Parking
DDOT to discuss Columbia Heights parking pilot tonight
This evening, officials from DDOT will discuss the performance parking pilot for Columbia Heights. The meeting starts at 6:30 pm, and it would help for residents knowledgeable about parking policy to go.
The pilot zone has six blocks of parking controlled by multispace meters. Under the pilot, DDOT is monitoring occupancy rates, and is supposed to adjust the parking rates based on occupancy.
As part of this project, DDOT produced a report (PDF) for the study area. The report clearly discusses the purpose of performance parking, and emphasizes the point that convenient curbside parking is important.
Citing Donald Shoup, it emphasizes that people don't go to an area to park, but rather to shop, eat, go to parks, see residents and so on, and therefore parking policy shouldn't revolve around parking per se, but on making it easier for people to visit.
Overall, the report does a good job informing policymakers and the public about the parking conditions observed in Columbia Heights. It ends up making the right recommendations for most blocks of the study area, but gets a few key conclusions wrong. This article explains the study and its conclusions; in a second part this afternoon, I'll outline the areas where I disagree with DDOT's recommendations.
Vehicle tags observed per hour on multispace meter spaces on the
2900-3300 blocks of 14th Street, NW in the summer of 2009.
DDOT contracted with Council of Governments to collect parking occupancy and turnover data for the study zone. COG used a car equipped with cameras and a GPS unit to log the location and time of observed license plates, while periodically driving a pre-determined route.
The report contains some interesting nuggets:
- Parking was very crowded at the multispace meters, indicating over 85% average occupancy at three of them, and over 100% maximum occupancy at all of them. Since occupancy was determined by comparing the number of cars parked to the number of average sized cars that could be parked legally, smaller cars or tighter parking could result in occupancy above 100%. In fact, COG reported that one meter had 190% occupancy at one time.
- Turnover at meters was average. Assuming they paid for their parking, on average people parked about two hours and paid $4. This is higher than the charge for the DCUSA garage, indicating perhaps that they either value the convenience of on-street parking or don't know about the DCUSA garage.
- The meters have almost paid for themselves in a little over a year. The meters cost $7,140 each, or $107,100 for the performance parking zone. By law, 60% of the meter revenue at first pays back the meter cost, and after 7 months, DDOT has allocated $49,904 to pay for the meters. Once the meters are paid for, 75% of the revenue will be devoted to the local area for improvements. (In the ballpark zone, with higher rates, DDOT is closer to paying off the meters.
- 42% of plates were registered in DC, 16% Virginia, 8% Maryland, and 34% other or unknown. The high other/unknown number could either mean people aren't registering their cars in the District, or as the report suggested, could just be a problem with identifying the correct state. Perhaps DDOT could have COG separate this next time into "Other" and "not identified" plates?
In the report, DDOT states that three out of the six multispace meter blocks have occupancy rates above 85%, and recommends increasing the meter fees as soon as the 14th Street streetscape project is complete. It's unclear whether DDOT means to increase all of the meter fees all of the time, or whether the fee increases will be targeted only to peak times and locations. Still, it's clear that DDOT is making the right policy choice to react to high occupancy rates with higher fees. That's the way performance parking is supposed to work.
However, the report is missing some detail that would allow finer and more helpful adjustments of parking meters. Next, I'll analyze that issue.
 | 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.    |
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Planners are the new public health officials
If a city wants to raise more money from parking, call it what it is: a fee increase. Don't try to get all fancy and go for "performance parking" metrics. I don't have a problem with higher parking fees, but to pretend that raising taxes like this doesn't have consequences is disingenuous.
That being said, what is interesting is that too much parking policy discussion in DC is driven by the desire to tax commuters, that is NOT the case with Columbia Heights. Unless you live in DC, I would never go there.
However, I fear that this report is mostly about driving up the cost of parking, and not much else. To wit:
1. How crowded are the spots: MP quote that the 3 blocks with multispace meter are over 100% capacity. The report also say that 9 other blocks are over 85% capacity. How much is that usage, and how much is that people in DC aren't driving Yukons around?
2. Cost: A metric that says the new meters have to play for themselves isn't very helpful. How much does it cost to do that constant enforcement? Performance parking isn't jack without a constant nagging meter maid. And heaven forbid one multispace meter goes down and you ticket an entire block...
3. Increase fees: as expected, they try to use the fact that 12 blocks (out of 44) have an occupancy rate over 85% as an excuse to raise the rate ($2 an hour). You are applying on artificial number (the rate is about smaller cars as well as usage) to another (the 85%).
I do find it interesting that people were more willing to pay for street parking than the garage. I think that is mostly information. I didn't know how cheap DC USA parking was, and the other great thing about performance parking is you don't know how expensive it will be until you park, get out, and walk a half block to a multispace meter.
3.
by charlie on Dec 7, 2009 1:13 pm
by David Alpert on Dec 7, 2009 1:24 pm
by charlie on Dec 7, 2009 1:43 pm
I realize that in the imaginary world where all government officials secretly conspire with each other and all politicians' and officials' public statements are just false, then DDOT has some shadowy mandate to do something different from what the law says on its face. But if you'd like to try to argue that that is reality, some evidence would help.
by David Alpert on Dec 7, 2009 1:48 pm
20% goes to the DDOT operating fund
5% pays for meter and sign maintenance
75% goes to pay for local non-automobile transportation improvements.
I don't know where the money from other meters goes, but I'm going to guess a whole lot more than 25% goes into the general fund, which is where politicians generally like their revenues, all else being equal.
In all likelihood, DC took a risk with this project, giving up a lot of general fund revenue from parking meters in two popular locations in exchange for better managed parking and local improvements, which hopefully will make the area more desirable and bring in increased sales tax and property tax revenues. That was the experience in Old Pasadena, where the idea of spending meter money locally got its start.
In the end, parking spots in popular areas are valuable, so people are going to pay for them one way or another, whether in money or wasted time, fuel, and wear/tear. I would rather the payment come in the form of meter revenue that could actually be spent on something useful, rather than in wasted time and frustration. Add in the fact that your lost time circling for parking is an externality to the rest of us, and it's an even clearer case.
by Michael Perkins on Dec 7, 2009 2:14 pm
1. I'm hoping that my later article today will clear up your question. DDOT doesn't really have a policy tool (like pricing) for reacting to measured occupancy on non-metered blocks, so I'm confused why they bothered measuring. Because the metered blocks aren't divided into individual bays, it's impossible to say whether occupancy of 100% means that it's really full or that it's partially full with tiny cars. It's a limitation in how you measure. In exchange for this limitation we gain a few extra spaces because the cars can be more tightly packed.
2. The reason it's important that meters pay for themselves is that's the way the law is written. Before the meters have collected enough to pay for their capital cost, a much larger fraction of the revenue has to go to pay back that capital cost. Once the capital cost is paid, a lot of the money then goes to the neighborhood for improvements. The fact that meters paid off their capital costs so quickly is good for the local businesses and residents, who will then enjoy the benefits of having the revenue spent locally earlier.
3. The occupancy target applies only to metered blocks. It doesn't really matter that most blocks are less than 85% occupancy if they're not available for visitors to park on them. The measured number has its limitations, but it is probably the best they can do with available technology. The law requires DDOT (as in "the Mayor shall . . . ") to react to high occupancy with higher prices.
4. DCUSA's parking garage charges $1 as far as I know. There is a balance between having the rates be adjusted fairly frequently and having the rates be predictable. Some jurisdictions require occupancy surveys and rate adjustments quarterly, which I believe is a good balance between changing too frequently (confusing your customers) and not changing frequently enough (not reacting well to changing conditions). You also generally don't adjust your prices in huge increments; I believe the current law allows for $0.25/hr increases.
by Michael Perkins on Dec 7, 2009 3:05 pm
Add a Comment