Now is not the time to extend parking meter enforcement hours in downtown Ann Arbor
That’s why we were encouraged by the recent City Council’s vote that delays a decision until at least April on a proposal that would extend downtown parking meter enforcement well into the evening hours.
That proposal, as offered by 1st Ward Democrat Sandi Smith, would have downtown patrons feeding nickels, dimes and quarters (and, in the case of the newer meters, credit and debit cards) up through 10 p.m. to avoid getting a parking ticket. The current shutoff time for parking meter enforcement is 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
The underlying issue here is, of course, money.
But here’s the rub. The money isn’t needed for parking operations or enforcement. It would go into the city’s general coffers.
The money from extending the parking meter hours of operation would make up for the $380,000 annually the city planned to get in additional revenues in 2010 by putting parking meters on streets in the near-downtown neighborhoods. Smith, whose ward includes many of those neighborhoods, didn’t like that plan and came up with the alternative proposal to extend the downtown meter hours.
To be fair, Smith noted that her proposal could actually free up short-term parking spaces for downtown patrons that is often taken up by employees of downtown businesses. She said employees now can arrive early, feed a few coins into the meters, and then park the rest of the night for free, once the clock ticks past 6 p.m.
And, we admit, there is a seeming incongruence to offering free on-street parking during the evening hours while the city is still charging people to use the downtown municipal parking garages. One could argue that it should be the opposite way around, leaving the on-street parking for short-term visitors who want to stop for a coffee or ice cream cone, while pushing longer-term visitors into the parking structures.
In the best of economic times, we might look at this proposal differently. But, as we all are so painfully aware, these are not good economic times.
Many downtown shops and restaurants are barely hanging on. Others aren’t even that fortunate, as we were reminded this past week with the announcement that the John Leidy Shop, a long-time East Liberty Street merchant, would close its doors in February. We understand the desire of the city, looking for ways to prop up its general fund revenues, to have a parking system that makes a profit. The city has been getting $2 million a year in payments into the general fund from the DDA for the past five years, and it is apparently looking to continue that, plus some.
But expanding metered parking hours into the evening to bring in $380,000 a year (and even the DDA is skeptical that much money would be generated) is a risky proposition that could backfire. It could ultimately cost the city more in lost tax revenue if it pushes even just a few more merchants to shut down because of lost business.
Oakland, Calif., tried a similar plan this past year and it blew up in that city’s face. Three months after extending the parking enforcement hours to 8 p.m., the Oakland City Council voted in October to roll back the hours to 6 p.m. following what was described as a citywide revolt.
SFGATE.com reported that the council backtracked “after shoppers, diners and residents complained the policy penalized them for enjoying Oakland’s burgeoning restaurant and nightlife scene,” Merchants complained that their business dropped by up to 30 percent because of the extended meter hours, according to the Web site.
Ann Arbor’s two jewels are the University of Michigan and its downtown, which as a regional destination for nightlife is the envy of many other Michigan cities.
Yet, there is a perception among many visitors that Ann Arbor is a parking unfriendly town. Finding an on-street parking spot is a game of musical chairs, there’s often a line-up to get into surface lots, and city’s parking decks are seen by some patrons as inconvenient even if they most often offer the best chance to find a parking spot.
If the city sends another negative message by starting to charge for something that has been free for years, it might drive more than just a few people away from downtown. Restaurant patrons certainly won’t be too thrilled about the prospect of having to interrupt dinner to feed a parking meter. Compare the parking situation in downtown Ann Arbor to downtown Plymouth where they offer plenty of short-term free parking spaces. Ann Arbor should take notice of how this nearby town welcomes its patrons.
According to SFGATE.com, the mayor of San Francisco backed away from a plan to extend meter enforcement hours there until 9 or 10 at night after the debacle in neighboring Oakland. So should the Ann Arbor City Council if this proposal comes back for consideration in April.
Comments
Gfellow
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 11:33 p.m.
Excessive meter enforcement is the bane of civilization. For example, almost every Detroit department is a paragon of inefficiency except for its parking violation department. The results are at least contributory to its ghost town downtown. I propose that Ann Arbor's parking violation department be run with a maximum of inefficiency in order to encourage a lively downtown. Make the meter officers don colorful, impractical uniforms that the citizenry find entertaining. Encourage officers to arbitrarily pump meters of errant autos and give out dissertations instead of citations. Perhaps officers could be substituted with docent volunteers trained to make wry, witty comments to drivers attempting to escape in their expired metered cars. Perhaps the occasional pie, if enough of a crowd were to gather. Of course, if the powers-that-be were to create non-auto walking streets in the downtown, we might eliminate the the parking meters altogether - except of course for a few left remaining for my proposed permanent traffic violations street theater.
comm.man3000
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:36 p.m.
"Lower the rates in the parking structures and raise the rates for the metered parking." This is already the case in downtown A2 structures ($.90 an hour in the structures and $1.25 on the street) - and the DDA and other orgs have implemented and are in the planning stages for implementing what's referred to as "Transportation Demand Management" to try to get more people into town more easily, safely and effectively (including making it easier to skip cars altogether!). Take a look at the DDA web site (www.a2dda.org)for some of what they've aleady done & plan to do. Better yet, if you're interested in seeing people bring ideas to life, check the calendar for their next DDA Board or Committee meeting times and attend. Check, too, on the level & types of security that will be part of the new underground parking structure - for my $ a better use of large stretches of land in the downtown area than the surface lots and better than the often monstrous/looming above-ground parking structures.
MyOpinion
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 8:26 p.m.
Here's a revenue neutral idea for the city. Lower the rates in the parking structures and raise the rates for the metered parking. Most of the public prefers metered parking so charge more for it and yes, metered parking should continue on past 6:00pm as the structures continue to charge. There are several choices for structure parking. UM charges $5 for structures close to musical performances. Tally Hall is a flat rate after 3pm as are a few others. Others charge by the hour. Patrons can decide which parking facility makes the most sense to them in terms of cost, walking distance, convenience, and safety. I would go one step further and make the parking on the top of structures really cheap (.25 an hour or so). The only issue is having a mechanical system in place that could determine which floor you parked on so that your rate was calculated based on that. Speaking of the unpopularity of parking structures, isn't the city building an underground structure? At least with an above ground structure, one would assume a scream could be heard by people on the streets. What happens to a scream in an underground structure?
russellr
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 6:06 p.m.
I don't go downtown because of paying to park. I don't even think of it. I go to the mall or somewhere I don't have to pay to park. If I am spending my money why pay to park on top of that. We go to Mongolian Barbecue on Sunday to eat because we can park free. It's to bad the restaurant's and shops have to suffer because of the greed for parking money.
sbbuilder
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.
Collecting quarters from the meters is just the tip of the iceberg. Collecting those yummy expired meter tickets is the real whammy. The City knows this, of course. Let's call their bluff. If what they want is more accessible downtown parking, let's provide them with a revenue neutral solution (ideas?), and see if they go for it.. The driving factor is a City that is spending more than it is taking in in revenue.
walker101
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
Count me in for not going into to town if this goes through, just one of many.
superliberal
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 3:03 p.m.
the last cross town bus leaves at about 6 and the only option for the workers would now be changed parking. passing the costs onto the people who can least afford it. very progressive.
superliberal
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2:57 p.m.
birmingham has very cheap structure rates and ann arbor's are outragous.
Patricia Lesko
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2:10 p.m.
Well written and reasoned Steve. Thanks for the common sense editorial opinion.
Phillip Farber
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.
The City needs the revenue and charging for the provision of a scarce resource makes sense. On-street parking is a scarce resource. Pricing it to reflect its scarcity will produce MORE available on-street spaces by shifting some parking to structures and the margins. That should diminish the perception that it's hard to find a parking place downtown.. @flintcitylimit Park in a structure or an attended lot if you don't want to feed an on-street meter. On-street parking is about short visits.. @itisso Is there some reason downtown employees can't park in structures so they don't have to worry about feeding meters? If it's too expensive, I suggest their employers subsidize their parking. It is in the employer's interest to make on-street spaces available to paying customers.
townie
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.
Royal Oak enforces their on-street meters until 10pm. Rates go up from 50 cents per hour to 75 cents per hour after 5PM.
itisso
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 12:37 p.m.
Many years ago I worked in downtown Ann Arbor. Parking was always a problem. What pray tell would you have the employees of down town business's do? You can't always just run out and feed the meter, in the middle of a rush. Besies that as a shopper I don't believe you really want to promote the downtown area by charging more for parking. You think your hurting now! Ann Arbor has always been a nightmare to find a place to park, and then to not get a parking ticket on top of it.
flintcitylimit
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 12:34 p.m.
Who wants to get up from their drink, meal or conversation to run out and feed the meter? This is a terrible idea.
Ryan Munson
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.
I was surprised to see meters going in by Casey's a coupe weeks ago on Depot. Thankfully I'll always have a place to park if I want to go downtown because of where I work.
chic'_agent
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 11:44 a.m.
For whatever reason, Ann Arbor's downtown is often compared to that of Birmingham and Royal Oak... I know that Birmingham enforces their parking meters until 9pm... Don't know about Royal Oak... Keep the meters out of near downtown!...
braggslaw
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.
Amen, It is simply another tax hiding behind parking enforcement. Very disingenuous and damaging to downtown business.