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.