Given the time of night it was on Tuesday and where they were in the meeting, delay made sense. But in a lot of ways the council simply prolonged the agony.
My commentary on Thursday generating good discussion, I’m going to highlight Don Shor’s comment because, while he often makes good and thoughtful comments from a more centrist perspective, I think it’s the wrong approach here.
He writes: “The council should just table this whole thing. There’s nothing close to consensus about it and the current proposal is not sufficiently explained as to its basis. I’m not proposing recreating the committee that worked on this, but the council needs to meet with those who are directly affected by it. There’s a communication problem here at the very least. I really think it’s only a very narrow interest group that supports this proposal at this point.”
There is some definite pushback he receives here. Mr. Shor further clarifies in a response, “I have said the task force made a number of suggestions and it is not implementing them in the manner that was described…”
I want to unpack these points a bit more.
My view of the situation is fairly straightforward at this point. I have read the research on paid parking, have seen the consultant report and the task force report, and have seen how paid parking works in other communities – and I largely think that the stakeholder pushback is fear-based rather than empirically grounded.
As one of the commenters noted in response, we have already had the process. The city had a multi-year task force weigh in – participants included, by the way, the Davis Chamber, Alzada Knickerbocker and Jennifer Anderson. These were key stakeholders who seem to have changed their views on this.
The task force findings and recommendations were backed up by consultant reports.
Moreover, there has been a long delay between 2014 and now to even get to this point. To put this into perspective, Robb Davis served on this task force as a citizen, before he was on the council. He 
went on to serve a full term on the city council and we still haven’t seen implementation of it.
Don Shor would and has responded that the task force recommendations were supposed to have been considered as “an integrated package,” and I agree that would have been ideal. The one recommendation that is being excluded, at least for now, is new parking supply.
But while Don Shor and others have rightly made this point, it is not clear to me how this changes the equation. The first problem that we have is that there simply is no availability of funding for a new parking garage. Second, I’m not really sure how having a parking garage in addition to paid parking really changes the game.
In fact, I might argue – though it would be my personal opinion – we actually at this point don’t need both paid parking and a new garage. I would argue that because right now I think we have sufficient supply to meet the demand. At the same time, adding more supply would likely help to negate the need for paid parking – at least on the margins.
If you want to hold out that we need to do both at the same time, I think you’re saying we have to do neither because a new garage has no funding. And maybe that is Don’s point, that we need to go back to the drawing board.
The problem with that is that we have already invested considerable time and energy to this approach. I agree that the stakeholders are against paid parking – about 70 percent of those who spoke on Tuesday, about 5 to 1 if you go by council emails, and even more if you read comments and letters in the local paper.
The problem I have is that none of those people are experts on this.
We get Ron Glick’s point to another commenter that he dismissed “the people affected by meters because they are not experts.” He argues: “I think I have a good grasp of the economics, the supply and demand dynamics…”
Ron goes on to argue that “knowing right and wrong is not correlated to book learnin’.”
But there are key points missing here. The first, is that we are not talking about right and wrong – we are talking about the most effective parking supply system.
Second, we are not talking merely about book learning or diplomas (as his comment diverts to) but rather empirical studies based on data in other locations, and applying our current supply and demand system to the experiences of other locations.
The third problem is that stakeholders have a vested interest in the system and therefore have become risk averse – they prefer the current system which is known, even if it is suboptimal, to an unknown system. The consultants are able to weigh in dispassionately and simply examine the data and make a recommendation.
Someone asked whether the consultants have ever not recommended paid parking. I don’t know the answer to that but I’m not sure that it really matters. First of all, the question assumes that they have some sort of stake in what they recommend – which seems unlikely. Second, they are likely to jump into situations that are similar to one we face, where there is insufficient distribution of parking resources.
Third, it is likely that their chief contribution is not whether or not to go to paid parking, but rather what that system looks like.
We finally get back to the original point I made – I think the key variable in this whole system is that we have enough parking currently, but because non-consumers (i.e. employees) are utilizing the current parking supply in disproportionate numbers, we have a scarcity of surface parking that would not exist with a better distribution.
Let me add to that point – those who are consumers of parking are in effect asking or even demanding to be free riders in this system. Parking is not free. We have skewed the market for parking by providing it to the consumers for free, but parking spaces have a cost that are borne by someone.
Those demanding access to free parking are in fact demanding that someone else pay for those spaces because they don’t want to. That comes at a cost. The cost is scarcity, at least in some locations in downtown at some times, and that scarcity comes at a cost as well. It contributes to congestion, to added emissions, and to people using their time looking for a parking spot rather than going to a parking spot and then purchasing goods and services downtown.
It also acts as a deterrent, pushing some people who might come downtown to not want to spend their time and money circling around and looking for parking spaces.
The key question that I don’t think has been decided is where that sweet spot actually is that maximizes open parking spaces and customers at the same time. That is likely to take some trial and error.
But we know from the experience at the E Street parking lot that people will choose to pay money for convenience even when there are so-called free spots in the near vicinity. Given that, all the data and analyses point to a reasonable conclusion: let us make this call and move forward rather than continue to debate this issue for the next ten years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
1. Think of parking demand like a balloon. If you squeeze it in one place, it bulges out in another.
2. Demand for parking in downtown is increasing, yet people keep saying we don’t’ need more supply. Given the demographics of Davis (residents increasingly older, more drivers) and the changing nature of the businesses (more restaurants = more parking demand) the demand will continue to increase.
3. There are frequent references to suggest that all of this is data-driven. But every field has its fads, and urban planning is no exception. I have also read the reports. These are not studies in the sense of scientific analysis, they are case histories more akin to what you get when you study business management. As such, they should be explained with the parameters that make them successful (once that is defined), with the unintended consequences explored (impact on specific types of businesses, for example), with comparisons to similar communities where the policies have not been enacted, and so on. That hasn’t been done here.
The data you are citing is used in a persuasive, one might say didactic, manner, not in a neutral or objective manner. It is intended to persuade you of the merits of the policy. It doesn’t take too much work to find some wrinkles, such as the places where the parking meters have been abandoned or where the use of handicapped placards has significantly affected the outcome.
Experts do have a stake, it is in their own validation as experts.
4. There is a very patronizing subtext here. “They’re experts, you’re not, so we should do what they say. Even if the opposition to that is (or appears to be) overwhelming.”
The experts haven’t told us what is likely to happen to the revenues of local retailers. You can call a concern about that aspect “fear” but I would suggest that you would have reasonable concerns if your own livelihood was at stake. I suggest not minimizing that concern.
5. Let’s stop putting the onus for this on the employees. They are, in fact, consumers as well while they are here. They are working in the shops you frequent and are a part of this community. They have every bit as much right to park downtown, wherever it is legal, as they go to their jobs as you do. It isn’t their responsibility to solve the demand, supply, or distribution problems of parking in Davis. They have actual time constraints in getting to their work; you don’t have to be at a store ‘on time’ or face disciplinary action. They are the lowest income stakeholders here, and are least able to afford options that increase their parking or transportation costs.
6. We have increasing demand, and need to manage supply and distribution. The task force CLEARLY addressed that. Yet many seem to wish to set aside the supply part and focus only on distribution. Perhaps some, especially those who speak on behalf of the biking community, actually wish to reduce the demand by trying to push drivers onto alternate modes of transit.
I understand why retailers would be concerned about enacting policies that would make the downtown seem like a less desirable destination. Perception is reality when it comes to making shopping choices.
The pushback I’ve had over the last couple of weeks includes people
— who were unaware of the downtown shopping options, therefore assuming that there wouldn’t be an adverse impact on retailers;
— people who think this is caused by laziness;
— people who admire experts and simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with them;
— people who want to blame it all on employees;
— people who think the proposal needs to be tweaked.
I haven’t heard anyone acknowledging that the retailers might actually have a legitimate concern, or that the expert advice might not be applicable equally to every situation. The problem is that parking meters are pretty permanent, compared to just painting curbs different colors for different parking options. And in the absence of an increase in supply in the face of increasing demand, I suggest the balloon is just going to bulge out on someone else’s block or in someone else’s neighborhood.
Don
Where is your evidence for this statement: “2. Demand for parking in downtown is increasing, yet people keep saying we don’t’ need more supply. Given the demographics of Davis (residents increasingly older, more drivers) and the changing nature of the businesses (more restaurants = more parking demand) the demand will continue to increase”
David has done an excellent job in the Vanguard showing that we have substantial excess parking supply for almost all hours, but it is not smack dab in the middle of town. Pricing would move people to the spaces that are already available.
Do you have evidence that vehicle registration is increasing dramatically in Davis? Or that VMT is increasing?
And as a counterpoint, what about the increase in ridesharing services that reduce the need for driving downtown? That is a much more likely future according to the transportation forecasts, and for our aging population, a much better solution given the rising accident rate for older drivers. (85 years plus are as likely to have an accident as a 16 year old.)
Richard:
The population of the town has increased by over 5000 people in the last decade, and the population on campus has also increased by a few thousand in the same time period (there is some overlap in those numbers, of course). We know roughly what travel modes are here. Parking options have not increased proportionally in that time period. So I think the proof is self-evident.
Restaurants and food establishments are required to provide more parking spaces than regular retail. I suppose you could ask the city staff for the justification for that.
You mean Uber and Lyft?
“Uber has long claimed that it can help reduce traffic by getting people into shared rides and eliminating circling in search of parking. But a new study showed that for each mile of personal driving Uber and Lyft eliminated, they added 2.8 miles of professional driving — for an 180 percent increase in total traffic.”
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/16/uber-traffic/
I think the jury is still out as to their impact on congestion overall.
So much to unpack here David but let’s start with you taking the throw away line about book learnin’ literally. A better critique of the we are not experts argument is the quote from the Wizard of Oz I used:
“please remember what the Wizard told the Scarecrow ‘Back where I come from we have Universities- where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts, and with no more brains than you have. But — they have one thing you don’t have– a diploma! ‘”
Davis is a pretty well educated town and prides itself as such. Being dismissive of the locals because they are not experts is a little insulting don’t you think? I’m pretty sure the people of Davis have the critical thinking skills required to evaluate whether or not they want paid parking. We can disagree on the policy, and can even do so passionately, but, being dismissive of people because they disagree with us by playing the expert card is kind of insulting. Especially in regards to those who served on the parking task force but changed their minds for good reasons. You loved them when you agreed with them but now, after all, they aren’t really experts.
But you’re still missing the fundamental point between someone being smart, someone being book smart, and someone doing rigorous peer-reviewed empirical data analysis. The stakeholders are basically smart people who are arguing against the research based on anecdotal evidence. That’s problemtic.
“Not so much.” — Borat
Arguments or plans for how to proceed based on anecdotal evidence is very much problematic. An example from my own life (graphic descriptions): I had a suspicious spot on my face that appeared and over the course of several months continued to grow in size and change color. Then it actually began to bleed. So I just picked at it a lot and rubbed it with hydrogen peroxide and worried the hell out of it with repeated bouts of picking and H2O2 and guess what? It went away! So everyone who thinks they have a melanoma should just do what I did. Experts are overrated, you know.
I’m really sorry I was eating a bagel with cream cheese and lox when I read the above comment . . .
Two points:
1. I find the criticism of the consultants to be misplaced. Once upon a time, I wrote the scope of work for a consultant. The consultant went off and wrote a final report that bore little relationship to the scope of work. So the report was not helpful. It really depends on the staff and of course on the direction to staff from the policymakers – not on the consultants. It seems to be a “blame the messenger” situation. (I’ve also worked as a consultant, and believe me if the direction is not specific enough and clear, then the work can be very difficult and the result can be only so-so.)
2) I found the opposition of the business community to be based largely on fear. Who do they represent? They represent, in my opinion, only their business interests and the people who walk into their stores. We hear(d) from the old line merchants in Davis, not the owners of the “new” downtown – restaurants and bars. They mentioned several times that “the people” don’t want paid parking. This is a very limited sample of “the people” of Davis. Their arguments, in my opinion, are lacking in evidence and don’t really go very deep. They agreed with the task force’s report and now they want to sit on their hands and do nothing. (The one opposition group that stood out was DCC who provided some real evidence for their arguments.)
Overall I agree that the city needs to do some more work before implementing the paid parking plan. I don’t agree with Don that we have a supply issue. The data (yes, yes, from the consultants) shows we have plenty of parking. The issue of employee parking needs to be better addressed. The new lot on Olive sits empty most of the time I am told. Extending X permit parking into the neighborhood needs to be clarified. The hours are something that puzzles me. Why Sunday?
So yes, we’re not there yet but I think that having meters (or kiosks) will come. SLO and Chico (big college towns) have implemented it, and we should look to them too, not just the La Jolla’s and Palo Alto’s who have not. The business owners are playing the bullies and the council needs to push forward.
Fear and Loathing
“I found the opposition of the business community to be based largely on fear.”….”We hear(d) from the old line merchants in Davis, not the owners of the “new” downtown – restaurants and bars.”
Another possibly is because some of those owners may be afraid of retaliation they didn’t speak up individually. Your point says nothing about the many merchants who voiced objection through trade organizations like the Chamber of Commerce.
Does the Chamber speak for all the businesses in town? I bet there are any number of merchants who either have no opinion about paid parking because it doesn’t concern them or they disagree with the Chamber’s stance. And correct me if I am wrong, but the DDBA survey was not unanimous in its opposition to paid parking. (Although we don’t know the details of the survey they sent out to their members.)
And to your point about retaliation, as I said, the business owners are acting like bullies.
How so?
I think it was the Chamber guy who said he was representing 77 businesses. How many are there?
Parking adequate?
Solutions?
Paid parking?
Complete survey results:
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/06-ParkingSummaryDataAllResponses20190108EDITED.pdf
The Chamber has very few restaurant owner members, so it does not speak for that community.
Really? Whay is it you discount old line businesses? Aren’t they the heart and sole of Davis? With rents rising, restaurants and bars aren’t going to be the dominant category, CHAINS will be. I’ll take our established old-time merchants anytime over that future.
Free parking isn’t free or “Freedom’s just another word for nothin left to lose.”
Its free to me, my friends and neighbors, and up until now everyone who can manage the time limit restrictions and the daily and seasonal demand oscillations. Yes, at times its impacted, but most of the people I know have adapted and deal with that without going defcon five. Also those impacted times are limited to 2-4 hours a day but the city needs a 12 hour a day seven day a week paid parking solution beyond even what the task for asked for. Why?
The devil was in the details of course. The Monday through Saturday 10-8 recommendation of the task force doesn’t pencil out so they had to go longer. By adding 2 hours a day and 12 on Sunday they are adding 40% more paid time. Let that soak in for a moment. They aren’t doing that because of actual parking demand they are doing it because by their own calculations the meter program can’t pay for the meters, the new enforcement officers, the maintenance, the new parking management position and I didn’t notice if they were included or not, ongoing consultant fees.
The 10 year budget projection showed around a $300,000 dollar surplus that is an average of $30,000 a year. Without going 12/7 that projection goes negative. So it isn’t that people are being asked to pay the fair price of parking based on supply and demand dynamics its that they are being asked to subsidize the parking management industry most of the time to address a peak demand problem of limited duration.
Since almost all towns have Sunday off, I wonder if parking violation tickets bring in added revenue due to people getting a ‘surprise’???
“The devil was in the details of course. The Monday through Saturday 10-8 recommendation of the task force doesn’t pencil out so they had to go longer. By adding 2 hours a day and 12 on Sunday they are adding 40% more paid time. Let that soak in for a moment. They aren’t doing that because of actual parking demand they are doing it because by their own calculations the meter program can’t pay for the meters, the new enforcement officers, the maintenance, the new parking management position and I didn’t notice if they were included or not, ongoing consultant fees.
The 10 year budget projection showed around a $300,000 dollar surplus that is an average of $30,000 a year. Without going 12/7 that projection goes negative. So it isn’t that people are being asked to pay the fair price of parking based on supply and demand dynamics its that they are being asked to subsidize the parking management industry most of the time to address a peak demand problem of limited duration.”
This is the one valid argument against paid parking presented so far. I’d be interested in seeing more exploration of this issue.
However, on the other hand, we have to ask what’s the cost of the other solutions being offered? Certainly a new garage would cost MUCH more than this with insufficient added revenue. What are the other solutions and the costs of those?
“Do they listen to stakeholders? ”
It would seem that there was an earful from a limited group of “stakeholders” at City Council & in published comments. Some of the most vocal coming not from people who have done a careful analysis, but from those who as one speaker was very honest about simply “do not want their behavior changed.” It is this kind of comment, which I feel is likely broadly held, that is driving the no paid parking crusade.
But let’s look a little more closely at “stakeholders”. Unlike what some appear to assume, it is not just the downtown merchants who are stakeholders although they are the most visible and audible. Don alludes to another group of affected stakeholders when he said:
“I suggest the balloon is just going to bulge out on someone else’s block or in someone else’s neighborhood.”
I live in a neighborhood that will be impacted. My house is near the intersection of 3rd & J. I am already impacted by railroad parking in my neighborhood. I will be impacted by the construction of Trackside. Yet I favor the proposal for metered parking downtown. Why? Because I believe it will improve the parking situation downtown in terms of turn over and availability. Further, I do not believe there is such a thing as “free parking”. This amounts to the subsidization of the downtown businesses by the rest of us since these spaces have a cost, but no benefit to other “stakeholders” such as those who never come downtown anyway, or those of us who walk or bike as our preferred mode of transportation, and those of us who live on the streets where parking will increase, yet we do not hear this mentioned.
Yes, I am a stakeholder. I will be affected at my home. I support paid parking.
Neighborhoods affected by parking usually end up pushing for special permits so they can continue to park on ‘their’ streets. Note the slight disparity in how this is priced:
Residential Permits: Virtual permit tied to your license plate @ $15.25/year
Visitor Permits: Physical permit mailed to your address @ $15.25/year
Commuter Permits: Virtual permit tied to your license plate @ $120/year or $10/mo
That is how the bulging balloon is handled when it impacts an existing neighborhood. Maybe those permits should all be priced the same?
Clearly, the parking problem downtown has been caused by too many garages in nearby residences being converted to dwelling units. So I propose all permits be priced at $120 per year, all residential areas be fully open to parking of unlimited duration so long as the vehicle has a permit, and a fee be assessed for residences whose garages are not functional for parking vehicles.
Also, I propose that any individuals be allowed to buy and re-sell as many such permits as they wish within a fixed number at the outset, so that a robust free market in parking permits be allowed to properly manage the parking situation. The invisible hand will prevail.
I suspect the downtown parking problem would evaporate.
Now I’ll yank my tongue back out of my cheek.
Wow, DS. I agree with about half of your initial points. The above is ridiculous. Well, maybe it has some ideas, but isn’t even half baked. Maybe 1/5 baked.
Oh, didn’t read the last sentence about tongue/cheek. Retract.
Don
I am aware of the permit parking and have used it for as long as I have been in OED. However, what it does not take into account the changes which will be imposed when the city introduces the X parking permit into our neighborhood as planned.
As Tia says, publicly owned free parking is a taxpayer-funded subsidy with differential benefits for the various parties. The genuine stakeholders are those who pay the subsidy, the taxpayers. Primary beneficiaries of the subsidy are those who can afford/choose to own and operate a private vehicle, the shopkeepers and business owners who desire available parking for their customers and employees, and the landlords who own the buildings around which the free parking is situated. Among those beneficiaries, it is those business entities (and their landlords) with greatest numbers of customers and employees utilizing the free parking throughout the day that receive the greatest benefit. Paid parking changes the balance between the stakeholders and the beneficiaries, with those benefiting the most from the available parking paying a larger share of the cost of providing it (though by no means, all of those costs).
The questions we should be asking here are, is the continuation of this public subsidy (as is) justified, and who benefits the most from maintaining the status quo?
Also who benefits from the change? Then you need a cost benefit analysis comparison. In my view since I am adapted to my environment and can manage under the current system without paying you are asking for a private subsidy from me to pay for congestion pricing for others because the mostly non-peak times I visit downtown should cost zero but will need to be charged to pay for the parking management itself.
Also I pay plenty of property taxes because I bought my house in Davis 42 years after my next door neighbor and have supported the parks tax, the public safety tax, the library tax, even the road tax that failed. I didn’t even complain about water and garbage rates going up even though I am paying more and getting less because I have a big tree that I can barely manage and wish they would keep the claw. So I’m not ashamed to want a little public subsidy when I go downtown if it means that I won’t need to suffer parking meters.
As Mark West states (rightly I believe) what is the cost of the public benefit, for whom, and should it continue?
Yes, Ron, you pay for parking – as opposed to your earlier comment about free parking for all. Parking is not free. I walk to downtown and shop in the stores so I subsidize the parking by paying the prices the storeowners set.
The store owners pay for parking indirectly and if some analyses suggest that installing paid parking is actually good for business (see https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/11/4-reasons-retailers-dont-need-free-parking-thrive/3978/). Yes the data is from the UK where they pay in pounds, but some of it may apply to Davis.
Actually, they also pay for parking directly. They pay fees, but I can’t remember how those are calculated. I’m sure someone will let me know and I’ll pass it along.
Don Shor says: “The data you are citing is used in a persuasive, one might say didactic, manner, not in a neutral or objective manner. It is intended to persuade you of the merits of the policy. It doesn’t take too much work to find some wrinkles, such as the places where the parking meters have been abandoned or where the use of handicapped placards has significantly affected the outcome.”
The consultants were hired to help the city implement a policy that the policymakers had agreed upon and wanted to implement. They didn’t come in in a vacuum. The CC said we want to implement the findings of the DPTF so please provide us with an expert consultation about how to do that.
As one of the commenters noted in response, we have already had the process. The city had a multi-year task force weigh in – participants included, by the way, the Davis Chamber, Alzada Knickerbocker and Jennifer Anderson. These were key stakeholders who seem to have changed their views on this.
David, I think you listened to the Chamber, Alzada and Jennifer, but you did not hear them. Their comments did not represent a change in their views, but rather an indictment of the City’s implementation of the Task Force recommendations. Jennifer was very clear on that point, noting that the Task Force recommended a measured/controlled/incremental implementation … not the big bang that staff has put on the table. She also observed that that measured/controlled/incremental implementation was supposed to start several years ago, implying that staff has inactively/indecisively fiddled away time while Davis burned. She was also clear that staff’s failure to adequately plan the implementation of the task force recommendations, should not impose a crisis on Davis’ downtown businesses.
While I personally lean toward implementing paid parking with a no-meters, smart-phone app approach, I do think Jennifer, Alzada, the Chamber, and others do have a valid point. A point that you seem to be missing.
Matt, a no meter, smart phone approach isn’t legal. As was explained in the meeting, under California law there must be a place for people to pay with coins. Old technophobes rule the world.
But more importantly there sure seems to be a lot of faith in this technology. Some of the stories coming out of Sacto about the failure of the pay by ap technology are a nightmare. My advice is to carry lots of quarters.
I second your observation Ron… I have no problems with the cell app, or CCards being an option… it smacks a bit of elitist not to keep coins/paper as one of the options… more egalitarian, to give all 3 options…
I do not advocate paid parking, nor do I oppose it… I do expect the equipment (including sinking fund for replacement), maintenance, enforcement, administration to be revenue neutral, at the very least…
I would agree with this opinion as long as the original purchase and installation costs are amortized (for budget purposes) over the expected lifetime of the equipment and the fees from the meters are only expected to cover the incremental costs associated with enforcement and administration. We should not be including any of the current costs for enforcement and administration in the budget since those costs will be present with or without paid parking. I think the CC should seriously question any proposed increase in enforcement personnel as the areas being considered for meters are already included in our current enforcement area.
Ron, that California law sounds like it is a good candidate for legal challenge, either through forward-looking legislation or court challenge. Sticking our heads in the sand while time marches on is not good planning. Neither is rolling over in the face of adversity.
JMO
P.S. I thought the proposed system of initially a warning ticket was a good one for dealing with the recalcitrant technophobes. Many, many toll roads across the United States have converted to a No Cash system. How does the California law you cite handle that change? https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/11/25/40543/no-more-toll-booths-orange-county-toll-roads-going/
I don’t know I’m not a lawyer but on the bridges they either have a pay lane or take a picture of your plate and send you a bill. I’m simply repeating what was said in the meeting I think by the consultant.
No pay lane on lots of the toll roads any more. Either you get E-ZPass or FastTrak or SunPass or Freedom Pass or TxTag or you roll the dice. In all cases they read/photograph your license plate and send you the bill. In some cases the bill is reasonable … call it a premium toll rate 200% to 500% of the actual toll. In other cases they go right to the violation level with fines and fees added to the base toll.
Don Shor challenges me to explain my comment about the merchants being bullies.
1) They come to CC and complain that the city does not listen to them;
2) They claim to represent all of the City’s merchants but present no data to support their claim;
3) They angrily (DDBA representative) deride the consultants and the outcomes of their report as bunk (my word not theirs);
4) They cite dire consequences of paid parking and say the CC will be to blame if bad things happen;
5) They work to generate negative emails to CC thus skewing what appears to be public opinion.
Just like the anti-fluoride people a few years ago they have rallied their troops to make it appear as if they are the true representatives of Davis citizens. They are essentially the only organized opposition to paid parking downtown.
Calling them bullies is inflammatory. But sitting in the chamber and watching them, that’s what it felt like. When the parking task force recommended implementation of it’s findings they were not wishy-washy, they recommended the findings: “While the package of recommendations is within the City’s ability to implement, additional human resources will be required to execute, monitor, and maintain. As a result, growing pains may occur as Davis modernizes its approach to parking management, specifically if adequate resources are not allocated.”
Sounds like they are “activists”. What is the difference between “activist” and “bully”?
1) They come to CC and complain that the city does not listen to them;
2) They claim to represent all of the City’s merchants but present no data to support their claim;
3) They angrily (DDBA representative) deride the consultants and the outcomes of their report as bunk (my word not theirs);
4) They cite dire consequences of paid parking and say the CC will be to blame if bad things happen;
5) They work to generate negative emails to CC thus skewing what appears to be public opinion.
Which side you are on. Same argument regarding “terrorists” and “peacekeepers”.
I used to live at the beach. Many days I would see people people parking with their placards and then, taking a cooler and chair out, haul the 300 yards across the sand.
There was a place on Venice beach that would give you an MJ card and a handicapped referral at the same time.
Matt
I would be much more inclined to give more weight to the concerns of Jennifer, Alzaida and the Chamber if they were to actually present data to support their view. Until then, they have their opinions on what may happen, just as I have mine. Without support, all of our opinions remain just that.
Here is a study which illustrates why parking pricing may not create the desired outcomes, and explains why.
https://www.ipsgroupinc.com/market-priced-parking-theory-practice/
But here’s a question which results from that study: if the data is collected from these parking meters by the city, and the pricing cannot be adequately increased to achieve the desired outcomes, will the meters then be removed?
My answer is that I seriously doubt it.
Here is another unaddressed issue with pricing parking: the parking handicapped-placard effect
http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2013/parking-without-paying/
Great article on handicapped parking Don. Many people have asked me why I don’t simply get a handicapped placard and by extension an exemption? My answer is that I am disabled not handicapped. Handicapped parking should be reserved for those who truly need it. In my personal view abusing handicapped parking regs is one of the most selfish things a person can do. As things are I am quite capable of managing my disability without a handicapped placard and I thank god and my orthopedic surgeon for my ability to walk as well as I do. Having said that I think a lot of people who support paid parking as a means of deterrence or sorting seem to be oblivious to the needs of the older or less physically able members of the community.
I think it would be good to know about the placard (and scofflaw) rates of parking in town. How did the consultants take this into account.”
The same article though suggests that modern meters don’t breakdown as much as they used to: “Meter failure was a substantial problem, accounting for 19 percent. This problem, however, is solvable. Newer, computerized meters rarely break down, and failure drops sharply as the share of computerized meters rises. Since we completed our surveys, LA has upgraded all its meters.”
Amen to that. Every morning I may observe a pickup truck park at/across from my house, in our permit district, without a permit. I complained to the City about this person, and was told they have a handicapped placard and cannot be cited even in a parking district!
I watched more closely, and this person who is ‘handicapped’ regularly grabs many pounds of belongings, then bounds like an antelope across the railroad ballast, where there is no public trail, with these heavy and uneven bags, for their morning Amtrak commute train.
For example!
Seems the easy solution is just to leave the number of blue spaces now, and charge for parking everywhere else. I see lots of empty blue spaces now.
Don… as to,
There is always “citizen nullification”… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bneviIHiIKs
Always an option…
[One can buy the equipment @ Davis ACE or Hibberts…]
“The primary takeaway from our research is that performance pricing will always have to navigate a tension between the effectiveness of a price (does it actually create vacancies?), the stability of a price (how often does it fluctuate?), and the political acceptability of the price (is it so high that the public revolts, leading to no pricing at all?). Because this balance is most difficult to strike in the highest-demand areas, which are the areas most likely to generate cruising, the benefits of pricing programs may not be as large as were originally hoped. Nevertheless, the benefits are large, and SFpark was a beginning, not an end. Policymakers and academics alike should work to expand and improve upon San Francisco’s valuable work.”
This is the concluding paragraph of the article Don Linked. It seems that the pricing mechanism we have been told is the solution to all our problems is not nearly as perfected as we have been led to believe by the advocates and parking meter sales people the city hired.
That’s my conclusion as well. It seems the proposed pricing structure is arbitrary and not evidence-based, and it is unclear what, if anything, will be done if it doesn’t achieve the objectives. This project is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, all on what seems like thin evidence and a rather formulaic implementation (copy what they’ve done elsewhere).
The council needs to publicly address the pricing proposed, and explain the upper limits they’re willing to consider.
This study was in SF where daily parking can cost an excess of $30. It’s now far cheaper to take the train at $55 roundtrip than to drive. Of course a change of 25 or 50 cents was going to have a minuscule effect on parking demand. In Davis, parking has much less value, and price changes at that level will affect demand. The study does show how pricing can be managed to manage demand. So this study isn’t of much use in refuting the feasibility of parking fees here.
If the effect isn’t sufficient, how high are you willing to go on the pricing?
I understand your point Tia . . . and in fact Jennifer did provide relevant data . . . specific to the paid parking phased implementation timeline that the task force recommended. That data clearly shows that the City/staff have not to date followed that phased approach, which is a matter of public record. Jennifer did not say, “Do NOT do paid parking!” what she did say was “Follow the phased approach described in the Task Force recommendation.
I believe her argument is that the fact that the City/staff have allowed the start date of the phased implementation plan to slip for several years should not change the original phased implementation approach.
JMO
Matt
I disagree on the Chamber’s message. I got their email as a member, and it voiced strong opposition to paid parking and their view on likely impacts.
“I think a lot of people who support paid parking as a means of deterrence or sorting seem to be oblivious to the needs of the older or less physically able members of the community.”
Again, personal opinion needs to be taken for exactly what it is, opinion, unless supported by evidence. I am 66. Having been confined to bed rest for 2 weeks and dependent on a walker for another 2-3 with an orthopedic problem several years ago, I am keenly aware of the needs of the less physically able, and yet I favor paid parking with exemptions. This is an argument for accommodation, not against paid parking.
Isn’t that taken into account as a legitimate use of placards?
I actually agree with that and addressed it as such in a conversation I had with Gloria Partida but the article was about people who abuse the handicapped placards and how it effects paid parking systems. Also in the part of my comment where I said lots of people I left room for opinions such as your own. The reason I left it vague is that I didn’t want to call them out by name or organization.
I must admit that the no anonymous posting rule has a positive impact on the tenor of the discussion.
I can’t figure out how to comment on comments that do not have a “Reply” arrow.
That said, Matt Williams said the staff is proposing a “big bang” approach to paid parking. I disagree. Paid parking was one of 19 recommendations of the Task Force. As the slide show on Tuesday evening showed, seven recommendations have been implemented (Slide 5), seven (including paid parking in the SW quadrant) in progress (Slide 6), three on hold (Slide 7), and six not started (Slide 7). (This adds up to 23 because there was some overlap, e.g. Recommendation 2 is partly implemented and partly in progress.)
And I find “staff bashing” impolite and unhelpful when staff is supposed to do the bidding of the CC. Yes, staff have minds of their own and they probably have competing priorities. But it seems to me that given the number of staff working on the parking issue (I think Brian A. is the only one), the number of recommendations, and the impact they would have, I don’t think it’s too bad.
If staff hadn’t changed an important finding of the task force to comport with the current staff proposal on the slide showing task force recommendations (I think the one you identify as slide seven) not yet implemented and misrepresented the work of the task force there would have been much less bashing of the staff from me.
Robert, you are changing my statement. I did not say “big bang” approach to the 19 Task Force recommendations. I said “big bang” approach to implementing paid parking, which is only one of the 19.
Also, you are unilaterally inferring that my reference to “City/staff” actually means “City staff.” That inference is correct. The last time I looked the City (with a capital C) includes Council, Commissions, City Manager and staff. There are a multitude of fingerprints on the delay.
I stand corrected re. the “big bang” reference.
And Matt says: “Jennifer did not say, “Do NOT do paid parking!” what she did say was “Follow the phased approach described in the Task Force recommendation.”
Yes that is what she said in the CC chambers, but have you seen the little signs at every register in Davis Ace Hardware that states opposition to paid parking? They don’t say: “Follow the phased approach…”
Robert, if Jennifer had brought one of the “little signs” to Council Chambers on Tuesday and waved it conspicuously during her time in line and during her actual comment, I would agree with you. However, she was very measured in her comments on Tuesday night. I was actually quite surprised in the constructiveness of her comments and remarked about that restraint to the person sitting next to me.
So it’s OK if she provides “measured” comments in front of CC but then opposes paid parking at her cash registers? Seems to be a lack of consistent message on her part.
You are imposing a stigma on her actions. Inconsistency is far more prevalent than consistency. As a result I expect it to be the exception rather than the rule. By its very definition the ability to learn is an active manifestation of inconsistency, since our state after we have learned is inconsistent with our state before the learning took place.
From Vox: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
Five years old and some of the links don’t work but it’s a good take on Shoup’s theories about parking.
WHOOP! WhoOoP! WHOOP! Fear based alert . . . Fear based alert.
I can’t remember if it was stated here on the Vanguard or at the city council meeting that somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of all parking spaces in the study area are occupied by employees and business owners. Nobody had anything to say about how this fact has been addressed or worked on as part of the solution to making more spaces available. I find that very interesting. One would think that if the Chamber people are so concerned about parking for customers that they would embrace a strong effort to utilize the underutilized garage spaces by all downtown owners and employees as an alternative to the more onerous paid parking. Does it boil down to business owners not wanting to give up their parking spot right in front because they don’t want to look like a hypocrite by insisting their employees park in a lot and walk to work?
How exactly do you think the owners can prevent employees from doing something legal like parking on the street?
They can’t insist. That’s part of the issue.
I’ve noticed with “progressives” that their solutions always incorporate elements of fascism.
I won’t call it fascism but this council does seem to want to regulate so many things that aren’t worth the trouble like where you can park a jump bike or leave a shopping cart. At least you can make an argument that dealing with parking is something that is not a total waste of everyone’s time. I simply don’t agree with the direction they want to go but when you take it as a whole with the jump bike parking, the declawing of Davis, the shopping carts, the noise ordinance, the basketball net regulation, the plastic straw ban and parking regulation it does start to feel stifling and annoying if not downright oppressive.
Whoa, what are the “elements of fascism” here?
Jim, if your employer has a brief 5-minute meeting and explains that it is important that all of us park in an area that is within walking distance to free up spaces for our customers, many, maybe even most will voluntarily comply. Especially if it is something the owner is willing to do and constantly reminds their employees. It becomes part of the workplace culture. “Please park at the blank, blank place. I’m doing it and it’s important for all of us to do this.” As with everything in the world, leadership starts at the top. How is that so hard to understand?
“The same article though suggests that modern meters don’t breakdown as much as they used to: ‘Meter failure was a substantial problem, accounting for 19 percent. This problem, however, is solvable. Newer, computerized meters rarely break down, and failure drops sharply as the share of computerized meters rises. Since we completed our surveys, LA has upgraded all its meters.’”
If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you. The author is obviously a true believer. The stories out of Sacramento of system failures tell a different story.
I stopped at
Everyone who visits or wants to visit is directly affected by this.
Thanks, Don for posting the link to the DDBA parking survey, which I admit I had not looked at before. I found some of the responses interesting (given a menu of possible options to increase parking availability fully 75% of respondents suggested that building an automobile parking structure was the way to go! Question No. 18). Another interesting response was that 54% of 56 respondents report that their employees do not move their vehicles when parked in time-limited spaces during working hours (Q26). And 56% of 56 respondents say their employees DO NOT park in time-limited parking spots. My question is what’s up with employees not moving their cars? Do they get tickets? And, how do the employers know where their employees park and can say so with such accuracy?
I would not expect such a survey to garner much support for paid parking downtown, although on Q39, 24 respondents report supporting paid parking. Of these, 54% say it should be in surface lots and parking structueres and 21% say on the street. Surprisingly, 25% say all over downtown.
I would have like to have seen the results reported only for those businesses that do not have private parking and also sliced by type of business (service, retail, food, etc.).
I’m not sure what this survey adds to the debate. It’s pretty self-evident that the downtown businesses have opposed the City’s proposals for a while. It seems to me that their understanding of the economics of parking (let’s build more parking structures) is pretty unrealistic from a fiscal viewpoint. Their only answer is to keep things the way they are. Seems like a head in the sand approach to me.
Both Ron Glick and Don Shor comment on the concluding paragraph of an article Don linked too. I have a different takeaway than both of them. The article bemoans the limits of demand-based parking management, but also points out that the benefits are large. The authors conclude by noting that SF’s experiments is a starting point, rather than the end. And I am not sure copying the success (if limited) of others is such a bad idea Don. I see it as learning from others and maybe improving it in a situation that is quite a bit different from others.
I would like to see the consultants present models of different pricing and see what differences these make. Nobody is going to randomize parking in Davis so we can control for all the variables – that is what good modeling is for. Let’s demand to see the models. Why not have a presentation outside of CC for all the parking geeks in town.
In the first comment to this article Don said this: “Demand for parking in downtown is increasing, yet people keep saying we don’t’ need more supply. Given the demographics of Davis (residents increasingly older, more drivers) and the changing nature of the businesses (more restaurants = more parking demand) the demand will continue to increase.” (BTW, is this last statement accurate?)
There was a similar sentiment expressed many years ago about water in California. Some stakeholders wanted to build more storage claiming that the water supply needed to be increased. The Metropolitan Water District, the biggest water user in the state took a different tack. They began to manage their water more wisely and low and behold by dropping their water usage by 10% they created several reservoirs of new water without new infrastructure. Davis can do the same thing by more wisely managing their parking.
Ron
“I won’t call it fascism but this council does seem to want to regulate so many things that aren’t worth the trouble..”
First, I believe anyone bringing up “fascism” is deliberately introducing hyperbole into the discussion.
More importantly, there seems to be the idea that “oppression” is only on the part of the government. I sincerely doubt that any of our councilmembers sit around devising useless schemes to “oppress” the people of Davis. I would be willing to bet that every single one of the items you mentioned as oppressive has been brought up by some member or group from the private sphere. While you may not personally be troubled by shopping carts left on the sidewalk or open spaces, or don’t mind unwanted straws being set out automatically, only to be thrown away, I disagree and would like to not be faced with their presence nor the waste and pollution they represent. Personally, I find litter, waste, pollution eyesores in our neighborhoods to be “oppressive” and definitely worth the trouble to manage.
The busiest time is around lunch when people visit downtown during their lunch break.
If paid parking reduces turnover time, then it probably means that during lunch time, people go to eat then immediately leave downtown instead of staying longer to buy ice cream, boba, or to shop.
If paid parking reduces cars, then it probably means that some people decide not to have lunch in downtown at all.
If meters are so expensive to break even, then economically there is no benefit to the downtown businesses but to the meter vendor. It would deter those who just want to get a drink at lunch.
How is paid parking supposed to help businesses?
What is our goal? Are we trying to design a solution for this problem:
“How do we take the smallest risk to reduce downtown congestion and pollution, while letting downtown businesses thrive, and get people from outside downtown fed and entertained during lunch hour?”
It seems that this can be done by enforcing without metering. During 10am to 2pm, enforcement could apply only to a side of a block that is completely filled. As long as there is still space, there is no reason to punish anyone. To pay for the parking citation, the person can instead submit a receipt(s) of shopping at downtown on or after the citation date with a value greater than the fine. Then people who are parking longer while shopping are not punished.
“The busiest time is around lunch when people visit downtown during their lunch break.”
That’s one of the busiest times.
The proposal is to set parking fees at a level where the parking spots are largely filled during the peak times with a few available spots. That means that MORE people will be circulating through downtown at vehicles turnover. You are thinking of the special case where individuals might stay downtown longer to go to multiple businesses, but there also is the case (which I think is more frequent) that they simply stay in the restaurant longer while spending the same amount of money. If instead they leave earlier and someone else comes to go to a different business then the total revenue increases. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, then we are left with two possibilities, equally valid, about driver/consumer behavior.
People absolutely hate solutions that actually put a price on something that they have been getting for free at a cost to someone else. They hate it because they know that it will eventually change their behavior. But putting a price on a resource almost always is the least expensive way from society’s perspective to solve a problem.
“Least expensive”
How does the proposed parking meter system detect and fine violators?
Depending on how that is implemented, my suggestion would not involve installing meters, but still supporting turnover, with an exemption only to those spending more money in downtown. If your argument was that, increasing turnover increases downtown revenue, then doesn’t my suggest has a better guarantee that people will spend more by setting the fine three times the amount a group in a seden would spend per hour? All the money would go to downtown.
If the “crime” was that they parked too long and didn’t let downtown earn money, then they redeem by paying downtown.