Comments on: DDA Lifts Parking Rates, Sets 2012 Calendar

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:57:04 +0000

For the nth time, I recommend Tom Vanderbilt’s “Traffic,” which has a lucid chapter on the costs of parking, among lots of other good stuff.

By: DrData

DrData — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:47:10 +0000

[17]And the book you reference “The High Price of Free Parking” is holding its own on Amazon. Its new price is $39/$29 new/used in hardcover and $22/$22 for the paper back version. This is pretty remarkable for a 2005 publication.

Perhaps this guy is on to something.

By: John Hritz

John Hritz — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:36:26 +0000

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful comments on this topic. Its unfortunate that the DDA team hasn't read Shoup's, "The high price of free parking". The discussions of demand pricing of meters, lots and structures would have informed their decision making.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:44:33 +0000

Re (11): the DDA has been charging more for surface lots for years, in order to discourage their use. The public almost always prefers surface lots and the DDA wants us to park in structures, thus the differential. As Steve Bean notes, they are also trying to develop all the surface lots.

Since they are going to demand pricing, maybe they should double the rates at surface lots and see whether we are willing to pay that. Maybe it would make them consider keeping them. Oh, wait, they want the development because they are seeking TIF funds.

By: Ruth Kraut

Ruth Kraut — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:38:27 +0000

As it is, when I go into a parking structure, I anticipate it will take me an additional 10 minutes coming in and 10 minutes going out then if I parked on the street or in a surface lot. That accounts for the time circling up and up the ramps, and then walking down to the sidewalk on either end. So it’s not worth it to me unless I’m going to be there for a while. I wonder if the DDA planners consider that in their estimations of costs?

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:20:19 +0000

Trick or not, get used to the increases. As parking demand falls off in coming years the DDA will have to choose between allowing revenues to simply fall as a result (not likely), and raising rates further, thereby accelerating demand destruction. For example, commuters opting for a free go!pass from their employer (who pays $10 per year per pass) in place of a $145 annual permit. This while trying to develop surface lots (good luck), which would further reduce capacity (and therefore revenues), and beginning full bond payments on the new underground structure.

By: DrData

DrData — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:57:19 +0000

Years ago the library surface lot and perhaps all city parking had this billing system. It would be maddening to leave the library in time to be under an hour and then be charged for 2 hours or I perhaps 1.5 hours (I can’t quite remember what the increment was), because of the line of cars exiting the lot.

As noted by others, the parking structures should be the cheapest alternative and on-street parking the most expensive. This little trick will reverse that.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:08:05 +0000

Two things bother me here. One is the lack of transparency. The DDA says they’re raising the rate from $1.10 to $1.20, which would imply a 9% increase. But the half million in extra revenue from the billing increment change is also an increase. I can’t tell what percentage it is, but my guess is another 5%. This increase wasn’t mentioned in the DDA public hearing announcement of 27 Oct. Since the only reason the DDA gave was to increase revenue, I have to conclude this is an attempt to disguise a rate increase.

The other is the increase in inequity. If we define our inequity metric as the maximum difference paid by two drivers who arrive and leave the same structure at arbitrarily close to the same time, then inequity has increased from $.55 under the old system to $1.20 under the new. In a democratic society we should strive to reduce inequity.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:17:22 +0000

Right. The DDA should be providing incentives to park in the lots (i.e., it should be cheaper). Instead they’re doing exactly the opposite. Plus, well, they’re not offering any added value for this change. It’s just transparently a revenue grab.

By: Tom Brandt

Tom Brandt — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:43:24 +0000

Integral hour billing at the structures will make meter parking even more desirable, since you can pay in much smaller increments. It makes meter parking less expensive than structure parking, depending on how long you park.