"Parking meters and opportunity costs."

It might be funny if not for the hair-tearing frustration of it. The same person who'll happily drive ten miles to walk back and forth across the Big Four Bridge will bitterly complain when "forced" to park two blocks from his favorite downtown restaurant.

Perhaps this is because the restaurant walk isn't as pleasing as the bridge walk, although it might be more pleasing if we weren't compelled to maintain downtown streets almost exclusively for cars, for the needs of cars as opposed to those of walkers, so as to ease our diner's transit from suburbia to the parking space just outside the front door of his destination -- you know, the one currently occupied by the business owner's personal car.

Obliquely, my favorite recent comment on this weird phenomenon comes from food writer Steve Coomes in a piece about the newly opened HopCat on Bardstown Road in Louisville. Is there enough parking?

HopCat will battle the same limited parking problem all its neighbors face. With just 23 spots on the lot, it’s expected diners will do as they do everywhere else: find a spot, any spot, park and walk to the restaurant.

I seem to have forgotten the point ... wait, yes; until New Albany's downtown parking garage is filled with cars every night, then the only parking problem we have is the inability of business owners and employees to park right there, in the parking garage. It's either cheap or free most of the time, and if the streets night are not sufficiently well lit or not pleasurable for walking, then by all means, please join me in making this point to City Hall.

But maybe if these parking spaces had value?

The opener ...

Parking meters and opportunity costs, by Daniel Hertz (City Observatory)

What if we could make parking spaces in high-demand areas more widely available, while also making better use of under-used parking spaces elsewhere?

Think of it as Uber’s “surge pricing,” but for parking. (Though it elicits some grumbles from a consumer perspective, we think surge pricing can make lots of sense: it encourages more efficient choices by riders, and brings out more drivers when they’re most in demand).

... and the closer.

But that’s not all that’s missing here. Proponents of “smart parking” say that one of their goals is to increase the usage of “underutilized” parking spaces. Often, that may mean increasing the total amount of driving. But, of course, driving incurs all sorts of extra social costs: pollution, wear and tear on public roads, injuries and deaths from crashes. When calibrating the appropriate price of parking on public space, should cities take those costs into account?

"Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts."

Or, we could institute sidewalk double parking.

Each month downtown merchants gather, and parking is always a topic of conversation. The odd part is that we haven't much of a parking problem, apart from business owners and their employees monopolizing curbside spaces that should turn over according to demand from all users.

Consequently, it comes down to one of three potential "solutions."

• Merchants police themselves.
• The city policies the spaces by enforcing its own code.
• We use parking meters to regulate turnover.

Yet again, there seem to be any number of opinions, but little will to examine underlying realities as a means of understanding the issue.

I'd encourage all downtown stakeholders to at least familiarize themselves with the potential usefulness of a parking benefit district, as described here (and on numerous previous occasions).

The most important thing to remember is that this or any other City Hall will take no action unless "encouraged" to do so. Political entities prefer the status quo, and the votes they know. Unity and collective will can influence this situation.

Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts, by Jon Geeting (Keystone Crossroads)

As UCLA professor Donald Shoup explained in his cult parking economics tome "The High Cost of Free Parking," some cities and downtown business associations have discovered that it's much easier, politically speaking, to introduce new parking meters or permits when the impacted areas are allowed to keep some of the revenue generated within the neighborhood to pay for extra public improvements and services.

The prospect of a dedicated, ongoing local revenue stream for neighborhood projects becomes enticing enough to residents and businesses, and they become a countervailing force in support of parking meters.

Those public improvements in turn attract even more visitors, which generates more parking revenue in a virtuous cycle of redevelopment.

In different cities, Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) come in different shapes and sizes, but what they all have in common is that they fund visible local public improvements in the places where the revenue is raised.

It's coming around again, folks: What about downtown parking problems and/or solutions?

It has been only six months since this was posted, but the Green Mouse reports that word on the street is "the parking wars have begun." 

I welcome this debate, but that's the real point: There has not been a debate, not since then-mayor England suspended parking enforcement, with the explanation that merchants wanted it that way. 

What does Team Gahan think about it? There is no known answer. It should be interesting to see how this plays out. 

---

After I reposted at NAC's facebook page, there was a question: "So what would be a possible fix?"

On parking "opportunities" in downtown New Albany.

 ... Too many employers do nothing. The city does nothing. Both point at the other, expecting solutions, when neither will expend capital to find them. Free parking comes at a price, and the sooner we recognize this fact, the easier it will be to do something.

A plan would be a good start. At the moment, all is scattershot reaction, not pro-active thought. We have crisp new signs identifying parking areas, but no explanation of how they're to be used. Too many merchants abuse curbside spaces for the use of employees (and even more sadly, owners). Pages of parking regulations have been chucked, and are non-enforced according to the England Dictate that "no rules are beneficial."

Unfortunately, the unintended side effect of "no rules" is "no value," and without a value for parking, it is impossible to plan for sensible parking. It's the Wild West.

Jeff Speck has submitted a Downtown Street Network Proposal for New Albany. In his most recent book, which provides the context and conceptual basis for his proposal, he considers two of the issues that must be recognized when planning for parking.

The key passage for New Albany is underlined.

Sidetracks in Jeff Speck’s ‘Walkable City’, by Brody Dale (Next City)

II. Parking meters are good for storefronts, and higher prices make them even better, pg. 129

It was surprising to learn that the parking meter was first deployed in Oklahoma City, a place known for sprawl. Not only that, but when the first parking meters went in on one side of the street, it wasn’t long before business owners on the other side clamored for them.

How can that possibly be when downtown business leaders across the country routinely fight parking hikes for fear that it will drive away business? The reality is simple supply and demand. When the price is right for on-street parking, people use just as much parking as they need. Which a) means customer turnover is higher and b) customers are more likely to drive to a particular block because they feel confident they will find a spot when they get there. The market should play a greater role in setting parking prices. Which brings us to our next point.

III. American parking is socialist, pg. 116-120

Speck points out that American cities nearly universally have off-street parking minimums, usually designed around peak use. Under this system, everyone pays for parking, whether they use it or not. Mass transit users, cyclists and walkers all pay for parking they don’t need when shopping in stores built under minimum parking requirements. It’s pure parking socialism (my word, not Speck’s). We would all be better off if cities let the market decide how much off-street parking they need and build to their expectation.

In my review of Michael Chabon’s Telegraph Avenue, I mentioned the growth a Metro stop brought to D.C.’s Columbia Heights neighborhood. Speck writes about the same place, adding a depressing anecdote about the millions of dollars in waste brought about by minimum off-street parking requirements in a project that has otherwise been a runaway success.

The mere mention of parking meters generally causes panic, but as the passage makes clear, they are invaluable in determining value. As for parking meter revenues, these can be put into a downtown development corporation dedicated to infrastructure projects, meaning that customer and merchant alike know to what purpose the revenues are being put. The money stays downtown.

Following are two other links addressing the parking value issue.

The High Cost of Free Parking (book)

Free Parking Comes at a Price

Thoughts, comments, input?

Downtown parking solutions?

After I reposted at NAC's facebook page, there was a question: "So what would be a possible fix?"

Baylor for Mayor: On parking "opportunities" in downtown New Albany.

 ... Too many employers do nothing. The city does nothing. Both point at the other, expecting solutions, when neither will expend capital to find them. Free parking comes at a price, and the sooner we recognize this fact, the easier it will be to do something.

A plan would be a good start. At the moment, all is scattershot reaction, not pro-active thought. We have crisp new signs identifying parking areas, but no explanation of how they're to be used. Too many merchants abuse curbside spaces for the use of employees (and even more sadly, owners). Pages of parking regulations have been chucked, and are non-enforced according to the England Dictate that "no rules are beneficial."

Unfortunately, the unintended side effect of "no rules" is "no value," and without a value for parking, it is impossible to plan for sensible parking. It's the Wild West.

Jeff Speck has submitted a Downtown Street Network Proposal for New Albany. In his most recent book, which provides the context and conceptual basis for his proposal, he considers two of the issues that must be recognized when planning for parking.

The key passage for New Albany is underlined.

Sidetracks in Jeff Speck’s ‘Walkable City’, by Brody Dale (Next City)

II. Parking meters are good for storefronts, and higher prices make them even better, pg. 129

It was surprising to learn that the parking meter was first deployed in Oklahoma City, a place known for sprawl. Not only that, but when the first parking meters went in on one side of the street, it wasn’t long before business owners on the other side clamored for them.

How can that possibly be when downtown business leaders across the country routinely fight parking hikes for fear that it will drive away business? The reality is simple supply and demand. When the price is right for on-street parking, people use just as much parking as they need. Which a) means customer turnover is higher and b) customers are more likely to drive to a particular block because they feel confident they will find a spot when they get there. The market should play a greater role in setting parking prices. Which brings us to our next point.

III. American parking is socialist, pg. 116-120

Speck points out that American cities nearly universally have off-street parking minimums, usually designed around peak use. Under this system, everyone pays for parking, whether they use it or not. Mass transit users, cyclists and walkers all pay for parking they don’t need when shopping in stores built under minimum parking requirements. It’s pure parking socialism (my word, not Speck’s). We would all be better off if cities let the market decide how much off-street parking they need and build to their expectation.

In my review of Michael Chabon’s Telegraph Avenue, I mentioned the growth a Metro stop brought to D.C.’s Columbia Heights neighborhood. Speck writes about the same place, adding a depressing anecdote about the millions of dollars in waste brought about by minimum off-street parking requirements in a project that has otherwise been a runaway success.

The mere mention of parking meters generally causes panic, but as the passage makes clear, they are invaluable in determining value. As for parking meter revenues, these can be put into a downtown development corporation dedicated to infrastructure projects, meaning that customer and merchant alike know to what purpose the revenues are being put. The money stays downtown.

Following are two other links addressing the parking value issue.

The High Cost of Free Parking (book)

Free Parking Comes at a Price

Thoughts, comments, input?

"Minneapolis has a surprisingly simple plan to cut traffic and make housing more affordable."

It's my firm belief that business owners in downtown New Albany would benefit more from exploring territories lying outside the usual boxes, with parking policies being an excellent case in point, than continuing the traditional and largely failed pattern of trusting City Hall to do their thinking for them.

"Why free parking is bad for everyone" at NAC (June, 2014)

... To cities where he serves as a parking consultant, Shoup's recommendation is simple. "Charge the right price for on-street parking," he says. "I see this as the lowest price you can charge and still have one or two open spaces per block." This means the market sets the price — and people are paying as little as possible for parking without creating the cruising problem.

Each day, the city enforces parking ordinances outside of downtown but not in the historic business district, apparently from a misguided belief that "free" parking is necessary for independent small business advancement. It's simply poisonous to arbitrarily enforce one set of laws and not another, especially when the premise of parking as being valueless is what prefaces many of the current problems with abuse.

A second article explores reasons why parking space requirements negatively impact affordable housing.

Minneapolis has a surprisingly simple plan to cut traffic and make housing more affordable, by Joseph Stromberg (Vox)

 ... "The worst thing that many American cities have done, for low-income people, is create a world in which you need a car," retired UCLA economist Donald Shoup told me in an interview last year. "Parking pushes everything farther apart, and even if you're too poor to own a car, you have to pay for all the free parking you don't use."

There's a parking meter poll at DNA's web site, but why bother?

The poll's running about 70% against, and that's to be expected in the absence of any sort of voter education. But seeing as virtually everyone reading claims to believe in "free market" principles, the current downtown parking system is complete and utter Englandist nonsense. We imagine parking to be scarce, and so we attach no cost to its use; therefore, it is constantly abused. If parking is valuable and scarce, why am I permitted to park a car on the street in front of CeeSaw's store and leave it there all week long? Does that make any sense at all?

Parking meters restore the principle of a market: You pay for the time you use, and plan the use of your time accordingly. Employees (and too damned many owners) no longer take up parking spaces that are better left for the use of shoppers.

Of course, we'll never even so much as consider the possibility. That's because, as John Rosenbarger reminded us on Saturday, there is no way to avoid New Albany drying up and blowing away, primarily because people in his position will do nothing to prevent it. We wouldn't want to threaten election results, would we?

Go and vote. Or not. Whatever.

---

During the recent presentation by Author and Urban Planner Jeff Speck he mentioned the benefits of metered parking to the business climate in the core of urban downtowns. How do you feel about having parking meters in our downtown?

Click here to place your vote on the topic of metered parking downtown: Parking Meters in Downtown New Albany.

Metered parking in Berkeley: "How the changes affect behavior."

We've experience metered paywalls recently, but what about the merits of parking meters?

It's hard to imagine a more controversial and counterintuitive topic -- no one wants to pay to park, right? But last week while in downtown Indianapolis, it was a breeze to find a streetside spot, swipe the credit card for dollar-an-hour parking, and go about our business on foot. We calculated how much time was needed for our objectives, and took up space only for these tasks.

If, as Jeff Speck proposes, parking revenues are put back into an infrastructure development pool for the benefit of the area around the meters, it sounds like a vast improvement on New Albany's frankly counterproductive method of suspending parking ordinances downtown, which has the effect of making parking value-less, while allowing indolent and unsupervised employees to park where shoppers should be parking, without penalty. Meanwhile, up the street and past an invisible line, the same ordinances are enforced. How does any of this make sense?

Maybe somewhere there's a secret plan.

Metered parking changes launch Tuesday in Berkeley, by Emilie Raguso (Berkeleyside)

... The goBerkeley model is based on the concept of “demand-responsive” pricing, so that prices reflect demand in several congested areas around town. The hope is to free up one or two spaces per block, by raising or adjusting the pricing in a way that will encourage some of the people currently filling spaces to move a bit farther away or use alternative modes of transportation. The city has been studying current parking demand, and plans to analyze how the changes affect behavior.

Heresy in New Albany: "Are Parking Meters Boosting Business?"

In the wake of a muddled New Albany municipal tradition of unofficial non-enforcement of downtown parking rules, the England Administration's hurried "solution" a couple years back was to officially muddle the non-enforcement regimen and (of course) declare its mission blissfully accomplished, which is to say that parking downtown henceforth would be entirely free of rules (and costs) even as police continued to issue tickets in other places, ones falling beyond an utterly invisible line that hasn't once been made clear to the public in all the time since.

Huzzahs were unleashed, red wine decanted straight from the box, and the Central Committee went back to millennial snoring.

Last week, Bloomington was in the news: Bloomington council OKs revised parking meter plan (Associated Press, via IBJ).

It's a plan to balance metered spaces with garage and "free" spaces, and by way of explanation, Mayor Mark Kruzan said something entirely unimaginable in New Albany.

"The message is not revenue, it's behavior."

Ye Gods, just imagine it. Actually thinking a problem all the way through, even if a proposed solution seems counter-intuitive at first, and stepping outside the self-imposed box.

Are Parking Meters Boosting Business? More evidence that business receipts rise with parking costs, by Eric de Place (Sightline Daily)

... How is that possible? Can higher parking costs actually boost business?

It may sound counter-intuitive at first, but on inspection it turns about to be totally sensible. By increasing turnover in on-street parking and ensuring that spaces are available for customers, well-calibrated parking policies really can increase patronage. (After all, would you rather grind through congested downtown streets in the rain while hunting for a parking space or pay a few bucks to stash the car curbside until 8?) In fact, boosting business is exactly what Seattle set out to do when officials adjusted meter rates and extended paid hours downtown.