86 parking meters Downtown!

[tufsu1]

Before taking the meters out, perhaps there should be a trial period.  Close off the meter collection areas and post notes allowing 30min-2 hour free parking (depending on area).  While that won't have retail development exploding, at least we'll know where and how much downtown employees use the street spaces.

[thelakelander]

^I'm confused.  A pay meter doesn't deter a downtown employee from parking in a space any more than enforcing two hour time limits.  I'm not sure you'll discover a trend either way when it comes to downtown employees parking in spaces.

[ronchamblin]

Free all day parking would fail because downtown residents and workers could easily abuse the facilities. Two hour parking and various other temporal restrictions where warranted would do as much as any meter without the stigma of paying a fine for the use of said space.

Customers happy, business booms, downtown comes back to life. 

Before taking the meters out, perhaps there should be a trial period.  Close off the meter collection areas and post notes allowing 30min-2 hour free parking (depending on area).  While that won't have retail development exploding, at least we'll know where and how much downtown employees use the street spaces.

Totally agree.  Seems like most of us on MJ want to try downtown w/o the meters, or at least with them temporarily disabled.  I am wondering how strong is the argument for keeping the meters, and just what is the argument.  Is it an assumed gain in revenue?  Surely the core employees and residents could be encouraged to avoid the spaces so that retail customers and other short-time vehicles could use the spaces.

The primary advantage, as several have said, is that we will be removing a very solid "negative" from the downtown environment.  My customers occasinally comment on the "ticket" problem  when they visit my store, and occasinally one of them will inform me that they "got a ticket" the last time they visited the store. 

A ticket, or the fear of getting one, is a big negative.  One would think that most who are "in charge" about policies in the core would realize this, and seriously consider a test of a few months to determine the effectiveness of having no meters. 

Who's in charge on this aspect?  Are they sleeping?  Do they not understand that, in a fairly awkward objective wherein we are having difficulty improving the core, the best route one can take is to "Increase the positives and Decrease the negatives" whenever possible.  To most, the removal of the meters seems to be a positive. 

Who opposes the meter removal, and why?   

[ronchamblin]

^I'm confused.  A pay meter doesn't deter a downtown employee from parking in a space any more than enforcing two hour time limits.  I'm not sure you'll discover a trend either way when it comes to downtown employees parking in spaces.

When I see any employee "feeding the meter" so that they can park at a space for several hours, I will inform the parking enforcement or flaq them down.  Each space is valuable to any retailer.  There will always be the lazy employee who will abuse the system, meters or not.  The answer will be to find a way to insure that they do not use the unmetered spaces if and when the meters are removed. 

[thelakelander]

Enforcement of two hour limits is the answer.

[ronchamblin]

It's probably been answered before, but briefly, what entity or "who" is opposing the no-meter policy?  But more significant now, what is their most powerful argument for retaining the meters?  Is it a couple of weak arguments, supported by the formidable bureaucratic inertia?

[Pinky]

So, no, you cannot name a single retail mall that uses meters, Pinky?

As Lake points out, there are plenty of parking spaces to accomodate the downtown for the next ten years.  Over 60 % of downtown is now parking.  In 1950, it was less than 2%.

And when Lake reports less than 19k downtown he is being charitable.  There are less than 10k on any regular given day.

In contrast there are over 38 thousand parking spaces in the urban core.

We have a historic failure of a downtown.  There literally hasnt been anything like what happened to downtown jacksonville without a natural disaster.

Our downtown is what happens when a planning community tries to singlemindedly retrofit a dense urban area designed primarily for walkability into a car depended environment and a place that values parking spaces over people, and garages over establishments.

Not trying to pick on you Pinky, but the real question is why do we assume that any urban area must charge for parking at the expense of walkability, when we do not have that same preconception for suburban areas.

I think it is because we have forgotten what walkability actually means.

Y'know Stephen, I don't believe in airbags or turn signals.  Can you show me even ONE elephant that's equipped with airbags or turn signals???  That's sort of what your "mall parking lot" line of attack is like. 

The problem with comparing downtown to a "regional shopping mall", or even "suburban areas" is that they all operate under completely different challenges and circumstances.  As I see it, Downtown is best served by having a system that limits the convenient on-street parking to a few hours at best, to save those prime spots for the visitors we so desperately seek. (Your "walkability" argument is moot if nobody comes downtown to walk, or if they can't find easy parking because folks have camped out in them all day.

The bulk of the posts in this thread concede this simple premise, that prime spots should be saved for short term retail and "visitor" parking, because we really benefit by doing so, although they disagree on how to best enforce it.  I'm simply contending that the system we have in place, which requires the meter-parker to pay a tiny token fee to start an individual timer adjacent to their car, with penalties (tickets) for those who disregard the system, simply is the best method of enforcing it.  Which is probably why the meter method is used in the vast majority of urban areas.  Are there exceptions; yes.  But that doesn't change that it is a system that works in thousands, even tens of thousands of "downtowns" across the country.

I'm curious about the 38,000 "parking spaces" you cite as proof that we have a glut of parking; surely this number includes private lots and decks, no?  What's the number of the currently metered spots which you propose throwing wide open?  And when those 20,000 downtown people fill up every spot on the street, how far will visitors have to park from their destination?  Or are they just supposed to find a public deck and schlep themselves for blocks and blocks?? 

I totally agree that downtown is a clusterfuck.  It's actually one of the few things we do agree on, but we're solid on that one.  I simply don't see a .50 charge to park as the reason why it's a clusterfuck, and especially don't see discarding that system as a path out of clusterfuckdom.  Again, in my opinion it's exactly the opposite.

(For example..  I routinely stop at Chamblins for a bite of breakfast.  I park at a meter.  It costs .50 cents, and enables me to park right there at my destination.  If I instead had to cruise for blocks and blocks to find "what's left", or park in some deck and walk 5 flights of stairs and three blocks I'd just grab breakfast out in the 'burbs.  The meter parking system is directly responsible for my patronage of that downtown business.  Same thing with the new 7-11.  I can park right there, sometimes even at a still-active meter, dash in for my Slurpee, and be on my way in two minutes.  What if every Everbank and AT&T dude was parked curbside for blocks and blocks?  I'm gonna walk three blocks, or hassle with a deck?  For a Slurpee??  Never happen.  Again, the meter system directly influences my usage of downtown businesses in a positive way.

In a nutshell: I don't see this as "broken", nor do I believe discarding the system is any sort of "fix", for anything. 

Finally in closing; So no, you can't  show me ONE, not even ONE SINGLE elephant that comes equipped with airbags or turn signals.  If enormous and unpredictable beasts don't get em, then why should cars??  So clearly removing car airbags is the answer to preventing auto accidents. 

[Ocklawaha]

The problem with comparing downtown to a "regional shopping mall", or even "suburban areas" is that they all operate under completely different challenges and circumstances.  As I see it, Downtown is best served by having a system that limits the convenient on-street parking to a few hours at best, to save those prime spots for the visitors we so desperately seek. (Your "walkability" argument is moot if nobody comes downtown to walk, or if they can't find easy parking because folks have camped out in them all day.

We all agree that a system that keeps the downtown parking fluid is the best way to manage our parking.

The bulk of the posts in this thread concede this simple premise, that prime spots should be saved for short term retail and "visitor" parking, because we really benefit by doing so, although they disagree on how to best enforce it.  I'm simply contending that the system we have in place, which requires the meter-parker to pay a tiny token fee to start an individual timer adjacent to their car, with penalties (tickets) for those who disregard the system, simply is the best method of enforcing it.  Which is probably why the meter method is used in the vast majority of urban areas.  Are there exceptions; yes.  But that doesn't change that it is a system that works in thousands, even tens of thousands of "downtowns" across the country.

There is a difference between a system of ridged controls, with obvious and visible penalties, and a system of controls that  is warm and inviting to a first time visitor but only slightly less ridged (at least my version would be).

I'm curious about the 38,000 "parking spaces" you cite as proof that we have a glut of parking; surely this number includes private lots and decks, no?  What's the number of the currently metered spots which you propose throwing wide open?  And when those 20,000 downtown people fill up every spot on the street, how far will visitors have to park from their destination?  Or are they just supposed to find a public deck and schlep themselves for blocks and blocks?? 

According to the city parking division, there are 43,000 parking spaces (both private and public, garage, lots and curbside) in the downtown (both sides) and 4,500 parking meters.

There would be ZERO CHANGE in availability or temporal fines, if we trashed all 4,500 meters, (I'd suggest we could sell them to another city or for scrap value and recover at least part of our expenses). But look at what you suggest will happen if we remove the meters:  "And when those 20,000 downtown people fill up every spot on the street, how far will visitors have to park from their destination?" BINGO! The streets without meters WILL fill with cars and their passengers, it's a problem that every city wishes it had.

AutoChalk is a new technology that finds parking offenders with a “photographic, laser, and GPS” system to acquire photographic proof of parking violations. This system has been installed in San Bernardino California's 10 parking enforcement vehicles and will be able to identify vehicles that have been parked in a certain spot for too long. GPS, along with photographs, can detect the color and length of a car, and how long a car has been parked in a certain spot. This technology can also read license plates, which allows it to identify repeated offenders and stolen vehicles through the state tracking system. While the autoChalk can tattle on a vehicle in violation, it still does not have the technology to issue a citation itself, thus the parking enforcement division remains on duty.

I totally agree that downtown is a clusterfuck.  It's actually one of the few things we do agree on, but we're solid on that one.  I simply don't see a .50 charge to park as the reason why it's a clusterfuck, and especially don't see discarding that system as a path out of clusterfuckdom.  Again, in my opinion it's exactly the opposite.

Making downtown inviting is critical to our future success in it's rebirth, and based on your statement above, you agree that free parking will make an quantifiable change in it's success. 

(For example..  I routinely stop at Chamblins for a bite of breakfast.  I park at a meter.  It costs .50 cents, and enables me to park right there at my destination.  If I instead had to cruise for blocks and blocks to find "what's left", or park in some deck and walk 5 flights of stairs and three blocks I'd just grab breakfast out in the 'burbs.  The meter parking system is directly responsible for my patronage of that downtown business.  Same thing with the new 7-11.  I can park right there, sometimes even at a still-active meter, dash in for my Slurpee, and be on my way in two minutes.  What if every Everbank and AT&T dude was parked curbside for blocks and blocks?  I'm gonna walk three blocks, or hassle with a deck?  For a Slurpee??  Never happen.  Again, the meter system directly influences my usage of downtown businesses in a positive way.

So meters are good because they keep enough people out of downtown that you can almost always find an open space so your can buy a Slurpee? You go on to confirm that if every space was full, you won't hassle with parking for a fee to buy your Slurpee. So two more times you have simply confirmed what we have been saying for years. IF YOU WANT PEOPLE DOWNTOWN, YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST MAKE IT INVITING. It would appear that WE ALL agree that trashing the meters in favor of controlled temporal parking is the answer.

Near the top of this reply I said; "...a system of controls that is warm and inviting to a first time visitor but only slightly less ridged (at least my version would be)." In case some haven't heard my Portland, Oregon traffic violation story I'll repeat it here.

Back in the 1970's while visiting downtown Portland on Burlington Northern Railroad business, I got stuck in a office WAY past the time on my meter. When I came out, sure enough, I had a ticket on my windshield. When I opened it I was happily surprised by the text. It clearly said I was in violation but on the conditions of 1.) being a out of region visitor, and 2.) being a first time violation in the region, entitled me to an explanation of the function of the downtown meters, requested my cooperation in the future. More then that on the flip side was a printed message with a rose emblem (the symbol of Portland) that invited me to stay, visit X,Y,Z, attractions and a tiny map of downtown. Needless to say, I NEVER got a ticket in Portland and have never forgot the royal welcome I got from Portland's Parking Division. We should at least do the same thing here, the reputation would be priceless.

[marksjax]

Pinkster, I have to say that keeping the status quo on anything Downtown is questionable logic at this point. Parking is but one example. Two way vs one way streets is next on my list.
Cops actually walking a beat is another.
If we can't do anything different, even just for the sake of trying then why even try to help DT?
The essence of the parking meters is the anxiety one feels in the back of their mind knowing the clock is ticking.
If you had a lunch date and it was getting past 45 min I know you start to worry about going to feed the meter or move your car. This is exactly why the meters suck. It causes a person to behave differently than they would if they were eating at a restaurant in a mall for instance. How can you not acknowledge that is what really kills the buzz for visitors DT. It is the worry of getting a freakin' ticket. And in this era, especially peeps under 30 or so, they are going to avoid that hassle and bypass DT.
Not everyone parking DT is in and out in the two examples you described.
If you like the status quo that is your decision. Doing something different takes some real effort and thought. I'd rather be in that group myself.

[Pinky]

why do you suppose that no major retail centers use parking meters Pinky?

Wait, let me get this straight: You think that parking at major regional malls is *free*?

Newsflash Skippy: Mall tenants pay for the parking as part of their rent.  It's not some Land Of Milk, Honey And Free Parking; it costs money to build and maintain, and that money (along with the money to build and maintain the common areas) comes directly from the rent.  So I guess you're suggesting that downtown merchants should be ponying up to pay for their customer's parking, like they would do if they were located in a mall?

[Pinky]

Pinkster, I have to say that keeping the status quo on anything Downtown is questionable logic at this point. Parking is but one example. Two way vs one way streets is next on my list.
Cops actually walking a beat is another.
If we can't do anything different, even just for the sake of trying then why even try to help DT?
The essence of the parking meters is the anxiety one feels in the back of their mind knowing the clock is ticking.
If you had a lunch date and it was getting past 45 min I know you start to worry about going to feed the meter or move your car. This is exactly why the meters suck. It causes a person to behave differently than they would if they were eating at a restaurant in a mall for instance. How can you not acknowledge that is what really kills the buzz for visitors DT. It is the worry of getting a freakin' ticket. And in this era, especially peeps under 30 or so, they are going to avoid that hassle and bypass DT.
Not everyone parking DT is in and out in the two examples you described.
If you like the status quo that is your decision. Doing something different takes some real effort and thought. I'd rather be in that group myself.

I'd rather be in the group that doesn't resort to knee-jerk reactionary and ill-conceived changes simply for the sake of "fixing" things which actually work.

If the threat of parking tickets is what's keeping downtown empty, then why is it empty at night and on the weekends??  Again, in my opinion the meter system works to manage the available spaces most efficiently during periods of peak demand (M-F 8 to 6) without requiring the city to completely revamp, tool up and staff a new method. 

Finally, if someone is getting nervous at the 45 minute mark of a lunch meeting, it's because they were too stupid/lazy/cheap/unprepared to pay for two hours of parking as the meters allow.  That's a fault on their part, not on the meter system.

[Pinky]

why do you suppose that no major retail centers use parking meters Pinky?

So, no, you can't show me a single elephant that comes equipped with airbags and safety lighting.

[Pinky]

So meters are good because they keep enough people out of downtown that you can almost always find an open space so your can buy a Slurpee? You go on to confirm that if every space was full, you won't hassle with parking for a fee to buy your Slurpee. So two more times you have simply confirmed what we have been saying for years. IF YOU WANT PEOPLE DOWNTOWN, YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST MAKE IT INVITING. It would appear that WE ALL agree that trashing the meters in favor of controlled temporal parking is the answer.

Aiiiiieeee.  No dude, I haven't "confirmed" anything of the sort

If you read my statement over again, I'm saying that meters are good because they keep the more convenient spots available for downtown visitors, and in doing so make downtown more inviting for said visitors.  I totally agree that it's good to make downtown "inviting", but "WE ALL" do not agree that yanking the meters is the answer, nor do I agree that their presence is what's keeping people away.  In the experiences I cite, they are precisely what encourages me to shop downtown.

And yes, I have confirmed that because the meter system works so well, I AM able to dash in for my Slurpee.  What's your point??  I didn't say I wouldn't "park for a fee"; jesus dude, at a meter I'm "parking for a fee", I said that I wouldn't patronize these businesses if I had to go on an endless search for parking blocks away or up in some deck.  Because it's inconvenient and uninviting.  So the meter system directly supports me shopping downtown.  Get it?

[Pinky]

Here, easy solution:

Leave the meters to discourage long term parking, but institute a policy that if you do overstay the meter limit, we'll waive the fee if you attach a receipt from a downtown business from that date to the ticket instead of a check.

Friendly, flexible and still effective at managing the availability of curbside parking. 

[marksjax]

I have noticed a lot more JSO cars using parking spaces by the old courthouse, but alas, they have the ability to not be anxious that their meter flipped over to expired. Not that I care really. But there is no chance of revenue if a city plated car sits all day in a metered parking spot. And revenue is what this is all about isn't it?
Pinky, your retail biz turnover argument is a valid point to some degree. And the city will make that same argument. But this is really about revenue and maintaining status quo.
If any entity wants to maintain status quo it is the gov't (at any level).
Also, not sure all meters are now two hours. Perhaps that has finally taken place on every street? I know east bay street was one hour previously.
And if there were enough peeps DT at night (regularly) the city would charge I am guessing.