Last spring, several years after the Davis Downtown Parking Advisory Task Force recommended we go to paid parking, the Davis City Council finally took up the issue. After pushback from downtown businesses and some community members, the council backed off and ended up only adding paid parking to several surface lots – a lot like they have already successfully done with the E Street lot.
Despite this, a group of downtown businesses are circulating petitions they are calling “Freedom to Park.”
As the petition notes: “Sets a baseline of 1888 auto parking spaces and 1888 bicycle parking spaces in downtown, an increase of around 120 auto and 240 bike spaces. It bans paid parking throughout Davis…”
They reason: “We started with the normal bureaucratic process. We talked with council and city staff, attended committees and made our argument clear. In return we were ignored and dismissed, so we have turned to the democratic process to go around the blockage of city hall.”
They argue: “Because the city has so grossly mismanaged the parking situation. While everyone was grousing about the lack of parking downtown, the city removed over 120 spaces. This can happen because the city never set a baseline for parking. Then after they caused the parking shortage they wanted to come in and ‘fix’ it by adding parking meters without even considering putting those 120 spaces back.”
Where will the added spaces go?
“The initiative doesn’t tell the city where exactly to put them, just that they need to add 120 vehicle spaces and 240 bike spaces downtown. The vehicle number was chosen to match how many spaces they have removed to put in bulb-outs, bike parking in the street, expand restaurant seating, repave 3rd St, etc. The bike number was chosen to make the amount of bicycle parking 
equivalent to the amount of vehicle parking.”
One of the leaders of this movement, Dan Urazandi of Bizarro World, wrote in an op-ed in the Aggie that “the city was reducing parking until it caused a so-called parking crisis. It now proposes to ‘solve’ this crisis by making all the parking paid. But its plan doesn’t add any parking spaces. It is not increasing parking — just the cost of parking. The only way its plan provides any spaces for those who are willing to pay is by driving away those who aren’t — namely students, the elderly and other low-income drivers.”
There are several problems with this initiative that I will explain shortly – one is that it actually seems rather unnecessary. They believe that the city has proposed this as sort of a half-way measure and they will come back in the future to propose more paid parking. I think that’s probably more unlikely than not, and that after facing push back from downtown businesses, they put in a half-measure and it is unlikely the issue will re-surface in the next ten years – if ever.
Mr. Urazandi, targeting students, write, “More students are driving because they are priced out of living near campus, and now the city will price them out of visiting downtown as well.” In fact, the travel survey data show the exact opposite – fewer students are driving and the data that Don Gibson has presented show that even though they have fewer places to live, more students are simply packing into mini-dorms rather than moving out of town.
That point is neither here nor there.
The biggest problem with parking in the downtown is not addressed by this initiative. Most of the time there is in fact sufficient parking on the streets. However, to the extent that there is not is due to employees who, rather than parking in X-permit lots or on the periphery of downtown, are parking in spots that should be left for customers.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why businesses in the downtown, who rely on customers, would allow their employees to park and move. This was a point I made to a number of downtown businesses last spring – if you want the city to not require paid parking, do something about your employees parking and moving their cars every two hours.
The proponents of this initiative argue that “paid parking does not create additional parking spaces” but it does free up spaces, primarily because employees working in the downtown are less likely to want to pay for eight hours of parking when they can park and walk.
The businesses argue: “It merely frees up spaces from those who are unable or unwilling to pay for a parking space. People will not want to pay, so they won’t come downtown.”
Not only does their argument ignore the issue of employee parking, it also ignores the experience of Davis with the E Street parking lot – paid parking that is generally full – and the experience of countless downtowns everywhere which show that most people will pay for convenient and accessible parking if they have a destination that they are willing to go.
The cost of parking for even two hours is less than the cost of driving to Woodland or Dixon.
Finally, the solution is probably impractical. Removing bulb outs is costly. This is a city that is running an $8 million deficit each year. There is no funding mechanism attached to the proposal. Moreover, while complete street projects get grant funding, the city would be working against the tide.
In addition, one of the reasons that bulb outs are used is to install ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps on existing sidewalks. It is not clear that the city could remove them once in place without running afoul with ADA rules.
Second, there would be huge political fallback for the city of Davis passing an initiative requiring the city to remove bike spaces, bulb outs, and perhaps even bike lanes in the downtown.
Third, they suggest more angled parking, but I’m not sure where they think they can get more angled parking which requires space and is hazardous to bikes and other vehicles.
We will see where this goes – but I have real doubts as to whether the initiative is legal or feasible, and it is probably solving a problem – stopping paid parking – that is not a realistic threat for at least another decade, probably longer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Define “successfully dun”
Bulb outs are stupid, I’ll grant them that.
Why? They CAUSE the pedestrian-car dowtwon cha-cha at intersections. It didn’t happen before bulb-outs. Cars proceed into the intersection – pedestrians, now too close to the street centerline, leave from the curb after the car has accelerated towards them, the car now has to slow or stop in the middle of the intersection, stopping all four directions. This didn’t happen when pedestrians had further to travel across the street from their started position further from the road centerline, as it gives them the illusion they have a sidewalk straight across, and they don’t have to look for cars that have already entered the intersection and are already headed for them.
Jackhammer the bulb outs! That is my jihad.
“The cost of parking for even two hours is less than the cost of driving to Woodland or Dixon.”
Depends on the price of parking. If, as the staff report recommended, parking is $2/hour this is an untrue statement for most drivers.
Let’s see, 8 miles each way (this may vary by location in Davis) from Davis to Woodland at the IRS rate of $.58 per mile equals $9.28. At $2.00 per hour that’s less than 50% of the cost of a roundtrip to Woodland.
A metric for tax deductions for travel for business use, to offset business income… based on…? [and, assuming a 20% tax rate for a business, that comes to ~ 0.12/mi]
IRS rate for charitable/medical/moving is $0.20/mi (see above for actual savings, vs. tax). [further limited by the 1% rule]
IRS rate for non-business/non-charity is $0.00
Guess I just don’t understand the bases for your assumptions and math, Eric.
Cute approach, though…
The IRS cost is consistent with the cost calculated by AAA (I have no idea of how the IRS calculated the charitable deduction cost). https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/driving-costs/
Only a fool ignores the cost in time of driving 20 miles round trip to go shopping compared to a 2 to 5 mile (or less) trip.
Stop-and-go driving, being stuck in traffic jams, dealing with bicyclists and pedestrians, and ultimately finding no place to park can make a 20-mile round trip more enticing (and maybe even less expensive). Perhaps even more so, if there’s a big-box store at the other end, offering more selection, better prices and *gasp* a sufficiently-sized place to park.
A reason that Costco is a draw for Davis residents, for example. Well that, plus you can fill-up cheaper there, as well (to help “offset” that trip).
Assuming that it hasn’t (also) been impacted by traffic, etc.
But so far, nothing beats Davis’ downtown for local restaurants. (Thanks partly to the student market, no doubt.)
McCann stated: “Only a fool ignores the cost in time of driving 20 miles round trip to go shopping compared to a 2 to 5 mile (or less) trip.”
Have you MET people though? 😉
A huge percentage of the reason our society is the way it is is because of people making foolish decisions about the value of their time.
And as far as using the IRS driving rate, most people are making decisions weighing different driving distances based on perceived incremental/marginal costs directly related to gas prices, figuring that most of the costs like loan/lease payments, insurance, etc. are already sunk.
I was going to say something about the (personal, or societal) value of the time required to comment (and respond) regularly on here, but I changed my mind. 😉
Funny thing about this controversy is that I never pay for parking and I never can’t find a place to park. So please explain to me why I should want parking meters?
>> So please explain to me why I should want parking meters? <<
I can’t explain to you why *you* should want parking meters. But I should mention that we often have to do what is best for the community, and not what is best for an individual at the moment. Not everybody has your same experience. And not everybody wishes to continue encouraging car usage in the core area.
And make no mistake. We *all* pay for parking…. even those who don’t own a car. There’s no such thing as free parking. Only parking that you don’t directly pay for. It is an important distinction in this whole discussion.
We all pay for parks but we don’t all use the parks.
We all pay for schools but we don’t all use the schools.
We all pay for bike lanes but don’t all use the bike lanes.
We all pay for busses but don’t all use the busses.
Additionally much of our transportation infrastructure is paid for with fuel taxes making bike riding a subsidized freebie.
If we made everything we do in society paid for by user fees only we would have quite a different society.
How do you know if this is actually a major factor?
Seems strange, as I believe there’s still spots near downtown where one can park all day, for free. (However, the city will probably soon allow more development which will end up rectifying that “oversight”.)
I sure wouldn’t move a car every two hours, if I could avoid it – whether or not an employer “required” me to do so. (Not sure how an employer can do this, regardless.)
This is from the Davis Downtown survey:
Thanks, but according to this – 24 employees acknowledged parking in time-limited spaces. Doesn’t sound very overwhelming.
Not sure how employees get time off work to “search” for spots – which might take more than 10 minutes according to the survey. (Just abandon the cash register every 2 hours?)
Might it also be students parking, downtown? Especially in areas closer to UCD?
44% doesn’t impress you? That’s like saying that a stock that moves up just 44c is not important… while ignoring the fact that the stock was at $1 when it happened.
Yes, students parking in downtown is also an issue…. along with the employees.
If one can extrapolate that percentage to the entire population of downtown employees, then yes – depending upon the total number. But, I’m not sure that the survey would support that conclusion.
I still don’t understand how employees can take an absence from work in that manner. (Gone every 2 hours, for 10 minutes or more at a time.) Nor do I understand why they fail to take advantage of nearby/free options, now.
Seems like Alan M. confirmed the problem, below.
Then again, I’m wondering where those employees “should” park, where it won’t create another impact. Especially as the city allows more residential development – particularly in the core/downtown area.
Ultimately, more development = more cars – despite efforts to deny or control this.
“ I still don’t understand how employees can take an absence from work in that manner. ”
Employee: hey I have to go move my car
Me: Go for it
David: Well, you’re part of the problem then! 😉
But again, how does that work when manning a cash register, for example?
Currently we aren’t part of the problem. We have a paid parking spot in the alley now. And my current employee doesn’t have a car.
Any one on the clock is entitled to two breaks and a lunch.
No, of course direct extrapolation to the whole population should not be assumed. However, that extrapolation is a far more reasonable assumption than considering that just 24 people are doing this. 24 in town may not sound overwhelming, but why even mention that number when that is *clearly* not the whole story?
See my comment below: Today’s car-moving break is equivalent to yesterday’s smoke break. If the employer allows it, then it can easily happen. I can’t explain why people do certain things that seem crazy to me. Hell, I can’t understand why so many locals *choose* to drive into downtown… choose to drive their kids to school… but they do.
Asking where those employees *should* park assumes that everybody who arrives in town today must come by car. (This is where somebody jumps in to say “not everybody can ride a bike, dummy”) It ignores the transportation alternatives that should be pursued in place of “ensure that every car owner has a place to store their car wherever they wish to take it.” (and ensure that there’s no direct fee for doing so).
Yes, it seems strange to many. But this has been studied quite well, and there is really no argument that it is happening. (see Alan’s comment about this below).
While YOU may not wish to move your car ever two hours, many employees are doing exactly that. Quite often with the blessing of the employers. Yesterday’s “smoke break” is today’s car-moving break.
No employer “requires” the employees to move the cars. Parking enforcement requires this to avoid a citation. Many of the employers are allowing it… often while complaining that there aren’t enough parking spaces in front of their business. (and please note that this is not ALL employers)
Personally, I don’t like moving my car – ever! It’s not good to cold-start a car, and it’s too much hassle.
Lord, give me a free, long-term parking spot anywhere near my destination, and I’ll gladly leave the boat anchor right where it is (while walking around). (As long as it’s not in the “door-ding”, difficult-to-access, dark and dingy multi-story garage.)
Or, in the unreasonably-narrow spots adjacent to World Market, for that matter. Not even suitable for compact vehicles. (And yet, they were striped that way a long time ago!)
Gratuitous, off topic, and we get it.
Cute.
Parking concerns go hand-in-hand with (and are DIRECTLY related to) efforts to residentialize downtown, the existing mall, etc.
In fact, existing street parking will likely be reduced, as more “curb cuts” (for new driveways) are introduced.
While demand simultaneously increases as a result of new residents and their visitors, deliveries, etc.
I can’t believe I’m chiming in for this one.
a) The bulb-outs were hard to get used to, but now are absolutely fine. The so called “two step at the intersections” happened long before the bulb-outs were built. The two-step happens because of confusion of priority at the intersections.
b) “circling for parking” makes for much more wasted time and additional traffic and frustration on weekend evenings in downtown.
c) I used to be frustrated with downtown parking until I started using the garage on 4th and G. I agree with David that if you park there (or at the other lots) and walk you’re much better off than trying to park right near the business you choose. From there to the farthest point in downtown (1st and B) is basically 8 Davis blocks. That’s the worst case scenario and for the overwhelming majority this is not a problem. However, you’ve got 2 lots on 1st and F.
d) I can see how paid parking is a problem for stores like Bizarro World where many people pop in to buy something quickly. The owner knows his demographic. With a smart meter, you can have “very expensive spaces” (say $12 per hour) that are, nonetheless free for the first 10 minutes. Get creative here.
e) I also 100% agree with David. The few times I found myself downtown in the morning (around 10:00 am on a weekday) with a hankering for a late breakfast, I was astonished at the fraction of surface parking spaces already taken up (over 80%) – but with almost no customers anywhere to be seen. These are Downtown Davis employees.
—————–
Consider this scenario – me and my family decide to go to DeVere’s for dinner on a Thursday night. Dinner costs $12 per plate for 4 people plus drinks (say another $16 for the family) plus tax and tip. Make it a cool $80. An additional $4 for for 2 hours of parking is 5% of the total cost and is not going to keep customers from going there. Another way to think of it is $4 is less than the cost of me deciding to get a second beer – which is essentially a random decision.
At the other extreme, Burritos for $6 each plus drinks takes you to about $30 downtown. However, this is a quick meal and you’re in and out in 1 hour, $2 of parking – 6.66% of your cost.
Now for those of you driving downtown with 1 person per car this doesn’t price out as well. On the other hand, you are demanding a lot of surface are per person for parking.
Hi Joe,
If, in those rare times when parking is congested, around dinner or Saturday morning, there was a metering system that was creative it might make sense. The problem is that the cost of the meters, the maintenance and the enforcement require a 12 hour a day seven day a week solution to a two to four hour a day problem.
You speak truly, Grasshopper.
Ha. Yeah. Look what we’re willing to do about that 4-hour per WEEK problem on Mace.
You speak truly, Grasshopper.
The cost of the meters is a lot less than the cost of a new parking structure, which should be the comparison being made. The value from adding meters is to reduce the need for the new structure, so the correct way to implement this should be to use the meters to address the 2-4 hour a day problem, not to generate revenue 24 hours a day. The real issue here is that the City decided to look at paid parking as a revenue source. That was a big mistake.
I agree Mark, the city tried to monetize parking to help with its structural deficit under the guise of parking management. If it was simply about getting employees out of core parking spaces the city could give employees free permits to park outside the core to incentivize the desired behavior. Instead the city wants to make these employees pay for something that with a little hustle can be free. A young person, with more time than money, working a low wage job is more likely to game the system than pay the tax/fee.
Or one could ride a bike on calm weather days.
The City could encourage this by building a Third Street Bikeway that extends to east and west Davis via downtown.
Wait a second. Are you saying that there are OTHER ways for some people, sometimes to get around town other than to drive a car?? You’re saying that we could invest in ways to get around… besides in a car? In order to make things better for those who DO drive… and for those who don’t drive?
I love you, man!
Actually, damn good concept… I’d go for 20 minutes free, then a graduated (“progressive”) rate thereafter…
The approach/concept would definitely discourage long time, on-street, employee parking… the [B-word] would be on notice and enforcement, but the basic concept has definite merit.
Thank you… good food for thought…
Like your idea of a 15 minute free grace period.
When I was on the downtown parking committee over 15 years ago, this was a major topic of conversation. It is a HUGE problem. Best answer I can give from dealing with it then is that no one business sees themselves as the problem, or together as the larger problem. Or, they don’t think that where their employees park is any of their business. As for employees I suggested go a few blocks to free parking rather than do the 2-hour shuffle, the answer seemed to me to be a combination of laziness and lack of planning. I doubt any of this dynamic has changed.
I should add a few businesses were and are pro-active on this. But alas, most are not.
I attended, or had access to many ‘minutes’ of those same meetings/discussions… you speak truth.
I agree that the Freedom to Park Initiative doesn’t make a lot of sense, starting with its misleading title. Paid parking doesn’t infringe on anyone’s “freedom” to park. A more accurate title would be the Right to Park for Free Initiative. Establishment of such a right is antithetical to policies promoting alternative modes of transportation, reducing carbon emissions, etc. An alternative might be, for example, to provide additional free parking in paid lots for electric vehicles.
I’m wondering who will pay for that, as our society moves toward electric vehicles. (Which nevertheless take up a parking spot, create traffic, etc.) There are major efforts among car makers (and government) which will make this occur.
The future is electric cars. Bicycles (even electric ones) will never take the place of enclosed cars. Nor will public transportation (other than workday commuting to places such as downtown Sacramento or San Francisco).
But again, electric cars take up the same amount of space as regular cars.
Regarding the possibility of self-driving cars, it’s going to be interesting to see what occurs – as a mix of old technologies (and new technologies) are all mixed together on the same roads.
Free parking is a sure way to continue the decline of retail business downtown. With both employees (and owners BTW) and more office workers downtown, these folks being able to park for free for 8+ hours will crowd out short term retail and restaurant customers. Circling the block, which is the real cost of going downtown–not meters, will be increasingly intolerable. Go to just about any city with paid parking and you will see a more vibrant downtown than cities without.
And we need to address how we are going to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Parking fees may be one way to discourage driving and using less fuel intensive means of travel. We need to be open to means of facing this climate crisis.
McCann said: “Parking fees may be one way to discourage driving and using less fuel intensive means of travel.”
The problem with that statement is that the rise of transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft can make such a strategy backfire.
Parking fees in many places have not discouraged driving, but they have discouraged parking. So you end up with increasing use of TNC’s that also induce mode shifts away from transit, walking and biking. There are estimates that because of the “deadheading” (driving around for fares) and mode-shifting, TNC’s generate 2-3x more VMTs per passenger trip. So you end up with a lot more driving and congestion.
The balance is complicated. And the old rules-of -thumb put forth by Donald Shoup, the UCLA parking guru–about right-pricing on-street public parking at the minimum amount necessary to serve as a barrier to keep a few spaces open at all times to cut down on cruising–are getting turned inside out.
Carmel comes to mind. Small town, no parking meters. Thriving business district.
I’d be happy to take the bus downtown if the bus took me downtown. Instead the bus takes me to the university where I must wait for another bus to take me downtown. A five minute drive takes half an hour by bus.
Sacramento, with a much bigger bus system, recently reorganized the system to maximize the efficiency of intermodal non-car transportation. Davis with a much smaller public system has done nothing to better facilitate moving people in and out of downtown and the rail station by public transport.
“Again, I think the repair of streets and bike paths all over the City is a higher priority than another redesign of the downtown.”
You’re right. Of course the purpose of any redesign needs to be considered, but in this case redesigning the downtown to allow more free parking should not be prioritized over repairing our existing streets and bike paths. We need to be smarter than that.
Again, I think the repair of streets and bike paths all over the City is a higher priority than another redesign of the downtown.
Paid for mostly with fuel taxes.
Ron G: but roads are actually mostly funded with other taxes. It’s a myth that they are mostly user-paid with fuel taxes.
https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads