St. Louis Should Look to Boston as We Study Parking Meters
A regular reader of Urban Review sent me a link to an article in Monday’s Boston Globe over their new Pay-n-Display parking meters:
Boston’s new high-tech parking meters along a four-block stretch of Newbury Street are keeping pace with their high-rent surroundings: They are generating at least 34 percent more money per space than their predecessors.
The article raises many of the issues raised here, people don’t like not being able to piggyback on the previous persons time and having to buy more time than you need if using a credit card.
Boston’s new meters are from one of the two companies that are providing meters in St. Louis, Parkeon. Their units, however, are different from those being tested here. The main difference is theirs accept dollar bills. Here is what they have found since installing the new machines mid-October:
The preferred method of payment has been dollar bills (45 percent), followed by coins (40 percent), and plastic (15 percent).
There the rates are double what they are on Grand ($2hr two hours in Boston vs $1 for two hours on Grand). Those using a dollar bill in Boston automatically get 30 minutes on the meter — no change if you want only 15 minutes. Using a credit card in Boston gets you two hours, the same as here — this is to offset fees charged by credit card companies.
I’m concerned the lack of dollar bill acceptors in the test machines in St. Louis will prove them to be less advantageous over the existing meters. This is especially true given the costs of the new devices, which is another difference.
The Suburban Journal reported on November 2nd:
The Parkeon meter costs about $12,000 and the Duncan meter about $5,000. By contrast, 10 regular meters cost about $5,000.
But the Boston Globe article shows them getting better pricing:
Under a contract with the manufacturer, Parkeon of Moorestown, N.J., Boston has the option of buying 1,000 meters over the next three years, which could effectively replace all of the city’s existing 6,600 single-space meters. The first 25 meters cost $7,219 apiece; after that the price rises to $10,000 apiece, for a total of nearly $10 million.
So we are getting quoted $12,000 each for units that don’t accept bills but they can pay $8,000-$10,000 for ones that do? The only explanation I can come up with is the $12,000 price is a one-off price and that under a contract similar to Boston’s we’d get a similar deal. Boston is showing an increase of over $3 per space per day compared to last year. If multiplied out by their total number of spaces the new meters could pay for themselves in just over a year from increases in revenue alone. Again, their biggest revenue (45%) are coming from bills followed by coins and lastly by credit/debit cards.
Back to South Grand were testing is ongoing. For grins I tried to put in money into the Pay-n-display machine after the required parking one evening and it was smart enough to refuse the money and indicate on the screen that parking was free at that time. This is nice for visitors that are never sure how late to feed the meters. What I have not yet tested is if you park at say 7:45am for an hour long breakfast or meeting — will the machines let you deposit money before the official time begins at 8am or must you run back out at 8am and pay?
Before the St. Louis Treasurer, who oversees parking in St. Louis, draws any conclusions and signs any contracts I’d like to know more about which cities have these systems, how extensive are they (CBD, commercial district or city-wide), and how many of them use bill acceptors.
LOL. And you were an operations person, instead of a planning person, you’d like to know the maintenance and repair frequencies for the meters and their various components. Right?
“There the rates are double what they are on Grand ($2hr in Boston vs $1 for two hours on Grand).”
Check your math–the rates in Boston are quadruple what they are here. $2/hr : $0.50/hr.
“thankfully the reliability of these new machines are quite well documented from other users”
Got a link?
Does St. Louis really need them meters? Perhaps the goal should be a city without meters? Ah yes, revenue, our favorite topic. The one we all adore, revenue by the revenuers.
A discussion of meters is fine, by what if the vision should be Grand Avenue without meters because a streetcar is going to run down the middle.(Or both sides, crossover and various debates)
In fact it could be argued that the vision should be a city without the need for many cars. If that is the case shouldn’t that occur now rather than wait another 20 years until these new meters are retired?
Instead of following Larry Williams, it would seem following Les Sterman and the EWGCG (East-West Gateway Council of Governments) would be a better tactic. The Northside and Southside city transit lines certainly, but EWGCG is also responsible for planning of all transit and it seems to me the first question to be asked is where are we going as a people?
It would be a waste of money to upgrade meters if streetcars were going down Grand within 5 years. It is money that could be applied to the efforts of rebuilding streetcars.
A total system must be planned, or as least debated, to derive a final plan of transit for the City of St. Louis, at that time the meters can be figured out. The way I feel parking should be on the way out, transit in.
How to do that? First is staying on their ass (the government, and you seem to do this pretty well), the second is abort public hearings as they now stand and install an ongoing dialogue that these blogs represent.
The people responding on Urban Review could have many important comments concerning the creation of a new city transit system. That can happen only if they are included in the process. The intelligence and thoughtfulness of the posters is evident. I don’t necessarily agree with everything, but if that is the case, it is my job to bring forth a better argument. EWGCG seems beyond such a process.
Can a parallel thread is established that follows EWGCG (or meters or scooters or any subject) only? Is there a way you can click to go to another subject, active, but at a different pace than the home page? It seems like it would be a great way to focus on special interest topics over a period of time. I don’t mean an archive, rather an active discussion that might evolve over weeks and months rather than days.
I could care little about the City Treasurer’s revenue stream, but I still love meters. That’s because I strongly believe on-street parking, especially on non-residential streets, should be short-term parking. And unlike chalking tires for posted time limits, meters seem more cost-effective, since even the law-abiding pay for meters.
I like parking meters because they, themselves, act as signs that say, “you can park here.” With either of the pay stations it is harder to determine if that opening you are eyeing up the way is actually a legal place to park. In theory, I like the pay-n-display system if it truly allows more cars to park in the same amount of curb. But I know human nature and I agree with someone on the prior post on this topic that people will park in such a way that it precludes someone from parking between them and the next car either front or back thereby actually reducing the net number of spaces; not increasing them — I suspect.
Cars/meters are not signs of vibrancy or success. They are signs of a failed transportation policy being kept on life-support. I toured the area with these meters and here are my observations:
1) Experimental area is too small to be insightful.
2) Metered spots were being blocked by delivery trucks.
3) Cars could easily park on side streets to avoid the meters.
4) Parking rates are too low to discourage use of autos.
5) The road layout is poor and most drivers in the area would seem more at home driving in a cow pasture.
This expensive-without-much-value experiment is simply proof that local leaders are desperate to create a “positive-progressive” image. Instead they should be developing forums, conducting surveys, analyzing infrastructure issues, instead of worrying how to collect quarters to pay out dollars.
Local government should not be in the business of parking. These public right-of-ways should be used for that and not to underwrite services to private businesses. The true picture of the “value-of-parking” is being distorted by this interference.
The MagMile in Chicago does not allow curb parking as it once did. Do we have anything here that even approaches this? It’s all about leadership with vision…
As to the issue of people not utilizing the street space properly with P&D systems (leaving too much space but not enough between them an the next car to fit another in) – this happens even with the traditional meters along Grand all the time anyway.
People don’t even know how to park at a regular meter. I see cars parked directly in front of the meter – rather than with the FRONT of the car up to the meter – constantly, which throws off the parking order for the rest of the entire block, especially if – and it usually is – some big giant male-endowment compensator truck/SUV.
And as for the PPS system along the East side of Grand, it *IS* very poorly marked. The last time I got my hair cut I didn’t notice the system at all, and there were no numbers on the old meter posts which led me to beleive they had just all been removed or that particualr one was vandalized or something. The barber (Marco) explained it all as I got my cut. Luckily the meter-maid dude wasn’t around that afternoon!
Several years ago the City, SLACO, and the TGEast and TGHeights neighborhood groups did a parking study for this section of South Grand. This was on the heels of the demolition of a house on Hartford to make way for additional parking for Tim Boyle’s South Grand Square strip mall.
That level of community attention to the issue may be partly responsible for why this strip was picked for the demo area. It’s a pretty high-demand location for parking.
Also, parking on the east-west cross-street Hartford IS metered in the immediate vicinity of Grand. It is not metered in front of most residences just east or west of Grand.
Most of the time, when my wife and I drive to this area (Mekong, City Diner, BreadCo, Hollywood Video, etc.), we park either on Hartford or in the Tim Boyle lot. Who wants to mess with the hazards of parking on Grand, unless the entire block is empty already? It won’t kill you to walk a little further.
And of course if I’m by myself, the #70 Grand bus is quite convenient.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/07/07/parking_problems/
A bit more perspective on Boston’s experiment with multi-space meters. The solution? A test.
First of all higher parking rates at meters is not going to discourage automobile usage. There are no viable alternatives to the automobile. The only thing high priced meters will do is drive everyone to the malls, or in the worse cases cause people to give up on the city. In fact new meters, with their easy to raise prices, can be used as a tool by unscrupulous city officials to precipitate the decline of street based shopping districts.
Why should these districts bear the brunt of parking fee increases? How about raising taxes on parking lots instead?
You cannot force people to take transit; the best solution is to make it so efficient and desirable that people want to use it. Revamping the entire transit system should be a priority and this can change the thinking about street parking. Do public officials have any idea what a viable transit system in the City of St. Louis should look like? I seriously doubt it.
Steve I also want to respond to your comment that the odds of any street running transit in the next ten years is zero. It is physically possible to run a streetcar line down Grand or in other areas within ten years, or even five years.
If we isolate the real problem, it is leadership. The can’t do crowd is running everything, they can’t do anything. As you point out “The study group has all but eliminated Grand because they want exclusive lanes and overblown stations. My simple modern streetcar (aka tram) would work well on Grand with the existing parking but that is not what is being planned.â€
It is a good example of the tactics by the can’t do crowd. Never mind there was already a streetcar line down Grand fifty years ago.
Much of the leadership in St. Louis is not up to the job. It is business as usual. We need a transformation, a revolution of thinking not just for a better city, but to combat serious issues such as energy usage and global warming.
My friend Adam sent me this quote by Albert Einstein. “We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them.â€
Personally I’m not interested in watching business as usual for the next 10 or 20 years. If the leadership in St. Louis can’t perform they should be removed. St. Louis deserves enlightened leadership. Cities like Portland Oregon, Denver or Toronto do a better job; citizens in St. Louis have a right to demand the same.
New, improved, parking meters may be part of a broader solution, but unfortunately there is not a blueprint to validate the meters. It is the same type of piecemeal solution that has helped turn St. Louis into a shell of its former glory.
My point about the price of metered parking not being high enough is this: In order for meters to be worthwhile, they have to generate more revenue than expenses. Otherwise, they are tools of power which are destructive with poor leadership. Until public officials can clearly prove their value, this experiment and the purpose of government is being distorted and misused.
And yes as someone who has lived in much larger and prosperous cities, parking rates have a substantial impact on car usage. There have been periods of up to two months when I wouldn’t even get in my car and pay for parking because a cab ride or round-trip on the el was substantially less expensive. Of course this point is obvious and true, especially when you look at such policies in other cities such as London.
Parking should never be free or priced at a point where only a dollar or two (or even less) is the norm. Since these are the conditions here, this experiment is due to a lack of wise leadership.
Every garage, parking lot, and/or street parking space should be taxed at appraisal rates that equal the benefits derived from such. StL has a long history of valuing such property at below fair market value, especially for tax purposes. This taxing policy directly subsidizes car usage and distorts rational economic behavior.
In prosperous cities like Chicago, NY, San Francisco, etc., parking spaces for a car often sell for more than the average price of a home in StL. That should give you some idea and how foolish we look and behave.
‘Every garage, parking lot, and/or street parking space should be taxed at appraisal rates that equal the benefits derived from such. StL has a long history of valuing such property at below fair market value, especially for tax purposes.’
I agree with John, it also reminds me of the STL Cardinals (current owners) that bought (were almost gifted) the 2 parking garages with the stadium from A-B, how are those currently being taxed? On a bit of a tangent, Kansas City has special districts where they removed about 80% of the meters and the business are thriving in those districts. I think we need less meters not more in certain locations.
Louisville, Kentucky offers “smart cards” for their newer meters (http://www.louisvilleky.gov/PARC/IWantTo/Purchase+SmartCard.htm).
What’s really cool about them is that they’ll refund any unused time, which promotes turnover, (allegedly) the reason we have meters in the first place!
A consideration for ST. LOUIS if it gets rid of its current parking meter system
By JOEL McCORD
Published: November 26, 2006
BALTIMORE — The corner of Hope and Despair sounds like a meeting place out of a 1940s movie, but it is part of what Baltimore boosters say is the first attempt of its kind to fight panhandling.
Skip to next paragraph
Steve Ruark for The New York Times
Officials expect to raise thousands in donations at recycled meters.
The Downtown Partnership, a nonprofit alliance of local businesses, is installing recycled parking meters with fake Hope and Despair street signs along the busy strip between Oriole Park at Camden Yards and the Inner Harbor, a route well known to tourists and panhandlers alike.
Drop a coin in the meter, and the needle jumps from “Despair†to “Hope.†But no matter whether it is a nickel or a quarter — or how many coins are tossed into a meter — hope flashes for only a few seconds before the needle drops to despair.
“That’s not to be discouraging or anything,†said Michael Evitts, a partnership spokesman, “but to make room for the next person who might want to drop in some change.â€
The money in the recycled meters, which are painted green and blue and placed at least 10 feet back from the curb to avoid confusion with functioning parking meters, goes to Baltimore Homeless Services, the arm of the city Health Department that provides shelter and treatment programs for homeless people. The Downtown Partnership’s president, Kirby Fowler, said the idea was to let people help the homeless without giving money to panhandlers.
“A lot of people are inclined to help the homeless, which is laudable,†Mr. Fowler said. “But they aren’t so sure that their money would go to productive uses if they gave it to panhandlers. This way they’re sure the money will go to programs for the homeless.â€
Not all the panhandlers in downtown Baltimore are homeless, but many of them are, and like many cities around the country, Baltimore is looking for a way to solve the problems associated with homelessness. A city Health Department census done one January night in 2005 found nearly 3,000 people looking for shelter.
Last week, City Council President and Mayor-elect Sheila Dixon and Joshua Sharfstein, the city health commissioner, announced the formation of a committee whose mandate is to come up with a plan to end homelessness in the city in 10 years.
Ms. Dixon, who will succeed Mayor Martin O’Malley when he is sworn in as governor in January, said the committee would look at programs like Housing First, which has been tried with some success in several cities. Housing First places those needing shelter in subsidized housing before they go to work on other issues — like drug abuse and mental health problems — that might have contributed to their homelessness in the first place.
“Once you can get housing, you have a place to stay, then you can get the other services you need,†Ms. Dixon said.
Officials in Philadelphia started a campaign to get homeless people off the streets in the late ’90s, committing $5.6 million for housing and treatment programs. Now the city spends about $17 million a year on homeless services, and the number of people sleeping on the street has been cut by two-thirds.
No one pretends that Baltimore’s brightly colored recycled parking meters will raise enough money to end homelessness in the city. But Mr. Fowler estimates that they will bring in several thousand dollars a year, salve the consciences of those who want to help the homeless but not give indiscriminately to panhandlers, and perhaps drive away the panhandlers themselves by drying up a revenue stream.
Panhandlers “mar the downtown experience,†he said. “So we’re trying to make it easy for people to say no to panhandling, but yes to helping the homeless.â€