Parking Meter Rate Increases (Pittsburgh, Penn: to buy, calculating, move to)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I for one am not going to go out to dinner downtown & pay for a garage when I can just as easily go out to dinner where I live.

If you would be just as happy going to places right where you live, then why would you go Downtown in the first place? Again, we discussed all this above. Such small amounts of money (like $2) can't logically make the difference between it being worth making a trip Downtown or not.

Now getting a large fine if you park longer than an hour--that's a more serious issue.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If you would be just as happy going to places right where you live, then why would you go Downtown in the first place? Again, we discussed all this above. Such small amounts of money (like $2) can't logically make the difference between it being worth making a trip Downtown or not.

Now getting a large fine if you park longer than an hour--that's a more serious issue.

If I spend 3 hrs out downtown using a meter, thats $9 (not just 2 bucks); sure $9 might not be much compared to spending $100 on dinner, but its still $9 I don't have to spend because I can find comparable place to spend my money at, at a neighborhood close by that doesn't cost me an additional 10% of my money spent out.

If people want businesses to thrive downtown after hours, then everything should be done to accomodate that goal rather than arguing what might or might not sound trivial for someone to spend on parking; just the fact that the cost may deter some potential patrons should be enough to fight for free evening parking when there is NO DEMAND for the metered spaces anyways unless you think that the revenue taken in at that time is worth the downside to businesses.

When/If downtown becomes booming at night & people are fighting for parking spaces then sure charge the applicable rate but thats far from the case now.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

If I spend 3 hrs out downtown using a meter

Well, don't do that--if you are going to be there three hours, use a garage. And in fact I specifically quoted you saying you wouldn't even pay for a garage.

because I can find comparable place to spend my money at, at a neighborhood close by

If you can really find all the comparable places you will ever want close to your home, then that is what you should do, nominal parking costs or not, because surely the additional convenience and reduced travel costs is worth at least the same handful of dollars you won't pay for parking. Heck, most places outside of Downtown they should be charging you slightly less for identical food and service, because their rent will be lower.

just the fact that the cost may deter some potential patrons should be enough to fight for free evening parking when there is NO DEMAND for the metered spaces anyways

If there is truly NO DEMAND (all caps!) then the market price is $0. I don't think that is quite right, however--recently at least, I have in fact witnessed a lot of people street parking in the Cultural District/Market Square area in the evenings.

But again, I don't know of anyone here who is arguing that the price should be anything but a market price. So as long as we all agree that is the standard we should be applying, there should be no disagreement.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, don't do that--if you are going to be there three hours, use a garage. And in fact I specifically quoted you saying you wouldn't even pay for a garage.

I guess its crazy for someone to consider going out for an extended night on the town & also think about parking on the street

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If you can really find all the comparable places you will ever want close to your home, then that is what you should do, nominal parking costs or not, because surely the additional convenience and reduced travel costs is worth at least the same handful of dollars you won't pay for parking. Heck, most places outside of Downtown they should be charging you slightly less for identical food and service, because their rent will be lower.

Purely for variety - but not important enough to be inconvenienced with an additional 10% tacked onto an outting. Travel costs are minimal.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If there is truly NO DEMAND (all caps!) then the market price is $0. I don't think that is quite right, however--recently at least, I have in fact witnessed a lot of people street parking in the Cultural District/Market Square area in the evenings.

No demand that exceeds available supply. Yes some people currently park on the street, but there are also plenty of empty street parking spaces.

Sorry if I dont see how it is deplorable if some people go out in the evening downtown to spend their money and get away with the crime of parking on the street for free when no one is needing the space anyways..... do people feel that strongly that the city needs that 6.5 cents on the dollar they get from parking meters at the expense of people trying to support downtown businesses at night?

I think it gives some people a headache if every dime that can be extracted from someone regardless of any related consequences isn't.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Enough_Already

I can't think of an urban university which is in a comparable city that has such a high cost of on-street parking and onerous enforcement hours.

I could name a few for you...

[Drover]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

A gazillion pages ago in this thread we hashed out these issues of market pricing. I think some people are resistant to the very idea of market pricing for parking, on the theory that market pricing is bad for local businesses (which almost surely is the opposite of the truth, but they don't want to hear it).

But even those of us who believe in market pricing can recognize that the City and/or Authority could be getting its pricing wrong, and it appears likely in many of these instances they are doing so.

Who sets the pricing, the city or the thieves running the meters? Here, it's the latter. And when there's a conflict of interest between "market rates" and rates designed to balance the need to maintain turnover without scaring away business customers, guess whose interests win out?

It angers me to see 80% of the metered spots in my neighborhood business district sit empty during peak business hours when those spots used to be full of customers' cars.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Drover

Who sets the pricing, the city or the thieves running the meters? Here, it's the latter. And when there's a conflict of interest between "market rates" and rates designed to balance the need to maintain turnover without scaring away business customers, guess whose interests win out?

It angers me to see 80% of the metered spots in my neighborhood business district sit empty during peak business hours when those spots used to be full of customers' cars.

that's just it, I don't think anyone is defending the parking authority, just the practice of charging for spaces. If people had the slightest confidence that they were paying attention to demand it might make sense.Everyone seems to agree that $3/hr with a one hour limit is wrong.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I guess its crazy for someone to consider going out for an extended night on the town & also think about parking on the street

Not crazy, just not necessary. There are garages all over Downtown and if you are going to be there several hours, the additional walk is going to be a trivial percentage of your time.

Purely for variety - but not important enough to be inconvenienced with an additional 10% tacked onto an outting. Travel costs are minimal.

Have you actually added up the travel costs, making sure to take account of the value of your time?

A good rough estimate is 51 cents per mile for vehicle costs (that is the IRS allowance for 2011). So a trip that is five miles each way is already costing you more than $5. For the value of your time, you should at least use your hourly wage. I don't know what you make, but say you make $10/hour. That means just 15 minutes each way is another $5.

Seriously, if $5 is too much to pay to go to a different restaurant in a different neighborhood, you should probably never be leaving your neighborhood at all.

No demand that exceeds available supply. Yes some people currently park on the street, but there are also plenty of empty street parking spaces.

I don't think "plenty" describes what I have been seeing lately in certain areas Downtown. In any event, the ideal occupancy rate at any given moment is well less than 100%, because you don't want people to have to drive around a lot to find street parking. As a rough rule of thumb, you want occupancy to stay under 85% in any given area, which is consistent with drivers usually being able to find an open space on a given block.

Again, if we can agree that is the approach we should be taking to pricing evening street parking Downtown (pricing it so that it is being used, but under 85% in any given area), then we should have no real disagreement. If it turns out that rate is $0 everywhere Downtown, fine with me, although I suspect that is not the case.

I think it gives some people a headache if every dime that can be extracted from someone regardless of any related consequences isn't.

I also think some people are irrationally obsessed with free parking. Something like $2-5 really isn't a huge amount of money in comparison to all the other costs of traveling any significant distance by car, but because some people are accustomed to paying those other costs but not parking costs, they get irrationally outraged at these really very minor parking costs.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Drover

Who sets the pricing, the city or the thieves running the meters? Here, it's the latter. And when there's a conflict of interest between "market rates" and rates designed to balance the need to maintain turnover without scaring away business customers, guess whose interests win out?

I wouldn't object to a public authority monitoring occupancy rates and having the power to mandate lower rates if occupancy rates were falling below a reasonable target range. But I would like that to be a very mechanical process, because the politics of parking tends to lead to it being underpriced, not overpriced, by public authorities.

So, for example, you could set a target range of 75-85% occupancy during the relevant period of time, which is consistent with optimal parking policy. If the occupancy rate was over 75%, the oversight body would have no authority to dictate rate changes. But if it fell below 75%, it could apply a reasonable model or formula to estimate what rate would get occupancy back to the target range, and mandate use of that rate for some extended period of time (you would also have to provide for overshooting and adjusting the mandated rate back down).

[Drover]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I wouldn't object to a public authority monitoring occupancy rates and having the power to mandate lower rates if occupancy rates were falling below a reasonable target range. But I would like that to be a very mechanical process, because the politics of parking tends to lead to it being underpriced, not overpriced, by public authorities.

So, for example, you could set a target range of 75-85% occupancy during the relevant period of time, which is consistent with optimal parking policy. If the occupancy rate was over 75%, the oversight body would have no authority to dictate rate changes. But if it fell below 75%, it could apply a reasonable model or formula to estimate what rate would get occupancy back to the target range, and mandate use of that rate for some extended period of time (you would also have to provide for overshooting and adjusting the mandated rate back down).

But I wasn't asking for a hypothetical scenario. I was asking, who sets the parking rates? It's a straightforward question.