Brainstorm for downtown residential spillover parking
Original post made by Steve Raney on Aug 15, 2013
One of many possible schemes:
* Number on-street parking spaces by the residential property associated with that space, IE spaces by 322 Emerson (between Lytton and Everett) become numbered 322a, 322b, etc. Spaces would be painted onto streets with the numbers painted on.
* Residents may also rent out spaces in their driveway. Residents who choose to rent spaces would then have numbers painted onto their driveway to demarcate spaces that could be numbered 322c, 322d, etc.
* Let's say that the price for a parking space from 9AM to 5PM on weekdays is $4.
* Parkers use the Parking Panda smartphone app (or the web) to reserve spaces for rental in advance, or take available spaces in real time.
* For driveway spaces, residents get 90% of rental income and Parking Panda takes 10%.
* For on-street spaces, residents associated with that space (occupants of 322 Emerson are associated with 322a and 322b) may rent that space for a preferred daily rate of $0.25. Associated residents may reserve spaces up to 30 days in advance. The City takes 100% of this revenue.
* For on-street spaces rented by other folks, those parkers may reserve spaces 48 hours in advance. Of the $4 charge, 25% goes to the landowner associated with the space (this makes the policy politically feasible by generating new income for residents from the public land on the street in front of their house). 10% goes to Parking Panda, and 65% goes to The City.
* Assume that revenue to The City covers project initiation and ongoing operation, and also generates some surplus revenue.
Parking Panda: Web Link
Discussion of a relevant San Francisco parking rule change: Web Link
1. There are many other companies in the "smart parking" field. Parking Panda would not necessarily be the best technology company to supply this solution to The City.
2. This is a "sketch" of an idea. A detailed implementation study with stakeholder feedback will be necessary to address various issues. Numbers and details will be refined by an implementation study.
What do you think?
on Aug 16, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Interesting idea. Sound like someone has their thinking cap on ... but this implies that the parking spaces in front of your house belong to you, which they do not as far as I understand. You can do that with a driveway, but there are probably precious few driveways that can be rented out and are not being used either for parking or for driveways.
on Aug 16, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Good stuff, allows real estate owners get some money from a major asset. Now let the SOFA and Downtown North residents build on this idea to make it fit their specific needs.
on Aug 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Excerpts from a Q&A I just had with the with Green Planning Action:
Q1: Please explain why the Parking Panda scheme is so much better than a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program.
A1: The main point is that the Parking Panda scheme provides more benefits to more stakeholders than RPP. The sharing-economy sensibility is to be more economically efficient than traditional solutions.
For residents, the Panda scheme generates new income for residents who may have previously been irritated by spillover parkers. Residents become entrepreneurial with their driveways and the public spaces in front of their house. Residents can also reserve public spaces in front of their house for a teeny fee (probably less than the parking permit costs per day). This reservation capability is great for guaranteeing a space for infrequent visitors from out of town. With RPP, residents have to pay for permits (they "lose" economically).
For developers of new projects, more spaces are available as downtown grows. The fact that there is a price on parking also means that employees will drive less, reducing SOV (single occupancy vehicle) commute mode share, hence reducing per-capita demand for parking. RPP does not reduce per-capita demand for parking, so developers have to fund more parking spaces per every new square foot they develop.
For downtown workers, more parking spaces are available. And workers can reserve a space in advance, so they don't have to anxiously hunt for a space at 8:45AM when they have a big meeting at 9:00AM. In addition, pricing serves as a motivator for mobility services to be re-configured to be more competitive against SOV commuting. With RPP, there are fewer spaces available, so it is more of a hassle for downtown workers and unnecessary tension is created between residents and workers.
For City of PA, the Panda scheme makes more spaces available, reducing the need for The City (and taxpayers) to fund expensive new parking structures. The scheme puts a price on parking, reducing SOV mode share, hence reducing per capita demand for parking. With RPP, fewer spaces are available for downtown workers, creating the need to build new, expensive parking structures.
Q2: Will the Panda scheme just push spillover issues out further?
A2: There are many implementation details to be worked out, but one scenario would be that parking east of Middlefield would still be free, and there could be some spillover in that area. But this could eventually be remedied by expanding the Panda scheme.
Q3: Any thoughts on climate?
A3: Given our climate issues and given that SOFA/University North residents are upset to the point of considering RPP, putting a price on parking is a sound way to nudge behavior towards a climate-friendly outcome. Charging for parking is the holy grail of suburban bay area "drive less" efforts. Influential stakeholders such as MTC, SVLG, Sierra Club, VTA, ACT (Association for Commuter Transportation) all support charging for parking.