Transit
home. Transit
Task Force. University
and Community. Walkable.
Bicycling.
I-GO Carshare
 |
Parking woes and hopeful initiativesA service of Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference Transit Task Force and the HPKCC website www.hydepark.org. Help support our work, Join the Conference! Contact Transit Task Force Chairman James Withrow. Chairman's blog service. |
Visit the Parking Improvement District (TED) recommendation and discussion page. The full July 10 2006 powerpoint on Parking Improvement District is now up on the SECC website, http://www.hydeparksecc.com.
Bulletin: Murray school lot is now available for overnight parking in by 4 out by 7- $40 a month. To Flyer in pdf.
Transportation Enhancement districts (TEDs- see that page) appear to be dead as of October 2007 as the city plans to quadruple parking prices with no revising locally and to sell/lease the meters--and nothing for communities. Stay tuned. The rates are definitely going up! Note, people still find pay and display machines confusing and avoid or evade.
Did you know- you
can park at Borders lot and get your ticket validated at businesses for reduced
or free parking. Tell businesses you want their participation.
Next TIF Parking Committee meeting date will be announced. Last was June 25.
See Committee makes major recommendations. See more on the committee and its work. Visit Parking District Recommendation page.
Irene Sherr reported at the March 13 2006 TIF Adv. Council mtg. for TIF Parking Committee chair Jo Reizner that the city would be replacing meters in the Lake Park city lot 44 with 3 pay-and-display meters in early April. The meters will take cards, etc. as well as cash and provide more flexibility for both parkers and lot use. The Committee continues to work on recommendations concerning such options as a parking improvement district for 53rd Street, a parking/shopping survey, and an educational program re: what's available.
Three Pay and Display boxes (paid for by the City) replaced the meters in the City Lot at Lake Park. But since the machines were not promptly activated and there was little community notice or signage in the lot, there was reportedly chaos in the lot. We hope the problem will be resolved by early next week. The heart of the problem now is that there are far too few machines.
Pay and Display could help a structural problem on 53rd street, where double-meters here have spaces 27 paces long vs in Lakeview 21.
August 5, 2007 Cadman Leggett writes on the Washington Park festivals:
I am a Hyde Park resident who lives in Ingleside and 55th st. I am writing
concerning resident street parking and Washington Park festivals this
summer. I am concerned regarding the vast number of cars from festivals
attendees that take up resident parking space in all of the surrounding area
of 55th st. Is there something being done to provide parking for the
festivals so that resident street parking is not compromised? Why isn't the
University of Chicago police more involved in maintaining resident parking
specifically for residents? Thank you for your time.
See about the planned Drexel 61st garage and office complex planning in the South Campus page. More spaces are being added and the professional office section eliminated. UC Police will still be there.
Fran Vandervoort decried car-rebuilding and reselling businesses parking cars all over the neighborhood, taking up scarce spaces. Joseph Jankovic pleaded for Alderman Hairston to do as much for the traffic and parking mess on South Shore Drive as about failed preparations for th Dan Ryan work.
Hyde Parkers are highly alarmed nearly always when something could even remotely remove any number of parking spaces. At meetings over Harper Court, when announcement was made that the city lot was being bundled in to the request for proposals, an inevitable letter appeared in the Herald bemoaning loss of parking and telling the powers to be "get real." This writer personally inquired of Alderman Preckwinkle concerning maintaining at least the number of public spaces now in the city lot (a position assumed also by all members of the TIF Parking Committee). The Alderman completely agreed. Indeed, one supposes both the reason the Ald. proposed bundling --need for at least some more spaces-- as well as needs of whatever stays or goes into Harper Court dictates a garage. See more following.
However, there remains a problem--if the lot goes, there must be replacement parking ready at once. We can't have two years without the current spaces.
There is a petition drive for permit parking on South Shore Drive especially south of 55th Street. The principles are important, such as equal access to parking. And the problems there are enormous and range from high rises to Bar Louis (maybe), to folks who come to the Point--and often return after the park is closed again and again as soon as overtaxed police leave. One drawback is that some streets qualify by zoning while others have too much density for the law to permit permit parking. Another is that to have a spot on that street, your address must be on that street. The Alderman's office believes the obstacles are too great, but factors that contribute to the problems (including the safety and noise issues) can be addressed now. One suggestion for South Shore Dr. area is to lock the lot at night and give keys to building doormen. Could this cause liability and lawsuits? I would exclude lots of people including residents of nearby streets. Likewise having restrictive sections or no parking stretches in front of high rises. Using pay and display machines could help-- if there is good police enforcement.
These are up in their own page. Basically, the Committee explained what the perceived problems are and how they can be managed, including with a parking improvement district (probably coterminous with the TIF) similar to a Special Assessment District, such districts' management and advantages, and discussions with the city on establishment of the same, and use of shared lots and pay and display machines to handle the occasional over demand and monthly parkers. The committee believes current shortage can be handled through management and arrangement for special parking needs with off-street lots (in discussions) and providing more informational resources to the community and businesses on what is available. When it becomes clear that new development is going to happen that may not be able to handle all parking and access needs internally, a study parking study or survey may be sought. That would be in conjunction with the global objective of developing a parking, mobility and access plan for the business district.
What the committee was doing, summer 2006
Changes wanted
· Table 2 Paratransit land coordinated transportation
· Table 4 Improve poor management of public spaces, e.g., no bike riding on sidewalks…
· Table 5 Better transportation at nightComments
TRANSPORTATION (9)
· Transportation within HP
· Parking issues, street cleaning
· Parking difficulties
· Need cab service
· Parking
· What happened to taxi cab service?
· More parking
· Double-parking should be immediately punished by (towing, fines)
· 52-54 Lake Park Parking Lot (what about it?)
Parking: a long-term headache issue in Hyde Park
Why it matters and what's gone wrong; finding how to get back on track
"Parking is one of the most important tools at the disposal of planners. Parking Supply and management is critical to achieving goals in a diverse array of fields--producing affordable housing, relieving traffic congestion, promoting neighborhood retail, and maintaining the integrity of the urban fabric. Poor parking management can destroy the urban qualities that cities depend on for their success. Parking matters!" --Jeffrey Tumlin and Adam Millard-Ball.
Defining the issue is the first step, then determining real needs/gathering right information, then developing a parking management strategy.
The TIF Parking Committee is developing a draft guideline and program to do just that for the 53rd business sector, recommendation likely to include a Parking Improvement District, if a good study can be had and so recommends. Modern analysis and experience, including but not limited to that of Don Shoup, is being utilized and the Committee is working with the city, Metropolitan Planning Council, and more. (Unknown is whether inclusion of the City Lot in the Harper Court RFP alters the parking equation.)
This page has many recent thoughts on the reality and myths of the parking question and what solutions are out there.A modern analytics is that parking problems are at least in part a problem of inefficient management and design, failure to maximize and properly price the existing and potential assets, and failure to include access/mobility/quality/and alternatives to parking in development of an overall parking strategy.
Read on...
One of the visions for the retail district was to create a long-term parking strategy. As of yet, there has been no solution. "We are still working on it," [SECC Executive Director Robert] Mason said. "It's not going to happen in the next year. It's a 23 [year] TIF but that doesn't mean that we want to wait 13 years."
Our neighborhood was largely built up before the automobile, and certainly before the two, three, four? -car-family. The streets are narrow. There are not enough off-street spaces public or dedicated (and most Hyde Parkers are loathe to pay for them!). When many of the older, high-end residences were built, the wealthy were driven in carriages or limos, often driven in from elsewhere. The high availability of public transportation and walkability, and preference of many locals for these options (about 20% of families do not own cars), does little to alleviate the demand for space for cars even though the population now is much smaller than before urban renewal 50 years ago although edging up again. (Actually, small lots were cleared and set aside for parking under urban renewal, but Hyde Parkers don't want to pay for parking-even in the Triangle-, so most of these lots were redeveloped, to later regret.) Developers and land users (and their paying customers) are naturally loathe to take up precious land for parking, although most now bow to the realities of public and aldermanic wishes--witness Catholic Theological Union and the redeveloper of the Shoreland. The University has been steadily expanding its parking while promoting non-auto options over the past several years. The 53rd TIF council and others seek to finance a much-needed garage at 53rd and Lake Park and couple it with transit-linked development, maximize efficient use of existing public, private and dedicated lots, and pursue novel solutions.
In some sectors such as the triangle north of 51st and east of the tracks, committees have thrown up their hands in despair. Some residents, especially by train stations where commuters tie up spots all day and near the University where the same happens, seek permit parking, resisted by aldermen as simply beggaring other residents and limiting options for visitors. A 2000 Department of Planning neighborhood study, Vision for Hyde Park Shopping, looked at many parking options, but few have been followed up on, although there is hope that a garage in the heart of the shopping district can be financed.
Articles in this page try to de-mythologize some of the problems, complexities and possible solutions or alleviations.
Gary Ossewaarde
Parking isn't really a problem in Hyde Park, but the Conference's Transit Task Force is working to solve this problem anyway.
Parking in Hyde Park has
never been a problem for me personally. Of course, it helps that I don't have
a car. And that's why I say that our TTF is working to solve the "parking
problem". I realize that the resident circling the block looking for a
space feels that there are too few spaces, but we could also say the real problem
is that there are too many cars. Many households need a car or two for very
good reasons, but for some a car or a second car is optional. Improving public
transportation would lead to
lower rates of car ownership, thus freeing up parking spaces.
The best idea for improving
transit in Southeast Chicago is the Gray Line plan promoted by Mike Payne or
the less ambitious proposal I prefer, called the SECRET plan, S.E.C.R.E.T. standing
for South East Chicago Rail Enhancement Team. These plans would take existing
Metra service-the same
tracks, the same trains-and improve it so that Hyde Park would have the equivalent
of el service. This would only entail two improvements, ten-minute service during
the day and 25 cent transfers to and from CTA vehicles.
El-type rail service would
gradually entice more of your neighbors to give up a car. While a monthly CTA
pass costs under $1,000 per year, the typical car has a total cost of ownership
between $3,000 and $6,000 per year. We shouldn't expect a rush of car-selling
to occur if the Gray Line or the
SECRET plan goes into effect, but it's likely that when people need to replace
or repair their cars, some of them will reconsider. And that happens often when
people move to northside areas near els-- a car needs expensive repairs and
instead it's sold and not replaced.
An even larger reduction in the number of cars, though, could be expected as people move in and out of Hyde Park. The typical U.S. neighborhood loses about half its residents every decade. A neighborhood with good mass transit will attract new residents who don't have cars. And we can see lower rates of automobile ownership along el lines throughout Chicago.
The most environmentally responsible mode of transportation is electric trains and this is a key selling point for the Metra improvement plans. Unfortunately, people assume these improvements will cost a lot of money. I really doubt that. Since we're talking about using the same tracks and a very modest increase of Metra electric trains, the capital costs are insignificant compared to the benefits.
And I'm not so sure that
the operating costs are much to worry about, either. On a per rider basis, trains
can be more efficient because an operator can move more passengers per labor
hour compared to buses. No one has yet done an adequate study of the issue,
but I think it's likely that this will only cost more because there will be
a lot more transit riders.
When the Orange Line opened, a CTA study estimated that public transit use went
up by 25% in the affected neighborhoods, so we could be looking at a way to
significantly reduce the number of cars in Hyde Park.
But we might as well admit
that the CTA is unlikely even to fund a small study at this point and there
will be an ongoing financial crisis at the agency for as far as the eye can
see unless we find a way to increase revenues. Last year, the riders did their
part, absorbing a sizeable fare increase. But yearly fare increases would be
a tremendous burden on the working poor and seniors living on fixed incomes.
Besides, a fare increase of 10% tends to lead to ridership losses of around
2%. We need to increase
subsidies to our public transit system just like most sunbelt cities have.
On October 13th, our Transit Task Force held the fourth in a series of workshops designed to improve transit in Hyde Park. This event revolved around the CTA's financial issues. We came up with a list of reasons to subsidize public transit and I'm using that list as the backbone of this article. The reasons are the group's (except for the last one); the accompanying claims are mine and I can provide evidence for these assertions. Just request an electronic version with the hyperlinks by e-mailing me at Withrow@uchicago.edu.
REASONS TO SUBSIDIZE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Air Quality. While the science of air quality is less than optimal, our best estimates are that air pollution claims at least 50,000 lives per year nationally and that auto emissions account for over half of the air pollution in our cities. A person commuting by rail causes only one fourth the smog-causing nitrous oxide of a solo car commuter. A commuter on a bus (and the study used 10 as the number of riders apt to be on a bus) causes only two-thirds of this pollutant. Comparisons for other pollutants make car travel look even worse, although a packed car or a hybrid might be better in some cases.
During the Atlanta Summer Olympics in 1996, the city closed its downtown area to car traffic, added buses and trains, and promoted carpooling and telecommuting. During this period, Atlanta's inner-city children on Medicaid showed a 42% decrease in asthma-related emergency room visits. Chicago has more cases of asthma per capita than anywhere else in the country, possibly because of the Lake Breeze Effect, which sweeps the air pollution caused by five million morning commuters out over the Lake where it heats in the sun, allegedly creating even more toxic combinations, only to get swept back into the city at night.
Road Accidents. In 2000, over 41,000 Americans died in motor vehicle fatalities, outnumbering those who died from breast cancer, suicide, firearms, leukemia, AIDS, poisoning or drugs. Motor vehicle injuries lead all causes of deaths among persons aged 1-24. Per passenger mile, riding a bus is 17 times safer than riding in a car and riding the el is probably safer than staying home.
Road Congestion. Cities like Dallas, Houston and Los Angeles are spending a lot of money to make transit a better option because citizens of these automobile cities have come to realize that total reliance on cars for transportation means gridlock. Mostly due to the explosion in light rail construction elsewhere, U.S. passenger miles on public transportation have grown faster than those in private vehicles since 1995.
Land Use and Property Values. Transit-oriented neighborhoods like Hyde Park are more pedestrian friendly because less real estate needs to be devoted to parking and roads. (No mode of transportation is better for air quality, crime reduction, and personal health than walking.) A study done in the Chicago area found that the property values of residences within 500 feet of a rail station were 25% higher than for similar properties without a rail station. The success of Wicker Park or neighborhoods along the Brown and Red Lines points to a growing acceptance of public transit by young people who consider it part of the urban experience.
Business. The
Loop simply wouldn't be what it is without transit, but then public transportation
promotes a good business climate in much of the region. It expands the pool
of potential workers for employers and expands job opportunities for those who
need them the most. Transit makes shopping,
entertainment, cultural and sporting events more accessible, too.
Foreign Policy.
If Americans used public transportation at the rate Canadians do, we would reduce
our oil dependence by an amount equal to half a year's oil imports from Saudi
Arabia. Our balance of trade would be greatly improved and our troop presence
in the Middle East would probably be
reduced.
Social Welfare. Transit disproportionately serves those who need our help the most-the elderly, the disabled, the impoverished, and students. Our non-profit institutions like clinics, schools, community centers, museums, and churches need to be accessible.
Parity.
Our federal government rightly subsidizes airport and highway construction,
so equal subsidizing of public transportation would only be fair. Instead, transit
gets a tiny fraction of federal transportation money and then mostly for capital
improvement projects. There are practically no
subsidies for CTA operating expenses, but plenty of federal mandates, including
paratransit, which is expected to cost the CTA $50 million per year very soon.
Until the federal government does the right thing and funds paratransit, the
state should do so, instead of making riders shoulder this burden alone. But
our city government provides what may well be the largest single subsidy for
the automobile, which brings us back to where I started.
Parking Subsidies.
We should face the fact that residents believe the government owes them a free
parking spot, preferably right in front of their homes. There's probably no
way in this political environment to change that expectation-a sad fact for
our aldermen, I'm afraid, who have to deal with
parking controversies ad nauseam. But we should admit that the city
is squandering opportunity costs by providing free parking in neighborhoods.
That is, the city would be within its rights to lease parking spaces on its
streets to the highest bidder. That it chooses to give away these spaces, first
come first serve, has resulted in a classic example of a "tragedy of the
commons" where the best strategy for private interests conflicts with the
public good. Hence, more cars in Hyde Park than the neighborhood was built for.
And the city's answer to this tragedy of the commons is to build more spaces. Millennium Park, for instance, is arguably the world's most expensive roof for a parking garage. The underground parking won't pay for itself, as originally suggested, but instead requires a $50 million diversion of money from a TIF fund for the Loop. While the extra parking is needed to attract suburban shoppers, that's still a major subsidy from the city on behalf of automobiles.
In our own neighborhood, TIF money will someday probably be used to build a parking garage near 53rd Street at an estimated cost of $10 million for 450 spaces. I'm in favor of that. Our local businesses need to be able to attract shoppers from a wide area and a stronger retail sector is good for Hyde Park, giving us more goods and services within walking distance-an extremely valuable component of our quality of life here. But that garage's price tag comes out to about $22,000 per parking space.
The city's parking subsidies don't stop there. Unfortunately, it's embedded in our zoning regulations, too. Practically all cities require most retail developments to provide parking for their customers, an expense that gets passed along to drivers and transit riders alike. When zoning requires residential developments to provide parking, what effect do you think that has on affordable housing? Parking space regulations aren't free.
I wish I could tell you
that the City of Chicago is equally as generous when subsidizing public transportation.
As you may know, the CTA receives about half its operating revenue from the
fare box. Most of the rest comes from sales tax revenue. In the city, 1% of
your retail purchase goes to
subsidizing the CTA and, except for a paltry $3 million per year, that's the
extent of the city's monetary contribution. Those in suburban Cook County pay
the same 1% (which gets split between the CTA, Metra, and Pace) and the collar
counties pay .25% (which is split between Metra and Pace). The State
of Illinois then provides a one-quarter match of the region's transit-devoted
sales tax revenue and the RTA divides that between the CTA and Pace.
The CTA is asking to change
the funding formula and the agency's data can be found online. I found it convincing
on three points. Someone besides the CTA, temporarily the state perhaps, should
pay for paratransit, which is an unfunded federal mandate expected to cost $50
million per year very soon.
The collar counties are being subsidized by suburban Cook County and their sales
tax devoted to transit should be raised to .50%. And it's probably right that
the CTA should get a slightly larger proportion of the sales tax collected in
suburban Cook County because the CTA provides over half the
rides there. Because our neighborhood is served by both the CTA and Metra, I'm
a little wary of any solution that leaves either agency in a worse financial
position, so we should take care on that last item.
What's missing in the CTA's analysis is any comparison with how other U.S. cities fund public transportation and I think there's a reason for that. I tend to believe that the head of the CTA is running a reasonably efficient transit system and that he wants transit to succeed in Chicago-but not if it means stepping on the Mayor's toes.
To be fair, the city has
spent money on some CTA capital projects. In fact, the city, thanks in large
part to the help from the federal government, built and owns the Orange Line.
And it's true that the city does pay for the CTA's security force, although
most cities do the same. But other operating
expenses are paid for through the sales tax and the state match. I'm not sure
how we can justify asking suburban Cook County residents to contribute the same
sales tax rate to transit that we contribute when we get far better service
in the city.
I urge everyone who cares about public transportation to talk to our elected officials at all levels about the importance of transit to our neighborhoods and our region. [edited out but the crux of Withrow's argument: The solution to the CTA's structural financial imbalance should involve every level of government and be broadly shared. ]
Transit riders are doing
their part to improve air quality and property values, while reducing automobile
fatalities and road congestion. Our foreign policy, business environment, and
social welfare depend on parity of subsidy for public transportation. With improved
funding and service, maybe we can even solve Hyde Park's "parking problem."
Top
In fact, I GO Carshare is catching on Hyde Park and throughout the city. And did you know that just 40% in code 60615, 48% in 60637 DO NOT have access to a car? In each case they are about half relatively affluent and dense Hyde Park-Kenwood and the rest impoverished but refilling, even gentrifying neighborhoods north, south, and west.
Hyde Park Herald, October 26, 2005
Planners joke among themselves that every community meeting boils down to one issue: PARKING. No matter the development, parking is the reoccurring and universal theme at community meetings and that more parking is always better.
But a new book, "The High Cost of Free Parking," by UCLA economics professor Donald Shoup, argues less parking is actually better for a community. This slap in the face of conventional wisdom has sparked new discussion about the propriety of so much free parking. It even challenged the notion that parking is actually free.
Shoup argues that the cost of free parking is hidden in the higher prices of everything else. He says "free parking" distorts transportation choices, produces bad urban images, interrupts the natural vitality that comes from parking once and walking from place to place, wastes valuable land and hurts the environment. He predicts that in 20 years current parking policies will be considered as much a failure as high-rise public housing and urban renewal are viewed now.
Community leadership, in a desire to respond to the perceived lack of parking, has required developers of new residential construction in Chicago to build more than the required ratio of one parking space per unit. Further under the assumption that people will not buy a parking space to accompany their new unit, developers have been required to bundle the cost of parking into into home prices. Simultaneously, the need for more affordable housing increases and communities urge developers to incorporate affordable housing into projects. Many planners and residents praise these strategies as sound and progressive planning practices.
Further, the issue of density is often linked to these discussions. Residents will say that they do not want more density (but will want better retail options) because it will add congestion.
Dense residential neighborhoods tend to have lower rates of automobile ownership. Manhattan in New York City represents the epitome of this relationship. In Chicago, neighborhoods like Hyde Park, Andersonville and Lakeview have better access to public transportation and offer more destinations to walk to. There are more people to support businesses and the streets are safer.
The 2000 census indicates that well over 30 percent and in some cases close to 50 percent of households in these and other dense neighborhoods do not have access to a private vehicle.
What great city or neighborhood is known for its abundant parking supply? although these locations have many amenities and attractions, ample parking is not one of them, yet these areas thrive.
So, the next time you are debating the merits of a new development, remember the "High Cost of Free Parking."
By Jeffery Tumlin and Adam Millard-Gall of Nelson Nygaard. From Line Magazine. Sent to the TIF Advisory Council and Committee members.
Parking is the poor relation of architecture and design. Unglamorous and often downright ugly, it tends to be treated as a necessary evil if the parking system works well, nobody notices. If it doesn't, it can work against a city's best efforts to improve urban design, manage traffic, and achieve a wide array of other goals.
Parking can determine the success for both a particular development and an entire urban neighborhood around it. Parking requirements imposed by local jurisdictions, when coupled with height, bulk and floor area restrictions, often dictate the type of building that is possible on a constrained site. The amount of parking and the way it is designed and managed control the traffic, congestion, and quality of the pedestrian environment in a neighborhood. Meanwhile, the cost of parking--often $50,000 per space and up--can determine the project's financial feasibility, and the scope to include additional neighborhood amenities.
At the same time, planners, designers and architects often fail to understand how parking works and how to use it to achieve their goals. Often, they fall prey to myths that are well established, not only among the public at large but also among specialist transportation planners schooled in conventional traffic engineering. This article seeks to clarify some of the most common misconceptions, presenting ten widely circulated parking myths.
Myth 1: Successful cities have abundant parking.
Compared to cities, the suburbs will always have more free, front-door parking than any urban neighborhood can match--and the roadway infrastructure to go with it. No great city is known for its cheap abundant parking. Monthly parking costs in San Diego and Seattle are more than three times those in Phoenix and Reno. Santa Monica and Palo Alto have just 2.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space in their downtowns--less than two-thirds of the ratio in a typical suburban center.
Places such as Santa Monica compete on the basis of qualities such as historic architecture, transit access, and the sheer vitality of their urban life--qualities that large supplies of parking tend to dampen. Cheap, abundant parking is often the sign of a downtown's failure--after all, half of downtown Buffalo is given over to parking.
Myth 2: It's difficult to find parking in the neighborhood. We need to build more.
Motorists aren't interested in how many parking space a neighborhood has. what matters is how easily they can find one. Maintaining availability is therefore a key goal, but building more spaces is only one way to achieve it--and usually an expensive one.
Most of the time, it will be far cheaper to free up spaces by using demand management strategies. Charging for parking or increasing the rate will encourage some motorists to carpool, take transit, walk, or bike. Car-sharing programs allow people to sell their cars--studies show that each City CarShare vehicle takes seven private cars off the streets, at a fraction of the cost of building new garages.
It's also important to combat perceptions of parking shortages. Often, people complain of parking problems when actual counts show that only 60 to 75 percent of spaces are occupied. The key is to use pricing and time limits to free up the most visible spaces--particularly the "front door" spots at the curb and in entrances to garages. Advanced information systems such as those in San Francisco's Financial District can offer motorists real-time information about where spaces are available.
Myth 3: Free parking--the 28th Amendment
Parking is often provided free of charge to motorists. Every space, however, entails significant costs for developers, owners, tenants, and/or taxpayers. So while parking fees are often subsumed ("bundled") into rents, lease fees, or sale prices, the costs are borne by everyone, including those who choose to walk, bike or take transit.
These costs are substantial. For residential developments in San Francisco, parking accounts for about 20 percent of the total project cost. A typical parking space occupies 375 square feet, including space for aisles--about $43,000 assuming a land value of $5 million per acre. Parking garage use less land per space, but construction costs are typically at least $40,00 per space in the Bay Area. (San Jose recently built a new downtown garage on an existing surface lot at a cost of $77,000 per net space.) Add in maintenance, cleaning, lighting, security, interest, and financing costs, and the total cost amounts to an amortized $4,000 per space per year.
Myth 4: All motorists are created equal.
In many cases--particularly neighborhood commercial centers--providing convenient, visible, front door parking is critical for economic success. In some cases, cheap or free parking is desirable to compete with other commercial centers nearby.
This doesn't mean, however, t hat employees and park-and-ride commuters also need this benefit. Rather than treating all parkers equally, it is essential to segment them into different groups of users an prioritize them accordingly. Typically, customers and shoppers are th highest priority, since they generate the greatest benefits (sales tax dollars) with the highest turnover and the lowest costs (fewer peak period auto trips.) Other visitors, residents, employees, and park-and-ride commuters follow in importance.
Public garages in San Francisco provide and excellent example of how this prioritization can be easily implemented in practice. Prices are set to favor short-term visitors who stay just a couple of hours. Parking at the Fifth an Mission garage for an hour will set a shopper back $2, but an eight-hour stay for a commuter costs $18. Garages in some suburban downtowns provide the first hour free, with hourly fees rising for additional hours.
Other techniques include time limits (one- and two-hour maximums), validation stickers given by merchants to their customers, and permits issued to particular groups, such as residents. These strategies prioritize those who bring in sales tax dollars to a neighborhood, while helping manage traffic congestion by discouraging all-day employee parking. They also steer employees to public transit--since commuters make the same trip every day, they can research different transit options, and they are also unlikely to choose a different job based on the availability and cost of parking alone.
Myth 5: Even in the Bay Area, people don't like to walk. Parking needs to be right outside the front door.
Front-door parking is important for many users, particularly shoppers or people with disabilities. However, there is no reason why most motorists cannot park a block or two away from their destination, much as they might prefer the most convenient spaces.
The key is to manage the most convenient spaces by reserving them to either the desired users (e.g. with time limits), or those willing to pay a premium. Just as people pay more for the theater seats with the best view, the most desirable spaces should attract a premium.
Myth 6: Having fewer parking spaces means that people will just drive around looking for a space.
Often, congestion caused by motorists looking for a parking space is an important concern. However, this often reflects poor management, rather than the number of spaces available. Even if plentiful space is available in off-street garages--as in San Francisco's Mission District--motorists will often prefer to circle looking for a free on-street space.
In this situation, building more parking will obviously do nothing to alleviate the problem. The solution is a rational pricing policy that charges more for the most desirable, most scarce parking spaces. Real-time information that directs motorists to facilities with available space is also an effective way to reduce traffic.
Myth 7. Parking ratios can be easily looked up in a manual.
Traditionally, parking requirements are set by local jurisdictions using two convenient reference sources: parking generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and other jurisdictions' parking standards compiled b the Planning Advisory Service. The average national minimum requirement for offices is four spaces per 1,000 square feet; for commercial, four or five spaces per 1,00 square feet is a typical ratio.
These ratios, however, are based on demand at single-use suburban sites, where ample free parking exists and few or no alternatives to driving are provided. The highest peak demand observed is ten often used to set the minimum requirement. While this approach prevents spillover parking in all but extreme cases, it will often mean that a large supply sits vacant almost every day of the year. Conventional parking standards are simply not appropriate in urban communities.
More importantly, the amount of parking needed is primarily a value judge ment, rather than a technical exercise. Developers and local elected officials must ask, at what point do the benefits of ample parking outweigh the negative consequences? Is there enough roadway capacity to serve an increase in parking? does additional parking or greater investment in transit fit better with the values of the community?
Myth 8: All households, even low-income ones, need parking.
Nearly 30 percent of San Francisco households--and 38 percent of renters--do not own a vehicle. In some census tracts, such as Chinatown, this proportion rises to 90 percent. Low-income households also tend to own far fewer vehicles. Rather than assume that every household will have a car--and therefore need to pay for a parking space--planners and developers should be sensitive to these variations.
There is no shortage of demand for housing without parking or with less than one space per unit. This means that we can be aggressive in seeking to capitalize on our investments in transit. Concentrating housing with less parking around Muni and BART stations and along frequent bus routes brings a double benefit--it maximizes the amount of housing while minimizing the traffic that the development generates.
Myth 9: Fewer parking spaces would be fine, if only we had decent transit.
Better transit is sorely needed everywhere in the Us, not least in the San Francisco Bay Area. But event current Muni and BART service is enough to persuade many households not to own a car. Along with density, household size, and income, transit access is one of the four most important determinants of how many vehicles a household owns.
Take the Market/Octavia neighborhood, for example, where census data show that t here a re just 0.46 to 0.70 vehicles per household. Parts of the South Mission and Bayview, with similar incomes but far poorer transit service, have more than double the number of cars per household, form 1.06 to 1.28.
What's more, the density and pedestrian-friendliness of an area, as well as management strategies such as charging for parking, are just as important in determining how much parking is needed. Parking management is equally applicable in the suburbs, as places such as Walnut Creek and Palo Alto have demonstrated. Demand has been reduced by up to 28 percent in other parts of California, such as the Los Angeles region, where employers have charged for parking.
Myth 10: Parking isn't just unglamorous, its unimportant
Parking is one of the most important tools at the disposal of planners. Parking Supply and management is critical to achieving goals in a diverse array of fields--producing affordable housing, relieving traffic congestion, promoting neighborhood retail, and maintaining the integrity of the urban fabric. Poor parking management can destroy the urban qualities that cities such as San Francisco depend on for their success. Parking matters!
Parking Spaces
/ Community Places:
Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions
What does parking have to do with the environment? Research and reports from EPA and others show that the way we develop our communities has a major impact on the quality of the natural environment. Regions with walkable, mixed use, compact neighborhoods, towns, and cities, knit together by a robust network of transportation choices, protect human health and the natural environment. Parking policies and requirements can have a strong influence on both the built and natural environment in a community. A better understanding of the influence of parking policies is an important step toward smarter growth.
The approaches described in this report can help communities explore new, flexible parking policies that can encourage growth and balance parking needs with their other goals. The EPA developed this guide for local government officials, planners, and developers in order to:
- demonstrate the significance of parking decisions in development patterns;
- illustrate the environmental, financial, and social impact of parking policies;
- describe strategies for balancing parking with other community goals; and
- provide case studies of places that are successfully using these strategies.
The report begins with a discussion of the demand for parking and a review of the costs of parking. The following sections detail innovative techniques and case studies explain how they have been used to solve parking problems in specific places.
Many communities are evaluating parking issues as part of a broader process of reevaluating their overall goals for growth. Typical parking regulations and codes require a set amount of parking for a given square footage or number of units. It is common for such regulations to assume all trips will be by private automobile, ignoring the neighborhood's particular mix of uses, access to transit and walking, and context within the region. Such inflexible parking requirements can force businesses to provide unneeded parking that wastes space and money and harms the environment.
The case study in this report of the SAFECO Corporation illustrates the potential to use parking policies to save money, improve the environment, and meet broader community goals. SAFECO offers employees a choice between transit, vanpool, and parking benefits. As a result, each year SAFECO’s 1700 employees drive about 1.2 million miles less than average commuters in the Seattle region, saving 28 tons of carbon monoxide, a serious pollutant tracked by the EPA. SAFECO also reduced the amount of ground that needed to be paved by 100,000 square feet, leading to less runoff in this rainy area. The company saves an estimated $230,000 per year, after accounting for the costs of incentives and the savings from reducing the amount of parking built.
"Parking spaces usually diminish public spaces--but it doesn't have to be that way."
From Making Places, June 2005. By Ethan Kent
Despite what you may have heard, nobody goes to a place solely because it has parking. In fact, the current obsession with parking is one of the biggest obstacles to achieving livable cites and towns, because it usually runs counter to what should be our paramount concern: creating places where people enjoy spending time. As long as the myth persists that economic prosperity depends on parking, local governments will continue to waste public money and distort the public planning process. The realization that creating a place where people want to come and spend time is more important than parking unfortunately eludes many municipalities. Worrying about and wasting public money on parking is taking over the public planning process and subsequently parking is taking over our communities. So how can we put parking in its place and draw people back to public spaces?
One big step forward is to assess the supply of parking in relation to what is actually needed . PPS often works with towns that have access parking capacity, where the growing number of surface lots and parking structures has choked out the very reason people drove there in the first place. ...
The hang-up on parking is an indicator that a community has no broader vision for itself.
This state of affairs arises when businesses compete with each other to maximize their own parking spaces--to the detriment of the surrounding community and, inevitably, themselves. ....Get businesses an other parties to cooperate creatively with each other, and you can create the kind of parking infrastructure that supports public spaces. Here are some questions to get businesses and public officials talking about creative new ways to accommodate parking needs with the public's desire for lively public places.
[A goal is] enabling people to consolidate their car trips and visit more places from the same parking spot. [This includes creating a more cohesive pedestrian district [to link] destinations to each other, leading to more walking and less demand for parking. [This requires taking] full advantage of the opportunities presented by rethinking parking. These opportunities include:
Only .71 spaces per unit are required if within 600 feet of a transit station. Requirements for elsewhere in the new zoning ordinance varies, but is usually 1.0.
The national average for don't have/have access to a car is 15%, but in 60615 it's 40% and in 60637 48%. In Manhattan it's about 80%. Density actually reduces car use, making the latter less necessary.
The only way the city will allow TIF money to be used for a garage is as part of a mixed use development.
From Irene Sherr, based on Donald Shoup's book
Ease of payment. – Multi-space meters accept a variety of payment types including coins, bills and credit cards.
Flexible prices. – Multi-space meters have computer capabilities that allow charging different prices by time of day or day of the week.
Better information – P & D meters can show information on a large interactive graphic screen so they can convey complex information to facilitate management.
Better revenue control - Each machine keeps a running tally that is sent wirelessly to a central site.
Better data control. – The machines produce parking data by block, time of day and day of the week. This information is useful to analyze usage patterns and to manage the parking supply.
Proof of payment.
Economy – One P & D machine costs less to purchase and maintain than the 20-30 individual meters it replaces.
Less out of service time – machines can be equipped with cellular communication devices that report any mechanical failure to central location.
Better urban design –
P & D machines reduce visual clutter by eliminating fixtures & space
delineation. Also, solar powered.
More spaces. – Conventional
meters are spaced to accommodate the largest vehicles; they are separated by
more than necessary for smaller cars. Conversion to P & D generally allows
for a 10-15% increase in the number of cars accommodated along a curb.
Higher revenue per space.
– New P & D parkers can not use any unexpired time left by the previous
parker.
Source: The High Cost of
Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, 2005
Top
See another quick summary below
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/ma/11-16-05-738309.html
If Donald Shoup had his way, the only "free parking" you could find would be on a Monopoly board.
He says the notion of free -- or cheap -- parking produces a litany of negative effects on communities.
Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, blames municipalities that provide free -- or cheap -- parking not only for missed revenue opportunities, but for the far-ranging social effects it causes.
Free or cheap parking, he argues, slows down travel, harms the environment, degrades urban design, raises housing costs, impedes the reuse of older buildings and limits home-ownership possibilities.
In his recent book, "The High Cost of Free Parking," Shoup makes three recommendations: Charge market prices for parking, return the meter revenue to the neighborhoods that generate it and eliminate required parking ordinances.
Shoup made a presentation earlier this month at the University Club in Chicago in a program, sponsored by Congress for New Urbanism, Chicago Metropolis 2000, Center for Neighborhood Technology and the Metropolitan Planning Council.
"Parking is only free to us in our role as drivers," Shoup said. "The cost of parking doesn't disappear just because the driver doesn't pay for it.
"We pay for parking in higher costs for meals or movie tickets. It's in almost every transaction we make. Even those without cars have to pay for free parking."
Municipal zoning requirements, such as ones that dictate a new restaurant must have a certain number of parking spots per table, are more destructive than helpful, Shoup said.
Construction costs
They inherently drive construction costs up, he contends. He made an example of a Los Angeles high-rise building -- the first 15 floors of which were a parking ramp.
He said the parking requirement was not necessary, given ample public transportation in the area. For every resident or patron of the building who doesn't need a parking spot, that's wasted money and wasted space.
Shoup also said that parking requirements are normally aimed at the peak occupancy for whatever building they serve, that during off-hours there is a large amount of land that sits empty. At a church lot, for instance, parking must be able to meet the needs of an Easter Sunday service, but for the rest of the year most of the spaces are empty, he said.
Parking requirements also affect architecture trends. Not just in commercial areas, either.
Costs for parking are higher than most people realize, Shoup said.
In 2002, the subsidy for off-street parking was between $127 and $374 billion, which rivals what the United States spent for Medicare ($231 billion) and national defense ($349 billion) that same year.
Parking costs, therefore, equated to between 1.2 and 3.6 percent of the total national income in 2002, Shoup said.
He also said that the cost for parking cars is not associated with the transportation sector, noting that airports pay for airplane storage and train stations are responsible for train storage.
That's why parking should cost money, Shoup said, and that the prices should be dictated by the market -- i.e. the principle of supply and demand.
Shoup recommends aiming for an 85-percent occupancy rate, meaning one or two out of every 10 parking spots should be empty. If more than that are empty, lower the price, he contends. If the lot is full, charge more.
"If anyone sets the price for parking, drivers do," Shoup said. "A parking shortage will never occur because the market prices will prevent it."
An 85-percent occupancy rate also eliminates cruising for parking spots, making travel times shorter while cutting down on environmental waste.
Parking revenue should be put back into the community that it comes from in order to provide enhancement projects, such as keeping the sidewalks clean, erecting lighting and signs, as well as landscaping needs, Shoup said.
The model has been used in the past, he said, citing Old Pasadena, which is Pasadena's downtown district.
The shopping district is filled with Spanish colonial revival and art deco buildings, with a personality of its own, Shoup said.
By the 1970s, it had degenerated into "the city's Skid Row," he said.
Employees and owners were taking up all the free street parking, leaving little room for customers, he said.
Merchants opposed meters because the feared they would drive away customers. The city had no money to pay for public infrastructure in Old Pasadena.
The key solution, Shoup said, was to charge market prices for parking and return the money to the neighborhoods for infrastructure improvements, like keeping the streets clean, well-lighted and landscaped.
The meters now cost $1 an hour, and are operational until midnight -- seven days a week.
The city also built three parking garages, which are free for the first hour and $2 per hour after that.
Sales-tax revenues in the area have skyrocketed in the last 15 years, Shoup said.
The neighborhood capitalized on its architecture and personality, he said.
People in Los Angeles see the area as something different, and Old Pasadena is regarded as "one of Southern California's most popular shopping and entertainment destinations," Shoup said.
"You walk around," he said. "You park once and you pay once."
The model can be used anywhere, but getting people to change their views on parking is like getting smokers to kick the habit.
Shoup made that analogy in a Governing Magazine interview in June.
"Automobile dependency resembles addiction to smoking, and free parking is like free cigarettes... it will take decades for cities to recover from the damage," he said.
One of Shoup's supporters is Peter Skosey, vice president of external relations for the Metropolitan Planning Council.
He thinks Shoup's thoughts on free and cheap parking would be a success in Chicago, but noted that the Chicago City Council recently approved an update of its zoning ordinances.
"I suspect they will be reticent, at best, to take another look at that," Skosey said.
He added that Shoup's recommendations would also work in suburbs, which should update their ordinances every decade anyway.
"Whether it's right or not for every community, they're going to have to make that decision," Skosey said.
He believes that suburbs with commercial areas -- whether they are on the downward slide like Old Pasadena was in the late '70s or thriving -- can benefit.
He also issues the reminder that a thriving business district cannot be built on parking alone.
"The market has to be there to begin with," Skosey said.
At the end of Shoup's presentation, he showed an aerial view of a shopping mall, with a sprawling -- mostly empty -- parking lot.
He said the wasted space created by the empty lines flies in the face of the need to create affordable housing in most areas. That, he argues, is a shame.
"I think too much of America is devoted to land uses like this with so much empty parking," he said. "Land for housing is scarce.
"Free parking has become more important than affordable housing."
The next slide he offered was the same shopping-mall view, but with a block-long row of apartment buildings digitally added, explaining that many of the workers in the mall would now be able to walk to work, support the local economy because of its convenience and help offset the prices inside the mall for everyone else by paying for the otherwise vacant land.
John Huston can be reached at jhuston@pioneerlocal.com or (708) 524-4414.
_______________
In short, Shoup says parking spaces should be treated as a community asset, not a freebie. His message is that parking is a scarce resource that can be mined by local governments to produce revenue for neighborhood improvements. The analysis should apply to both lots and street spaces. In fact, employers who provide fee parking should allow workers to cash out the benefit and use it for transit or biking or just walking (as they do in California). The price of ignoring this is paving over the landscape and higher prices for everything we buy. We also pay in sprawl, too much use of oil, and inability to infill or go higher. "Off-street parking requirement have a far bigger effect on cities than planners have acknowledged."
Parking Management: Innovative
Solutions To Vehicle Parking Problems
United States | Community & Economic Development | Government & Politics
| Transportation | Op-Ed
27 March, 2006 - 7:00am
Author: Todd Litman
In this first installment of Planetizen's three part series on parking, Todd Litman, author of Parking Management Best Practices and Executive Director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, discusses parking management strategies and how they can be used to improve cities.
Donald Shoup's 2005 book, The High Cost of Free Parking, introduced many city planning enthusiasts to the complexities and importance of planning for automobile parking. Although often taken for granted, the details of parking regulations can actually have wide-ranging impacts on city life, from reducing traffic and pollution to increasing local revenues. Todd Litman, author of Parking Management Best Practices and Executive Director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, discusses parking management strategies and how they can be used to improve cities.
Years ago, singer Joni Mitchell lamented that "They've paved paradise and put up a parking lot." That song resonates because there is so much to dislike about parking facilities. Parking lots are generally considered the least glamorous and most environmentally harmful type of land use.
Yet, the same people who complain about them often travel by automobile and require parking at their destinations. We dislike parking facilities until we need them, at which time we want parking that is abundant, convenient and free. The tension between our dislike for parking facilities and our desire to have them wherever needed creates a conflict for individuals, businesses and communities.
Innovative solutions can help reconcile this conflict. Parking management includes various policies and programs that result in more efficient use of parking resources. It means, for example, that a parking facility serves multiple destinations, that the most convenient spaces are managed to favor priority uses (such as deliveries and quick errands), and that motorists can easily obtain information on parking location and price. This squeezes more value from each parking space and reduces the amount of parking needed to serve an area.
Conventional parking planning tends to focus primarily on quantity. It assumes that, when it comes to parking, more is always better, and there can never be too much. This type of planning relies primarily on generous minimum parking requirements and public subsidies to provide abundant parking supply. Parking management focuses equally on quality, such as the ease of obtaining parking information, the convenience and safety of walking from a parking space to destinations, and the attractiveness and security of parking facilities.
Current parking planning practices are inefficient and often ineffective at solving parking problems. Minimum parking requirements tend to be excessive because they are generally based on demand surveys performed in automobile-dependent locations, and so require more parking than needed in areas with good travel options, accessible land use, or transportation and parking management programs. Yet this overabundance of supply does not eliminate parking problems because spaces are often unavailable for priority uses or are difficult to access. The real problem is not inadequate supply, it is inefficient management.
Overabundant parking supply imposes huge social costs. A typical urban parking space has an annualized value of $600 to $1,200. There are estimated to be about five parking spaces for every automobile on the road, totaling approximately $3,000 in annual value. In other words, for each dollar consumers spend on an automobile, somebody devotes about 50¢ to parking. Because consumers pay for this parking indirectly, they tend to use it inefficiently, resulting in more parking demand, more vehicle ownership and more vehicle mileage than is economically efficient.
Current parking planning practices tend to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of excessive parking supply, underpricing (abundant supply results in most parking being free) and increased automobile-dependency, which further increases parking demand. These practices are also inequitable since they force non-drivers to subsidize parking costs, reduce travel options for non-drivers, and reduce housing affordability. Described more positively, parking management can provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits.
There are better ways to determine how much parking to supply at a particular location. Parking regulations can be more accurate (reflecting geographic and demographic factors -- such as land use mix and residents' income levels -- that affect parking demand) and flexible (allowing requirements to be reduced in exchange for implementation of various management strategies, such as those described below, that encourage more efficient use of supply). This can significantly reduce the number of parking spaces needed to satisfy demand, improve user convenience and reward consumers and businesses that reduce their parking demand.
Parking management is neither mysterious nor particularly difficult. There are more than two dozen strategies to choose from, including those that:
Increase parking facility
efficiency by sharing, regulating and pricing; use off-site parking facilities;
implement overflow parking plans; improve user information; and improve walking
and cycling conditions.
Reduce parking demand by encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation
and more accessible land use development.
Improve enforcement and control of parking regulations, and address any spillover
problems that occur.
Improve parking facility design and operation, to improve user convenience and
safety, and reduce negative impacts.
Many of these strategies are well known, and all have been successfully implemented.
However, they are not being implemented to the degree justified by their significant
benefits because current planning practices emphasize supply solutions and treat
management solutions as a last resort, to be implemented only when it is particularly
difficult to expand parking facilities. For example, when evaluating potential
solutions to parking problems planners often overlook indirect costs that result
from parking facility expansion, such as increased stormwater management costs,
increased sprawl, and reduced pedestrian accessibility, and thus underestimate
the full benefits of management solutions.
Although individual parking management strategies often have modest impacts, their effects are cumulative. A cost-effective, integrated parking management program can often reduce parking requirements by 20-40%, while improving user convenience and helping to achieve other planning objectives, such as supporting more compact development, encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation, and increasing development affordability.
Todd Litman is
author of Parking Management Best Practices, published by the American Planning
Association's Planners Press. He is the founder and executive director of the
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, an independent research organization dedicated
to developing innovative solutions to transport problems. For more information,
see his free summary report, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and
Planning (PDF, 575 KB).
Top
A writer to Herald asks for zoned parking. Oct 18 2006, by Andrea Jiminez
Tutto e Possible... some say, but I am seriously concerned that this statement is not so in Hyde Park. As we all know Ald. Toni Preckwinkle is adamantly opposed to zoning our our residential streets. But as more and more visitors come to this neighborhood, it is virtually impossible to find a parking spot.
I am also not so sure that I feel 100 percent comfortable with our alderwoman's unshakable position on this issue. So let's review some of the potential issues that have ensued as a direct result with the current state of the limited parking for residents (owned or rental) living in the area:
* Increased parking tickets (the incidence of booting vehicles seems to have increased significantly).
* Smashed windows, stolen cars, and more. we have parked our car so far away from where we live, it was apparently notice by someone who took advantage of the fact that our alarm would not be heard four blocks west and two blocks north, and as a result our insurance has increased two-fold because this is the second car robbery.
* Revenue for the owners of local parking lots. I was quoted $145 a month for a local parking lot fee. It's astronomical, but it's a safer space for my car.
* Taxation of the middle class. We can't afford to buy a place with a garage or parking space. But at the same time, we are caught digging into our pockets to pay parking tickets, increased insurance bills, and to repair broken windows.
It is not fair for the alderman to stand so solidly on this issue. Ald. Preckwinkle, we want zoned parking in Hyde Park from 6 p.m. until 6 a.m. every day of the week.
And another, Sharonjoy A. Jackson of Lake Shore Task Force, re: area near Montgomery Place, in May 9 2007 Herald.
Where is our parking?
Two of our members, one living in the Parkshore and the other on Everett, are having a problem which really affects East Hyde Park--particularly those who live closer to the lake and parks located near the lake.
When the weather starts to turn warm it is nearly impossible for Hyde park residents to find parking --taking as long as two hours to find a parking space whether it be morning, noon or night. Though I do have off-street parking, I have to sympathize with those who do not.
Our elected officials, to whom permit parking has been suggested over a considerable period of time, refuse to offer permit parking in order to, seemingly, favor those who visit our beaches, lake and nearby parks and who are non-community residents. *
Some of these visitors not only use up the majority of parking spaces, but they often leave trash, which includes, but is not limited to, food, bones, bags full of garbage, bottles of various types of alcohol, juice or soda, broken glass, hot coals, grates from grills, clothing, empty marijuana bags, and dirty diapers all over our parks, beaches, sidewalks, gutters, streets, parking lots, yards and underpasses. Residents are left to gather up the trash for disposal on Monday mornings.
With so many voting residents expressing their desire and need for permit parking, it remains unbelievable this has not been put into effect long before yet another disruptive summer is upon us.
In fact, it has been suggested that the park district parking lot (across from the Flamingo) could be designated for non-community residents who wish to visit the beaches, lake and park the opportunity to park near their homes. The North Side, and other part of the city, have been granted permit parking and restricted access to various beaches and parks while East Hyde Park remains a wide-open territory for everyone's use, regardless of how this "tradition" inconveniences and disrupts the immediate community. And, let us not even go into the onslaught July 3rd brings.
[*Both aldermen have given as their reason that it beggars neighbors, displacing the problem endlessly further and further away while spots sit empty during the times the permit holders do not have their vehicles parked in their spaces. Those who favor permit parking can, of course seek to make a case that the effect is to favor out of area parkers and that this overtakes benefit to whomever or all from having permit parking--then discussion can ensue, although it might again come down to who should be at the head of the line (including in this case who has dibs on the lakefront, if anyone) and who is more to blame for trash, noise etc. The lot at South Shore Drive as well as the spaces at the end-bulb-out at 55th have long been a bone of contention as it is. Ed. GMO]
Joseph Samuelson advises UC to catch up to rest of country on parking fees. Herald, May 7 2008.
As I approached my car at 7:45 a.m. on Tuesday, another motorist immediately showed up waiting to take my spot. Out of curiosity, I wondered, who are all these people that park on my street every day? They were certainly not residents as the street is always empty overnight. I approached her and she told me she works at the university and cannot afford to park in the parking lot, so she spends 30 minutes driving around every morning to find street parking.
It then dawned on me that the solution to the Hyde Park parking problem might be for the university to make it more affordable for their students and employees to actually park in the parking lots. The University of Chicago charges $85 or $65 per month to park in their lots, depending on which lot you use. There is also no discount for buying a yearly permit and students and employees all pay the same rate. Compare t his with $46 per month at Northwestern, $31 at Brown or [$60?] at Princeton. Even Yale charges less for students and gives tem a discount for a yearly pass which makes it less than U. of C.'s $85 per month lot. Furthermore, Yale scales down their fees dramatically for employees on lower salaries and gives further discounts for employees that carpool. The only university that I found to be consistently higher than the University of Chicago is Harvard, which should come as no surprise to anyone.
If Alderman Hairston and the community would like to see better parking in the neighborhood, perhaps they should pressure the university to learn from our fiends in Evanston or practically every university across the country and lower their pairing rates for their employees and students.
Top [Note below that the University does provided carpool and transit user subsidies (including for occasional drivers) and has many bus routes. They say parking is priced in part to discourage regulars driving to the University. And to be tested is whether decreasing rates will increase usage (maybe already maximized) of garages and lots vs parking out in the neighborhood. ]
In May 2006 University Transportation and Parking Office Director Brian Shaw discussed with a culminating town hall meeting the new strategy that includes: Moving to a uniform parking pricing that is higher than transit options. Holding off on more garages and other parking after the announced round--goal is less to add more parking than to prevent loss or more load due to new buildings. Place the bus routes under his office rather than Halls and Commons, with some restructuring possible (See UC Routes and Parking Woes and opportunities pages.). A whole suite of options to bringing one's car on campus. Following is the report from the June 8 Chronicle.
|
After trying for years to hold the line against encouragement of ever more cars in the campus sector (banning cars by freshmen, for example), the University opened a large garage at 55th and Ellis in 1999 and parking in the new Business School at 58th in 2004. This, and added parking by the Hospitals, did little to alleviate pressures, and the University will, according to Provost Richard P. Smaller, be adding two garages south of the Midway (and likely raising Stagg Field for another 600 spaces as well as a new garage north of 57th for the Clinical Pavilion as well as to replace the DCAM Garage) while seeking other options--although growth could, according to University projections, still leave a deficit of as many as 1,500 spaces, one reason for the other options.
Some of the latter build on the highly successful University partnership with CTA on bus routes, local and to downtown- with a new route being added to Union and NWn stations Feb. 2006- , shuttling to remote lots shared with other institutions, The Transit Benefit Program (setting aside up to $100 a month pre-tax) and incentives for biking and walking including the backup of a "guaranteed-ride-home" according Elaine Lock wood-Bean, Assoc. VP of Facilities Services. New Transportation Manager Brian Shaw also talks of a new carpool and eventual vanpool programs.
Provost Sealers heads a Transportation (nee Parking) Committee that is evaluating options to fix this mess--far too few spaces if nothing other than more parking spaces off narrow streets is provided (and parking spilling into neighbors' space), yet UC has more spaces than peer institutions and utilizes 20 percent less space per capita than peer institutions. Cost of a garage is c$22,000 a space and debt service is $2,000 a year of amortized in perpetuity while only a few hundred a year can practically be charged of patrons, and garages are free after 4 and on weekends. The University is expected to work toward more routes in the neighborhood to downtown, hire a transportation czar, and:)
Hyde Park Herald, September 21, 2005. By Jeremy Adragna
One of the biggest issues the University of Chicago is facing, as it expands its campus redevelopment Master Plan and as its student population continues to grow, is how to stem a parking shortage in the neighborhood.
Often it is said that when a neighborhood has more cars coming to the area than parking spaces in which to put them [this] is a measure of economic success. But for U. of C. and Hyde Park, a neighborhood and university so finely intertwined, the result has been a lot of headaches when trying to share limited street parking between 14,000 students and faculty and 45,000 residents.
So on July 6, the university hired a new employee whose aim is to change the focus of those who travel to U. of C. for work or school away from driving their cars alone to enticing them to carpool and take public transit.
Brian Shaw, 34, is the university's new director of Campus Transportation and Parking. He said he's pushing for premium parking spots at a lower cost in the university's parking garages to be set aside for car-poolers. First, he said, he will need to convince people why they should not drive alone, what he called the single most expensive and environmentally unfriendly way to travel.
"To use public transportation people are making a conscious decision to inconvenience themselves," said Shaw. "We have to help them, financially, to make that decision." Shaw wants to take the profits from the university's numerous parking garages to create financial incentives for people to stray from driving to campus.
Shaw said he also wants to simplify the four university-subsidized bus routes--170, 171, 172 and 173--so riders can more easily access the right bus at the right time. "You have to know the time of day, time of year, what status you are and what the schedule is," Shaw said. "That's too much to expect of people. I'm hoping to simplify it. Each has different criteria for free or not, which needs to be drastically changed."
One thing that will not change under Shaw's watch is the community's access to parking in garages after-hours. Currently, after 4 p.m. most university parking garages are open for any member of the neighborhood to use.
Shaw spent the past five years doing essentially the same work at Emory University in Atlanta where he says he spent all of his time creating incentives for students and faculty tousle public transportation rather than driving their cars to campus. He grew up in Los Angeles where he eventually graduated from UCLA and later moved on to earn his Master's Degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania.
In Atlanta, Shaw spent four years working for the Atlanta Regional Commission, and intergovernmental group that plans large-scale development projects an transportation in 10 counties surrounding the city.
He lives in Hyde Park with his family and takes the bus to work.
From the University of Chicago Chronicle summary, January 6, 2005: Saller addresses campus parking crunch, suggests solutions
New parking lots, incentives for people who car-pool and bike to work, and the hiring of a "parking czar" were among the strategies discussed by Richard Saller, Provost of the University, at a November, 2004 town hal meeting in the Biological Sciences Learning Center.
As part of a broad conversation about the University's 2004 Master Plan Extension, Saller fielded numerous questions from a standing-room-only crowd about how to increase the availability of parking in Hyde Park.
Based on the findings of a University task force on parking, which Donald Reaves, Vice President for Administration and Chief Financial Officer, headed up last summer, Saller said the most pressing need is to expand parking for the staff and patients of the University Hospitals.
A new parking lot is being planned for construction at the intersection of 61st Street and Drexel Avenue. The University also is planning to add additional parking spaces in a mixed-use retail/parking development at the intersection of 61st Street and Woodlawn Avenue.
Anticipating growth in staff employment, the University must think creatively about new locations for parking structures, Saller said. For instance, one novel idea, proposed by a University-hired architectural consultant but not yet approved by the University Board of Trustees, was to build a parking structure below Stagg Field. The field would be raised a half story to accommodate an underground parking structure.
While parking problems exist across the campus, Saller said the first new parking facility to be built on campus would address the needs of the hospital and biomedical research staff which is expected to have the greatest growth.
However, the expansion of parking facilities is costly. Each parking space costs $25,000 to create, and maintenance together with debt ser
