Downtown Parking Survey

[AmyA]

Brockman, the children can carry the equipment. You're not seeing the big picture here.

[mpbrockman]

Brockman, the children can carry the equipment. You're not seeing the big picture here.

Nice. I'm considering Walter volunteered.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

The current transportation department proposal is to extend paying hours until midnight between Cesar Chavez and 10th Street, Lamar and I-35, Monday-Saturday in order to create turnover and more availability of spaces.

...with or without this plan more spaces are likely to be taken up at night than during the day, right? So, won't there probably always be less available spaces at night time? I don't know how many people are just putting a car downtown and hoarding a spot.


As things are now, when the free spaces are full the problem is not that there are no other available spaces, the problem is that now you have to pay to park. Not just pay, pay what feels like too much. You can always find a garage that has space if you're willing to pay right now. So, I don't understand the no spaces argument. I understand how the change proposes to "help", but I personally am not in favor of it.


I think that it will be adding additional costs of living to a lot of people who are already on a tight budget. I would be willing to bet that the tighter your budget is the more likely you are to be looking for the free space. As Mike stated previously, a lot of the people who are parking for extended periods of time are working. I think that they are the ones who are likely to be hit hardest by this. The talk of changing things and then putting a system in to help them out seems ridiculous to me because there already is a system...and it doesn't cost or require anything extra which is quite spectacular. The workers, and performers, and artists, are coming out first to do their work...the work that makes the city so "weird" and desirable. Then the people who have $ to spend are coming in for fun to enjoy that. If they have $ to spend to have fun, they are more likely in my opinion to have $ to spend to park. Sure, some regulars might save a spot every once in a while, but that's a regular who is saving $ at the meter and spending it at the independent unique place that we're all so fond of.

If the change does go through, I would not be satisfied with that $1,000,000 a year going to something so vague as "Downtown Reinvestment". Something like what Val is proposing that sounds like a real utilization of the $ from a specific problem to help fix a specific problem sounds more appealing. Be that a space rail, a gov. run garage that is safe and much more affordable to people who are going to be the ones asked to pay...that said though, it still sounds like bullshit to me. Because I'm in the group that is being asked to pay the $1,000,000 a year. In my opinion, I'm happier to see things as they are and the program struggling to stay above water than I would be to have $900,000 left over after the "oooooh, shuttle bus" distraction to go towards something that might not solve the problem.

The current process is referred to as a "problem" and an exploitation of a "loop hole" and people are being called "cheaters"....but to me it seems more like hard working people being intelligent while trying to carve out a living. Which, again, is something I thought Austin was all about?

I am curious about the fancy restaurants with Valet services that take up the public available street parking once the meters turn free. I would like to know if they pay to be able to reserve those spots, and if so where that $ goes.

I think the problem that should be examined more closely is what other people have mentioned. The pay lots. Over priced, kinda scary...The lot owners' complaint is that they don't want to pay any of the money that they would make but aren't making now on maintenance and upkeep? Why aren't they being asked to sacrifice? They're the ones hoarding 66% of the space. The numbers show that people clearly prefer the streets. So much so that they would rather not park anywhere (go home, or east of 35, or down south...)? Only 34% of that space is being used, right? Why is the effort not being focused on figuring out how to get people to use more of that space without charging them more for using the spaces they currently prefer? To me it sounds like a good way to move the percentages around, and to make a million dollars, but that's about it.

[Spots]

Arts & Entertainment are fucked. That's the giant image burned into my retinas after reading all about this craptacular proposal.


"The path of least resistance." That's about all you can figure when it comes to predicting what the consumer will or will not do.

There's no way to project how many people will and will not be willing to pay for 2 hour slots of parking. All I know is that I would much prefer to get my arts & entertainment elsewhere. And lord knows I have options in this city.


Say no.

[mpbrockman]

There's no way to project how many people will and will not be willing to pay for 2 hour slots of parking. All I know is that I would much prefer to get my arts & entertainment elsewhere. And lord knows I have options in this city.

I hear that, and I generally avoid downtown when I'm looking for entertainment; but I suppose I'm thinking specifically of the Hideout Theatre. I work down there a lot and the new owners have put a lot of effort into making that venture more and more viable - filling seats and presumably turning at least a marginal profit.

While I sympathize with your position, I suppose I feel a little defensive of that venue and would be disturbed by any proposal that would prove to be detrimental to it.

One wonders about that lot that sits next to it with the prices that keep inching upward. Who owns that and how much would it take to get them to sell?

Hmmm... must look into that.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

in all fairness to Mike, i'm pretty sure he's got the Hideout's well being on his mind as well.

[Miggy]

The talk of changing things and then putting a system in to help them out seems ridiculous to me because there already is a system...and it doesn't cost or require anything extra which is quite spectacular.

I hear what you're saying, which if I can summarize:

Current Situation:
Price Sensitive Parkers: spaces are difficult to find, but they exist
Convenience Sensitve Parkers: spaces are available

Proposed Situation:
Price Sensitive Parkers: spaces are not available
Convenience Sensitive Parkers: spaces are more available

With no additional capacity online - which is a big point to consider.

At the same time, this is also where I get torn. I guarantee that I hate to pay for parking more than you do. In fact I hate paying to even own a car. Someone asked me recently what my dream car was...and I had no idea. It completely dumbfounded me. I spend most of my time dreaming about being able to not own a car. It's one of the reasons I live downtown - so I can walk to places. I would rather pay more for a six pack at the local store than to get in a car and drive to someplace that it is cheaper because anytime I have to use fossil fuels to move 2000 lbs. of steel and plastic to pick up 10 lbs of groceries, I consider it a fail on my part. In full disclosure - this is me - I'm trying to be objective about this and how it impacts lots of people and not just me...but I do have my own perspective, too. The other part of that perspective is clearly the Hideout and what is in its best interest.

Speaking more generally for a moment, as an overall system of laws and policies, we're very much subsidizing the ownership and use of cars. For more on the high social costs of free parking I would refer you to this small article summarizing the book of the same name:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/busin ... wanted=all

If you change the word 'free' to 'subsidized' does it change your mind at all? Nothing is free - parking especially so. You don't really have free parking at the mall, that sea of parking lot is being paid for in the rents of the retailers and transfered down into the costs of your products. It's a socialized cost that everyone pays whether you came by car or not. Restaurants have a cost associated with utencils, linens, dishes, etc... but you get them ostensibly for free and then the cost is loaded into your overpriced food.

The question is whether or not we want as a city to subsidize car parking? The city is talking out of two sides of its mouth to some extent, because it just recently agreed to do just that during daytime hours for the 2nd Street area:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/sec ... 61375.html

What is the cost of that parking they're giving away? To asphalt a space on a surface lot is maybe $500 independant of the land value. To build a garage above ground, it's about $20,000/space and below ground as at city hall, about $40,000. The cost of the garage below city hall was about the same as the building that sits on top. The Car2Go contract set a value for on-street parking of $10,000/space leasable at $10/day as another data point.

If the change does go through, I would not be satisfied with that $1,000,000 a year going to something so vague as "Downtown Reinvestment". Something like what Val is proposing that sounds like a real utilization of the $ from a specific problem to help fix a specific problem sounds more appealing.

Vaguely summarized but with specific projects behind them. As of right now, downtown generates far more taxes than it consumes and so it's essentially subsidizing the sprawl of the city (which has a lower population density than L.A.). It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker and it takes a while to explain to the cabby that shakes their fist at the Austonian saying that it has made Austin less affordable....when in fact it has made it more so...but that's a discussion for another time). I would be in favor of the full $2.2M being captured for downtown reinvestment on specific projects. On one level, it sounds like a lot, but it doesn't go that far. To re-do one block of sidewalk costs +/- $500k. The urban rail project that will be on the ballot in 2012 costs $1B+.

The current process is referred to as a "problem" and an exploitation of a "loop hole" and people are being called "cheaters"....but to me it seems more like hard working people being intelligent while trying to carve out a living.

Which is why I find it difficult to believe that the head of the Austin Bar & Restaurant Association (the manager of Fleming's) was strongly in favor of this with seemingly no consideration of its employees. I was not personally there for that meeting, but in general, the feedback from small business owners has been mixed. Rainey Street Bar owners are asking for meters (the street currently has none at all) and West 6th Street multiple bar owner, Bob Woody, is opposed to charging at night even though that area has the least availability of on-street or off-street parking. Numerous valets stand right next to each other and the lots that they're driving to are farther away.

I am curious about the fancy restaurants with Valet services that take up the public available street parking once the meters turn free. I would like to know if they pay to be able to reserve those spots, and if so where that $ goes.

They pay...but far far far too low of a price. It costs $250/space/year. or about $0.68 per day - a rate set in 1997. There was a moratorium on new valet spaces last year while they worked to improve signage. I thought they were also going to be changing the costs associated, but I was told at this last meeting that the moratorium has been lifted and the fee changes are 'currently being reviewed'.

I'm loathe to be sympathetic to valets, but to some extent they help rather than hurt the situation. Taking 3 on street spaces and being able to park 60 in an off-street garage that may not be open to the public...that helps. But yah...I never use them either. Nor do I think it's positive in how it encourages single-use visits.

I think the problem that should be examined more closely is what other people have mentioned. The pay lots. Over priced, kinda scary...The lot owners' complaint is that they don't want to pay any of the money that they would make but aren't making now on maintenance and upkeep? Why aren't they being asked to sacrifice? They're the ones hoarding 66% of the space. The numbers show that people clearly prefer the streets. So much so that they would rather not park anywhere (go home, or east of 35, or down south...)? Only 34% of that space is being used, right? Why is the effort not being focused on figuring out how to get people to use more of that space without charging them more for using the spaces they currently prefer? To me it sounds like a good way to move the percentages around, and to make a million dollars, but that's about it.

I dont' totally follow all of your percentages or your proposal, but the goal is to make people aware of the additional parking capacity that exists, yes. And yes...it does seem like the city would be helping those private lot owners (they all were in favor of the changes)...which are fairly undesirable land uses without asking for anything in return.

I have been told that if it's a surface lot, the money made is probably about enough to pay the property taxes after management fees. That's what I've been told but I must be missing something. To use the vacant lot next to the Hideout as an example:
http://www.traviscad.org/travisdetail.php?theKey=194411
They're paying $18,000/year in property taxes or $50/day. Hmm... need to ask more questions on that.

Anyways...all good points Cody...thank you for your insights. Everyone here is giving great feedback.

If you want to give it in person...next Tuesday, 5:30 at City Hall...give the feedback on camera. Come out and testify! News media has been following the steps in this process fairly closely....and they need better visuals than those of us on the panel talking about it in dry terms. Everyone wants to hear from more actual users of parking...which we haven't much yet. The survey is one way of reaching out, but being present and being an informed commenter is incredibly persuasive to the process.

[Roy Janik]

I dont' totally follow all of your percentages or your proposal, but the goal is to make people aware of the additional parking capacity that exists, yes.

I do think that most people are aware of the parking garages. I mean, they're hard to miss... and most nights, don't seem to be sold out. So there's got to be other factors at play. I *hate* parking in garages, and I couldn't really tell you why... probably because the cost is always a little more than I want to pay, getting into and out of a spot is difficult, and they're a little scary. I definitely prefer driving around to find street parking over parking in a garage.

[Amira]

I prefer parking in street parking for safety as well. I agree with Roy that the garages can be a little scary seeming. I find them very easy to come across. However, I would gladly walk many blocks away on a major street like Congress with lots of people around and then go straight to my car, because I feel safer that way. Even if these surveys say it is actually safer another way, or that funding will make garages more well lit with extra security, I know I am not the only one that will still feel safer with street parking, for what it's worth.

Also, I work at UT and pass through downtown to and from meetings. Basically, having lunch downtown is convenient location-wise. However, I will literally drive right by and head elsewhere because I do not want to have to pay for parking. With budgets tight already, it is a splurge to eat out or get drinks. Paying more for parking makes downtown undesirable to me. I would rather go to the many other places I know of that I may not like as much, but that at least have free parking.

Certainly, I would also feel less good about performing in and supporting improv downtown if it becomes the case that every time I visit The Hideout, I am having to pay for parking. In this economy, it may just be a few dollars, but that is a strong impact these days! I know it would quickly become an issue for my situation. If there were a special pass for people in a certain pay bracket or who are students, that may change my opinion, but that seems very complicated.

[Miggy]

I dont' totally follow all of your percentages or your proposal, but the goal is to make people aware of the additional parking capacity that exists, yes.

I do think that most people are aware of the parking garages. I mean, they're hard to miss... and most nights, don't seem to be sold out. So there's got to be other factors at play. I *hate* parking in garages, and I couldn't really tell you why... probably because the cost is always a little more than I want to pay, getting into and out of a spot is difficult, and they're a little scary. I definitely prefer driving around to find street parking over parking in a garage.

Safety is another consideration, certainly, and we haven't talked much about that yet - we've been focusing mostly on cost vs. convenience.

The amount of on-street spaces is a fixed number. We've established that those spaces are desirable for location and safety reasons in addition to the current price. But the solution isn't really to add more parking lots and let it swallow the desirability of your urban core, the way Houston did in the eighties:


In all seriousness, what is a better solution? If what's on the table is:

1.) Status Quo....
2.) Change the hours for on-street parking at night....
3.) Some other proposal....

It sounds like after years of hearing complaints about downtown parking, circling around for an elusive spot, that the preference is still for that status quo.

[Spots]

Again, you cannot simply predict how the market will respond.


If the city wanted to support local businesses, free lots & free garages would *certainly* support many many many businesses. When the lot under I-35 was free I headed downtown twice as much frequently. Then when that ended, the spots around the convention center were free and I still went semi frequently.

Now I never go downtown to drink. I prefer the east side. I prefer to park for free.

I go downtown exclusively for the Hideout.

[Miggy]

I go downtown exclusively for the Hideout.

And we appreciate it.

[Miggy]

arrgh...why do i take these things on? I can see lots of people's perspectives on this issue.

I'm probably fooling myself by how much this little taskforce can actually influence things... but... well for those with strong opinions... please continue to express them. If you want to bypass the survey and the taskforce and go straight to the decision makers, here are their e-mails:

Mayor and Council:
lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us
randi.shade@ci.austin.tx.us
laura.morrison@ci.austin.tx.us
mike.martinez@ci.austin.tx.us
chris.riley@ci.austin.tx.us
sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us
bill.spelman@ci.austin.tx.us

(it's customary to start with 'Honorable Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Austin City Council Members:') Or if you want to show yourself to be a savvy player and increase your chances of a response, copy their policy aides and the Transportation Department.

Transportation Department:
rob.spillar@ci.austin.tx.us
Gordon.Derr@ci.austin.tx.us
Steve.Grassfield@ci.austin.tx.us

Lee Leffingwell:
Mark.Nathan@ci.austin.tx.us
Nancy.Willisams@ci.austin.tx.us
Amy.Everhart@ci.austin.tx.us
Matt.Curtis@ci.austin.tx.us
Janet.Jackson@ci.austin.tx.us

Bill Spelman:
Hiedi.Gerbracht@ci.austin.tx.us
Barksdale.English@ci.austin.tx.us

Chris Riley:
Lewis.leff@ci.austin.tx.us
Leah.Bojo@ci.austin.tx.us
Marisa.Ballas@ci.austin.tx.us

Laura Morrison:
Grace.Applegate@ci.austin.tx.us
Robert.Levinski@ci.austin.tx.us
Barbara.Rush@ci.austin.tx.us

Randi Shade:
Marti.Bier@ci.austin.tx.us
Glen.Coleman@ci.austin.tx.us

Mike Martinez:
Robert.Garza@ci.austin.tx.us
Andrew.Moore@ci.austin.tx.us

Sheryl Cole:
Stephanie.McDonald@ci.austin.tx.us
Greg.Anderson@ci.austin.tx.us

[TexasImprovMassacre]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments, Mike. Also, I'd like to say that I appreciate you attempting to stay objective on this issue.

Those percentages may be entirely wrong. I should have made it more clear how I came to them. Now that it isn't 4 am, I realize that there may be more than 2 fields (http://i54.tinypic.com/307qedz.jpg). I just solved for the missing percentage, assuming that there were only 2. So...in actuality, I suppose that what I solved for would be the percentage of used "off street space"? Which could encompass more than just the garages. I am curious if you might perhaps be able to tell me what the actual percentage usage of the garage space is?

I took at look at the articles that you linked to. The first one did add an interesting perspective by calling the free spaces what they really are, which is subsidized spaces. However, my opinion on the issue basically remains the same.

The article suggests that less subsidized parking would have the effect of making people "more careful about when and where they drove". I think that this is perhaps a better way to categorize what the change would be vs saying there would be "more available spaces"...In my opinion, people being more picky about when they come to downtown because of the parking situation seems like negative change.

I think it is important to consider which people we are talking about coming out less. The people who are going downtown for something they don't necessarily need to go downtown for...and this is again a different group from the "workers" of downtown. Workers who do not have the luxury of just deciding not to go downtown tonight/right now. Moreover, if people are going downtown with less frequency, does that not likely translate into less profits for the businesses? Fewer people = lower profits = less tips for the waiters who then have less $ themselves to spend when they go out = they go out less as well...

I also don't really anticipate that if the changes did go into effect, and a business downtown did save a little money on parking, that these savings would automatically be passed on to the consumer. If instead it went towards paying the workers who then be paying more for parking, that would make me feel better...although, I think the chances of that happening are somewhat unlikely to happen out of the good of business owners' hearts...Even if that were the case, I would still prefer the change not take place because there is no way for me as an artist who works for free downtown to start making any extra $ to offset the new cost. (and again, i'm one of the ones "keeping it weird" and helping bring out the consumers of that)


The second article confuses me more because it seems like, as you said, the city talking out of the other side of its mouth on the issue.


Last night I was considering if one was more important, the business owners or the patrons. Without the businesses, there would be no place for the patrons to go. However, without the patrons, you can have all the businesses you want, but they needs patrons spending money so they can succeed.

To me, this system is another one that is already sort of self balanced...The business spend a little more to allow the consumers to come out when they feel like it, and then the money they save at the meter they spend in the restaurant. So the cost of the food might be a little more, but the parking was free. My skepticism tells me that if the change happens, you won't see prices dropping on menus or fancier silverware coming out.

So...I am still really struggling to see this as a good thing. I completely agree with you, mike, on your reservations about car culture. I as well would love to see real changes made in this area. On this front though, I feel that the proposed plan does not help moving the city towards making those changes in any way other than generating $1,000,000 a year (which still isn't close to covering the estimated $1b needed for something like the urban rail idea). I want a better(alternative) option to encourage me to use it instead of the current system, not a removal of one of the current options that forces me to use something i currently do not prefer, or not come out at all. To me, that still does not solve what I consider to be the bigger problem.


Lastly, thank you for the insight into the costs associate with this issue.

Vaguely summarized but with specific projects behind them. As of right now, downtown generates far more taxes than it consumes and so it's essentially subsidizing the sprawl of the city (which has a lower population density than L.A.). It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker and it takes a while to explain to the cabby that shakes their fist at the Austonian saying that it has made Austin less affordable....when in fact it has made it more so...but that's a discussion for another time). I would be in favor of the full $2.2M being captured for downtown reinvestment on specific projects. On one level, it sounds like a lot, but it doesn't go that far. To re-do one block of sidewalk costs +/- $500k. The urban rail project that will be on the ballot in 2012 costs $1B+.

This is an example of what I am worried about. How right now the money generated from downtown goes towards helping all of Austin. I'm not saying that this money isn't necessarily being well spent. I'm saying that I would want all of the $ generated by the meters to stay towards bettering the "downtown problem" it was enacted to solve. While I realize that other areas of the city may "need" some of that money, I would still feel like I was now paying more and they were getting something for nothing.

[Roy Janik]

Mike, what did happen to the city-supported free garages and lots? I remember there being the one over west on 4th, and the lots underneath I-35. Was it a matter of cost that did away with them?