
Good on you for clarifying.
I also want to point out that about 60% of students are also City residents so maybe student is not exactly the descriptor your looking for. Would person using City parking to access the University be better fit for what you are describing?
Hold on, Matt… there is a “cost” to bicycle parking, too… use of the improved right-of- way, roadway (see bike parking on B north of First), or sidewalk… much less per sq ft than cars (maybe/likely) but certainly much less in total volume. 40 years ago, there was always paid parking in the ‘core area’ of where I grew up.
The other key is where do net revenues go… have yet to see this answered… the cost of equipment/signage/striping, maintenance, enforcement is not trivial… same is true under the current system, only to a lesser extent.
Bicycles require racks, use of concrete/AC that has to be maintained, and enforcement (ever notice the # of abandoned bikes?). Where is the revenue source for that? Gift of public funds due to being “PC”?
Suggest the whole thing is looked at holistically… and consistently (as to logic)… look at the restaurants/bars allowed to occupy City ROW, for their profit, and excluding opportunities for bike parking. Are those businesses being properly assessed for their “true costs” of occupying the public right of way?
Just questions, to spur thinking, and promote dialogue.
Colin, what proportion of your visits to downtown do not include a purchase? I know that such a trip for me is very rare. Even my visits to Council Chambers usually result in a purchase.
Looking at your list from your prior post:
— hang out with their friends — almost always is accompanied by a cup of coffee or a glass of beer/wine, sometimes a restaurant meal
— window shop — the downtown retail scene doesn’t provide us with much opportunity in this category. What retail store windows in downtown do you window shop?
— hold a peace vigil — my experience with vigils of all sorts has included some sort of purchased beverage at some time in the vigil
— take a brisk morning walk — my three brrssk walks (T, Th, Sa) follow various portions of the City’s broad selection of greenbelt, none of which traverse downtown. Our Saturday walk often starts at the shovels arch and goes through the Arboretum, followed by some hanging out with a cup of coffee for most of the walkers at Whole Foods.
— watch the trains — I will defer to your judgment on that one. It isn’t a downtown activity I’ve ever done.
— visit a friend — see “hang out with their friends above”
— go to church — when I go to church I almost always put money in the collection plate
— or take part in many other non commercial activities in downtown Davis — can you give me a few examples of non commercial activities in dowtown Davis. I’ve gone to a few E-Street Plaza concerts. Lots of Stories on Stage Davis readings.
Regarding the point you are making about descriptor semantics, the thread dialogue began with Roberta’s comment, “I think student behavior needs to be studied and factored in more.” That point was carried forward using that descriptive term until in mid dialogue it was modified be, “students (and maybe faculty and staff, too)”
Matt… can’t answer for anyone but myself but am going to estimate at 3% of my trips are for non-purchase/non-transactional visits, and another 3% at “transactional”… no purchase, just going to my CU/bank. No sales tax on the latter.
So for me, 6% of trips to downtown are not intended to purchase… then there are the trips who are mainly (95 % level) social, but involve a buying of a latte/mocha/coffee, but those trips would not have been made except for the social contacts…
Thanks for the response Howard. FWIW I consider a trip to a bank or credit union as transactional. I can’t remember the last time I went to my bank without there being either a deposit transaction or withdrawal transaction or both … and I always get a receipt.
So I see you as “a 3 percenter.” That is probably about the same level as I am. Coffee at Peets, Mishkas, Barista Brew Cafe, Cloud Forest and the Co-Op definitely make up well over 50% of my downtown visits, especially if you add in Common Grounds and Coffee Shots and Peets in the Marketplace. Davis Ace Hardware gets 90% of my retail visits.
Matt,
What draws me to the downtown either to spend or not to spend money is not the point. What is important here, and I believe you have already agreed, is that parking in the downtown is not reserved for only commercial activities. People can park downtown as long as they comply with the parking rules, and pay any necessary parking fees. They are not selfish for parking in the downtown and not partaking in commercial activity.
Colin, you sound like the ACLU … taking an position just on principle. That may be why you are not engaging your own list of possible downtown activities. You have every right to pursue any principle you want, but occasional reality checking sometimes makes the principle all the more compelling. I look forward to hearing how compelling your principle is when reconciled with real downtown activities.
Howard P’s estimation was that approximately 3% of all his visits to downtown are non-transactional. I find that is a reasonable approximation of my non-transactional downtown activities as well. What is your estimation of the proportion of your downtown activities that are non-transactional?
I suspect when you executing the activities of your daily life as those activities relate to downtown, you often try and minimize the number of cars downtown by having multiple passengers in the car you are riding in, park in the 4th and G Street Garage or the Co-Op parking lot and walk to your destination, or even avoid a car altogether and bicycle or walk to your destination. That is simply being a considerate good neighbor … and I think of you as both considerate and a good neighbor.
Matt,
There is absolutely no reason to be nasty about this. Are you back to suggesting that “parking in Downtown with no intention whatsoever of transacting business at one of the Downtown service/retail businesses is selfish, inconsiderate behavior?” If so, then I still disagree with you. If you think that trips downtown without commercial intent encompasses only 3% of the reasons people go downtown, then I am having a hard time imagining why you feel the need to be mean spirited about it and call people selfish and inconsiderate for the occasional trip to take their grand kids to watch the trains at the station or all the many other reasons people travel downtown without commercial intent.
Colin, what did I say that was nasty? I’m simply being dispassionate, and focusing from a global perspective on the preponderance/aggregation of the individual events. This is not a new pattern for a conversation between you and me. You often focus on individual rights, at the same time I am viewing the data from a collective impact focus.
With that said, your example of taking the grandkids to look at the trains is an excellent example of you focusing on individual events. When I read your words about that event, my mind instinctively and quickly said, “Okay, there are 65,000 residents of Davis and in the 365 days of a year, how many grandparent/grandchild train watching trips downtown happen?” After a short cogitation, I came up with the following answer … “Less than one per day.” As a result my dispassionate analysis is that the statistical impact of grandparent/grandchild train watching visits on downtown parking is statistically insignificant. Its impact on the daily lives of the 65,000 residents is also statistically insignificant. However, it is potable that when combined with other non-transactional activities it could have more aggregate significance than individual significance.
I could be wrong, but you appear to be arguing for an absolute principle, and you appear to be arguing for it with passion. If that is true then all I am asking you is to have the two of us meet on the neutral playing field between your passion and my dispassion. It is a playing field that you yourself defined. So I am coming to play on your home court when I ask you “What proportion of your visits to downtown do not include one or more transactions?” Here is your list once again, with my personal “transactional vs. non-transactional” experience with each of those activities.
— hang out with their friends — for me this is almost always accompanied by a cup of coffee or a glass of beer/wine, sometimes a restaurant meal
— window shop — for me the downtown retail scene doesn’t provide much opportunity for window shopping. What retail store windows in downtown do you window shop?
— hold a peace vigil — my experience with vigils of all sorts has included some sort of purchased beverage at some time in the vigil. There is a regular group that conducts a peace vigil every Saturday during Farmer’s Market hours at the corner of Fifth and B Streets. I suspect that each of them conduct a transaction at the Farmers Market at some time during their vigil.
— take a brisk morning walk — my three brrssk walks (T, Th, Sa) follow various portions of the City’s broad selection of greenbelt, none of which traverse downtown. Our Saturday walk often starts at the shovels arch and goes through the Arboretum, followed by some hanging out with a cup of coffee for most of the walkers at Whole Foods.
— watch the trains — I’ve noted my thoughts on this category earlier in this comment. As an individual activity its statistical significance is extremely small; however, in a larger picture in concert with other non-transactional activities it could be part of a fabric.
— visit a friend — see “hang out with their friends above”
— go to church — when I go to church I almost always put money in the collection plate
— or take part in many other non commercial activities in downtown Davis — can you give me a few examples of non commercial activities in downtown Davis. My personal list is limited. I’ve gone to a few E-Street Plaza concerts and lots of Stories on Stage Davis readings.
I think that when making policy, you have to consider the individual events as well as the statistical summation. But let me try to put this disagreement between Matt and Colin another way to perhaps break the logjam. You both agree with implementing paid parking. So, where is the policy disagreement? There has been a proposal to have businesses reimburse parking in some way after customers make a financial transaction. Do you object to that, Colin? If not, then I think this is more of a philosophical disagreement than a policy one, i.e., it’s a question about the nature and purpose of a downtown.
Matt has been talking up this idea forever. IMO it’s basically a non-starter. If local businesses wish to rebate the cost of parking to customers, they’re welcome to do so right now. I seriously doubt that you’d get a lot of them buying into that idea.
Why do you say that, Don? Validating parking is common in many places. Not sure how you’d implement it in Davis, but that’s a technical issue.
Thank you Roberta, I appreciate the way you have written about this.
Your right, I support the Councils decision to implement paid parking in the city controlled downtown surface lots. the Councils proposal includes a yet to be determined validation system to give some amount of credit for shopping in downtown stores or eating at restaurant. There is nothing in the Councils parking plan that interferes with individuals ability to come downtown without commercial intent.
My only objection was to the idea that people who park downtown without a commercial objective are “selfish” or “inconsiderate.” I just see no reason to make a value judgement like that especially because there is a wide range of reasons individuals might come downtown without commercial intent. I have tried to offer a few suggestions, of reasons people might come downtown, but I have never presented it as a comprehensive list. In short, there are many good reasons to come downtown without commercial intent that are not “selfish’ or inconsiderate.”
Colin, I agree. I don’t even think the students are being selfish or inconsiderate when they park downtown and go to campus. My point was only that their behavior needs to be taken into consideration or we will end up with a poor solution to our problems.
Roberta, correct me if I am wrong, but what I hear you saying is that even though the University is providing on campus parking infrastructure for the students (and faculty and staff too), those students should have the right to choose not to use that University-provided parking infrastructure, and instead use parking resources in the City rather than on the campus, because that is their personal preference.
Have I heard you correctly?
Thank you for your attempt to intercede in what you characterized as the logjam between Colin and me. For what it is worth, I don’t see any logjam. I’ve very clearly acknowledged that Colin is waging a passionate war on behalf of individual civil rights. I respect his right to exercise that passionate war. He provided a list of activities that he represented to be non-transactional. I responded to his list. Again, no logjam. If he chooses not to engage my response, that is his prerogative. No harm will come as a result of his non response.
Matt,
I really don’t see why you are compelled to be nasty about this. You believe that people parking in downtown Davis who are not there with commercial or transnational intent are selfish and insensitive. I disagree. That is hardly “waging a passionate war on behalf of individual civil rights.”
On one hand you claim to be responding to a specific list, but you ignore that I have repeatedly stated that these are only some of the many non commercial activities in downtown Davis. But then you claim that that the proper approach is “focusing from a global perspective on the preponderance/aggregation of the individual events.” So on the one hand you want to talk about specific instances, and on the other you want to talk about global perspective.
Its rely simple, in my opinion, people are not insensitive for parking downtown without commercial intent. You have a different opinion.
Actually, what I was trying to do was to point out that your disagreement with Colin had become unproductive, since you basically agree on policy. But if you want to draw me into your philosophical discussion, too, then no, I don’t think “personal preference” is the reason that students park downtown. It is a pain in the neck for them to do so and it is stressful to boot with the time limits. It would be much easier for them to park on campus. I think students are trying to save whatever money they can. There have been a number of articles recently about food insecurity and students skipping meals to save money. Here is one: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-uc-food-insecurity-07112016-snap-story.html . More generally, many students are on the edge financially even if they are not food insecure. So I can hardly blame them for parking downtown.
Colin, this is second time in this dialogue that you have said that I am being nasty to you in my comments. I expressed bewilderment at that assessment of my comments about you the first time you accused me of it. I’m even more baffled by your accusation this second time. You chose not to respond to my first request for understanding. perhaps you will respond to this second request. Anyone who wants t jump in and volunteer their thoughts about how I have been nasty to Colin, please feel free to help me understand.
I haven’t in any way ignored your statement that your original list were only some of the many non commercial activities in downtown Davis. I’ve simply asked you to provide more examples after noting that in my experience almost all of your examples typically include a transaction. Did you consider my asking that informational question as nasty?
Nowhere in any of my comments have I said that the proper approach is “focusing from a global perspective on the preponderance/aggregation of the individual events.” I simply said that focused approach is the one that I personally am taking . . . and then very clearly and overtly acknowledged that your approach was different. Several times here on the Vanguard I have commented on the challenges that come with decision making . . . which is especially germane to your insertion of the term “proper approach” into your comment above. When I first read the article below the concept of a “proper approach” was overwhelmed by the inherent dynamics between the five approaches presented therein.
Roberta said . . . “But if you want to draw me into your philosophical discussion, too, then no, I don’t think “personal preference” is the reason that students park downtown. It is a pain in the neck for them to do so and it is stressful to boot with the time limits. It would be much easier for them to park on campus. I think students are trying to save whatever money they can.”
Thank you for that direct answer Roberta and I agree with your premise that many students are fiscally challenged, and are looking for no (or low) cost solutions to their daily activities. I had a recent discussion on that very topic with one of the UCD students renting a room in a Davis Manor house. His personal choice was to avoid the cost of an automobile altogether. As a result to get to campus he hops on his bicycle or Unitrans and avoids both the pain in the neck and the stress. That is a self-oriented personal choice, just like the decision to own a car is a self-oriented personal choice, just like the decision not to use University-provided parking is a self-oriented personal choice, just like the decision to park in a residential neighborhood is a self-oriented personal choice.
Roberta said . . . “There have been a number of articles recently about food insecurity and students skipping meals to save money. Here is one: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-uc-food-insecurity-07112016-snap-story.html . More generally, many students are on the edge financially even if they are not food insecure. So I can hardly blame them for parking downtown.”
If it really is their goal to maximize the money that they save, I suspect that they have not fully considered the option of not having a car while they live in Davis … like so many other UCD have done.
You are assuming that the students parking downtown are students who are living within a bikable distance. But they may be living elsewhere, outside of a reasonable biking distance, precisely because it is cheaper for them to do so, e.g., they may be living with their parents, or a relative, or in a cheaper location in Woodland. They may need the car for other reasons. I don’t presume to judge whether or not they are weighing all of their fiscal choices correctly. I assume they are making the best decisions they can.
A “self-oriented” choice, yes. That is different from a “selfish” choice. Presumably everyone who is parking downtown is making a “self-oriented” choice, e.g., the person buying a delicious sandwich from Zia’s rather than making a cheaper sandwich at home. But such “choices” are more limited for those with limited financial means.
Roberta…
Appears to be a ‘distinction without a difference’… unless one (first case) is clueless, and the second is deliberate.
I agree there is no ‘malicious intent’ from most students parking downtown… but given Matt’s disclosure of the rates for on-campus parking, and doing a “risk assessment” on the potential fines, I’m just not seeing the ‘financial’ justification thing… unless one believes that it is the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ thing…
Given the price of tuition, student fees, books, beer (or other spirits), dining, etc., buying a campus parking permit seems to be a bargain.
To me, the whole DT parking thing is either a minor or non-issue… but a slight annoyance for the times I need to drive DT…
The annoyance is not having to find a space, it is paying for it. Have to see the rates proposed, but unlikely it would drive (pun intended) to Woodland, Dixon, etc.
Matt,
You and I have a fairly minor disagreement. you claim that anyone who parks downtown without commercial intent is selfish and incentive. I disagree and think there are a range of reasons people travel downtown and that commercial intent should not be a requirement to park downtown. I believe that lacking commercial intent does not make a downtown parker selfish and insensitive.
I am of course willing to agree to disagree on this. I do not see your belief that downtwon parkers lacking commercial intent are selfish and insensitive to be threatening or likely to affect city policy.
You have written lengthy posts in response to the simple idea that downtown parkers lacking commercial intent are not selfish or insensitive and claimed that I am ““waging a passionate war on behalf of individual civil rights.” That is very much over the top rhetoric. You have tried to question why I might park downtown without commercial intent and, I am unwilling to engage with you on this inappropriate exploration of what will yield only incidental evidence. You seem generally hostile to the idea that sensitive and unselfish people go downtown and engage in activities that do not have a commercial or transnational component.
It is further remarkable that your hostility is directed at what you estimate to be 3% the parking downtown.
If you are unwilling to agree to disagree, then I suggest you better explain why you think people who park downtown without commercial intent are selfish and inconsiderate.
Matt,
As to your disagreement with Roberta, what is your evidence that there is a significant number of students who park downtown to go to class?
above I meant “transactional,” not “transnational”
It is not a distinction without a difference. If you and I have a meal to share, and I give you all of it, I am being selfless. If I take half of it, knowing that I would be hungry if I gave you all of it, I am being self-oriented. If I take all of it, knowing that the meal really belonged to both of us and that you would be hungry without your share, then I am being selfish. Being selfish is, to quote a dictionary definition, “lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure.” I don’t think that a student parking in a space downtown while going to campus is any more “lacking in consideration for others” than someone who is downtown while transacting business.
Your comment about the price of “beer (or other spirits)” gives your attitude away. As I already noted, a small but significant fraction of students are already skipping meals to make ends meet. So yes, parking fees could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Some students can likewise not afford books (they get by as they can), and are already working more than one job. This is the reality.
Colin, over the years in my Vanguard posts I have on numerous occasions stated that I don’t believe there is a right or wrong in most of the issues that we wrestle with. I’ve stated that to your Vanguard alter ego several times, but for one reason or another you don’t seem to recall my saying that.
My personal view (which in itself is neither right or wrong) is that almost all of the issues we wrestle with in Davis reside in the vast gray area between right and wrong (whatever those elusive … and very personal … concepts might be in any individual issue). This issue is no different especially since there is a great deal of difference in the individual students, faculty and staff who choose to park in the residential neighborhoods (or downtown if spaces aren’t available in the neighborhoods) and walk to the campus.
My observations of you over time is that the idea that there is neither a right nor a wrong isn’t one that sits easily with you. You have lectured me in the past about Moral Compass and the need to take stands purely on the basis of Principle. Each time you have taken me to task that way my answer is the same, the Principle I stand for is doing our homework/due diligence. The questions I asked you in this current dialogue were part of a due diligence process, nothing more nothing less.
The pushback that the use of the term “selfish” has gotten is interesting. The students (and faculty and staff) who choose to park in the residential neighborhoods rather than in a UCD provided parking lot are making a conscious choice when doing so. If the reason/motivation behind that conscious choice isn’t self interest, what reason/motivation is driving that conscious choice?
I agree with Howard P that any distinction between self-oriented and selfish is a “distinction without a difference.” If/when each person making a parking decision looks into their vehicle’s visor mirror when making a parking decision the only person gazing back at him/her is himself/herself. When that same person makes a conscious decision not to purchase a monthly UCD parking permit, again the only person gazing back at him/her is himself/herself.
Matt,
You again over inflate issue with your talk of wrong or right and moral compass and personal attacks. This is really pretty straightforward and there is no reason for you to be so worked up about it. You have said:
I have stated that I do not see parking in the downtown without commercial intent as selfish and inconsiderate. I have invited you to better explain why you do think people who park downtown without commercial intent are selfish and inconsiderate. I have also invited you to offer evidence that there are any significant numbers of students parking downtown to go to class but you have declined to do that either. Instead you offer weak character attacks.
Matt, if you want to convince me or others that people who park downtown without commercial intent are selfish or inconsiderate, then by all means tell us why you feel so strongly that people who park downtown without commercial intent are selfish and inconsiderate. As I said before, I am comfortable agreeing to disagree with you on this.
Colin I have answered your question several times. First, the list of activities you provided all had/have transactions associated with them with the exception of the statistically insignificant activity of grandparents/grandchildren watching trains. So, that leaves us with only one non-transactional category … parking downtown and then walking to campus to participate in UCD activities. The alternative for those downtown parkers is a conscious decision not to use the UCD provided parking. They either make that decision with conscious intent, and in that case the only “self” looking back at them from the mirror when they make that decision is their own image. If they do not make the decision with conscious intent, then it is an ill-considered/inconsiderate decision given the availability of UCD provided parking for their UCD activities.
If you want to provide me with additional downtown activities that have no relationship to transactional activity, then I will gladly respond to those examples. The ball is in your court.
I really don’t think you have answered the question as to why you see parking in the downtown without commercial intent as selfish and inconsiderate, feel free to try again if you want, but like I said, I am happy to agree to disagree. From what you have said, you actually don’t seem to believe that there even are people who park downtown without commercial intent with the exception of “inconsiderate” and “selfish” students who park downtown and walk to class.
You have chosen to focus on one alleged activity by one demographic, parking downtown and walking onto campus, so I ask for a third time, what evidence do you have that this happens in any significant numbers?
In any case, perhaps you can agree that people who park downtown without commercial intent who are not headed to campus are not “selfish” and “inconsiderate” just for parking downtown and not engaging in commerce.
Colin said . . . “In any case, perhaps you can agree that people who park downtown without commercial intent who are not headed to campus are not “selfish” and “inconsiderate” just for parking downtown and not engaging in commerce.”
Consistently through this dialogue you have universalized my term “people” into your meaning “all people.” You have also provided an example of grandparents taking their grandchildren to watch the trains, which in most cases is (1) a downtown activity that has no immediate transaction(s) associated with it, (2) is a well considered decision on the part of the grand parents, and (3) is not self-oriented because of its educational intent for the grandchildren. As such it is an example that is both considered and not self-oriented. Therefore, it is evidence that the statement that “some people who park downtown without commercial intent who are not headed to campus are not “selfish” and “inconsiderate” just for parking downtown and not engaging in commerce” is accurate and the statement that “all people who park downtown without commercial intent who are not headed to campus are not “selfish” and “inconsiderate” just for parking downtown and not engaging in commerce” is inaccurate.
Many commercial areas dependent on a steady influx of shoppers and/or tourists use a shuttle service that runs a prescribed route on a rotational basis. Local merchants help fund the effort, with additional funding from the municipality. A city will look at the cost as an investment, as shoppers generate sales tax which is (partially) returned to the city coffers.
Customers park in fringe areas and use the shuttles. Pedestrians have the sidewalks and the streets to mingle, shuttles are the only vehicular traffic. Cyclists would also be allowed and they would be encouraged by the safety of riding in an area with no motor vehicle safety threat. Vendor deliveries are restricted to the late afternoon and evening hours.
Phil, if you were implementing that kind of shuttle service in Davis, where would you locate the “fringe area” parking lots?
I like the idea a lot, but am having a problem locating the places for the “shuttle source” parking. Some of my thoughts have thus far been:
— One possibility could be 712 G Street (north of the Co-Op).
— The redevelopment of Interland may produce a location some time in the future. The shuttle could conceivably go under I-80 on the existing bike path and follow the Putah Creek Bikeway up to the Davis Commons Tunnel and into downtown.
— 65 Olive Drive has potential for both pedestrian (through the Davis Commons Tunnel) and shuttle access to Downtown.
— The PG&E parcel could have one some time in the distant future/
Suggest adding to the list, acquisition of a portion of the PG&E corp yard… near Third or Fourth… it is an underutilized site, perfectly located… PG&E might very well not be interested in the near term, but in the long term… security would be an issue, but one I believe could be solved…
There is a certain antipathy, I suspect, due to the move a few years back, where Davis explored aligning with SMUD. Still, ‘nothing beats a try than a failure’…
That was what I was trying to get at when I said “The PG&E parcel could have one some time in the distant future/”
OK, I’ll try. This is revolutionary–literally outside-the-box–and which means it probably will never happen.
The premier shuttle service in the area already exists. If the University could be coaxed into expand it Unitrans infrastructure and add a fleet of cute little shuttle buses (UCD and City-logo adorned).
They join the existing fleet of buses and its superb maintenance capability. Numerous parking areas could be found in the fringe areas of the University. Visitors/shoppers/tourists/students, faculty/staff are directed to these areas and serviced by a 5-10 minute rotation of shuttles. Parking would be a nominal cost with reimbursement with proof of purchase at any commercial site.
A city/university partnership would pursue the numerous grant opportunities found with proposals that reduce traffic, emissions, et cetera. Bond measures would help the capital outlay expense.
Not outside the box at all. I have argued long and loud (to no avail) that the ideal location for a shared UCD/City garage was/is where the underpass from Nishi to the Campus was proposed. I personally would have made the passage across the UPRR an overpass rather than an underpass with the ramp serving the thru traffic to/from Nishi as well as access into the second level of the parking structure, which would occupy the air space above the UPRR right of way. The exterior architecture of the garage could be designed to be harmonious with the architecture of the Hyatt Place so that it doesn’t detract from the visual message the “South Entrance to the Campus” is trying to convey.
Autonomous, electric shuttles. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Sorry… missed that last line.
No problema.
I am not convinced that Davis currently has the commercial attraction downtown to make this sort of system work. The places where I have seen it be successful, there are numerous quality shops, restaurants, museums, etc. to bring people into the core area and entice them to stay awhile. I don’t see that existing in Davis now, or at a reasonable time in the future. Just taking the cars out will not be sufficient, you need to have the quality destinations in place to make it work.
If our downtown is not an attractive destination, why are so many people driving there and wishing to park?
Darell, I had to smile when reading your comment … and that was no accident. For me at least, downtown isn’t a destination for anyone who lives in Zip Code 95616 or 95618. For those people downtown is simply part of the community they live in. I realize that transportation professionals think about the word “destination” in the universe of origin/destination, but in that transportation vernacular you wouldn’t use the words “attractive” and “destination” together as a concatenated term.
“Attractive destination” the way you have used it is a tourism/marketing term, and in that vernacular downtown only becomes a “destination” for someone whose origin is outside the 95616/95618 locale. Ideally a destination without either a crash or a collision.
Hmm. Interesting.
I’d not thought of that distinction. If I’m understanding you correctly… those of us who live in Davis go downtown not by choice, but because it’s an integral part of our lives?
But some here contend that if we charge for parking, that our residents will go elsewhere for their transactions. That seems to be an indication that downtown is an optional destination. And the more “attractive” it is, the better it will be for our merchants. And some people think that congested car parking (what we get with “free” parking”) is the primary way to make our downtown “attractive.”
Best part of your message: No accidents were harmed in its creation. And I’m always glad to make people smile.
Ah yes… the old “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
darelldd said . . . “I’d not thought of that distinction. If I’m understanding you correctly… those of us who live in Davis go downtown not by choice, but because it’s an integral part of our lives?”
Yes, you are understanding me correctly. Residents use their downtown for retail (although the demographics of Davis population means considerably less retail purchases per capita than in other cities), frequently for services (including restaurants, etc), but very seldom for tourism.
dareldd said . . . “But some here contend that if we charge for parking, that our residents will go elsewhere for their transactions. That seems to be an indication that downtown is an optional destination.”
I firmly believe the anemic retail segment of the Davis economy is suffering more erosion from Internet competition than from out-of-town alternative options.
I would also ask those “contenders” whether the consumers of services actually do choose non-Davis destinations as their option.
“I am not convinced that Davis currently has the commercial attraction downtown to make this sort of system work.”
I would encourage thinking a little more broadly. On campus, we now have the Mondavi and the new Shrem museum. We have a number of restaurants although somewhat lacking on the high end downtown. We have music venues and events downtown. We have a number of small independent merchants.
With a shuttle service ( automatic or not) between these areas we have the basis to build further demand. Since I live in OED and walk downtown almost daily, I frequently encounter folks visiting the campus who are asking for directions to a specific business or if I can make a recommendation of restaurant. Perhaps some of you whose lives are not centered so close to downtown do not have the near daily experiences that I do and so may perceive the town as less dynamic than it actually is.
Phil
Yes, yes, yes……and a much clearer expression of this idea than I managed.
I disagree with this entire thread. It is based on the idea that Davis has a serious parking problem, and I think that’s just in the eye of the beholder. I usually bike or walk, but I sometimes drive, and rarely have had a problem parking.
A shuttle works where you have a real, dense, intense problem, and the cost of the shuttles, fuel and driver wages is made up by increased business. Davis just isn’t that kind of place.
Several years ago, a lunch shuttle was tried from the U to the DT. That would seem to make sense, but still it had few riders. Similarly, a few weeks ago, I used the Yolobus “Y” service from Sacramento Golden1 Center after a nearly sold-out concert. My friend and I only had two other riders using the service. Davis is just too spread-out for public transit to be in widespread use, and the downtown isn’t that dense either. People aren’t going to park and wait for a shuttle, then wait again. Most trips downtown are quick errands or meals, not 1/4-day excursions. Uber may make a difference for some when it gets a bit more widespread, but as of now, the wait can be longer than the time to drive downtown.
There’s no money for this.
Living 600 feet or so from the Unitrans line, I somewhat agree with the “tempest in a teapot” thing.
Maybe four or five times in the last ten years have I had to circle a block to find on-street or ‘parking garage’ parking DT… I go to downtown ~ once/twice a week… so, that “informs” my opinion… results for others may vary… “past performance is no guarantee of future results”…
This all begs the question, why is this “hot”?
Yet, depending how it is funded, I can see a potential benefit 10-15 years out, of a parking structure between F/G, Third/Fourth, with entrances on the streets, retail/housing on the ground floor, next floor. At a 50% confidence level… just my opinion, based on other cities of our size I’ve lived in/visited over the last 50+ years. When I travel, usually try to go “carless”, and usually succeed. Manhattan, New Orleans immediately come to mind…
Am not suggesting Manhattan nor NO are our size… there should have been a line break there. A separate point, entirely..,
but one would WANT more of a dense and intense problem of having many many people in the downtown area.. and to get that is to make it more desirable for upscale shops and eateries to locate there and to make it easier for people to head there and want to linger and shop and eat and visit..
that is where the shuttles come in.. make it more a EU park type destination….and keep the cars out….but shuttles only work when they are often enough …
the lunch shuttle was not scheduled often enough and due to the traffic congestion it was no faster than walking… and when one cannot take standard lunch breaks due to what tends to transpire in a busy office… again.. that simply was not enough….
I had no idea that that venue had even opened , until I saw the sign about that service recently….
I would bet more often that not, the masses are not even aware of the options..a..and it takes some effort to educate and to encourage people to live a more healthful lifestyle..
many places encourage by not providing the lazier options.. if the draw is not enough to overcome than the area goes down even more….
Here is the committee’s report from 2013. The operating assumptions begin on about page 33.
http://gettingarounddavis.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Draft-DPMP-Final-Report-v3.pdf
Thanks for this. As I suspected, students parking downtown while they are on campus are not part of the analysis.
I thought this was a very good point:
“Suburban shopping centers, particularly “big box” centers, distort perceptions of walking distance versus downtowns due to building height and mass. Customers frequently walk farther than realized.”
paid parking? na da
get rid of it..
BAN employee parking in the downtown areas…..
The employers should be fined if any employees park in the spots for customers…
If the employers are the ones breaching that rule, their could be a whisteblower line
The traffic patrol folks should be keeping an eye on which vehicles are where daily… and the owner of the car should receive an investigatory letter..
of the nature of 1) where do you work or do you attend the university, colleges or schools? 2) why is the vehicle with license number parked downtown daily and 3) you do know that spaces downtown are only for customers? 4) this is a warning and if the car is seen in the area again, your car will be fined and the employer also 5) if you can provide evidence that during that time you were not working and were actually shopping , the the fine will be waived 6) if this persists, then the fine must be increased to make it more likely the person and the employer will “get it”
I have posted on many a thread that the whole downtown should be a restricted zone and Richards underpass also…for pedestrians, bicyclists, local and emergency vehicles only…. vendor trucks allowed only at off hours…unitrans allowed within reason…
Enjoy the holidays.. glad to see others also thinking outside the box.
For the naysayers, the kinds of shops and restaurants will improve with better access for the older folks..and it will become more of a destination spot.
If anyone has time, and would do a survey, I would bet that many out of towners do come to Davis to eat, browse and shop….on the way between the Bay and the Tahoe and other vacation areas.
My family and I did that on then I-40 and many, many other folks who have the money and the time to head to the mountains regularly still do…
Redrum is one of the easiest spots for those who are just grabbing a quick bite…..as is the in/out.
But those who are trying to avoid traffic and have a day to kill in either direction head to a sit down restaurant…..and those kinds of folks do spend money.
Also the Mondayi and the Pavilion are huge draws as are the commencements, speakers, water polo and football games in the newer and larger stadiums.
Many shoppers who actually spend money in the downtown area are not the students nor the older residents save at specialty, art, handmade and boutique shops…
many of which we keep losing.. due to poor planning measures ….. rules that do not support the older established businesses etc
when I lived in South Davis, why would I fight the traffic and the lack of parking to go to downtown Davis, when I could more easily go to way nicer places in Woodland and now Dixon.. with a faster arrival time, free parking and plenty of it, no skateboarders and bicyclists and zombies with cell phones not watching where they are going … and where there are nice areas to walk, sit and nice shops to browse and buy at…
Woodland/ Dixon where the real farm to table restaurants are now located and at more reasonable pricing..
though Monticello was a jewel and not any more for lunch than the fast food dumps…
And don’t forget, the jewel of Winters and even downtown Sac is often faster to get to from our old house on the far eastern/southern edge of Davis..
Look at the places where business and shoppers and real food are thriving.. .
None of those places have paid parking.. get a clue folks said with lots of love
Like, say, San Francisco where I just paid $40 to park for a few yours?
Some places can afford “free” parking. Davis is no longer one of those places (while Winters continues to be, apparently). Please research the amazingly high cost of car parking. One such resource is a book appropriately called, “The High Cost of Free Parking.”
If you drive or walk to Davis, the parking is already free. We want to encourage people to visit downtown. People and cars are not the same thing. Cars don’t eat dinner or attend Mondavi performances or get their hair cut or watch movies or buy hardware or coffee.
A few years back, someone gave a talk in Davis about that very topic… perhaps the author… agreed with ~ 70% of the message, skeptical/opposed to the rest. There is also a fairly stiff price to “paid parking”, both up front, and maintenance/enforcement.
In the past, DDBA wanted ALL revenues going to downtown improvement projects… and many meant ALL… with the City absorbing all the upfront, maintenance, and enforcement costs. Alan may remember some of those discussions.
In my opinion, it should be ~ revenue neutral, with the installation, maintenance and enforcement costs met first.
Basically wrong to charge for use of public R/W, beyond direct costs.
> BAN employee parking in the downtown areas…..
I can tell you from working on the parking committee, this is not easy to do. There is nothing illegal about parking, and purpose is not part of the law. Most of the rest of the suggestions would be an enforcement nightmare, i.e. too costly to even try.
Amen.
“None of those places have paid parking”
Unless of course you define Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Santa Fe, Tucson, Claremont, Boulder … as “not thriving “.
Causation and effect… there is a difference… apples and oranges… paid parking or not, other “drivers” will govern Davis “thriving”, by and large.
Exactly! If “free” parking is the only thing making Davis “thrive” then we’re in trouble.
Ah! You beat me to it, as you often do…
Yes, if “free” parking is the main thing that keeps our downtown viable, we’ve got way bigger problems to deal with.
In San Francisco where one does not need a car to get around, only the truly dumb or the wealthiest even have a car.. Where the draw is so high that folks come anyway. Where the $40 price of a ticket is WAY cheaper than having a place with a parking garage..
where an hour parking in some places is more than that ticket now.
where most take chances as it is way cheaper to pay $40 a few times than get fired from their job or buy a parking spot … and so on…
where anyone with smarts will walk or take public transit….
and those dumb enough to not look around VERY hard for signs… as once I did.. on Thanksgiving.. when ALMOST all meters are free but not in the most desirable spots of tourist traps….
Davis simply cannot afford paid parking. . the best of the best in downtown are bailing already as it is.
Did ya know the big cities who can get away with it are now also making sure one’s license gets suspended if the parking tickets are not paid?
That is because some stop paying them after they get to many and cannot afford the tickets and the fees and fines tacked on.. and then end up with a suspension and then they can no longer get insurance and then they can get caught driving while suspended and so it goes.
Get a clue.. open your eyes and look around..
None of this is new info.. anyone who ever studied landscape architecture at UCD or engineering anywhere.. or land use principles or one of many many other topics.. will start to understand..
I may have been at that talk.. back when I lived in CA and had more time to attend talks.
Do we wanna be like MP/ATHERTON/Palo Alto? like SLO? or do we wanna be like MERCED? and the towns around it which are all boarded up? Like Lodi and Stockton areas? Like the areas of Sac which only made poorer and poorer choices…
Look at what happened to Woodlands downtown after the mall was built….look at what happened to the mall.. and now look at that mall and Woodland’s downtown..
Of course, I am now “back” at UCD>> telecommuting to finish up some things.. cya folks.. and enjoy the holidays…
Happy Hanukah and Merry XMAS and enjoy the other made up holidays or real holidays.. which also fall around these days…
Marina, parking tickets in San Francisco start at $68.00 and go up from there.
$68 Overtime Parking—Outside Downtown Core
$68 Parking-Public Property
$68 Temporary Parking Restriction
$68 Temporary Construction Zone
$78 Residential Parking
$78 Green Zone
$78 Overtime Parking—Downtown Core
$91 Yellow Zone
$91 Tow-Away Zone-Outside Downtown Core
$91 Parking Restrictions
$101 Tow-Away Zone – Downtown Core
$106 Red Zone
$106 White Zone
$110 Parking Transit-Only
$110 Remove Chalk
$110 Permit on Wrong Car
$110 Invalid Permit
$875 Misuse Disable Parking Placard/License
thank you.. I knew it was at least $40 as that is how much it was.. . some time ago. I knew it would be higher….
thanks for sharing and verifying the actual is way worse now….
Marina, I’m not sure I would agree with you that “it is way worse now.” Like the proposed sugary beverage tax, the parking fines are 100% avoidable.
yes and no, Matt, rules change, signs are missing and hard to see with trees blocking, non standard signage and so on..
Because I was a very frugal single mom, I always watched and read and looked for signs..
Because the years of my childhood since we came to the USA were in SF.. I knew a lot about parking and not parking.
My mother moved back to SF after my dad passed. She read the paper and we knew that on Thanksgiving the meters were not monitored.. it was a holiday after all and payment was not required… said so on every other meter ever.. .. . and I was still checking them.. in this case I was driving out of town guests to pick up their rental car.. and we pulled up right in front… since their English was not that great I was translating.. as they decided they didn’t want the sensible bargain I got for them, but the convertible instead…
Any my mother was also standing around.. no one even noticed the person sweep in and give a ticket within minutes.. .. .another true story…
Guess what, SF had just changed the rules in a few of the most touristy of areas..
Unlike where my mom lives in the financial district where the cheapest parking is outside of business hours, just ONE block over on the embarcadero the rules change and are much more expensive after hours, on weekends, and especially on holidays….just like at the other tourist areas..
When they installed the new meters outside my mom’s apartment, the rules also changed.. and my nephew got a $40 ticket just 2-3 years ago.. the increase in the basic fine is considerable if compared to 2-3 years ago….
he didn’t read the new rules well enough.. having parked there every week to visit grandma for years….
don’t know about anyone else, but to me that is a significant increase in a couple of years…
>the parking fines are 100% avoidable.
Not really. The confusion of markings and signs in San Francisco sometimes takes an interpreter.
Not sure how to make of that DS.
My family and most of my friends and colleagues are not the kind to go eat at fastfood places whether inside or outside of malls, and no matter if they are the outdoor malls or not…
Also not interested in wasting time walking around all of the same ole same ole ticky tacky junk stores. .which abound at most malls now in the USA either.
Of course, perhaps Santa Fe is an exception? When we visited El Paso not that many years ago to visit stepson at training, I did my research and found the BEST farm to table grass fed beef steak house in the whole town was…. we couldn’t believe it .. holding up the end of a mall.. not kidding….
BTW the latest research I have seen, and please don’t ask for a link, is that the kind of malls that were popular when Florin was built many decades ago are going bye bye and as one can observe by the new and improved mall there it is now like the Nut Tree newer mall..
Enjoy the holidays… ya al
As it happened, the best restaurant we found in the area was at one end of the mall. There was also a Bug Museum that my son enjoyed a lot, a sort of high-end natural foods grocery store, and some other locally-owned stores. In fact, it was one of the more diverse indoor malls I’ve seen.
In general, though, malls are definitely declining, and this one had lots of vacancies.
nice to hear that there are decent options in Santa Fe.. it is definitely on my bucket list and I have several friends there and a more distant relative also..
it is not very high on the bucket list though as it is in the USA and would rather travel to my fave places where I haven’t been able to go in many decades.. while it is still safe and cheap.. Greece/ Turkey/France and Russia and many countries in the formert Soviet bloc..
I will also pop in to the leading engineering university in what is now China… it was another country back when my family elders founded it.. As a member of the HPIAA…. they will roll out the red carpet.. unfortunately I cannot go until they fix the toxic smog issues in that town..
All comparisons have limitations. Of course, Davis is not in direct comparison to San Francisco, or even Seattle whose public transit cannot compare to that of SF. However, a couple of points,
– Santa Fe was certainly not a large city in the 1960’s and their downtown was not collapsing because of paid parking. Claremont is a also a small city which houses the Claremont colleges and was not collapsing at least 20-25 years ago because of paid parking. Boulder has a university and has a combination of paid parking and a walking mall and is thriving.
– Comparisons to Lodi or Stockton also fall flat since they are not adjacent to UCD which provides a steady stream of not only students, but their more affluent parents, faculty and some staff.
– I know that there is a tremendous fear that paid parking, or elimination of parking from the center with shuttle service will “kill downtown”. I believe that it might actually lead to a revitalization of downtown. How many times have we read here on the Vanguard that people don’t go downtown because of the hassle of finding a parking space. or the “congestion” caused by others attempting to do so? If it is convenience we want, peripheral parking with a public transportation option through a walking mall would provide this. If it is time limitation on spots that we want, metered parking would provide that. Both models have been successfully implemented in a number of communities some of which approximate our situation and some of which do not.
Tia, are you really comparing Santa Fe and Davis with a straight face. I asked someone very familiar with Santa Fe the following question, “What proportion of the parked cars in Santa Fe are tourists, and what proportion are non-tourists?” The person didn’t hesitate at all and answered, “95% tourists and 5% non tourists.”
If you were asked the same question about Davis, what would your answer be?
Here are two related questions. The first is, “What proportion of the sales dollars (retail and services combined) in Santa Fe are transacted with tourists, and what proportion are transacted with non-tourists?” The second is, “What proportion of the sales dollars (retail and services combined) in Davis are transacted with tourists, and what proportion are transacted with non-tourists?”
With that said, I agree with your basic premise that paid parking downtown might actually lead to a revitalization of downtown . . . if coupled with an affinity card program that supports downtown businesses (both retail and service) providing a parking “deposit” on their customers’ affinity card at the time of making a purchase.
We just spent a couple of days in Santa Fe. Because it was not convenient to park downtown, we ended up parking in the ample parking lot at the mall near the downtown. We walked in to town, enjoyed the shops, ambience, and the O’Keefe museum, and spent a little money. But we spent most of our money on food and other supplies at the mall where we parked free.
In Taos, on the other hand, there was a free public parking lot right near the downtown, with signage and lots of room, at least in the off season.
Matt, moving our conversation down here because it was getting too hard to find…
Ok, thanks, I understand this better now. So, the issue isn’t dubbing students as “non-residents” (which concerned me), but rather as “reparkers,” and all reparkers (whether students, employees, or other) would be treated equally. I guess the idea would be that such people are attempting to violate the spirit of the law. Of course, they can’t be ticketed unless they also violated the letter of the law…. so are you proposing a law change as well? Or might there be legitimate reasons for reparking?
I like that idea! Although I guess you could still have the problem of someone coming home and finding nowhere nearby to put their car, as their ice cream melted and milk soured… or as they were too far to carry their large, heavy objects. I think that’s an important issue.
Roberta said . . . “Ok, thanks, I understand this better now. So, the issue isn’t dubbing students as “non-residents” (which concerned me), but rather as “reparkers,” and all reparkers (whether students, employees, or other) would be treated equally.”
That is my personal opinion Roberta. I fully expect it is not a universally held opinion.
Roberta said . . . “I guess the idea would be that such people are attempting to violate the spirit of the law. Of course, they can’t be ticketed unless they also violated the letter of the law…. so are you proposing a law change as well? Or might there be legitimate reasons for reparking?”
I could be wrong, but I believe parking is typically governed by regulations rather than laws. Regarding legitimate reasons for reparking, I agree. There definitely are such reasons, and I suspect in each case the person would qualify as a visitor rather than a reparker.
Roberta said . . . “Although I guess you could still have the problem of someone coming home and finding nowhere nearby to put their car, as their ice cream melted and milk soured… or as they were too far to carry their large, heavy objects. I think that’s an important issue.”
Changes to each individual neighborhood’s regulations will be an evolution. It will need to be participative/inclusive process . . . with an extra measure of caution in the early months to do our best to ensure that the frequency of situations like the one you describe are few and far between. Bottom-line, it needs to be a bottom-up process, not a top-down process.
Ok, thanks. I have some doubts about the feasibility of what you are proposing. But I will wait to see how things play out.
Roberta, I got an e-mail that informed me that I misspoke above.
Parking, including prohibitions, time restrictions, preferential parking districts, reparking, etc. are all in the Davis Municipal Code, which is created by ordinances (i.e., “laws”)… Chapter 22, subchapter 22.08.
Fines are established by City Council resolutions, not ordinances.
Right. So, I see a law prohibiting reparking as one that would be likely to encounter resistance, as would be a law that might make it difficult for people to park near their residences. I do appreciate, though, trying to think out-of-the-box about ways we could make better use of our existing parking.
MOST reparkers in the downtown area are employees.. not students.. and some may also be students but are there to work..
if the employers were also fined, that would clean up very quickly…
there is NOT enough parking for even Amtrak and the lot should be expanded and left Amtrak only….tomorrow is the LAST non holiday business day of the year. I am only catching a few things on my break.
Sometimes Jerry would lemme know to go on and respond. I doubt this topic is his passion though. it is not really on the topic of my list but I have learned a few things related to this and related topics.. . and just simply cannot help myself
Roberta…
Using your clue/precedent, it was tiresome to drill down too far…
I stand by my “distinction without a difference” allusion… yet, you seem to ignore that I agreed with you ‘in the main’… whatever… best to you and yours now, and in the coming year….
That’s for real, not an allusion/illusion..
My life has been made up of being on the self-interest/selfless spectrum… when I was completely selfless, suffered much pain…
I agree with you that the main point here is the policy question, not the philosophical discussion of selfish vs. self-interested, as interesting as that may be. I let myself get sucked into the latter (despite my attempts to avoid it), but it’s the policy that really matters. If we want to try to prevents students who are going to campus from parking downtown, then fine (although I think that will be logistically difficult) – but I still don’t think it’s appropriate to label them “selfish”. I agree that being entirely selfless is a recommendation for disaster, which is why one ought to act in one’s own self-interest without being selfish (i.e., without disregard for others). You didn’t respond to my example, though, which is fine – again, I don’t think it’s the central issue at stake here with respect to parking policy.
Best to you and yours in 2017 as well.
I believe that no class of parking users should be “special”, except for reasonable accommodations who are of limited mobility, and I support the concept of the 20-minute spots where someone just needs to drop off or pick-up something… I support (in general) the concepts of timed parking, varied by the likely uses… longer times for spots adjacent to theaters, medium for dining/shopping, etc.
I actually think we should not “ban” student parking, but given the availability on campus, we should encourage them to use on-campus lots (perhaps using a bike rack to avail themselves of on-campus travel)… by the same token, would not ‘encourage’ students to take up spots in the Core, nor in neighborhoods in close proximity to the campus.
Core Area businesses are not “entitled” to parking on public lots or on the streets adjacent, but if the community’s benefit matches the needs of the businesses, we should put that on the balance sheet. Residents are not “entitled” to ‘public’ (on-street or public parking lots), nor are students.
Paid parking is something I’ve lived with in the past, but find a tad annoying, yet it helps inform personal choices… that I support…
I still am unclear where the revenues from paid parking will go… I believe it should be as close to revenue/expense neutral as possible… ex.: parking on City owned lots should cover the costs of development, maintenance, operation, and enforcement… similar for the on-street parking… parking is not a basic responsibility of the City… unlike water supply, sewers, drainage, and public safety… I fear that the paid parking revenues will go to sponsor “business”, and that the general public will “suck up” all of the costs I outlined…
I think we are almost entirely in agreement here, except I do think that residents should be given preferential parking in residential areas, unless we can provide them with other ways (e.g., an unloading area) for them to live and function.
Good point that we should be clear on where the revenues from parking will go.
If by ‘preferential’ you mean ‘first right of refusal’, rather than “entitlement”, where others are banned, we are indeed in agreement… in my neighborhood, often (actually, on occasion, but the occasions happen often) all ‘our’ “on-street spots” are occupied by others attending events at neighbors’ houses, service folk, etc. No thought here of “regulating” that…
For a quick drop-off of a UPS parcel, etc. they can momentarily block our driveway… for other things, we could plan and occupy a street spot, freeing up our driveway for a service call, etc. All a SF residential owner needs to do to provide a parking space is to move one of their cars onto the street, freeing up the driveway for their “guest”…
Howard, my view is that it depends on location. I live far enough from campus and downtown that no one parks near my house to access those areas (except for Picnic Day and other large events). So, in that case, totally open parking is appropriate. But if someone lives in a highly accessed area near downtown and campus such that they would rarely be able to park near their dwelling, then I think the permit parking that we have now, with limited hours, is appropriate.
Roberta… acknowledged… but the question will then be, “where is the line drawn”, and by whom?
In a purely residential area, where we owned a SF rental, the neighbor across the street did not want to see a car on “his” street, in front of his house… ever… he wanted a preferential parking district in Davis Manor.
A true ‘conservative’ would want to honor his request… laissez le bon temps rouler..
Yeah, those kind of people need to get over themselves.
I think you draw the line based on observed usage. It’s pretty clear to see which areas are filling up/impossible to park in because of their location vs. other areas where you might not get your “preferred” spot but where there tend to be others very close by.
We used to live just “over the line” of where the permit parking was. We’d occasionally see people park there and bike into campus. But there were still plenty of spaces. Not a problem.
I don’t disagree Roberta… but the question is who is the “observer”? Aye, there’s the rub…
I think you can develop criteria – X spaces available over Y time in a block of Z length, and then apply them consistently. If X is often zero, then you know that you have very good reason to have permit parking.
I’d be interested to know how the decisions were made currently.
Well said Roberta. Very well said indeed. I too let myself get sucked into the semantics discussion of selfish vs. self-interested. You and Howard have refocused the dialogue on a much more constructive plane. Bravo to you both. My dirty fingerprints applaud you.