December 3rd’s Davis City Council item was merely a warm-up to the larger debate. Most of the parking recommendations from the year-long process of the Downtown Parking Task Force seemed commonsense and low-hanging fruit.
There were concerns raised by members of the public about going to a paid parking permit at the Amtrak Train Station. One commuter noted that while $5 a day does not seem like a tremendous amount of money, it would make his total cost unaffordable.
Others were concerned about the issue of paid parking, with Councilmember Lucas Frerichs noting that he could easily and quickly support 17 of the 19 task force recommendations, but paid parking and a new parking garage were a different matter.
From my perspective, this was the piece we published on that Monday, December 2, that few people saw.
I want to be able to put my weight behind the parking proposal, but I can only put half of my weight behind it, because I do not believe it solves the entire parking problem.
Some people will say that parking is the biggest problem we have in our downtown, but as someone who works every day in the downtown, I don’t agree. The biggest problem that we have in the downtown is that the streets are poorly set up to accommodate multi-modal forms of transportation.
Try driving through downtown at a peak period either near the lunch hour or around five pm, and you have heavy traffic mixed with pedestrians mixed with bicyclists. You hit a four-way stop and it’s difficult to navigate through. Bicyclists will run stop signs, and pedestrians will move across the street. It is a nightmare and there is no way to avoid it.
Compared to that difficulty, parking is a small issue. If you are willing to walk a few blocks, parking is rarely an issue.
The graphic above illustrates the issue. Even during the peak times, there is only 85% capacity – that is 12-1 pm. There is a secondary peak time during dinner, but even that tops out at 75%.
Now according to the study, there are about 2100 parking spots available in the core. That means even at the worst times, there are still about 250 spots available and most of the time it is more like 700 spots available.
As the task force writes in their summary: “Generally speaking, the most coveted on-street parking can be very difficult to find on most days beginning with the lunch time peak and extending through the evening during the week. On-street parking and off-street parking lots and garages are underutilized.” Some of this can and will be fixed relatively easily.
For example, “Parking literature and past studies conducted in Davis confirm downtown employees occupy prime downtown parking spaces. While it is not known what percentage of the downtown parking supply is occupied by commuters throughout the day, the desire to influence employee parking behavior dates back to the 1961 Core Area Plan. If employees can be shifted from prime on-street parking spaces into the underutilized parking supply, the downtown carrying capacity can increase, stimulating economic growth.”
Those types of solutions are low-hanging fruit – they are no brainers. They reflect the fact that we do not have a parking problem, we have a distribution problem. We allow long-term parking to utilize spaces that should be short-term spaces, while forcing commuters toward the periphery.
So too is fixing the Amtrak Parking Lot situation which allows out-of-town drivers to park in the lot free of charge, making parking unavailable to other riders and users for much of the day.
And there is available parking at Fourth and G in the garage which has 199 publicly available spots that “are not fully utilized” with occupancy rates ranging from 10 percent to 59 percent.
From our standpoint, therefore, any “solution” that fixes these low-hanging fruit, these particularities of the Davis parking scheme, is a good thing.
So, we fully support the idea of increasing employee parking location options, particularly if it gets employees out of short-term commuter parking and into the garages. We fully support efforts to increase the permit fees and streamline the parking to an “X” permit. And we certainly support converting the Amtrak Lot to paid parking.
Restricting double-parking of delivery vehicles is a must – especially during peak hours – but it’s a problem at any time.
But to us, the biggest solution has to involve the biggest problem and, from our standpoint, the biggest problem is not parking by itself but the interaction of multi-modal transportation on streets designed largely for one mode – the automobile.
In the past, we have supported the idea of a large parking garage that funnels traffic away from the underpass and allows people to easily exit their vehicles at First Street and walk to their destination. Removing large amounts of vehicles from the equation may help.
At times we have pondered the idea of an automobile-free downtown; however, businesses would fret that this would harm their bottom line.
So, why not create a tiered system? Right now, they are proposing paid parking in the southeast quadrant of downtown. This, of course, has led to some believing that this would harm business. Many other downtowns charge –sometimes a lot – for parking, with little harmful impact.
The other alternative would be to make all street parking 30 minute parking. That solution allows the person who has to make a quick stop to get something from a store, or take out from a restaurant, to have the ability to park right out in front of their destination, to go in and out and leave.
But, of course, if you want to do this, right now during peak times, that is difficult to navigate through pedestrian, bike and automobile traffic at intersection after intersection.
A lot of cities have created a tiered system – the shorter term your visit, the closer you can park to your destination. For a short trip, 30 minutes or less, you can park in close on the streets, two-hour parking a bit further out and long-term parking in the garages.
The bottom line for the parking task force report – they seem to tackle a lot of the low-hanging fruit that causes us the most problems. However, the longer-term question involves the ability of the city to look toward changing transportation patterns and use parking to bolster those changes and help clean up the downtown once and for all.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Don’t think this issue and any ‘solution’ will satisfy ‘all the people all the time’. Kind of like pizza. different likes and dislikes.
Since employee parking is mentioned as part of the problem (do we know how much?) how about trying to encourage/restrict them to a garage? I don’t like the idea of shorter free parking time asI like to park once and walk around downtown for errands instead of moving car. How about employee parking using X stickers; do you use one David? When I worked downtown I used one and parked in the Scout lot. Worked well.
I have a designated spot in a private lot.
Lucky you!
It’s a huge expense actually for most people.
The one half hour time limit is not the way to go. Leave it at the current 2 hours free parking. It’s enough time to see a movie, get a meal and do some shopping.
I disagree, if you’re going to a movie, park in the garage. There’s a garage right next to both downtown theaters.
I can agree on the garage for the movie, but still one half hour isn’t enough time to sit down to a meal or to do much shopping.
You wrote: “But to us, the biggest solution has to involve the biggest problem and from our standpoint, the biggest problem is not parking by itself but the interaction of multimodal transportation on streets designed largely for one mode – the automobile.”
As Brian Abbanatt and Matt Kowta pointed out in their presentation to the CC, because of poor parking management/lack of effective supply, when an area reaches 90% occupancy 80-95% of cars circulating in the area are probably looking for a parking space. Thus parking and traffic volume are tightly linked. Better manage the supply and circulation declines. Of course this does not deal with the problem of cyclists engaging in dangerous behavior. That must be dealt with via other means.
Robb has they been discussion about trying to direct people to the G Street lot more aggressively? (which if done before people enter the core area, could help the car circling congestion issue. )
Absolutely. I don’t have the recommendations in front of me but the issue of wayfinding is included and there is a recognition that we need to help direct people into these underutilized spaces.
Can the city offer discounted long term parking passes for the Amtrack lot to Davis residents?
B Nice – The short answer appears to be “no”. There is more to it than this but even adding paid parking at all will require renegotiation of the terms under which the lot was built.
Davis does have a parking problem, our addiction to free parking. Free parking is a tax on everyone to pay for the convenience of a few. We should install parking meters throughout the downtown area for all on-street parking, and for all of the City owned lots. That way, the people who are paying for parking downtown are the ones who want to use the parking spaces downtown. No reason to charge those who are walking, on their bikes, or just going somewhere else, too.
The most ridiculous aspect of this discussion though is the attempt to blame the current problem on pedestrians and bicyclists.
“The most ridiculous aspect of this discussion though is the attempt to blame the current problem on pedestrians and bicyclists.”
If you’re inferring that to my comments, that was not my intention. I was trying to suggest that the interaction at intersections that only have four way stops is a bigger problem.
Get a clue… the purchase, installation, and maintenance of bicycle parking is a public subsidy, as it is for motor vehicles. I believe that merchants need to contribute more for the City maintenance of both, but there is a public benefit for economic health. We need a balance.
Even maintaining sidewalks (‘street trees’ mess those up), are a public subsidy, as under state law they are the responsibility of the adjoining property owners, but the City has taken that responsibility on. Joint responsibility and contributions are called for.
We all pay for the streets, sidewalks and bike paths. We don’t need to all pay for someone’s convenience of parking their vehicle directly in front of their chosen destination. Completely different things.
I could just as easily say we don’t all need to pay for someone’s convenience of parking their bikes downtown too. We all don’t need to pay for the nice sidewalks that people who live close to downtown and don’t have to drive to use either. Are the people that don’t live close enough to downtown to make biking or walking a viable alternative going to be punished and forced to pay to park? It’s nice for some that are willing to pay for the convenience of parking closer but it comes off as elitist to those that might be on fixed budgets or to the poor. So if they can’t afford the fees they can just park farther away and be forced to walk so more open spaces can be had by those that can afford them?
Secondly, Mark West tell me how someone parking downtown for free costs you money?
The High Cost of Free Parking
Donald C. Shoup
http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
Here is an article based on some of the results found in the above linked paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=0
GI: I would be more sympathetic to your elitist argument if not for a couple factors: First, free parking would still be in relatively close proximity to downtown (less distance then people walk when shopping at a mall). Second the cost of parking is relatively low (a dollar an hour). If either of these factors were to change then I would share your concerns.
Haha, a dollar an hour might be considered low by you but to many that might seem expensive. So, the ones that can’t afford to park up close can just park on the outskirts. But that’s great for the ones that can afford to pay because the poor parking farther away makes for more openings for the ones that have the money to pay for the privilege.
Compared to the parking price I paid when visiting Sacramento on a school field a dollar an hour does indeed seem cheap. Since owning and maintaining a car is expensive the ability to do so also seems like a privelage. Since parking spaces come at a cost to the city maybe those privelaged enough to own a car should help pay for the spots they need to park them in.
So you would make the poor walk further to get a free spot because you feel they’re privileged just to own a car while other more privileged car owners would have primo spots because they could afford the fees. If you want to compare most small towns don’t charge anything to park, so cherrypicking cities that do charge is a non starter. This is so funny because all you liberals insisted that the poor having to pay a couple extra dollars a month to buy fluoride toothpaste or drops was going to be such a hardship on the poor, but now charging them a buck an hour to park is okay. SMH
I see your point, walking a few extra blocks instead of paying a dollar an hour to park, is a hardship no one, who can afford to own and maintain a car, should have to endure. It make the pain a 5 years old with an abscessed tooth seem negligible.
Well back at cha, if someone can afford to own and maintain a car then for sure they should be able to spend a few bucks a month on fluoride toothpaste.
Dead beat 5 year olds. When are we going to do something about them? They are such a drain on our society, plus they really shouldn’t be driving, can they even see over the steering wheel?
Comeon B. Nice, are you purposely being obtuse.
I’m not sure. What does obtuse mean?
“Free parking is a tax on everyone to pay for the convenience of a few.”
Really, do you think most people bike and walk to downtown? When I park in the outskirts of town, in front of my own house is that also a tax on everyone? Who paid for the sidewalks for pedestrians and parking spaces for bicyclists? By your reasoning they should also have to pay a tax. We all have paid for the bikepaths, so if someone doesn’t use them are they being unfairly taxed?
Getting people out of cars and onto alternate means of transportation will ultimately save the city money, so if sidewalks, bike paths, and bike parking etc. help accomplish this you could argue that they pay for themselves.
How would more bikes and ped trips save the City money?
For starters, if the downtown was not safely accessible by bikes a new parking structure would be necessary. From what I understand these are far more expensive then bike racks.
Fixing and expanding roads are expensive endeavors. Having accessible safe alternatives to automobiles, which translates into fewer cars driving around, slows down road degradation and the need to expand road infrastructure, which translates into the city saving money.
If paid parking in the core area leads to less congestion and more available parking, (for those making quick trips, have mobility issues or have little ones in tow), it’s worth far more then the dollar an hour currently being charged in the E Street Plaza, and I would gladly pay it, as long as it is not a hassle to do so. Besides having to remembering my parking space number from the time it takes me to walk from my car to the payment machine (I sometime challenging task for me), I have found paying to park at E St. plaza a simple and convenient process.
I encourage the city to invest in a survey of shopper interests/needs. In my opinion, add any additional hit to convenience and kiss a percentage of downtown sales tax revenue goodbye.
Paid parking is fine as long as there are meters close and those meters except credit/debit cards.
The problem with our Downtown is basically one of congestion. To many bikes, pedestrians and autos crammed into a small area due to the lack of options in other areas of town.
You can’t make it more difficult for autos when people live far away, and they are required to shop downtown for products that require an auto for transport… without causing a percentage of them to go elsewhere. Convenience is an important shopping criteria for most people because most of us have time constraints.
Those that want the downtown to convert to a primary pedestrian and bike destination should support making downtown primarily an entertainment and boutique shop destination. Otherwise, we are forced to need a car and we need to park near the retail location that sells plywood and mulch for example.
People already shop elsewhere for the convenience, which is one reason why our per capita sales tax revenues are so anemic relative to our neighbors. The additional cost of a parking meter will do nothing to change that equation, however having easier access to parking because of the meter may.
Downtown is already an entertainment district, which makes our continued insistence on acting as if it is (and always should remain) our main retail center all the more ridiculous.
“Downtown is already an entertainment district, which makes our continued insistence on acting as if it is (and always should remain) our main retail center all the more ridiculous.”
At least as recently as 2012, Davis Downtown had 84 retail members. It is our main retail center, and if you wish to change that fact you need to update the General Plan.
The Davis Downtown web site (much improved, by the way!) lists 84 retail and 91 food businesses. That is a healthy balance, and it’s not an accident. It results from planning.
Thanks for the tip Don. The website http://davisdowntown.com looks great. (I’m not sure I even knew it existed.)
The foundation of the building is crumbling, threatening the lives of all inside. Do you shore up the structure, or stop and rewrite the building codes? Plans are great, but only so far as they allow for modification in the face of a changed reality.
Downtown Davis has morphed into an entertainment and boutique retail center, but not by planning. That occurred by default when there wasn’t sufficient space for major retail businesses to open in the area. The only profitable options remaining were small boutiques and places to sell alcohol, and of course filling up our retail spaces with professional offices and satellite centers for the University. Even if you subtract out the sales tax due to auto sales and only consider the remaining balance, I doubt that the downtown sales accounts for a majority of the sales tax revenues in the City. Subtract out alcohol sales and the percentage due to the downtown will be even smaller. Downtown is no longer our retail center, though it is a nice entertainment destination. The problem is we didn’t replace it with a new retail center, we just accepted the higher rate of tax leakage to our neighbors. No wonder we have a $5 million plus (and growing) structural deficit. What a great example of planning!
“they are required to shop downtown for products that require an auto for transport”
I didn’t know Thai food required a trunk.
Your editorial offers a constructive mix of valid criticism and creative suggestions. The community has not done a good job with the planning or investment necessary for effective multimodal transit or employee parking when compared with other peer communities like Boulder. Indeed, why not be actively discussing options like increasing the size of the lot near Ikedas to accommodate employee parking and establishing a regular bus service between the Downtown and Campus?
Recommending the issuance of more X permits would be helpful as a revenue generator, but the fact remains that – unlike Boulder which features a robust transit program and where an X permits buys you an assigned space – in Davis they serve merely as hunting license and the available spots are few.
The idea of free 30 minute parking is worthy of discussion, particularly for those retail customers or those who prefer to dine & dash. City staff’s number one acknowledgement in their report to council was the point that visitors and customers expect to find free parking. And, for those who prefer to shop and spend locally, but have no practical alternative to their car in order to carry home their purchases, why create unnecessary reasons not to shop Downtown?
Somewhere in this discussion of the need for more parking, it would be helpful if Staff could further explain the how and why Downtown parking has become so much more difficult in the past decade. What was once relatively in-balance, what was once only a relatively minor customer inconvenience – i.e trying to find an open spot – has now become a point of aggravation at certain times of day.
In the process of their recent review, both the Task Force and City Staff have chosen to ignore the issue of differential parking demand based on occupancy type, its impact on the parking supply equation, the appropriate role of Parking Impact Fees (Parking In-Lieu Fees) in governing the mix and balance of appropriate infill, and how other communities have chosen to address this aspect of parking management. In an earlier era, the City had required new, expanded and higher density uses to provide higher ratios of on-site parking – examples being Davis Commons, along with both of our newer cinema complexes. Yes, these were NEW, higher-usage projects, where it is common to require additional parking in the development agreement.
But from a planning and infrastructure standpoint, it is a well-established fact that sit down restaurants create parking demand loads which are 3 to 5 times greater than for comparable retail or commercial uses. In its presentation to Council, City staff has acknowledged the introduction or conversion of 50,000 SF of new restaurant uses in the Downtown over the past decade. By most available, published parking standards, that conversion would translate to an increased demand for some 400-500 additional spaces. And yet, during this period no additional new parking spaces have been provided to accommodate either the increase in employees or the increase in customer load.
Indeed, parking is not free. Somebody has to pay for it – the land, the asphalt, the structure and maintenance. Those who advocate paid parking are generally recommending that our visitors and customers should be required to foot the bill directly when they arrive in town. Certainly that is one approach. Another approach, an approach followed in great number of communities, is to burden the landlord of Downtown properties based upon the demand which their tenant business impose upon the local parking infrastructure. In other words, the parking demand from a 6,000 SF bank with 15 employees and an average of 30 customers or an engineering firm in the same space with 30 employees and even fewer customers be significantly different than for a successful, 6,000 SF sit down restaurant and bar which might require 30 employees simultaneously accommodate 100 or more guests each requiring an hour or more of parking. In those communities which incorporate parking demand load in their equations, the banking, office and retail uses are typically be required to provide 2 to 2.5 spaces per 1,000 SF while a sit down restaurant use would be required to provide 12 to 15 spaces per 1,000 SF.
At some point, every community is faced with addressing this basic equation of who should be responsible for absorbing the associated parking impacts and parking costs when higher demand parking uses begin competing for spaces in an urban setting. If a restaurant wants to come to town, and they require net new parking requirement of 30 new spaces – should the burden be on the city to absorb the required additional parking infrastructure impact expense? Should the pre-existing community of businesses and their customers simply be expected to accommodate the increased congestion and deterioration in available parking? Should there be any obligation of the building developer or building owner, who is typically able to command a higher rents for businesses characterized by higher tenant and customer demand (in which case it would be the new operator and their customers helping pay for the higher impacts), who should be required to fund the additional up-front investment created by the more intensive parking demand introduced by their more parking intensive operations?
The next big issue will be a growing chorus of voices to densify Downtown – to build up – not out. Vertical expansion makes a lot of sense, but in the same way that higher demand uses drive a need for increased parking infrastructure – so too high-rise construction creates a higher parking demand. As with the previous example of change of uses, should the burden of the cost of providing that new infrastructure fall on the developer whose activities are generating the increased demand and increased value for the investor? Should the burden fall on the city to provide the additional required infrastructure? Should the burden fall on the rest of the businesses in the Downtown to simply absorb the increased demand? Or, should the burden fall on all customers and visitors to the Downtown to pay an additional parking fee to help pay for such impacts?
Downtown Davis needs more parking. Now the discussion is how and where that parking should be created, how the cost should be financed and how the costs will be recovered.
I haven’t had a change to read your entire post, (running out the door). But I wanted to address your last statement that Davis needs more parking. I agreed with you until I saw the report from the parking committee, which showed that in general there are spots available, especially in the G Street garage. I think before building new parking the city should concentrate it’s efforts on redirecting people to available spots.
I totally disagree with your suggestion of paid parking at Amtrak. I do not use the train regularly, so this does not affect me personally, but if you charge $5 or more for parking there, you will further erode use of rail for traffic between Davis and other cities. As it is now, and at the price of $.50 per mile for operating an automobile, taking the train between Davis and most destinations makes economic sense for one individual, but not for two. Parking fees at the Amtrak station increase the cost of using rail. This policy would negate the efforts at reducing automobile traffic for air quality and traffic congestion goals. As a policy it is penny-wise and pound foolish. I’m neutral on the rest of the plan with the exception of an additional parking structure which I most definitely do not like unless they can build the whole thing underground (probably financially impossible).
I keep hearing that parking spaces cost the city money. Can someone please explain to me how a parking space located on a street can cost anymore than maintaining the road itself like roads are maintained everywhere else? If anything the street parking spaces generate revenue for the city through parking citations.
We don’t have a parking problem in the downtown 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We have a parking problem in parts of the downtown around the Noon hour, some weeknights and most weekends in the prime dining hours. Only in those limited periods is demand greater than supply for most shoppers and diners.
My suggestion is to use a market-oriented approach to reach an equilibrium in those limited times of the day and week. How to do that? Install parking meters in all city lots and for most street parking spaces. Charge a very small rate–say 5 cents for 90 minutes–when supply exceeds demand. But in the times when demand is very high, charge a market-clearing price–perhaps $5 for 90 minutes.
The idea is to encourage those with lower demand yields (i.e.,less money) to park cars downtown only when demand is softer. That will free up spaces for those with the highest demand (i.e., most money) to park in the prime times. It may suck, but poorer people–myself included–will suddenly find good alternatives, including bicycling, walking, taking the bus, ride-sharing, etc.
A market approach will not harm the downtown, compared with what we have now. It will make it a lot more convenient for those who are there to spend money. And it will end the nonsense of cars driving around in circles looking for the one open parking space.
The City should use the funds to cover its costs and pay off the equipment. Once that’s done, the money should go to the DDBA or into a parking garage fund. Alternatively, it might be used to subsidize Unitrans to offer direct bus service to downtown Davis from all over town.
I like the idea of a market-oriented approach, especially as the goal of installing meters is to open up core spots during peak times. Is there any need to charge at all during the times when parking is in least demand, say 9:00AM on a weekday?
“Is there any need to charge at all during the times when parking is in least demand, say 9:00AM on a weekday?”
I don’t know. My thought was that a minimum charge in the meter would be useful to set the timer for 90 minutes. After that, you have to move your car or get a ticket. (The garages probably need to have 120 or 150 minute limits, not 90.)
Alternatively, the meters could just be shut off in the non-prime hours, and the parking enforcement cops who drive golf carts could chalk tires and make sure no one exceeds the time limit.
If you don’t have a way to make sure people move their cars within 90 minutes (or some other reasonable limit), you would likely be creating a new lack of supply in non-prime hours.
I try to do as much of my shopping as possible in Davis. But if downtown parking fees are imposed, I’ll make an effort to go to Target or Costco.
J.R., I’m curious do you think the parking issues facing the downtown area have a negative impact on it’s businesses?
I’m with you there J.R.. I’m not always going to go to shopping strips away from the downtown, but if I have a choice I’ll go to where the free parking is. When going to Costco in Woodland I’ll be sure to go to a grocery store over there since I’m there already. If the city goes to paid parking and enough of us make a statement with our dollars maybe the city might have to rethink their policy. I know I’d be a little nervous if I owned a downtown business.
If a paid parking system is implemented well and results in more available parking and less congestion, downtown business will benefit from the increased number of people willing, and able, to visit and spend money there. If congestion eased up enough,and the intersection weren’t so hectic, those of us with younger children may feel more comfortable riding bikes downtown, or parking on the perimeter and walking to our destination. Resulting in even less core traffic congestion, and making downtown an even more desirable destination.
“If a paid parking system is implemented well and results in more available parking and less congestion”, sounds to me like less congestion and more available parking would also translate into less customers.
That’s assuming that people who are currently parking in prime spots at busy times are consumers. I got the impression from the report that a lot of these spots are being used by employee. Charging for these spots will encourage employees to park on the periphery, leaving more spots for consumers. Also it appears from the study that there are usually spots available at all times in the G St. Lot. Making these spots free will incentive people to park there. These would keep vehicles out if the core area all together thus easing congestion and making the core more pedestrian friendly.
GI, you might be mistakenly equating cars using parking spaces with customers who are spending money.
What a merchant or restaurateur requires is convenient parking available for those who’ve come to spend money, and preferably (for most businesses) those who’ve come to spend a lot. They especially don’t want employees parked in prime spaces.
Under our current system of free parking in downtown with limited supply, it’s inconvenient (or at times impossible) for the couple to park their car whose intention is to spend $100 on dinner and drinks; or the woman whose intention is to spend $1,500 on a new bicycle. The spots they want might be filled by someone (like me) who is downtown in the prime hours drinking a $2 cup of black coffee for 90 minutes; or by someone working downtown who is not spending any money.
If you differentiate prices based on demand–meaning you charge a lot during the few times of the day or days of the week when demand is greater than supply; and you offer essentially free parking when supply is greater than demand–you will solve your parking problem and you won’t hurt business*. Those folks who are only going downtown to spend $2 will no longer do so in the prime hours when it costs $5 to park. But they could still go during the lunch hour by other means, such as a bicycle; or they could go at non-prime times. And those who are there to spend a lot of money and are not so price sensitive will be able to park conveniently when they want to.
Peripheral malls get around this problem by overbuilding their parking lots. In normal times, 50%-75% of their spaces are empty. That is impossible for any dense, already built downtown. However, if a city plows the money it collects from paid parking into new parking structures, it can eventually make paid parking much less necessary to reach equilibrium.
*I concede that some high-volume sellers of low-priced merchandise might be hurt by the scheme I suggest. If they depend on price sensitive customers who cannot shop without their cars, this plan presents a problem. Fortunately, most price sensitive shoppers in Davis are students who have bikes.
That’s where I think you’re wrong Rich. I seriously doubt that people are going to change their ways and start walking or biking to keep from paying the parking fees. Many who live in Davis, myself included, live too far from the core to walk or bike. We’re the customers who will just go to Target, some outside strip mall or other places for our cup of coffe and other goods. Yes charging for parking will make it easier to park downtown, but for all the wrong reasons for the merchants.
GI, I recognize your point, but only to an extent. If you wanted to go downtown now, but could not find anywhere to park, you would likely choose Target, now.
Likewise, if you live “too far from the core” to go downtown for a cup of coffee, you likely don’t go downtown too often now when you want to go out for coffee. There are plenty of coffee merchants scattered around our periphery now you can choose from right now.
But if you do drive downtown and you cannot find a place to park, how convenient is that?
Rich, I’ve lived in Davis for 13 years and have NEVER not been able to find a spot downtown. Yes it has taken an occasional extra trip around the block but I’ve always been able to park. I really don’t think many have ever not shopped because they couldn’t find a parking spot, that is being played up to try and push for paid parking. I often go downtown to Starbucks because I enjoy sitting outside and like to people watch. If I would have to pay to have that cup and scone I will go to the pig market or some other place and the downtown merchants lose.
One other point: Most of our downtown businesses do not directly compete with big box sellers like Target. Certainly, our unique restaurants, coffeehouses, galleries, theaters and so on do not. Some retailers sell similar items–like bicycles. But the ones who do well downtown usually are selling a lot more service (and repairs), and very often they focus on higher end products (like $1,500 to $3,000 road bikes). When I need service on or parts for my $1,300 bicycle, I don’t go to Target. But I also don’t have to go during the 2-3 hours a day when parking downtown is too full.
Rich, there’s lots of businesses besides Target who have free parking and aren’t located in the downtown core.
Out of curiosity, what do you get in the downtown, that you would get at Target if paid parking were imposed?
Like I stated already, there are many stores in Davis that have free parking, not just Target.
David, just curious, being you’re always a champion of the poor I find it curious that you now are for paid parking. Do you think it’s allright for the poor to have to park farther out and walk or to have to shop at less desireable off peak times while those that can afford it get the better spots?
I’m not that convinced it’s going to impact the poor. You would have to believe that the poor could afford a car, could afford gas, could afford to shop in the downtown, but not afford an extra dollar to pay for parking?
Also if we go to another parking garage, the money is going to have to come from somewhere, I think think the extra-sales tax will hurt the poor more than paid parking.
It’s funny to me how liberals will shape their ideals and twist their arguments to fit whatever goal they want to attain.
That’s because you assume the world is black and white, rather than a series of trade offs.
Exactly, you made my point.
“Exactly, you made my point.”
Ok
Well David, you know as well as I do that if you were against paid parking part of your narrative would be that it’s unfair to the underprivileged. Am I wrong?
Not really. I’ve been talking to a few folks in SLO who have concerns about paid parking that has caused me to reevaluate my position. One person expressed concern that paid parking hasn’t solved the problem of parking, but it has made the city reliant on the revenue and resulted in extensions of the paid parking zones as a means to enhance revenue. That is certainly not my intention and if that is where this leads, I likely will change my position.
David, you know as well as I do that once the city gets it’s paws on parking revenue it will only go up in price and expand out further. Just like the temporary park tax, sales tax and school parcel taxes. Once they get a taste of that money those taxes never go away.
I think high-volume sellers of low-priced merchandise could benefit from your proposed scheme. For example if I want to grab a quick cup of coffee or meal I usually end up avoiding downtown because I don’t want to deal with the traffic congestion, and again I avoid going downtown with my kids, for say a frozen yogurt, because the stress often involved in getting them safely across a 4 way stop intersection. Peet’s Coffee, Cultive, and Village Bakery would have gotten a lot more of my money over the years if getting downtown and maneuvering through it were easier.
One other thing to consider is testability. If you charge too much–say $10 for an hour from 11am to 1pm–and you find that 50% or more of all parking places in the downtown are not being used, you know (by way of a test) that you have set the price too high.
If you think that having 1 out of 12 parking spots available (on a given block) is ideal, and you still have 0 out of 12 for 95% of the prime hours after charging say $2 per hour, you know you’ve set the price too low.
Over time, due to testability, you should be able to figure out the right prices. And very likely, you will find they should be more on some blocks and less on others.
——————————
A side note: At least one city I know of, Sausalito, has a system, tied to a cell phone app, which lets you know instantaneously where there is an open parking space (at least in their off-street lots, though they can do the same thing for street parking). The benefit of Parker is shoppers are able to quickly get to a parking space and stop driving around in circles looking for one.
This is a 2 year old story about Parker in Sausalito: http://www.streetline.com/2011/10/streetline-launches-smart-parking-app-parker™-in-sausalito-calif-2/
This is cool, and I think a system like it could have a big impact on congestion. Do you think Davis could generate enough parking revenue to cover the costs?
So B. Nice, Rich is suggesting charging $2, $5 or maybe as high as $10 an hour for peek times. So the poor will just have to go downtown at the less desireable hours because they can’t afford it. That’s okay and fair with you?
I like the idea of charging more for prime spots as demand goes up. Especially if it means charging less or nothing during other times. I don’t understand your statement, “that the poor will have to go downtown at the less desirable hours. ” From what I understand they will still be let in during desirable hours, they just might have to walk a couple blocks in order to avoid paying to park.
They’ll just have to walk farther if they want to go downtown at peak times while those that can afford it get the good spots. Let them eat cake.
Well if they are eating cake the exercise will do them some good. Of coarse the extra 3-4 blocks those unwilling or unable to pay, would be forced to walk might not be far enough to burn off the calories in a carrot, much less a piece of cake.
FYI, I also don’t have a problem with Valet Parking bring offered at malls for those who can afford that luxury.
“This is cool, and I think a system like it could have a big impact on congestion.”
Translation, this is cool, and I think a system like it could have a big negative impact on downtown merchants sales.
How would less congestion and people spending less time driving around in their car looking for a spot, freeing them true time to spend more money negatively impact downtown merchants sales? I would love an app that showed me where available parking was, and I’d be much more likely to head downtown to shop if I has access to this kind of information. I think it would be a great way to direct people to places like the G St lot which from the report is most often underutilized. I’m not sure how this could possibly hurt business.
You charge for something that has always been free equals people use less of it or stay away from it. It’s called Business 101.
I think we have had very different experiences trying to park downtown. I have lived in Davis for 23 years in the past 5 year I’d say it’s been increasingly more difficult to drive and park downtown. Unlike you I’ve often not been able to park, or in the process of trying to park been stuck in awful congestion. I think these different perspective shape our views on the paid parking issue. If there was available parking all the time in core areas I too would agree that we shouldn’t charge for parking. As I don’t see this as being the case though I would support meters if they mean more turn over of spots and less congestion.
An in between alternative would be to have 2-4 parking places on every block metered, and to charge a high price for those spots during prime hours, but otherwise leaving all other spaces unmetered. That way, those with the highest demand would pay for the privilege, while Growth Issue can spend 25 minutes driving around looking for someone to leave.
Rich, why the snarky comment? I have never driven around more than a couple of minutes looking for a parking spot. Are you saying if your idea was implemented that finding a spot would be much harder to locate unless you were willing to pay a high premium price? Sounds elitist to me.
I’m a big fan of the green 20-minute spots, and use them nearly every day when I go downtown. Other than that, my feeling on this issue is that the task force recommendations should be implemented as proposed. A committee with the range and diversity of this one — from Jennifer Anderson and Alzada Knickerbocker to Robb Davis and Steve Tracy — that was able to come up with consensus recommendations should be commended. They’ve discussed it all, done the hard work, and I figure the council should respect the process and their hard work and move forward with it. The city has tried numerous things over the years with varying success. It’s always possible to change back if something doesn’t work. We aren’t going to get a building with any new parking (in spite of all that money encumbered and costing interest), so this is likely the best set of options we’re going to see.
David – re: your 8:25 comment above (not going to continue the thread). You wrote:
“One person expressed concern that paid parking hasn’t solved the problem of parking…”
I would really like to understand this means and by what criteria the person is evaluating the parking problem.
One of the recommendations from the Task Force that has received less attention is that the City collect data quarterly on occupancy and turnover rates. This will provide us with a sense of whether the recommendations are working as planned or not.
One of the problems that our recommendations cannot address is what Donald Shoup and others refer to as the “suburban parking” mindset that has conditioned many to expect to find plentiful, free parking within view of one’s destination. We simply cannot convert our downtown into a place that offers all three but we can manage it better to make parking more plentiful, offer free options for those who want that and provide relatively short walks to all destinations possible (the “park once and walk” principle).
“David, you know as well as I do that once the city gets it’s paws on parking revenue it will only go up in price and expand out further. Just like the temporary park tax, sales tax and school parcel taxes. Once they get a taste of that money those taxes never go away.”
Starting a new thread… I don’t disagree on that point. The question is what is the valid use for parking fees.
BTW, response to those who threaten to go to Woodland for shopping, even pooling your trips, you’re still probably going an additional 20 miles. So you end up spending about $2 on gas and at the IRS .55 a mile rate, perhaps another $10 in wear and tear on your vehicle, all to save a dollar of parking fees. It’s illogical.
Don’t have to go to Woodland. There’s plenty of strip malls and other businesses in Davis that will have free parking where one can do things locally. Except for a movie and a few local dining establishments one can do what they need and stay away from the downtown paid parking. The losers will be the downtown merchants.
I mostly agree with this. I live in West Davis. It takes me about as much time to drive downtown to Davis Ace or Hibbert Lumber as it does to drive to Home Depot in Woodland. However, since Hibbert’s hours suck, and the parking for Davis Ace sucks, I am hit with the convenience factor.
The convenience factor is largely overlooked in this debate about Davis shopping, traffic and parking. The anti-auto group seems to be comprised of people lacking a typical American life… maybe they are retired or self-employed or unemployed or work part-time. But the most precious limited resource that I own is my time.
Personally, I value my discretionary time at about $100 per hour. If it take me 15 minutes more time to shop in Davis it equates to another $25 in lost time value. Now, I also factor in the value of keeping my tax dollars in town, so I accept some additional time.
If I have to pay for parking and it improves my ability to find a parking space near the place that I want to shop, I am more willing to shop there.
But what I suspect will happen.
1. I won’t have any easier time finding a parking space.
2. I will have to spend more time getting a parking slip from the machine and putting it on my dash.
3. I will over-shoot the time and get a parking ticket…. something that also costs me in money and time to resolve.
And because of these things, I will be more likely to shop elsewhere.
Frankly here are my experiences relating to your concerns. I’ve rarely had problems finding a spot in the E. St. Plaza lot. Even when street parking is tight, I’ve found numerous available slots in the paid lot. You DONT need to put a slip on your dash. You just enter your spot number when you pay, either by cash or credit card.
Expanding on Rich’s idea, what would be great technology is an app that allows you to pay to park from your cell phone, then you could skip the machine all together, which sometimes does develop a line, and add more time remotely if necessary.
One more thought on the parking question–hopefully my last–if it is feasible.
It might not be a bad idea, if say all spaces during the prime hours cost $5 to park in for 2 hours, to have a merchant rebate program, where, effectively, the shopper who spends money downtown gets his $5 back.
The idea is similar to the way many shopping malls with parking garages will give customers who shop in the mall a free pass, if they get their parking ticket stamped.
Here is how I think this could be done in downtown Davis: A person parks his car and pays $5; he then goes shopping, to a movie or to a restaurant, etc. and spends (say) $20 or more. The business, while giving him his receipt, gives him a parking card (or token or whatever works), which he can use the next time he shops in downtown Davis and park for free in the prime hours.
Those who are not price sensitive and who want to park in prime spots in the prime hours, but who won’t be shopping (say they are just getting a $2 cup of coffee) will end up paying the full fare. But those who are going downtown and spending money (say $20 or more) get to park for free.
I think this would have the effect of free up parking spaces without discouraging those who patronize the downtown shops from coming downtown. It would also encourage them to come back (because they would have a free parking token for their next visit). And if on the return trip, they again spent $20 or more, they would park for free each time.
To repeat what I said before: If this frees up too many spaces, then the price is too high; if it frees up too few, the price is too low. It’s not hard to find the equilibrium with some experience, but it needs to be monitored and adjusted over time. It also needs to be flexible on a block by block basis. There are some parts of downtown which are terribly short of parking at the noon hour, but have plenty of spaces at night. And there are others that are just the reverse.