Too Much Free Parking In CA?

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

The book the High Price of Free Parking specifically compares Westwood and Old Pasadena, and traces Old Pasadena's revitalization and Westwood's decline to issues relating to parking. I don't remember the details, but the author does not point to lack of free parking as the problem; I think the problem was the poor management of meters and parking garages. He compared it to Old Pasadena (where parking isn't free, either, although the first 1 1/2 hours are free) and argued that Pasadena's much better parking management allowed the area to revitalize. The author (Donald Shoup of UCLA) was very much NOT in favor of free parking in a neighborhood like Westwood. He argues for paid parking, but paid parking done right. Free parking can end up killing a neighborhood like Westwood, not saving it.

In Old Pasadena, for example, the parking money went back into the business district and paid for all sorts of perks that helped to make it an increasingly enjoyable place to visit. Nice benches, clean and safe streets, landscaping, etc. That all made it increasingly worth paying a couple of bucks to park there. And for those who want to run in and out of a store for a quick errand, the correct pricing of meters encourages turnover. (I think in Westwood the money went to the city, maybe into the general fund, and didn't directly come back to directly improve the business district)

I agree that the way in which it's implemented does matter. I will say that I think the key thing in Pasadena's favor was that the first hour and a half is free. One can dine or do some basisc shopping and not worry at all about paying to park. With meters, one is constantly stressed wondering if their meter has expired and what's going to happen if it does expire.

[wburg]

Indeed--in most cases, it's not that cities have a parking problem, it's that they have a parking planning problem.

If you drive down a street and every parking space is always full (meaning street, lots and garages in total) the city isn't charging enough for parking--people can just park in one spot and leave it there all day without consequence.

If you drive down a street and nobody is parked on the treet, the city is charging too much for parking--either people have no real reason to stop, and any price is too high, or they might want to stop but the cost discourages them.

The secret is to look for the "Goldilocks price"--not too high, but not too low. A properly-priced parking area should have a few vacancies at all times--that means prices are cheap enough that people will park, because they'd rather park than go somewhere else, but not so cheap that they are encouraged to just leave their car there all day. If there are a couple of spots on every block because the price is in the right range, people can stop and park on every block, trading convenience for price.

Just like in a store, at some point the dawdling customer is encouraged to make a purchase or take their business elsewhere. In downtown Sacramento, in places with unregulated parking, state employees and other long-distance commuters often park up the street, which means residents and businesses in the neighborhood can't use those parking spaces. Changing to a metered or residential parking permit program isn't much of a hindrance, but it encourages a flow of parking spaces instead of having people "camped" on a spot that could otherwise serve several people coming and going--or the people who live on that block who have no private parking space.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by wburg

Indeed--in most cases, it's not that cities have a parking problem, it's that they have a parking planning problem.

If you drive down a street and every parking space is always full (meaning street, lots and garages in total) the city isn't charging enough for parking--people can just park in one spot and leave it there all day without consequence.

If you drive down a street and nobody is parked on the treet, the city is charging too much for parking--either people have no real reason to stop, and any price is too high, or they might want to stop but the cost discourages them.

The secret is to look for the "Goldilocks price"--not too high, but not too low. A properly-priced parking area should have a few vacancies at all times--that means prices are cheap enough that people will park, because they'd rather park than go somewhere else, but not so cheap that they are encouraged to just leave their car there all day. If there are a couple of spots on every block because the price is in the right range, people can stop and park on every block, trading convenience for price.

Just like in a store, at some point the dawdling customer is encouraged to make a purchase or take their business elsewhere. In downtown Sacramento, in places with unregulated parking, state employees and other long-distance commuters often park up the street, which means residents and businesses in the neighborhood can't use those parking spaces. Changing to a metered or residential parking permit program isn't much of a hindrance, but it encourages a flow of parking spaces instead of having people "camped" on a spot that could otherwise serve several people coming and going--or the people who live on that block who have no private parking space.

If you have an hour or hour and a half limit, that would prevent the "camped there all day" phenomenon. Personally, I'll NEVER allow myself to be a slave to the meter. If I've got to pay for parking, there are only a few circumstances where I will accept this, and that's when there is a simple, low cost flat fare. I refuse to get stuck constantly looking at my watch wondering if it's time to feed the meter. I have friends that often do this when they visit Hermosa Beach. I simply park further away in a free lot and walk further. I can never get why they tolerate having to constantly look at the time to determine if they have to feed the meter.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by wburg

The secret is to look for the "Goldilocks price"--not too high, but not too low. A properly-priced parking area should have a few vacancies at all times--that means prices are cheap enough that people will park, because they'd rather park than go somewhere else, but not so cheap that they are encouraged to just leave their car there all day. If there are a couple of spots on every block because the price is in the right range, people can stop and park on every block, trading convenience for price.

The flaw in that logic is obvious. There is no price that is universally dissuasive to persons of all economic strata; the tipping point varies with wealth. A parking fee that would be a hardship to a minimum-wage earner might be a pittance to a corporate CEO. If parking rate policy is based on ability to pay, then parking will simply become another exclusive privilege of the well moneyed.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by skyway31

If you have an hour or hour and a half limit, that would prevent the "camped there all day" phenomenon. Personally, I'll NEVER allow myself to be a slave to the meter. If I've got to pay for parking, there are only a few circumstances where I will accept this, and that's when there is a simple, low cost flat fare. I refuse to get stuck constantly looking at my watch wondering if it's time to feed the meter. I have friends that often do this when they visit Hermosa Beach. I simply park further away in a free lot and walk further. I can never get why they tolerate having to constantly look at the time to determine if they have to feed the meter.

Several years ago, during the holiday season, the city tried a meter moratorium and it was well received by Merchants and the Public... Sales were up and new customers that avoided the old districts gave it a try instead of driving 20 miles to the Mall.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

In Old Pasadena, for example, the parking money went back into the business district and paid for all sorts of perks that helped to make it an increasingly enjoyable place to visit. Nice benches, clean and safe streets, landscaping, etc. That all made it increasingly worth paying a couple of bucks to park there. And for those who want to run in and out of a store for a quick errand, the correct pricing of meters encourages turnover. (I think in Westwood the money went to the city, maybe into the general fund, and didn't directly come back to directly improve the business district)

The problem with that idea is, well, what has San Francisco done with the parking money they have collected?

There is a big difference in the way smaller cities collecting revenue in a small downtown do things when compared to the larger cities. Problem number one starts when larger cities make a new department specifically for parking, have to increase parking rates to pay for the new department, then find out that department is running a deficit a few years down the road.

[mading6]

You know this is another false way to get more TAXES out of us without calling it a tax.

Now they have raised our car registration fees, our energy usage fees, are thinking of raising our property taxes by almost 2x the amount and now this.

How much more can they bleed from us?

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by mading6

You know this is another false way to get more TAXES out of us without calling it a tax.

Now they have raised our car registration fees, our energy usage fees, are thinking of raising our property taxes by almost 2x the amount and now this.

How much more can they bleed from us?

Do you have a link in regards to doubling the property tax?

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Do you have a link in regards to doubling the property tax?

I recall something that applied to LA that had to do with a loophole in prop13 where they could default on bonds, then raise property taxes as much as they needed to cover it. Imagine if you could just stop paying your rent, then force your boss to give you enough of a raise to cover it. It was some trick like that.