Downtown Parking Survey

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 1:53 am

You may have already seen this on facebook, etc... but I also wanted to post it here. Specifically, the City of Austin is doing a very short survey that hopes to pull in information and address some open questions left from the last time people were polled in 2009. The poll will remain open for a while but the data will be compiled for a first glance on January 11th, 2011.

http://WWW.DOWNTOWNAUSTINSURVEY.COM

The questions and open feedback responses will be used by a taskforce specifically authorized by city council to review downtown parking policies. 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.The timeline proposed by staff for that review is unfortunately incredibly short (just 3 weeks starting during the holidays) but we're trying to gather the most information we can and push back on the short deadline.

I am a member of that 5 person panel and am very interested in getting the feedback, discussion and concerns of a broad group of citizens, including impacted improvisers. It's important to note, too, that we were asked for our recommendations not on if this should happen, but how.

There is a lot I could say on the process and proposals to date, and other thoughts but I'll leave this survey out here without influencing commentary further. If anyone does have clarifying questions, though, I can attempt to answer them as best i can.

Thanks,
Mike

Matt · Post by **Matt** » January 7th, 2011, 11:35 am

I was confused at the statement made in the survey that one of the aims of this measure was to encourage development of more private garages. I wasn't clear on how removing free parking would increase the demand for garage parking (particularly if one of the other stated intents was to make street parking spots more available).

Does this assume that people who need to park downtown for extended periods (e.g. longer than the maximum time limit set for meters) will have garage parking as their only alternative?

Also, near and dear to my heart is the 'improvisor lot' at the Governors' Mansion, which I hope would remain free after hours. Am I correct in assuming that this proposal does not impact that lot?

Tim Traini · Post by **Tim Traini** » January 7th, 2011, 11:53 am

Matt wrote:I was confused at the statement made in the survey that one of the aims of this measure was to encourage development of more private garages. I wasn't clear on how removing free parking would increase the demand for garage parking (particularly if one of the other stated intents was to make street parking spots more available).

Does this assume that people who need to park downtown for extended periods (e.g. longer than the maximum time limit set for meters) will have garage parking as their only alternative?

I think they're just trying to gauge which option would be the best option for both the citizens and the city.

sara farr · Post by **sara farr** » January 7th, 2011, 12:08 pm

I put in my 2 cents -- MORE FREE PARKING!! It was great when that lot next to the 360 building was free. If you want downtown foot traffic, then invite people to get out of their cars. Don't CHARGE them to get out of their car.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » January 7th, 2011, 12:10 pm

sara farr wrote:I put in my 2 cents -- MORE FREE PARKING!! It was great when that lot next to the 360 building was free. If you want downtown foot traffic, then invite people to get out of their cars. Don't CHARGE them to get out of their car.

Amen. Forcing me to pay to go downtown means I will not go downtown.

kbadr · Post by **kbadr** » January 7th, 2011, 12:15 pm

Matt wrote:
sara farr wrote:I put in my 2 cents -- MORE FREE PARKING!! It was great when that lot next to the 360 building was free. If you want downtown foot traffic, then invite people to get out of their cars. Don't CHARGE them to get out of their car.
Amen. Forcing me to pay to go downtown means I will not go downtown.

Which means more available parking! PROBLEM SOLVED!

Tim Traini · Post by **Tim Traini** » January 7th, 2011, 12:15 pm

Edit: ^^^ hahahhahaa

If they installed credit card machines on parking or offered a reasonable price on a parking pass for casual use/people that don't use downtown for work, I'd pay for parking more often. I hate carrying cash on me and enjoy being a paper-free person, it would be aggravating if I had to find an ATM and break a 20 into change anytime I want to go to the Hideout (which I have done on some of the paid lots when I can't find anything around Congress and I spent more on that than I did my ticket).

kbadr · Post by **kbadr** » January 7th, 2011, 12:17 pm

Tim Traini wrote:If they installed credit card machines ...

They have been doing this for a year now

Tim Traini · Post by **Tim Traini** » January 7th, 2011, 12:20 pm

kbadr wrote:
Tim Traini wrote:If they installed credit card machines ...
They have been doing this for a year now

Wait what when I never saw a card slot on those things, I am dumb

Then again, I don't think I've ever parked downtown before 5:30 PM so it's not like I have a need to look at them.

Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell · January 7th, 2011, 12:28 pm

good lord, one of the reasons i was so excited to move back here was liberation from the oppressive parking situation in L.A., and now it's followed me home!

at best, i could see charging more on major thoroughfares, but if you don't want to murder the nightlife in town, there need to be free parking options available. i know i for one would not come downtown as often at night or on the weekends if i have to pay or worry about feeding the meter when i'm at a show or a bar (which given the amount of time i currently spend at the Hideout would require a huge shift in lifestyle for me. :p).

i can't access the site with the survey at work, but i'll fill it out once i'm able!

acrouch · Post by **acrouch** » January 7th, 2011, 1:35 pm

Fill out the survey and leave a strongly-worded note!

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 1:38 pm

Matt wrote:I was confused at the statement made in the survey that one of the aims of this measure was to encourage development of more private garages. I wasn't clear on how removing free parking would increase the demand for garage parking (particularly if one of the other stated intents was to make street parking spots more available).

Does this assume that people who need to park downtown for extended periods (e.g. longer than the maximum time limit set for meters) will have garage parking as their only alternative?

Good questions. The short answer is yes. It's important to note, though, the difference between capacity and availability. While there will be new garages built under the city's parking enterprise in the Seaholm area, no one is proposing the construction of new capacity in response to these changes. Currently there are 2,300 on-street spaces and 14,000 in off-street garages and lots. All but 5,000 spaces are available to the public in some form. On Friday and Saturday night, utilization of on-street parking is approximately 96%, which is basically maximum capacity and driving people into paid lots/garages today and/or feeling frustrated at a lack of available+convenient+free parking. Combined on-street and off-street parking utilization is about 65% (I'm not sure if that includes the 5,000 offline spaces or not). A lot of grumblings indicated that the status quo is not ideal.

The task force was originally told that the reason that some garages did not open to the public was because 'their competition is free'. That has not turned out to be the case. It mostly centers on premiere office buildings that don't want the risk or maintenance costs associated with cleaning up after drunk people. There's also a larger issue of there being no public buildings with bathrooms open at night beyond private retail establishments and garages getting used as unfortunate places to relieve oneself.

The suggestion for making convenient on-street parking more available within a fixed supply of spaces is to get longer-term parkers into garages and freeing those spaces up to be used 2-3 times in an evening by shorter term users. Who are longer term parkers? 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.

The revenue thrown off from the meters would be used to create a wayfinding system and electronic monitoring to let people know where parking exists as well as the cost and the number of spaces still available. Standard signage on buildings, an electronic billboard at major feeder streets and a smartphone app are the suggestions to accomplish that.

Matt wrote:Also, near and dear to my heart is the 'improvisor lot' at the Governors' Mansion, which I hope would remain free after hours. Am I correct in assuming that this proposal does not impact that lot?

I believe you're referring to the Eastern side of Congress at 11th street as the one next to the Mansion is fenced off. It was the site of the second Travis County Courthouse (the first was South of Republic Square). It was torn down in the 1930's and made into a surface lot when the 'new' courthouse North of Wooldridge Square was built (though interestingly, the blue prints still list the main entrance as the Congress Avenue entrance because it was designed for that spot but later adapted for its current site). Regardless...currently the state owns that lot. The state is not the most active manager of its considerable parking assets as many improvisers long ago figured out but the long (long) term plans do include a building on that site as well as the garages along Waterloo Park and the tailgater special across from the Blanton/Bob Bullock Museum.

It should also be pointed out that the on-street parking regulations in this area would be different under this proposal. It's confusing but anywhere there is a parking meter in the city, it will be 8-6 Monday-Saturday, which were the hours from 1955-1988. South of 10th Street, it will be until midnight. If you're near a school, it's a 5hour limit (at UT's request - including game days which will be interesting), if you're near the capitol, it's a 4hour limit (at the state's request), if not, it's a 3hour limit. At least that's what's proposed at the moment.

I suspect this will be confusing to a lot of customers. Implementation wouldn't occur until October, but they would need to do a lot of work to inform the public on these different aspects.

I'm not alone on the panel in being a bit torn in a lot of directions on this. Your feedback is really welcome, in the survey and on this forum. Thanks.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 1:51 pm

Tim Traini wrote:
kbadr wrote:
Tim Traini wrote:If they installed credit card machines ...
They have been doing this for a year now
Wait what when I never saw a card slot on those things, I am dumb

Then again, I don't think I've ever parked downtown before 5:30 PM so it's not like I have a need to look at them.

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.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » January 7th, 2011, 2:02 pm

Matt wrote:
sara farr wrote:I put in my 2 cents -- MORE FREE PARKING!! It was great when that lot next to the 360 building was free. If you want downtown foot traffic, then invite people to get out of their cars. Don't CHARGE them to get out of their car.
Amen. Forcing me to pay to go downtown means I will not go downtown.

This has been some of my argument as well. We are inviting single-use traffic. In other words, people who valet park at a restaurant, eat, get in their car and go home. That's really not the goal, but I'm concerned that it may happen with on-street parkers leaving when their meter is up.

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

In explaining what I've heard to date, I don't want to sound like an apologist for this proposal because if you've been around for my interactions with the Transportation Department, it would be clear that I have serious misgivings.

Your feedback is really appreciated.

Roy Janik · Post by **Roy Janik** » January 7th, 2011, 2:03 pm

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.