Park In The City
Parking in the city – how much we have, how much we need, and how to maximize it – has obviously become an issue of contention around these parts. You can look to numerous blogs or scroll comments on this site for the varying viewpoints on the situation. Some want to tear down wearying buildings for parking lots that would provide door-to-door access to popular destinations. Others want to build over the expansive parking lots that seem to dominate our downtown (see the colored photo above). Still others hope to find ways to maximize the current parking structure without tearing down buildings. It’s all a matter of opinion – most are subjective, many are informed, and all are passionate. Before you decide how you stand, take a look at Desman Associate’s study of downtown parking, brought to our attention by Buffalo Issue Alerts.
Desman is a national specialist in “transportation improvements and the planning, design and construction administration of functionally efficient, attractive and cost effective parking facilities.” They assessed downtown parking by looking at the issue across the city, both current numbers and future projections, if development activity builds or vacancies become occupied – both likely in our fledgling downtown.
The study surveyed key parking areas in nine areas of the city, as defined by Buffalo Place, during what they determined to be peak weekday hours (10 a.m. to 2 p.m.). The report finds: "Overall, the study area is 77% utilized during its peak period and according to the study seems to have an adequate supply of parking to meet current demand. Downtown Buffalo, as a system, has a parking surplus of 3,913 spaces, with only the Office district experiencing a deficit of 64 spaces."
The report also took into account new demand, addition of new spaces and displacement of existing places when it was assessing the impact development will have on the future demand downtown. Where there was a strain in the more office-dominated areas of the city during weekday hours, the study found sufficient parking on adjacent blocks. The firm’s future projections of development and demand found that while “there is little evidence to suggest that additional structured public parking is needed to meet current real or perceived inconveniences, there will be a need for several new parking structures if development occurs as envisioned.”
Take it for what it is – a report by a planning and consulting firm. Reports can’t tell the future any better than we can, but they do reveal certain truths. By just looking at the maps in the report, you can see the large amounts of parking already downtown. What we need to do is maximize what is there before building anew. The answer has got to lie somewhere in our own attitudes toward comfort and convenience; even those crunching the numbers know the ultimate decider is the people: “Do parkers destined for these high demand blocks and districts find parking convenient when it is located two or three blocks away? This question relates to a users’ satisfaction, which cannot be understood in the context of parking occupancy surveys.”
Image:
Surface parking lots (yellow) and ramps (blue) downtown from Mohawk Street to Edward Place between Elmwood Avenue to Main Street.
Here's a thought:
A great deal of Downtown parking that is underutilized can be used effectively if workers at City Hall, local schools, and the Federal Building use these sites instead of the free parking located in the neighborhoods around the area.
Residents of the Historic West Village, an area that has primarily on-street parking due to small lot sizes that restrict driveways, are not able to park in front of their own homes or on their own streets due to the number of folks who park there and walk to these buildings.
If a neighbor wakes up in the morning and can't go to work due to illness and they parked on the wrong side of the alternate parking the night before, they receive a ticket if they haven't had the chance to run out and move their vehicle before 7 - 7:30 am.
If a resident comes home early from work (not in walking distance) they have no place to park within two - three blocks.
If those who choose to drive to a downtown workplace would use the parking sites avaialble, these sites would be over 77% used and the residential area would be reserved for the taxpayers who live there.
If the state and city lawmakers would also recognize this need for this residential area, instead of giving lip service (yeah, I said it), we would have residential parking in place and provide the residents with a plus for living here.
I think it's ridiculous that many of us will park at the extreme ends of a parking lot at Wegmans or at the Mall when forced to and walk 500 yards to our destination (only to walk infinatly more once inside), but bitch when we have to park 3 or 4 blocks away when downtown. I frequent many ares of the city, and have never had a problem finding a spot. 99% of the time I usually find a free spot within a few blocks. We without question have a surplus of parking. Try finding a spot in Boston or Toronto, or even Pittsbrugh for that matter. If we were lucky enough to have a shortage then people would utilize public transpotation (creating a demand for an extended metro rail) or at least walk a little more (which most of us could use).
welf, you have proved my point. Free parking sharks trolling instead of utilizing parking throughout downtown. That disenfranchises the rights of residents in the downtown area, specifically (and yes, I am ranting about MY neighborhood here) the West Village.
hmm, same problem in Allentown, how about residential parking sticker"s like Boston has?
We're working on it, Martin. Believe me.
If the city has X number of spaces divided over Y number of lots (garages, ramps, surface lots, etc.), why not build MORE garages - likely increasing the X number of spaces available - and open up more lots to development?
I understand many of the lots are privately owned (AllPro, independent, etc.), but the city has to do something about this (amongst other things). Make it a law - a parcel used for parking must be able to accommodate 300 cars. If the city has (for example) 10,000 spaces divided over 100 parcels, I'm certain that number could be INCREASED while decreasing the number of parcels used for parking dramatically.
And best of all, the lots themselves don't have to start at ground level. A garage I used to live near in Boston had four floors of retail and office before the top 7 stories of garage started. Empty storefronts at ground level are better than surface lots if you ask me...
No matter how many lots you have, the cheapsters are still going to park in front of somebody's house. If that house does not have off street parking, that spot in front is their driveway. Stay out of their driveway.
Residential parking permits are a very slipery slope and are bad for local businesses. I think the real problem is the alternate side parking laws that serve no purpose
yeah....the stickers would seem to make the most sense...
san francisco had stickers based on neighborhoods as well...for instance, you couldn't use a citywide residential parking sticker to park near a metro stop for free if you didn't live near that metro stop...
Steel - Alternate side is usually for snowplowing reasons. That, and basically mess with people's heads. Just my opinion.
Pauldub - yep, we tried that route, too. And, Steele, only if the residential parking is used on streets with local businesses. Residential parking is also used in areas where the neighborhoods were there long before increased development. The major streets where businesses are located are not included in the plans.
Marilyn, fair enough. I live off of Elmwood and have the exact same problems. I can't say anything about residents rights, they are free spaces and Joe Downtown Visitor has the same right to park there as anyone. And I specifically was referring to metered spots after 5 or on the weekend when I am having dinner or catching a show. However, I have and will park in your neighborhood when downtown during buisiness hours to save a few bucks. If availible parking is such a concern, then the West Village might not be a good nieghborhood to live in. I accept it as part of life when living in a vibrant urban nieghborhood and deal with it. Fiends in Boston, Pittsburgh, Toronto pay parking fees to have stickers or use ramps, I pay the odd "I was sick and forgot to move my car" parking ticket. Same thing in my book. I agree though, more ramps w/ first floor retail would be nice.
Donald Shoup, author of the book High Cost of Free Parking, proposes new ways for cities to regulate parking, namely, charge fair market prices for curb parking, then use the resulting revenue to pay for services in the neighborhoods that generate it, and remove zoning requirements for off-street parking.
Free and subsidized parking only contributes to our auto dependence, rapid urban sprawl, extravagant energy use, and the myriad of issues that surround these negative outcomes.
As a resident of the West Village along with Marilyn I agree that we should have residential parking, but unlike other cities, it should be free for the residents. The surplus parking could then be sold at a fair market value to any commuters into downtown and the revenues generated should go into the enhancement of our neighborhood streetscape, such as lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks and trees.
This simple act could go a long way to improving the quality of life in our neighborhood and benefit us all.
Justin's right. Here's how to make it work: establish a Parking Benefit District, in which revenues generated by market-rate parking pay for improvements and amenities for that district.
For more about Shoup's book, see:
http://www.americancity.org/article.php?id_article=161
Thanks, Justin, yo always have a great reference to share. I think Justin's concept for recycing such fees back into the neighborhood's infrastructure and quality of life enhancements is excellent.
Most cities that charge an annual fee have that fee deposited in their general fund. And, quality of life is an important aspect of this, as well. Many of the residents of our neighborhood have owned their hoomes for over 30 years, they should not have their quality of life compromised after living and paying taxes for so long.
That being said, I would be more than willing to pay an annual fee to park close to my home, particularly with my disability that is impacted by inclement weather - and - aside from the disability - I and many other residents would also like to have a chance to take groceries and other materials from our vehicles directly into our homes.
werf, I was agreeing with you in the original response to your post, but now I'm not so sure. In the "City of Good Neighbors" one would think better of an "in-your-face" comment such as "However, I have and will park in your neighborhood when downtown during buisiness hours to save a few bucks. If availible parking is such a concern, then the West Village might not be a good nieghborhood to live in."
The West Village is the most continually resided in neighborhood in the City of Buffalo. The considerations of those who have lived here for decades, as well as the consideration of the quality of life of this neighborhood that was here way before the development and parking sharks started, should be "Point One." Many other cities recognize this and have made the adjustments to assure that quality of life. However, the original point of my first comment was that the post of only 77% of the parking is utilized, and if there is parking avaialble, why not use it instead of tryiing to save a buck?
When I worked at the City Court building and I couldn't find a spot in front of my house before I went to work, I parked in a pay lot downtown. So, your free ride into the downtown area, eventhough you live in an area close enough to utilize either public transportation or walk, cost me and my neighbors. Thanks for contributing your two cents, but it cost me $5.
Parking Benefit District? Are you crazy?
That's just another tax Buffalo doesn't need.
The point is - it's insane to charge for parking. Doesn't anyone realize how bizzare it is that you have to pay just to park? If you want to go to the movies or a dental appt. or to shop or even dinner downtown, you have to pay to park?
You want people to visit downtown more? Then make all parking free.
When I go to the movies or dinner or doctor's office or the mall in Cheektowaga I never have to pay. And there's always plenty of parking available.
Simon, are you being sarcastic? insane to pay for parking? not anywhere else in the known universe. Not trying to strat a suburb / city thing, but it's a part of urban living that nearly every city in the western world has adopted.
Marilyn, sorry you took what I said as "in your face". Not in anyway disrespecting your nieghborhood. I am stating that as it stands, you nor your nieghbors have any real right to parking spots. I am assuming your home title does not include that spot in front of your house, you recieve no consideration at all to that spot in exchange for your taxes. I along with every other car driver in the world is free to park there. If a system is developed, and I really like some of the ideas being discussed, then that's one thing. But anyone claiming that they deserve a free parking spot close to home by virtue of where, how long, community involvement / investment, etc of their residency is ridiculous. I deal with the same issues everyday of my life. it irrates me to no end, however I have no illusions of percieved entitlement. I am not breaking the law nor am I violating any ordinances by parking in front of your house, as you wouldn't be by parking in front of mine.
Sorry to sound prickish, but that's how it works. You want convience of parking, buy a house w/ a driveway. than you are entitled to a short walk w/ groceries. otherwise, tough noogies.
I look at it less of an entitlement, more of a common courtesy.
As for free parking - If it is that important to you, avoid going places where you have to cough up a couple of bucks for the convenience. Or take public transit. I can go out for an evening in the city, pay 2 bucks for parking, and take the metro where i want to go. You probably have 2 bucks in change hiding in the couch cushions.
Although I must confess I parked in front of someones house during the Garden Walk. My bad...
that was my house you bastard!
I have to agree actually. I would consider parking in front of Marilyn's house everyday while I work to be shady at best. I am downtown during buisiness hours about once every 3 months and usually spend 25 cents for a 15 min. metter. Like I stated, I was referring to metered spots during off hours in my first post. I was responding to complaints from non-city residents that don't like going DT for dinner / shows due to the parking. If you are willing to walk a whole 3 blocks, chances are you can find a free spot (metered, not residential).
But I got testy because you parking in front of my house for the garden walk, or me in front of Marilyn's while I pay my taxes may be inconsiderate, but not wrong. It's public parking, not resident parking. untill that changes those of us w/o driveways have to deal. Idealy there are less spots and more charges. then we all take public transit and drive less.
If free parking is so good for cities, how come the most vibrant and dynamic cities have the scarcest and priciest parking spaces?
If ample, cheap or free surface parking was beneficial for cities, downtown Buffalo, which is 50% parking, would be the healthiest, coolest, most happening metropolis in the land.
Because those "vibrant" cities have large urban populations. Buffalo does not.
I think the differences to many average (i.e., not urbanist) shoppers and include these:
1.) Long walk in Galleria or Wegmans parking lots at least will lead to very good stores where wide variety of shopping can be done, and this saves people time and effort in the long run. In downtown, the same long walk may lead in many cases to stores with nice unique products but for most shopping trips that most people make most often, the niceness/uniqueness isn't quite justified.
2.) Long walk in Galleria or Wegmans lots (and inside the places) does not include being intimidated by fear of crime (usually unjustified fear of course, but comparatively not always unjustified especially for car break-ins) or aggressive panhandlers. Unfortunately in city the panhandling seems more aggressive and frequent in my experience lately - although Elmwood and Allentown are worse for this than downtown. When average suburban shopper or restaurant patron has this happen even once, they're very turned off and the longer distance they have to walk from car-to-store and back the more likey it is to happen.
Also, for both reasons above, carrying merchandise back to car downtown is not as pleasant a thought - distance/convenience, and safety.
As I thought about this issue more, I realized that none of us are questioning the premise of the study, namely that downtown's function is to provide free or cheap automobile storage for any and every possible automobile trip.
What if we decided that downtown's function should be to accomodate every possible pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit trip? That downtown's function should be to accomodate diners, shoppers, club and theater-goers, residents, and workers--and not parked cars?
Every downtown that swallows the parking myth--if you pave it, they will come--dies. Every downtown that rejects the parking myth lives. Our own history shows this, for heaven's sake. Fifty years ago, we had double the population and presumably double the cars, and a fraction of our current parking, and we had a lovely, functioning downtown.
So it comes down to you folks out there. Whch do you prefer: cheap, ample downtown parking or a vibrant, healthy city center? It's like smoking: you can have a tobacco habit or you can have healthy lungs but you cannot have both.
Justin brings up an excellent idea from Donald Shoup. Parking Benefit Districts are a great parking management tool. Poor parking management is one of Buffalo's problems.
Old Pasedena, CA has a PBD. They now have new sidewalks, lamps, trees, and foot patrols because the money collected from parking revenues is spent directly on infrastructure and safety in the PBD. All of it was built without new taxes.
No one likes to pay for parking, that will never change. But at least folks in Old Pasadena know their quarters are going to good use and not into the municipal black hole: the general fund.
You would think the money we spend in this area would go towards improving quality of life. I for one am sick of hearing how expensive NYC is, when if you live there, you at least can see that the money you spend is actually going towards improvements such as: Street scapes, parks, developments, transit, etc. Here in good ol' Buffalo, all we ever hear is: Mis-Managment in politics, Family and Friends Network, Cell Phone Abuse, Bed-Tax being held hostage, etc.
Where does it end? We have a control board now for both the County and City and we still are not functing as we should be.
Patrick is right. We don't like paying for rent, food, entertainment, or clothing, either, but that doesn't mean that the world owes us free lunches, apartments, outfits, and nights on the town.
We understand that when we use a resource, we have to pay for it. Parking is a resource like any other that should be paid for by those who use it.