Downtown Parking Survey

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 2:06 pm

Roy Janik wrote:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is mostly service industry (waiters, bartenders, and valets) who come downtown at 4:30pm pay for an hour and occupy a space for the entirety of the evening. It is also a group that is communicating a clear preference for cost vs. convenience...which is a bit of a conundrum that has yet to be solved. Volume discount/special rates are being sought for employees to make this both available and affordable either for them or their employers. A shuttle service to large state garages has also been priced out and is on the table.
It's this whole segment that concerns me... only because these don't seem like niddling little details to figure out later. I hope we don't have a situation where we raise fees first and then figure out how to help out the workers later... because later often never comes. I don't think you implied that was the case... I just hope it doesn't go down that way.

On this, the task force is pretty unanimous...changing the hours alone as suggested is not a solution, it needs to be accompanied with other efforts and policy changes...some of which are in the works...but they need to work in tandem.

Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell · January 7th, 2011, 2:19 pm

Miggy wrote: Out of curiousity, does reliable availability of a conveniently located spot have value? So that you're not driving around searching?

absolutely, though time restrictions would seem to undo any benefits of convenience and availability. like, for me...Saturdays i'll be coming downtown to TA at the Hideout a little before 2. and plenty of those weekends i'll be sticking around to play in/watch/help out with Austin Secrets and/or Maestro. which means i'll LEAVE the Hideout at around 12. that's 10 hours of having to either periodically go and feed the meter (a hassle for performers, instructors AND students particularly if they're not parked close by) or move my truck to find another convenient available spot that might not be AS convenient...or available.

i suppose free/cheap garage space would be a viable alternative/compromise for longer term parkers...so long as (like Roy said) there were guarantees in place that those locations would be available once the street meter changes went into effect and not just as some vague promise "coming soon."

(and thanks, Mike, for requesting everyone's opinions and offering such thorough feedback!)

Matt · Post by **Matt** » January 7th, 2011, 2:22 pm

For me, I consider myself a fairly informed user of downtown parking. Informational signage to help me find a garage does not add significant value to me as my strategy is to start at my destination, then travel outward on the street until I find a spot. I already know where the garages are and choose not to use them.

My usage pattern is MoPac->5th->Congress, north on congress with visual inspection of side streets and Congress, park at governor's mansion lot on north side of 10th St if no spots found. Note that this is the same parking pattern I use whether going to the Hideout, Alamo Ritz, or 4th street. The extra several blocks to walk is well worth it for me, as the confidence that I will be able to get a spot contributes to my willingness to go downtown in the first place.

Given this pattern and the new rules, I would just follow the exact same route to the governor's mansion lot only with no hope of finding another free spot. Therefore, informational signage and increased enforcement (paid for by removing free parking) adds no value for me, but rather makes me a more frustrated user of downtown parking resources. I already have the option on almost every night to park in the surface lot next to the Hideout, but I choose not to use it because of excessive cost.

Also, is there really a shortage of parking spaces on a Tuesday night that necessitates doing this on every weekday as well?

Mike · Post by **Mike** » January 7th, 2011, 2:27 pm

I keep hearing "Greater turnover" in all debates regarding the survey and the parking issue.

What doesn't make sense to me is if they limit the parking to a specific number of hours, won't there just be a 'musical chairs' version of parking, where people just move their car from one spot to another? It sounds good on paper, but I doubt it will encourage anything but someone moving their car one or two blocks to a new space. And if I'm downtown for an evening of dinner and a show, the last thing I want to do is worry f I have to get up and move my car because of some limit on how long I can take up my space.

Maybe the city can cut a deal with the business owners/bars to where the employees can get a monthly pass to park in a lot and take the stress off the streets.

Another concern I have is that most garages and lots where you pay to park do not guarantee the safety of your vehicle. Why should I consider paying 5 to 10 dollars for a garage/lot if the management won't take responsibility for security or if my vehicle gets stolen or robbed? Isn't that why I'm parking in the lot and paying extra; to park in a (supposed) safe environment.

The city is fair to include a survey, but I doubt that it will turn out well. NYC did something like this with making people pay for meters on Sunday and their "Survey" and meetings for public opinion went on deaf ears; the council had already made up their mind.

I would definitely think twice about going to downtown if the meter hours were extended. The recession is still upon us, and parking takes money out of my pocket; money I would spend in a local business.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 2:55 pm

Miggy wrote: Approximately 60% of customers use credit cards today. This is pretty sure to make no one happy, but credit card costs are very high for doing this - 10% because it's on a transaction basis and the transactions are small. In general, between the $10,000 cost of the parking kiosks and the enforcement personnel, it costs about 70 cents to collect a dollar.

As a further note on this, the revenue from the current meter hours put 30% of gross into the 'Great Streets' fund to improve sidewalks (think 2nd Street). When that is removed, the meters actually make a modest net loss. Extending the hours would turn this from a drag on the budget to a contributor of ~$1M/yr to the general fund beyond that contribution to great streets and wayfinding.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 3:14 pm

Matt wrote: My usage pattern is MoPac->5th->Congress, north on congress with visual inspection of side streets and Congress, park at governor's mansion lot on north side of 10th St if no spots found.

Ok - that's a different lot, but it, too, is state owned land. It was bought in the 1980's after a large building was proposed on the site and legislators were concerned about the governor's mansion 'looking like an outhouse' beside it. The State's current long (long) term plans are to put a large building on it.

Matt wrote: Given this pattern and the new rules, I would just follow the exact same route to the governor's mansion lot only with no hope of finding another free spot. Therefore, informational signage and increased enforcement (paid for by removing free parking) adds no value for me, but rather makes me a more frustrated user of downtown parking resources.

I'm not sure I totally understand. If you're following the same pattern how will that frustrate you more or make you visit downtown less? You're currently valuing price over convenience and will be doing so in the future. Granted...it's by using a loophole in this overall proposal...but ignoring that aspect.

Matt wrote: Also, is there really a shortage of parking spaces on a Tuesday night that necessitates doing this on every weekday as well?

Good question. I don't know. The Parking study that was done looked at:

• One weekday evening (Wednesday) 6:30pm to 12:30am,
• One weekend day 11:00am to 5:00pm, and
• One weekend night 7:00pm to 1:00am.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/transportati ... tudy08.pdf

I hope that is not literally one data point each...but I suspect it is. My personal observations are that Weekend Daytime usage is far lower than reported (85%) except during special events.

Note that there isn't a weekday daytime observation...which is when meters are presently on...for comparison. It would certainly be a relative data point but would not in itself determine cause or effect in this relationship between rates and utilization/availability. It's a much lower utilization of spaces during the day, perhaps because of improved transit or by the nature of visits during those hours....as much as it is by the fact the meters are on. We have no information on that, so it's just speculation, really.

valetoile · Post by **valetoile** » January 7th, 2011, 3:15 pm

What about reducing the amount of car traffic and parking in downtown altogether, and making more free or cheap parking just outside of downtown with convenient shuttles running? (convenient being at least every five minutes, or ideally always a shuttle there). I think a carfree downtown would be wonderful, and allow for more development and greater foot traffic. I know that's not really feasible anytime in the near future for austin, but other large metropolitan areas have implemented similar programs with great success. I know no one would support this on first hearing, but i think once people got used to a new car-light downtown, with a really well-thought out and well-designed system, everyone would enjoy downtown more. All of the above is a little off-topic to the current discussion, but I was curious if that is a direction that the city is considering. I didn't see any proposals of bike infrastructure, unless that falls under pedestrian improvements.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » January 7th, 2011, 3:24 pm

My earlier comments are contingent on the free surface lot remaining, with open spots. If all free street parking is removed, I suspect that more people will discover this convenient loophole. If that surface lot is not an option, then coming downtown is much less attractive for me.

Non-improv example: Brown Bar has a very nice price on martinis on Wednesday evenings that my wife loves. We can currently drive down just for this, find ample street parking or park in the governor's mansion lot, walk a few short blocks and enjoy, staying as long as we like and giving this business money. If I need to pay to park (even a couple of bucks), then this is no longer a price-attractive option for me - I will go to a business further north, closer to where I live, or not go out at all.

AmyA · Post by **AmyA** » January 7th, 2011, 3:32 pm

To Matt's point about the affordable martini experience...

I'd like to see the task force also add more free babysitting downtown so that it will be more affordable for me to go out. Is there any way I pull up to a curb, hand my kid to a guy in a red jacket, and have him run off with the kid while I enjoy a drink or two? I'd probably like to get the kid back at some point later in the evening and am willing to tip the guy if the kid is returned unscathed. If I drink too much, I'd like an option to just get the kid the next morning.

Or is there a way that the downtown parking problem can be addressed using unattended children? I know we can't leave them in the car if it's too hot out...

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 3:33 pm

valetoile wrote:What about reducing the amount of car traffic and parking in downtown altogether, and making more free or cheap parking just outside of downtown with convenient shuttles running? (convenient being at least every five minutes, or ideally always a shuttle there). I think a carfree downtown would be wonderful, and allow for more development and greater foot traffic. I know that's not really feasible anytime in the near future for austin, but other large metropolitan areas have implemented similar programs with great success. I know no one would support this on first hearing, but i think once people got used to a new car-light downtown, with a really well-thought out and well-designed system, everyone would enjoy downtown more. All of the above is a little off-topic to the current discussion, but I was curious if that is a direction that the city is considering. I didn't see any proposals of bike infrastructure, unless that falls under pedestrian improvements.

Good thoughts and not off-topic at all. Cities work as an overall system with many modes of transportation working together.

The revenue from the added time would pay for itself plus put $1M into the general fund and $1.2M/year towards 'downtown reinvestment' which is flexible in what it's used for and a panel of citizens would help set that fund's spending priorities. The first year proposal was that way-finding effort. After that, sidewalk or bike infrastructure is on the menu.

Longer-term, the proposal of urban rail (different than the commuter rail Red Line) would hopefully be able to funnel people in as you suggest and give confidence to build up around the stops. Look for that on a crowded ballot in 2012.

In the shorter term - a bus circulator from the state garages is a good possible proposal. I was told it costs $100,000/yr...but that sounds kinda low to me. To be effective, timing intervals need a higher frequency which would take more buses and more expense.

All good feedback, though.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 3:36 pm

AmyA wrote: I'd like to see the task force also add more free babysitting downtown so that it will be more affordable for me to go out. Is there any way I pull up to a curb, hand my kid to a guy in a red jacket, and have him run off with the kid while I enjoy a drink or two? I'd probably like to get the kid back at some point later in the evening and am willing to tip the guy if the kid is returned unscathed. If I drink too much, I'd like an option to just get the kid the next morning.

Baby valet...interesting! I'm sure the Austonian is working on it

Mike · Post by **Mike** » January 7th, 2011, 3:45 pm

AmyA wrote:To Matt's point about the affordable martini experience...

I'd like to see the task force also add more free babysitting downtown so that it will be more affordable for me to go out. Is there any way I pull up to a curb, hand my kid to a guy in a red jacket, and have him run off with the kid while I enjoy a drink or two? I'd probably like to get the kid back at some point later in the evening and am willing to tip the guy if the kid is returned unscathed. If I drink too much, I'd like an option to just get the kid the next morning.

Or is there a way that the downtown parking problem can be addressed using unattended children? I know we can't leave them in the car if it's too hot out...

I think that a "Downtown Kiddie Care" business would actually make money.
If i is a legit business like a day care, you could just hire caregivers for a 8 hour night shift ( 6p to 3a with an hour break) and have people pay to park their kids in a place downtown staffed by adults who have had criminal background checks and who would keep your kids entertained while you went to the theater or to improv or the movies. I could see it being licensed like any day care that exists but like a big babysitting service with a nurse on staff and security on site. ( you and your kid are given wristbands - they have to match to get the kid)

I wonder if the Federal Gov't would bankroll this as a small business loan.

But back to the Debate.

Thanks, Mike, for all the insight into this process and answering our questions!

Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell · January 7th, 2011, 3:53 pm

you mean you DON'T take your kids out to drink WITH you?

were my parents just weird or something?

Aden · Post by **Aden** » January 7th, 2011, 5:18 pm

I grew up in the small town of Ashland, Oregon where on the street parking is free. During business hours there is always a 2 hour time limit. It's awesome. The town thrives on tourism and the downtown area is made up of theaters, restaurants and shopping. The city council there has decided that the commerce that is encouraged through free parking (in the evening there are no time limits) is of much greater value than the money made off of meters themselves. I am admittedly spoiled. The idea of paying for parking irks me to no end.

Here in Austin I will drive around for 20 minutes looking for a free spot or park a mile away and walk just because I do not want to pay for parking.

If I have to pay for parking every time I have a show downtown, or a plan to meet friends for a drink or a meal, I will be a sad panda. Will it keep me out of downtown? Yes. Not all of the time... but often, often, often. The other times when there is no alternative, I will simply be angry about having to pay to park.

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » January 7th, 2011, 6:47 pm

valetoile wrote:What about reducing the amount of car traffic and parking in downtown altogether, and making more free or cheap parking just outside of downtown with convenient shuttles running?

You're going to have a lot of musicians who play downtown thinking, "You gonna help me get my PA onto a f*cking shuttle?!"

I use a pretty small amount of gear for improv shows, but even so - unless I arranged for assistance every time I'd be talking about either multiple trips to the shuttle lot or coming into downtown to unload and then heading back out in order to take a shuttle back in.

I like your idea in principle Valerie, but a LOT of musicians work down there and need to get big PA systems (as well as instruments etc.) as close to the actual gig point as possible.

Your idea might actually make it easier on musicians if more people just coming to party took the shuttle, but a "car-free downtown"? Ain't gonna happen.