Goodbye evening parking time limits, hello technology pilots

Parking

Goodbye evening parking time limits, hello technology pilots

by Michael Perkins • June 28, 2010 10:03 am

Late on Friday, DDOT announced a number of small changes that move parking policy in DC a few steps forward.

Parkeon Strada meter. Photo from Parkeon Inc.

At meters in "premium demand zones," parking time limits won't apply after 6:30 pm. Drivers still have to pay for parking after that time, but can park for any amount of time. Premium demand zones include Adams Morgan, Georgetown, Chinatown, U Street, Friendship Heights, downtown, the Mall, and the waterfront area.

Update: DDOT emphasized that the time limits will remain in the ballpark and Columbia Heights performance parking pilot zones.

This is really great news. Parking time limits make little sense when your customers are out for a night of entertainment. It is better to have parking availability driven by appropriately set prices rather than force the turnover that time limits produce at a time when turnover isn't as desirable.

Time limits are expensive to enforce, requiring near-constant supervision by parking control officers. If the city enforces time limits too aggressively, the perception is that the enforcement is too harsh. But if the enforcement is too lax, then spaces are not available for use. By enforcing meter payment only, enforcement is easier and ticketing is somewhat more objective: you either have paid or you haven't.

One effect of this change is that where meters still take quarters, drivers will need a lot of them. Another effect could be that some spaces become too scarce once some people start parking for the whole evening. Five new technology pilots around the city will help with both occupancy tracking and easier payment. Many of these new meters are pay-by-space, and some include occupancy sensors allowing real-time and accurate measurements. Hopefully DDOT will put this to good use to adjust pricing based on demand.

For the National Mall area of Independence Avenue SW (in front of the Smithsonian Castle and art gallery buildings), and the newly opened Barracks Row parking lot (underneath the freeway), DDOT will be using Parkeon pay by space meters that also have a pay by phone option.

Pay by space is where the driver enters the number of their space in the meter, instead of having to put a receipt on the dashboard ("pay and display") like the current multispace meters. This is slightly more convenient by avoiding the need to return to the car with a receipt, and it offers the option of adding more time by cell phone.

However, when used for curbside parallel parking, it requires officially dividing the spaces by painting lines on the street, which forces greater separation between cars than is possible without lines. On the other hand, because the number of spaces is fixed, figuring out the occupancy ratio is easier.

Another feature touted on the vendor website is the ability to add time to your parking space from any compatible meter in the city with your space number.

The lot is right near my work, so I'll be riding over periodically to see how this works, and I'll request occupancy data from DDOT to see how the pricing is going. The initial pricing on the meter was the same as the on-street spaces which are much more convenient. I expect the lot to have low occupancy compared to the street, but there might be enough demand to fill them both.

For the Friendship Heights area, DDOT is testing pay-by-space meters with occupancy sensors by Duncan Solutions. The vendor website lists the ability to program the meters remotely, allowing adjustment of time limit policy or pricing without visiting each meter, something that is a limitation for implementing performance parking.

CALE meter. Photo from CALE Parking USA.

Right next to DDOT headquarters at 14th and U, they're trying out new license-plate meters by Cale Parking Systems USA. The vendor website does not offer much informtion about the pay by license plate option, and I have not heard of this technology through industry magazines like Parking Today or other parking related blogs (yes, I am a huge parking nerd). I assume that DDOT will address issues with privacy associated with using your license plate number. DDOT says that enforcement of spaces will use handheld or car-mounted devices.

For the Ballpark area, Reservoir Road NW and Foggy Bottom, DDOT appears to be moving away from having installed parking meters by partnering with ParkMobile to provide pay-by-cell or pay-by-app (iPhone or Blackberry only, no Android yet).

Pay by cell phone offers a lot of user convenience. You don't have to carry cash or change, you can add time from your phone, your phone can call or text you when your time is about to expire, and some systems allow you to call or text when you're done so the meter can stop running.

This requires no infrastructure other than signs giving the instructions for how to call in and pay. Multispace meters are expensive, which restricts the areas it can be used. Therefore, pay by phone is ideal for areas with lower traffic, or residential areas where neighbors would like to charge non-residents to park, but keep parking free for residents and therefore bringing in lower amounts of revenue.

When Donald Shoup, the parking guru and author of "The High Cost of Free Parking" last came to DC to speak at the National Building Museum, he got a chance to talk directly with the DDOT parking staff. Maybe it's a coincidence that DDOT is changing what they use to control parking from pay and display with manual occupancy counts to pay by space with occupancy sensors, which is better for implementing performance parking.

Dr. Shoup and I had lunch together with Mrs. Shoup soon after his meeting with DDOT, and we discussed the DDOT performance parking pilots. He said that part of the problem DDOT was having with the performance parking pilots was the manpower required to visit all of the parking meters to change the signs and programming when the rates change.

The new parking meter pilots show that DDOT is willing to experiment with a lot of different meter technologies at once. Some of these technologies are a perfect fit for easier implementation of performance parking, like pay-by-space including occupancy sensors. Hopefully, DDOT will use these technologies to learn about how people react to changes in parking pricing for implementation throughout the city.

33 comments

Tags: DC, DDOT, meter rates, parking, pay by phone, performance parking

Parking innovation bypassing performance parking zones (Jul 12, 2010)
What would "sanity" in parking look like? (Sep 22, 2010)
DDOT to discuss Columbia Heights parking pilot tonight (Dec 7, 2009)
Pay by phone for parking in DC starting Monday (Apr 9, 2010)
Performance parking but no spaces at Barracks Row (Nov 24, 2009)

Michael Perkins blogs 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
Add a comment »

This is a big step forward. I can speak from experience that there are people who are willing to pay, but either because they forget or canÂ’t run out to the street at the right moment or donÂ’t have the right coins, donÂ’t feed their meter and wind up with a ticket. Ultimately, people who were otherwise willing to pay the meter rate become resentful of the whole system, and thatÂ’s not good for anybody.

by Rob Pitingolo on Jun 28, 2010 10:20 am • link • report

I don't see how enforcement is easier -- before it was "have you paid to be here this long" now it's "have you paid to be here at all". What's the difference? Enforcement still has to look at the meter or windshield ticket.

by ah on Jun 28, 2010 10:22 am • link • report

I agree that it's generally a good idea to test multiple different technologies at the same time. Of course, DDOT will have to keep in mind that different technologies will likely work better at different locations.

On a side note, I definitely prefer painted curbside spaces. Painted spaces make it much easier to get in and out of the space, because the space will always be a minimum length. Without painted spaces, spaces are whatever length there is between cars.

by Tim on Jun 28, 2010 10:34 am • link • report

Time limits are hard to enforce. You have to visit the area twice to do any enforcement of limits. With payment, you can visit once only and get effective enforcement.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2010 10:35 am • link • report

To be clear, I think the distinction is between time limits and no payment versus just payment.

Time limits alone are difficult to enforce. Time limits and payment are somewhat easier to enforce, but the system can still be gamed by plugging the meter.

by Alex B. on Jun 28, 2010 10:38 am • link • report

Wish they would just implement those credit card parking meters that they have on U Street.

by Martin on Jun 28, 2010 10:46 am • link • report

Too bad those Parkeon meters are JUNK. Around 50% of the ones I've attempted to use have had broken credit card readers or displays, making them completely useless.

by Ron on Jun 28, 2010 11:01 am • link • report

Update from DDOT is that all the pilots will be running by July 19

by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2010 11:05 am • link • report

I hate parking geeks.

But let me try to be constructive. Vent mode first: what difference does it make to you performance parking cultists whether someone parks for 4 hours in the evening or 4 hours during the day? If anything, you'd want MORE turnover in these areas as the crowds pick up AFTER work is over.

Ok, now that I got that out, here are two other negative thoughts.

1. Pay by phone is cheaper than the multispace meters -- but I thought the multispace meters were so effective they paid for themselves five minutes, or six months, after installation.

2. Is the revenue for parking going to neighboorhoods or just to parking fund?

Now finally, to be constructive, I think it is great to try out different methods of parking. Meters that measure occupancy would be amazing - if you can network them and bring up real time maps of availability. Also, they would give you the data they need for parking geeks.

License plate, readers, however, make me very nervous. Also, a parking pet peeve is that people can't squeeze they cars together very effectively to begin with, and I thought another advantage of multispace meters is they would could do so.

Remote pricing adjustment sounds great, but you want is a system that is easier to understand - not an airline level of complexity when you are looking for a spot. I think the parking geeks, like transit geeks, sometimes forget that.

can't wait to add parking blogs to my RSS reader...

by charlie on Jun 28, 2010 11:40 am • link • report

@charlie

Regarding time limits, the Shoupian answer would be that there shouldn't be any time limits at all - price should be the encouragement for parking space turnover. That, of course, requires the data to determine what price will do that and the technology to implement those prices. In the interim, we're stuck with some time restrictions.

by Alex B. on Jun 28, 2010 11:46 am • link • report

For those uncomfortable about license plate readers, the normal method of preventing meter-feeding when you enforce a parking time limit these days is to enter license plate numbers manually into an electronic database. (At one time, it was done by marking tires with chalk.)

If you don't want license plate numbers recorded, you need to eliminate time limits completely.

by Ben Ross on Jun 28, 2010 11:50 am • link • report

Funny how the Shoupers requires millions to be invested in new meters, new technology, and new maintenance to do the exact same thing as before: park on the street.

Beware the parking industrial complex.

Whatever happened to parking two blocks over?

by charlie on Jun 28, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

Because 2 blocks over is full too, or it's residential?

by David Alpert on Jun 28, 2010 11:54 am • link • report

Parking two blocks over isn't very efficient, is it?

That's the whole point of Shoup's arguments - more efficient use of parking spaces via market pricing.

by Alex B. on Jun 28, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report

Life isn't about efficiency, my friends. It can be, however, about using your very weak minded public representatives to make you and your parking meter technology buddies rich.

by charlie on Jun 28, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

I don't understand how anyone can have privacy concerns over license plate recording. The government forces us to place unique identifiers on our cars in a publicly viewable place. They use those IDs to give us speed, red light and street sweeping tickets, to boot or tow scofflaws, and to search for stolen cars. Why would anyone draw the line at parking meters?

by jcm on Jun 28, 2010 12:22 pm • link • report

@charlie: Couldn't have been hated by a nicer guy, thanks.

The revenue for all these pilots goes into general revenue, with a cut for DDOT operations. Right now the only parking revenue going back to neighborhoods is from the performance parking districts, as far as I know.

The current single space meters are worn out. The examiner ran an expose recently about how many of them are not working. There's a lot of lost revenue and customer frustration when it comes to broken meters.

The choice isn't between buying new multispace meters and doing nothing, the choice is between replacing standard coin-operated single head meters or taking advantage of some new technology that hopefully will result in better parking management.

Being able to update them remotely doesn't mean that DDOT is going to do so hourly, or without notice. The schedule for changing prices and how those changes are announced is a policy decision made by the Council, unless it's delegated.

The benefit will be that when a change is needed, the change can be implemented without taking hundreds of hours of staff time to individually visit all the meters, something that DDOT has identified as a hurdle to implementing the performance parking policy which is current law.

There's a balance between having rates that are tightly tailored to demand that varies by day of the week, time of day and length of stay. If you go for efficiency by narrowly tailoring rates, you have to trade off legibility and predictability. But setting one rate all day, every day might not make sense.

When I asked Dr. Shoup about this tradeoff, he pointed out that commercial garages are very good at devising pricing policies that are a tradeoff between these two goals. Maybe their specific price policies are not a good fit for on-street parking compared to off-street, but their level of complexity is a good upper bound for how complicated on-street parking should be.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report

@Charlie: approximately zero of my personal income is dependent on parking meter technology. I might own a small piece of a meter technology company as part of a mutual fund or something, but I'm not aware of it.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report

I believe charlie was being fairly flippant and I know Michael Perkins can take it, but still, please do not talk about hating people in the comments. You can disagree with their ideas, but it drags down the discourse to start talking hatefully about people personally.

by David Alpert on Jun 28, 2010 12:29 pm • link • report

So, as a practical matter what does this mean?

I still have to pay for the time I use and if I pay for 3 hours, but stay for 4, I can get a ticket, yes?

Or is this like "event parking" downtown where there's one price after 5p and you can stay as long as you want?

by ah on Jun 28, 2010 12:38 pm • link • report

@ah: you have to pay for the time you use at the rate they posted. But after 6:30pm, you can pay for as much time as you need, rather than being limited to 2 hours or whatever the limit was before.

If you pay for three hours and stay for four, assuming that during the fourth hour meter payment is required, then yes, you run the risk of getting a ticket. The meters stop running at 10:30 pm in "premium demand" areas.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2010 12:43 pm • link • report

@MichaelPerkins; hey, the sun is making us all a bit loco. I never thought blog writing was a path to riches. Someone should tell Alpert that though.

You probably know more about this than I, but isn't the entire parking contract by the city contracted out? And I have a hard time believing that you can't refurbish the older machines at a fraction of the price -- speaking as an owner of an older car ;-)

by charlie on Jun 28, 2010 12:56 pm • link • report

Can you refurbish older meters? Sure, but then they would still only take quarters - no bills, credit/debit cards, etc.

by Alex B. on Jun 28, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report

Pay by cell phone has been running for a long time in parts of London. Westminster City Council the largest council in the United Kingdom was the first council to use the system. However there have been problems. Sometimes motorists have believed that they have paid only to find that the system has failed and they received parking tickets which they had to fight. Many of these cases ended up in parking court where invariably the motorist one.

Barrie Segal
Founder of AppealNow.comÂ™

Author of The Parking Ticket Awards: Crazy Councils, Meter Madness & Traffic Warden Hell

by Barrie Segal on Jun 28, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report

I just hope that as they take parking meters out, they replace them with bike parking.

by David C on Jun 28, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report

We have pay-and-display with license plate capture in Munich. You simply capture 3 to 4 numbers in the pad, usually the last, so the whole number (plus letters) is not recorded. I do not know, however, how this would work with letters-only plates... Good news DC!

by diego on Jun 28, 2010 4:51 pm • link • report

One problem that has not been addressed is that the meters and kiosks are impossible to read at night. We parked on one street downtown and wanted to pay our share but there wasn't any light anywhere. so we didn't know what to do. Are we supposed to carry flashlights just to read the meters and the kiosks?

by MrBethesda on Jun 28, 2010 4:58 pm • link • report

MrBethesda: Where is this meter? Everywhere I've parked at multispace meters they're well illuminated by streetlights, but maybe some are lacking. We can get that info to DDOT and see what they can do.

by David Alpert on Jun 28, 2010 5:17 pm • link • report

I agree with Ron above about the Parkeon pay by space meters being junk. As does he, I find about 50% of the meters in the areas I want to park in are broken.

by Steve on Jun 28, 2010 6:53 pm • link • report

@steve have you tried calling in the broken meters to 311?

by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2010 7:22 pm • link • report

It's pretty ridiculous that the parking kiosks cannot be maintained adequately. These things are connected, obviously, since they accept credit cards. Even if they lack any internal diagnostics (which would be surprising) there is no reason why the system should not be quickly aware when one is malfunctioning simply by nature of not being used.

Yet another example of DC rushing new things out the door without any ability or plan to maintain them. I am sure they have information about which ones are broken available, but the system to maintain them obviously doesn't exist or function.

by Jamie on Jun 29, 2010 10:30 am • link • report

Wow, I can only imagine the amount of money the city will be losing in parking ticket revenue near the Verizon Center from games and concerts. When they changed the parking meter time until 10 pm, I thought it was a pretty obvious money grab. I'm pretty sure parking officials knew that games and concerts normally start at 7:30 and the 2 hour parking limit would mean people would either have to leave the event early or be exposed to possible parking enforcement for at least 30 minutes. Doing away with parking time limits almost seems like they just want people to pay to park instead of trying to collect the most revenue they can.

by Dan on Jun 29, 2010 12:09 pm • link • report

"Doing away with parking time limits almost seems like they just want people to pay to park instead of trying to collect the most revenue they can."

Weird isn't it...

by Jamie on Jun 29, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report