Parking

Putting the performance back into the ballpark performance parking pilot

by Michael Perkins   •   March 27, 2009 10:12 am

Yesterday I discussed empty streets in the ballpark performance parking district. The spaces are going empty even in an area where the meter rates are supposed to be adjusted to keep the streets almost full.

M Street, SE. Photo by Jacqueline Dupree.

According to standard performance parking theory in Dr. Shoup's book, "The High Cost of Free Parking", I would make the following recommendations:

• Remove the time limits for parking. With the right price, there would be just enough spaces available to keep the streets from becoming full and to encourage turnover. This will enable commuters to use the spaces all day, but only if they want to pay the market rate.

• Expand the available parking hours. DC should allow parking during rush hour. DDOT can convert the third travel lane in each direction to a parking-only lane. As it currently stands, M Street SE is a six-lane nightmare for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-drivers. The lanes are wide, and the visual picture of three open lanes encourages drivers to speed, frequently exceeding the 25 mph limit.

• Reexamine the prices. If the streets remain empty once these changes are made, then DDOT should lower the parking meter rates. If the result is that the meter rate goes to zero, then DDOT should move the meters to somewhere they can actually charge for parking.

I also recommend these changes to the parking on M Street:

• Turn on the meters. DC should activate the meters on the South side of M Street between 5th Street and Isaac Hull Ave SE. There is no reason to install two $7,000 meters and then not allow them to collect revenue. I have discussed this with DDOT, and they are looking into the matter.

• Put M Street on a "road diet". Construct bulb-outs to allow in-lane bus boarding and to shorten crossing distances. By doing this, the street can achieve a better balance between single-driver vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians. Additionally, the revenue provided by allowing parking during rush hour would benefit the local community, improving sidewalk conditions and potentially paying for transit connections like the new Circulator route. According to discussions with staff at Tommy Wells' office and DDOT, DC is already working on a plan to change traffic patterns on M Street to make it into more of a "complete street".

• Allow stadium parking on M Street during the baseball games. If DC implemented the street changes above, there would not be an additional travel lane available during baseball games, which would increase the available parking. DC would be able to get additional revenue from these parking spaces, and allow some of the existing surface lots to be redeveloped once the economy recovers.

DDOT's Associate Director for Transportation Policy and Planning, Karina Ricks, discussed performance parking and my observations with me last week. According to Ricks, the Ballpark Performance Parking zone is not really an ideal location for performance parking, because the demand is low but highly variable. The pilot district started because the Ballpark brought new parking challenges to the area, and there was not a big constituency there to oppose changes. The pilot district had the strong support of Tommy Wells' office, and is still seen as experimental.

Ricks explained that occasionally time limits would be desirable for a performance parking zone, because with unrestricted parking the per-hour charge needed to keep the occupancy within the target might be unreasonable. DDOT feels that there are equity concerns with pricing people out of parking in performance zones, and restricting parking by instituting time limits helps to keep those prices in check.

They cited performance parking in Dupont Circle as an example of a location where the completely free market price might be too high. Fair enough, but that doesn't justify using time limits to keep spaces empty at the Navy Yard. Furthermore, if DDOT believes they should deliberately restrict spaces beyond the framework of performance parking that the Council mandated, they should make that an explicitly stated policy with the opportunity for Council and public input. If the Council agrees that $3 per hour is appropriate to ensure some spaces are empty, and $4 is excessive, then that should be their decision, not DDOT's.

DDOT is considering changing the use of M Street similar to what I have described, with a complete rethinking of how the right-of-way is used. The changes will likely include allowing parking along the sides continuously, narrowing lanes, building bulb-outs and generally calming traffic.

DDOT is wary of reducing parking meter rates in the area. Right now, the area is in a state of flux, with a lot of buildings being built and occupied for the first time, and a lot of residents, visitors and employees just forming their commuting and parking habits. DDOT's concern is that low parking meter prices will cause people to form habits that will later be hard to break when the rest of the area fills in and the meter prices go up. There might be an angry backlash from drivers who are used to paying $4 to park all day if suddenly the price goes to $12 per day under high demand. Again, I think this is really something for the Council to consider under advice from DDOT, rather than DDOT's call alone.

Over the next year, DDOT has obtained money from the Council of Governments to fund parking occupancy surveys which will help them determine the proper meter rates and restrictions. Occupancy surveys will happen both during baseball season and out of season.

If DDOT is going to be asked to extend the performance parking district to other areas of the District, they need to be given the leeway to establish parking meter rates that balance demand with supply; the resources to ensure they can measure demand, install the necessary equipment, make changes as necessary and enforce the restrictions fairly; the expectations of the Council regarding how often the streets should be surveyed to adjust rates; and the oversight needed to ensure that the job is being done correctly. The results should end up netting the District the revenue it needs while ensuring that parking remains available for those that want it.

Thanks to Ms. Ricks for taking my questions.

Michael Perkins blogs here and at Infosnack about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia.