HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-10; City Council; 19743; SMART parking pilot studyCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
19.743AB#
MTG. 03/10/09
DEPT.CM
SMART Parking Pilot Study at
Carlsbad Coaster stations
DEPT. HEAD
CITYATTY.
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive a presentation from SAN DAG representative.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City Council provides an opportunity for citizens and organizations to have an item placed
on a City Council Agenda. Attached is a brief explanation of the planned SMART Parking pilot
study that is planned to be conducted at the Carlsbad Village and Poinsettia Coaster stations.
Alex Estrella from SANDAG will provide a verbal report highlighting the proposed smart parking
research study objectives, timeline, and current efforts completed to date
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. Brief summary of the planned SMART Parking pilot study.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Rob Houston, 760-434-2958, rhous@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
D
D
Daa
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER -SEE MINUTES D
Council received the presentation.
EXHIBIT 1
Request for Time on Carlsbad City Council Agenda March 10, 2009
Request from: SANDAG
Subject: Smart Parking at COASTER Stations
Contact: Theresa Pulvere tpu@sandag.org (619) 699-1993
Summary
SANDAG, Caltrans, North County Transit District (NCTD), and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) are jointly working on the implementation of a Smart Parking
Research Pilot Project at selected COASTER stations. The concept of smart parking
is to utilize modern technologies to deliver an effective parking management system.
The intent of the federal and state funded study is to evaluate how cost effective
smart parking technologies can be used to improve parking management; provide
customers availability information; evaluate pricing strategies; and develop parking
management business models. Providing convenient and reliable access to parking
is an essential factor to making transit more competitive to driving alone.
The above mentioned agencies, in coordination with project consultant U.C.
Berkeley, Partners for Advance Transit and Highway (PATH), will undertake a pilot
deployment to test the smart parking concept at the most impacted COASTER
stations on the COASTER route. Those stations are the Carlsbad Village and
Poinsettia stations and the Encinitas station. These stations will be in the first phase
of the pilot smart parking program.
Proposed information to include:
• Provide a verbal report highlighting the proposed smart parking research
study objectives, timeline, and current efforts completed to date.
• Highlight initial parking management strategies reviewed and approved by
NCTD Board to be considered for further development. These strategies, as
highlighted during their NCTD Board Meeting on September 18, 2008, are
designed to increase parking availability for COASTER riders and encourage
COASTER carpools and vanpools, while also providing paid parking options
for non-COASTER riders through the use of smart parking technology.
r\
Blank
Council Internet Mailbox -
ParkingPolicyAtCoasterStations.CarlsbadAgendal 3_3/10/2009
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Page I of2
AGENDA ITEM # I L>
c: Mayor
City Council
' City Manager
CityAttorney
City Clerk
"Mike Bullock" <mike_bullock@earthlink.net>
"Council Internet Mailbox" <Council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
03/08/2009 5:25 PM
ParkingPolicyAtCoasterStations,CarlsbadAgenda13_3/10/2009
"Debbie Fountain" <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "Thomas Sciolla"
<tesciolla4@gmail.com>, "kasey" <kcinciarelli@roadrunner.com>,
"Carolyn Chase" <cdchase@movesandiego.org>, "Kris Nelson"
<krisnelson@cox.net>, '"Laurie Bergthold1" <osidelaurie@gmail.com>,
'"Lennie Rae Cooke1" <lrcooke@anchorenv.com>, '"Chuck McDonell'"
<chuck.mcdonell@cox.net>, <jayscrivener@cox.net>, "Viktor Meum"
<vmeum@hotmail.com>, <bob@cruiserbob.com>, "Howard La Grange"
<howard@pacificturbine.com>, "Pete Penseyres"
<cyclovet11@yahoo.com>, "Ben Sullivan"
<BSullivan@ci.oceanside.ca.us>, "Chuck Lowery"
<Chuck@PacificBakery.com>, "Diane Nygaard"
<dandd2@peoplepc.com>, "Nadine Scott" <deannie550@sbcglobal.net>,
"Joan Bockman " <joanbockman@sbcglobal.net>, "Joan Brown"
<jb4036@hotmail.com>, "Shantu Patel" <shantu@att.net>, "shah mackin"
<bzshari@cox.net>, "Steve Tisdale" <STisdale@ci.oceanside.ca.us>,
"Susan Baldwin" <sba@sandag.org>, "Janene Shepherd"
<itsjanene@cox.net>, "Esther Sanchez"
<ESanchez@ci.oceanside.ca.us>, "Jerry Kern"
<JKern@ci.oceanside.ca.us>, "Jim Wood" <JWood@ci.oceanside.ca.us>,
"Mike Blessing" <MBIessing@ci.oceanside.ca.us>, "Rocky Chavez"
<RChavez@ci.oceanside.ca.us>, "Kathy Baker"
<KBaker@ci.oceanside.ca.us>, "Russ Cunningham"
<rcunningham@ci.vista.ca.us>, "Chad Johnston"
<chadmjohnston@yahoo.com>, <fraterchiant@yahoo.com>,
<john.mcdonald@xgroup.com>, <jmcnaughton@nctd.org>,
<bcampbell@ci.vista.ca.us>, <aes@sandag.org>
Attachments: lntelligentParking6.doc; Letter2ToCarlsbad.doc
MAR 9 2009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Michael Bullock
1800 Bayberry Drive
Oceanside, CA 92054
760-754-8025
Carlsbad Mayor and City Council Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Smart Parking at the Train Stations and Throughout all of Carlsbad (Item 13,
AB#19,743)
Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49B3FF78GW-... 03/09/2009
Blank Page 2 of 2
I plan to attend your March 10th meeting to hear about the Smart Parking plan. I also plan to make a 3-
minute speech.
I have attached a letter to you regarding the subject item and also my report "Intelligent Parking". I would like
both of these documents to become public records, firmly associated with this effort. I apologize for the length
of these documents. Parking is a complicated subject. I believe that each of you, your appropriate staff
members, appropriate city staff members, and the team that is working on the Smart Parking plan have a
responsibility to read these two documents.
Between the "&&&&&&&&" lines I have pasted the words I currently plan to say in my 3-minute speech.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I'm Mike Bullock, 1800 Bayberry Drive in Oceanside. I'm a retired Systems Engineer, who
worked at Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale for 36 years. My passion has been car-parking pol
Unbundled parking cost means that the cost is visible and optional. This conforms to the usi
rule of the free market. You only pay for what you choose to use. Shared parking means the
anyone can park anywhere. Proper pricing makes this feasible. Experts agree that unbundle
cost and sharing are the keys to efficient parking. In a report called Intelligent Parking, provi
to you, I describe a method of getting both these features, in all cases.
First, please request that the agencies and their consultant implement a plan that will
operate the train-station parking for the benefit of all train riders, irrespective of how often
they might park in the train-station parking lot and to do this by
1.) using RFID automation for charging both train riders and parkers,
2.) applying full-cost pricing of the parking, with a congestion pricing overlay, and
3.) then giving 100% of the earnings to the train riders, on the same monthly invoices
where they are billed for riding the train.
Second, please have them recommend a compatible parking plan, that will fully unbundle
parking costs and promote instantaneous sharing, for all of the Carlsbad Urban Village.
Finally, please ask them to use Intelligent Parking, to accomplish these features.
f &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Highest regards,
, Mike Bullock, 760-754-8025
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49B3FF78GW-... OVOQ/700Q
Michael Bullock March 7, 2009
1800 Bayberry Drive
Oceanside, CA 92054
760-754-8025
Carlsbad Mayor and City Council Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Smart Parking at the Train Stations and Throughout All of Carlsbad
Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council:
Introduction and Background (123 words)
I am a retired Systems Engineer. I worked at Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale for 36
years. For many decades, my outside-of-work passion has been car-parking policy.
Several years ago, I submitted written comments on the DEIR of SANDAG's RTF
2030. I also commented on the FEIR and sent copies to the Attorney General of
California. I received a phone call from the Deputy Attorney General, Sandy Goldberg.
We discussed parking policy. She sent me a number of reports and asked that we set
up a time to talk. I was honored and read the reports diligently. I became aware of a
challenge. How could policies be formulated that would fully unbundle the cost of
parking and still encourage the spontaneous sharing of parking?
Unbundled Cost and Spontaneous Sharing (198 words)
"Unbundled cost" means that people that use parking can see exactly what it costs
and people that don't use the parking will escape its cost entirely. Unbundled parking
cost means that parking cost is visible and optional. This conforms to the usual rule of
the free market. You only pay for what you choose to use. So it is fair. In fact, to NOT
do this is unethical unless one believes that is it a legitimate government goal to
encourage driving. Letting consumers escape the cost of parking if they choose not to
park will reduce driving. Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this letter suggest that
employees that are given such a choice would drive 25% less.
Sharing means that anyone can park anywhere at any time and for any length of time.
Proper pricing makes this feasible. For mixed use, the sharing of parking means that
less parking will be needed. For example parking could be used mostly by employees
during the day and mostly by residents at night.
All experts agree that unbundled cost and sharing are the keys to efficient use of
parking. They just don't know how to universally accomplish both.
Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 1 March 7,2009
How to do Both (209 Words)
I have devised a method of unbundling of the cost of parking in a way that
encourages sharing. I have put this method into a report that I have written,
called Intelligent Parking. The method can be applied to all cases and it benefits
from spontaneous sharing. If parking has been gifted to group, such as those
using a train at a train station or the students of a school, then that group
becomes the "parking beneficiary group". If parking has been paid for by a group
or is, either directly or indirectly, being paid for by a group, then that group
becomes the parking beneficiary group. Note that in both cases, the group must
have the choice to drive or not drive. For example, an office development is
required to provide parking. This cost is passed down until it is necessarily
lowering the wages of the employees. So, for this case, the employees are the
beneficiary group. Retail customers and residents are two other obvious
beneficiary groups. The method of unbundling can now be simply stated. The full
and fair price for the parking is charged. This money, minus the collection cost, is
given to the members of the beneficiary group. More details are in Intelligent
Parking, httD://moderntransit.org/sdc/lntelligentParking6.
Intelligent Parking: A Comprehensive Vision for Parking (75 words)
Intelligent Parking has one billing agency for all parking, public and private; on-
street and off-street. Generally, credit-worthy drivers get billed monthly for their
parking and also receive earnings if they belong to a beneficiary group.
Ultimately, these statements should also include charges for transit use and
highway use. (See Page 3 of
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/rtp/Adopted_Addendum_2007_RTP_Guidelines
.pdf.) Credit-worthy drivers have parking accounts and are able to "park and go",
with no action needed. Intelligent Parking is very "user friendly".
The Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Age, Examples and Vendor
Interface (278 words)
Government needs to enter into the RFID (radio frequency identification) age.
Organizers of large athletic events already have. Over 20,000 people ran the
2008 Bay-to-Breakers foot race in San Francisco. Each runner had a "chip" in
their shoe lace. (I have been told by a vendor in San Diego, that passive RFID
units cost 15 cents, are reliable, are long lasting, and they could be used to
identify cars as well as people.) Each runner's start time and finish time were
recorded and all results were available as soon as the last runner crossed the
finish line.
Certainly, Government needs to catch up with the organizers that put on large
open-water swims, foot races, and bike rides, that have routinely used RFID for
many years. For example, when a person gets on a bus or a train, they should
not have to pay at that time. Generally, they should not have to visit a pay
station. They should not have to swipe a card that has a positive balance. Do we
Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 2 March 7,2009
ask SDGE customers that pay their bills, to pre-pay? We should give the same
courtesy to transit riders, people that drive on roads, and people that park cars.
There should be one monthly bill for all three activities.
The RFID "chips", scanners, and the computer software that prepares the
invoices can all be easily implemented in the private sector. Government's job is
to define the ideal system and let vendors bid on the right to develop, prototype,
install, test, debug, assume all liability for, change ordinances, and operate the
described system. In return, they would probably want "p" percent of charges, for
"n" years; then "q" percent.
Features of Intelligent Parking (418 words)
Intelligent parking is fully shared. The cost of parking is fully unbundled from
other transactions, such as getting a wage, paying rent, owning a condominium,
or purchasing goods or services. Unbundled cost means that cost is visible and
optional. If you don't park, you don't pay, either directly or indirectly, because the
earnings that you get balance out your losses.
Intelligent parking must be rigorous in specifying who gets earnings, where
"earnings" are defined to be revenue minus collection cost.
Data collection is by car detectors, frequency scanners, RFID units
(transponders) in or on the vehicle, pixel collection for cars with no RFID, and
pay stations for customers with no RFID.
Pay stations will often have the capability of setting up an account and dispensing a
RFID to a person that has good credit.
Congestion pricing means that pricing is determined by an algorithm, as a
function of occupancy, to preserve the minimum vacancy that has been
suggested by Professor Donald Shoup (15%), author of "The High Cost of Free
Parking". This vacancy is preserved by having the computer set the price in real
time, as a function of occupancy rate. When the occupancy goes above 70%, the
price is increased geometrically with each 5% increase in occupancy. These
algorithms are shown in Tables 2 and 3 of Intelligent Parking. Use of a base 2
would put the base price multiplier at 16 when the occupancy goes above 85%; a
base 3 would produce a multiplier of 51. People pay the time-averaged rate, over
the time that their car is parked.
Perfect records of the use and earnings of every parking space are kept These
records will support the decision to increase or reduce the supply of parking.
On-demand predictions of price and which spaces to use at a given price are
available to users so that they can develop a plan for parking before they start
their trip. Drivers planning a trip specify the time duration, the address they will
visit, and their maximum price rate. The system will recommend a parking
strategy. This will decrease driving around looking for parking.
Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 3 March 7,2009
For on-street parking, the following (somewhat arbitrary) unique rules apply.
In front of single-family homes, 100% of the earnings go to the residents. There
is no permit parking.
In front of duplexes and everything else, the earnings are evenly split between
the city and the beneficiary groups associated with the building on the street.
For blocks where parking is 0 - 50% full, the parking is free.
Above 50% the pricing is the same as for off-street parking.
Train-Station Application (313 words)
The assumption is made that the train-station parking exists for the benefit of all
of the train riders that use the station. It is not just for train riders that park in the
station. It is not there to raise money for the NCT operations. Therefore the train
riders are the beneficiary group, as defined above. For a train station, a parking
base price (per unit time) needs to be established, based on land value,
construction costs, and interest rates. All cars and all riders need to have
accounts and be outfitted with RFID units. Instantaneous congestion pricing
needs to be established, so that charges are, in general, time averages of the
various parking rates that are applied during the time a car was parked. The
congestion pricing algorithms are shown in the Tables 2 and 3 of Intelligent
Parking. This will ensure that there is available parking throughout the parking
lot.
Since the parking lot is there for the benefit of those that use the train, the
following is true. Each month, every person that parks a car gets billed and each
train rider gets parking-lot earnings and a bill for their use of the train. Bus riders
get billed for their use of the bus, but get no parking lot earnings, since the
parking lot is for the train riders. People that park cars that do not use the train
benefit those that ride the train, because they increase their earnings. With
instantaneous congestion pricing, there is literally no theoretical limit to how
much money could be earned by the transit-station parking. The only limit is how
much people want to park and want to pay; no one is forced to do anything. It is
conceivable that transit riders would be able to ride round trip to San Diego for
almost no net money, when their earnings are taken into account.
Legal Reach (65 words)
Government can implement a parking plan at the train station, on the streets, and
at new developments. However, it cannot implement a parking plan at existing
developments. This should not cause a problem however. Intelligent Parking is
so beneficial to all concerned that after it is understood by those running existing
developments they will request that their developments be brought into the
Intelligent Parking regime.
Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff 4 March 7,2009
Conclusion (61 words)
With congestion pricing, Intelligent Parking creates the potential for multiple, new
classes of consumers. Large amounts of revenue will sometimes be generated.
There will always be vacancy. Enforcement and collection will be automatic.
Intelligent Parking will stop the economic discrimination against those that drive
less, which is good, because government has no reason to encourage driving.
Less parking will be needed.
Recommendation (138 words)
Please request that the NCTD, SANDAG, Caltrans, the Federal Highways
Administration, and the consultant U. C. Berkeley, Partners for Advance Transit
and Highway (PATH) implement a program that will operate the train-station
parking for the benefit of all train riders, irrespective of how often they might park
in the train-station parking lot and to do this by the implementation of full-cost
pricing with a congestion pricing overlay and then giving 100% of the earnings to
the train riders, on the same monthly invoices where they are billed for riding the
train. Also, please have them recommend a comprehensive parking plan, one
that will fully unbundle parking costs and promote instantaneous sharing, for all
of the Carlsbad Urban Village. Please ask them to consider using the report
Intelligent Parking, as the baseline comprehensive parking plan to accomplish
these features.
Respectively submitted,
Mike Bullock, 760-754-8025
Copy to Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment
CH2M Hill Work Trips
Mode
Drive Alone
Carpool
Bus
Bike, Walk
Before
89%
9%
1%
1%
After
54%
12%
17%
17%
100% 100%
Table 1: Paid $54/mo. to not Drive, 1995 Dollars, Results for
CH2M Hill, an Engineering Firm in Bellevue, Washington, Near Seattle
Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff March 7, 2009
Financial Incentives, Impact on Parking Demand*
Location Scope Employees,
Assumed No.
Financial Incentive per
mo. (1995 $'s)
Group A: Areas with little or no public transportation
Century City District,
West Los Angleles
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
San Fernando Valley,
Los Angles
Bellevue, WA
3500 employees surveyed
at 100+ firms
9000 faculty & staff
1 large employer ( 850
employees)
1 medium-sized firm (430
employees)
Weighted Average of Group Sum
3500
9000
850
430
13780
$81
$34
$37
$54
$46.75
Group B: Areas with fair public transportation
Los Angeles Civic
Center
Mid-Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angleles
Washington DC
Suburbs
Downtown Los Angeles
10000+ employees at
several organizations
1 mid-size firm
5500 employees at 3
worksites
5000 employees surveyed
at 118 firms
Weighted Average of Group Sum
10000
430
5500
5000
20930
$125
$89
$68
$126
$109.52
Group C: Areas with good public transportation
University of
Washington, Seattle
Downtown Ottowa,
Canada
50,000 faculty, staff &
students
3500+ government staff
Weighted Average of Group Sum
50000
3500
53500
Weighted Average Over 3 Groups
$18
$72
$21.53
$46.35
Parking
Decrease
15%
26%
30%
39%
23.9%
36%
38%
26%
25%
30.8%
24%
18%
23.6%
25.3%
Table 2: Ten Cases of Cashout, from How to Get Paid to Bike to
Work: A Guide to Low-traffic, High-profit Development. Published
In Bicycle Pedestrian Federation of America, 1995
Bullock to Carlsbad Council & Staff March 7, 2009
Intelligent Parking
Free Market, Best Technology Plan to Make
Parking Costs Visible and Optional to All
Michael Bullock
mike_bullock@earthlink.net
1800 Bayberry Drive
Oceanside, CA 92054
760-754-8025
August 2, 2008
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 1 August 2,2008
1.0 Preface
Intelligent urban planning reduces the need for parking and the total miles that are
driven. It does this by having the following four characteristics:
1.) It clusters development around good transit stations or transit stops.
2.) It makes it safe and easy to use non-motorized modes of travel.
3.) It has a local balance between development that uses mostly night-time parking
and development that uses mostly day-time parking. This balance should be no worse
than 60%-40%.
4.) Parking is placed to support the sharing of parking.
However, intelligent urban planning will fall far short of minimizing the need for parking
or minimizing the miles that are driven unless the following operational characteristics
are adopted:
1.) Nearly all parking is shared. This means that it is almost always the case that
anyone can park anywhere.
2.) Parking is operated so that the potential users of parking can escape the expense
of parking by choosing to not use the parking. This characteristic is named
"unbundled" to note that the cost of parking is unbundled from other costs.
3.) Parking is priced and marketed to reduce the need to drive around looking for
parking. It is priced to ensure availability.
The Intelligent Parking technology that accomplishes the above three operational
characteristics also does the following.
4.) Parking at any desired price is made as easy as possible, for most users.
5.) Records of the use of each parking space are kept. This will facilitate decisions to
either add or subtract parking spaces.
This plan describes how the unbundling is accomplished. It describes both the
hardware and software needed.
New understandings about energy and the environment will cause more people and
companies to seek out cities that have embraced both sustainability and old-fashioned
values of fairness and economic choice, implemented with the latest technology.
With the implementation of Intelligent Parking, cities can become more compact,
functional, and successful.
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 2 August 2,2008
2.0 Need for and Availability of Intelligent Parking Development Costs
Intelligent Parking has not been implemented in any city or development.
However, San Francisco is getting close. Their work is described in a July 12th article
in the NYT by John Markoff, "Can't Find a Parking Spot? Check Smartphone"
Despite San Francisco's progress, the implementation of Intelligent Parking will
require paying for development costs. Both hardware and software development is
needed. New Parking Inc, founded by Thomas Janacek (tjanacek@new-
parking.com). has the capability to provide some of the features of Intelligent Parking.
However, its system requires users to call in on their cell phones when they park and
when they leave. Streetline Industries makes the street sensors that transmit single
space occupancy information into Wi Fi systems. However, these sensors only detect
the presence of a car, without the capability of recognizing an RFID. New Parking
Inc, Streetline Industries and other parking-innovation companies will need to be
contacted to see if they will submit a bid to develop and supply the hardware and
software needed for Intelligent Parking. Thankfully, the money to develop Intelligent
Parking will be readily available to any city. This is true because parking is so
expensive to supply and the primary features of Intelligent Parking (shared and
unbundled) will allow less parking to be built.
As an Oceanside-specific example, the following information leading to funding is
provided. "City Mark" is a developer of downtown property. Recently, a City Mark
development was approved in downtown Oceanside. It is a mixed-use development
that includes parking supplied at numerical levels that were computed without
reductions for the unbundling of parking costs. Table 7 (shown below) shows that
when users are given the choice of getting cash for not parking (the Intelligent Parking
method of unbundling), over 20% will accept the cash and not drive. City Mark is
building 904 parking spaces. This means that if they did Intelligent Parking, there
would be (20%) * 904 =181 parking spaces that can be used by non-City Mark users.
The City Mark project will destroy 172 current, surface-parking spaces. The Coastal
Commission therefore required that Oceanside and City Mark agree to supply 172
spaces to make up for the lost spaces. Oceanside plans to provide the land; City Mark
has agreed to construct the surface parking. This new, surface-parking lot will be built
on land that is west of the Oceanside railroad line, north of Wisconsin Avenue, and on
land that is within easy walking distance from Oceanside's major transit hub. This land
is very valuable. Since it takes 1 acre of land to park 120 cars, the 172 spaces will
require 172/120 = 1.43 acres of land. Since Intelligent Parking will eliminate the need
for this parking lot (181 is greater than 172), the 1.42 acres can be sold by Oceanside,
for millions of dollars. This may be more money than what would be required to both
develop and implement Intelligent Parking. Since Oceanside would be funding the
development of the hardware and software needed to implement Intelligent Parking,
the City should attempt to retain all or part of the patents and/or ownership rights to
these advancements. In that way, it is possible that the other cities that implement
Intelligent Parking will need to pay Oceanside for the right to use some of the key
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 3 August 2,2008
features of Intelligent Parking. Oceanside might therefore get its money back many
times over. In any case, it would be better for Oceanside to not have to use 1.43 acres
of land close to its core downtown area to park 172 cars. For example, the 1.43 acres
could instead be used for up to (45 units per acre) * 1.43 acres = 64 condominiums or
apartments.
3.0 How much parking? The goal is to have only marginally more parking than what
is needed. Not having too much parking will minimize the "dead space" effect of
parking. It will also minimize the economic burden of parking. This means that there
will be less parking supplied than what has been required under the existing suburban
ordinances. These ordinances often require enough parking to park one car for every
potential driver. These ordinances also required enough parking to park all of these
cars simultaneously, ignoring any possibility of sharing parking between different uses.
This amount of parking is substantially more than is needed in a mixed-use downtown
with above-average transit. However, the existing suburban ordinances supply a
valuable, baseline amount of parking. This amount will be conservatively reduced so
as to not discourage drivers from using downtown. Proximity of transit, proximity of
mixed uses, sharing, and the unbundling of parking cost will each be conservatively
used to compute appropriate reductions. It is expected that decision makers will be
overly conservative in applying these reductions. If true, then this approach requires
redeveloping excess parking into something else, when it is clear that there is too
much parking. There is not enough parking when the amount of revenue generated by
the parking exceeds what is a reasonable rate of return on the value of the parking.
The revenue will be driven up by a shortage because with Intelligent Parking, the price
is adjusted in real time to keep the vacancy rate from dropping below 15%. If there is a
reasonable rate of return on the value of the parking, then the parking is correctly
sized. A redevelopment example would be to convert a condominium parking space
into an enclosed room that could be leased for storage or some other purpose. As
another example, a corner of a ground-level parking garage could be converted into a
coffee shop.
4.0 Specific Features of Intelligent Parking with Rationale & Implementation
Details
4.1 Feature 1: Technology will make paying easy for most drivers. Please see
http://www.SDarkparking.com/howitworks.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FasTrak. For credit-worthy drivers that are willing to ID their
car, pay parking will not require any actions other than parking. Paying for all parking
fees over a month is then done in response to a monthly billing statement. Parking will
feel to the consumer like a service provided by a municipality, such as water, energy,
or garbage. One important difference is that users belonging to a "beneficiary group"
will get an earnings amount in their monthly statement. Those that earn more than
what they are charged will receive a check for the difference. This ease of use will
make driving to downtown a stress-free experience.
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 4 August 2,2008
4.2 Feature 2: Having shared parking, to support mixed uses. Shared parking for
mixed uses means that less parking is needed. Also, since very little parking will be off
limits to anyone, drivers will be more likely to park one time per downtown visit, even
though they would often make use of several downtown locations. This means more
pedestrian activity, adding to the attractions offered in downtown. Parking is to be
generally shared with all downtown drivers. If there is an exception, the reserved
nature of the parking is for specific hours and signs will alert drivers of these hours.
4.3 Feature 3: Unbundling the cost of parking in a way that usually supports the
sharing of parking. To the extent possible, the cost of car parking is unbundled from
non-parking costs. This is done by charging for parking but giving all the revenue to all
those that fall into the following types of "beneficiary groups".
1.) Those that have already paid for the capital cost of parking. An example of this
type of beneficiary group would be the owners of condominiums, where parking has
been built and the cost is included in the price of the condominium. Note that although
they have technically already paid for the parking, if they borrowed money to pay for
some portion of the price, the cost is built into their monthly payment. This illustrates
why the value of parking and the cost of borrowing money (rate of return on money)
are the correct parameters to use to compute the appropriate base, hourly charge for
parking.
2.) Those that are incurring on-going costs of parking. An example of this type of
beneficiary group is a set of office workers, where the cost of the parking is contained
in either the building lease or the cost of the building. Either way, the parking costs are
reducing the wages that can be paid to the employees. Such parking is often said to
be "for the benefit of the employees". Defining this beneficiary group will ensure that
the statement is strictly true, instead of the common situation where the employees
benefit only in proportion to their use of the parking.
3.) Those that are purchasing or renting something and the cost of the parking is built
into the price. Examples of this beneficiary group are people that rent hotel rooms,
rent an apartment, buy items, or dine in establishments that are paying for parking.
This is often the case, but it is not necessarily true. The cost and revenue of the
parking built with hotel rooms, apartments, retail, or restaurants could be separated
out so that the patrons are not paying for parking (unless they park). If this is the case,
then the only beneficiary groups are the owners of the parking. However, if unbundling
is accomplished in this way, it must be made public so everyone can see that the
parking is not being subsidized by the patrons.
4.) Those that are said to benefit from parking, even though the money has been
supplied by some source of money that is in no way dependent on those that are said
to benefit. An example of this group would be train riders that depart from a station
that has parking that is said to be "for riders". In order that all riders from the station
benefit equally from the parking, they will pay the normal fare, minus an earnings
amount from the parking. This will have the effect of optimizing the use of the parking.
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 5 August 2,2008
Those riders that really need the parking will always find parking. Those that could,
with little inconvenience, get to the station without driving, will do so, to avoid the
charge. Sharing will no longer be prohibited because anyone that parks will be
benefiting riders by contributing to their earnings.
5.) Those that are understood by tradition to be the beneficiaries of on-street parking.
Owners of single-family homes are the beneficiaries of the parking that is along the
boundaries of their property. They will get 100% of the earnings generated by such
parking. All other land owners will split the earnings of such on-street parking with the
city.
Note that pricing is described in Features 4 and 5, below; Feature 6 gives more details
about how groups benefit. Note again that unbundling results in substantially less car
trips and less car ownership.
Unbundling for a condominium means that although the parking will add to the initial
cost, an assigned amount of parking will earn money for the owners. Unbundling for a
condominium could also mean that an owner can choose to have control over a single
or several parking places. Such parking spaces will be equipped with a red light and a
green light. If the red light is lit, this will mean that the space is not available for
parking, except for the person who is controlling the spot. If the green light is lit it will
mean that the space is available to anyone. A space that is being reserved with a red
light is charged at the full price to the condominium owner that has control over the
space. The owner that controls these spaces can change the state of the parking
space (available or not available) by either a phone call, on line, or at any pay station.
After condominium owners experience the cost of reserving a space for themselves,
they might give up on the idea of having their own personal, unshared parking space.
Especially since Intelligent Parking will give most owners all the flexibility they need in
terms of parking their cars and their guest's cars.
People often think that condominium parking should be gated, for security reasons.
However, parking within parking garages needs to be patrolled at the same frequency
level as on-street parking, which is enough to make crime around either types of
parking very rare. Cameras can help make parking garages that are open to the public
the absolute last place for criminal activity. We should not need gated communities in
our downtown areas.
For renters, unbundling means that "rent" (traditional rent minus earnings) is reduced
by the money earned by charging for the number of parking spaces allocated to them.
For employees, it means that "wages" (now a sum of traditional wage and parking lot
earnings) are no longer reduced to provide parking. Companies will probably want the
option of offering "free parking" to their employees so as to be able to compete with
traditional job sites. However, employees that request no "free parking" should be
appropriately rewarded since employees that don't drive to work are, on average, just
as valuable as employees that do drive to work. Companies should not be required to
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 6 August 2,2008
lease parking for their employees. Providing "free parking" under the conditions of this
report really means giving employees that drive every single day an "Add-In" amount
of pay so that the sum of the Add-In and the earnings equals their charge, for any
given monthly statement. The city (or other operator of the parking), which sends out
statements, can add in the "Add In" amount, per the company's instructions. The
company will then be billed for these amounts. Note that this is a choice for the
company so that the company can provide "free" parking. Note also that there would
be no requirement for the company to provide any such "add-in" amount to the
employees that don't drive every day. The net result is that the company will be
treating drivers better than non-drivers. However, this economic discrimination will be
substantially less than the status quo economic discrimination, where drivers get
parking and non-drivers get nothing.
Finally, it means that the cost of goods and services (traditional price minus earnings)
are increased less to provide parking.
4.4 Feature 4: For occupancy rates that do not threaten to go higher than
desired, prices are computed from the value of the parking and an agreed-upon
rate of return. Parking-garage or parking-lot parking is priced so that even if demand
does not threaten to fill the parking beyond 85% (the amount that equates to just over
one space vacant per city block), the money generated will equate to an agree-upon
return on the parking value. An example is shown in Table 1. This accomplishes the
goal of unbundling the cost of parking from other costs and the goal of less car trips
and less car ownership by providing a true economic choice.
The value of on-street parking is controversial to compute. Therefore, the following,
somewhat arbitrary approach to the pricing of on-street parking is offered. On-street
parking that has an occupancy that is less than 50% is free. However, after it is 50%
full, it is priced at 50 cents per hour. As the occupancy increases beyond 70%, price is
increased as shown in Table 2 below.
4.5 Feature 5: Price is increased to guarantees availability. The hourly rate price
of parking is dynamically set on each city block or on a block of off-street parking, to
one that nearly always prevents the occupancy rate from exceeding 85%. An 85%
occupancy rate (15% vacancy) is the amount that results in just over one space
vacant per city block. Tables 2 and 3 show how this can be done. This feature will
reduce driving around to look for parking. If price is not a concern, a user can simply
go to the most desirable block for their visit. This feature will almost always guarantee
at least one vacant spot on every block. Parking garage spaces are grouped into
effective blocks. These blocks are considered to be nearly equal in desirability. This
feature is referred to as "Protected Vacancy Pricing". It is similar to "congestion
pricing" that could be implemented on PAYD (pay as you drive) highway lanes.
"Congestion Pricing" really means "congestion-prevention pricing" since its
implementation works to prevent the likelihood of congestion. Similarly, "Protected
Vacancy Pricing" prevents vacancy from dropping too low.
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 7 August 2,2008
4.6 Feature 6: Traditional groups benefit. Parking beneficiaries are identified to
encourage developments to provide enough parking and to support traditional ideas
about who should benefit from allocations of parking. Beneficiaries are paid the
revenue that has been generated by the parking spaces allocated to them. This will
offset any parking costs they might incur. This "pay but benefit" approach is the
primary method of unbundling. This will reduce the political difficulties of adopting pay
parking in a democracy where the high cost of parking is often hidden and rarely
discussed or understood. The revenue from on-street parking in front of apartments or
businesses will be split between the city and the business owners. The revenue from
on-street parking in front of single family homes will be given to the home owners.
Note that "revenue" means the amount after collection costs are subtracted, e
4.7 Feature 7: Technology will help drivers find parking. Technology will be used
to help drivers select the best possible parking space for their situation. Any time
occupancy rates are high or there are reasons that it might be high, users will be
encouraged to go to a website that will give current and predicted hourly rates for all
locations. The website will also direct a user to a given block of parking if the user
gives the visit location or locations, the time and date, and the hourly rate they wish to
pay. This will make driving to downtown easier. It will also reduce driving around
looking for parking. The hourly rate of parking will be available at an "on line" web site,
at a phone number, and at Pay Stations. The "base-price" (before occupancy-rate-
driven increases), hourly rate, for any section of parking garage or any city block will
be stable and shown on signs. However, since Feature 5 requires that price be
increased when occupancy on a block (or garage section) gets high, many users will
want to be able to see the hourly rate before they chose parking. This should be made
as easy as possible to reduce driving around to get acceptable parking. Parking
garage entrances will have large video screens showing both predicted and existing
availability and price.
4.8 Feature 8: Pay stations will help all users. To be inclusive, Pay Stations will
support drivers with poor credit or drivers with concerns about the potential loss of
privacy inherent in getting billed for all parking. Pay Stations will take payments from
users that do not want to ID their car (or can't due to a poor credit rating) or do not
want a specific parking charge to appear on a monthly bill. Pay station transactions
start with the user typing in the parking spot where they have parked their car. Such
users could pay with cash or credit card. They will pay enough to cover their time to be
parked. If they stay less time than they paid for, they can go back to the pay station
and get change. If they stay longer, they can extend their time with a phone call, if
they have a credit card. This method of parking is less convenient but will equate to
the experience in many cities (Berkeley, for example), where a driver parks and then
must visit a Pay Station at least once. These features make the system inclusive to all.
4.9 Feature 9: Getting a Car ID will be easy. Pay stations will dispense car ID units
(which will cost less than $5), so that someone visiting downtown Oceanside for the
first time will only be inconvenienced once, with a need to go to a pay station after
parking. The easiest way to get an ID unit will be to swipe a credit or debit card,
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 8 August 2,2008
providing billing information. If a user does not have a credit card or does not want to
use a credit or debit card, they can type in their name and billing address and hope
that the resulting credit check supports getting a car ID. If not, they will need to pay at
the Pay Station each time they park. Giving pay stations the capability to dispense a
car ID unit will make driving to downtown (after the first time) a stress-free experience
for credit-worthy citizens.
4.10 Feature 10: Accommodating Handicapped Drivers ID numbers of
handicapped drivers will allow these drivers to park free or at greatly reduced prices,
at most locations. Data will be kept to allow for integrating this need into the pricing
equations. These records will show where these drivers go most often. Specially
designated spots may or may not be required. The handicapped allocations can be
modified as needed.
4.11 Feature 11: Good reporting will support good decision making. The
computer that controls all parking transactions will provide reports showing where
additional parking would be a good investment and where it would be wise to convert
existing parking to some other use. When new parking is to be built, individual investor
money can be used. These individual investors will be drawn by the fact that adjacent
parking is in short supply, earning exceptional returns, due to Feature 5.
4.12 Feature 12: Privacy rules and safeguards will be used so that with very few
exceptions the information about who is parking where is never released except
to the car owner that gets the monthly statement.
5.0 Further Discussion of Unbundling, Which Will Lead to Less Car Use and
Less Car Ownership:
Unbundling is a key feature of this parking plan. It is also a crucial application of the
free market principle that people should only pay for what they use. Whether people
are shoppers, residents, or employees, they deserve the choice of saving themselves
the cost of parking, if they would rather not use the parking. Business should not be
conducted in a way that, in effect, assumes that everyone wants to drive and own cars
at some average rate. It is not true that no one minds having their rent or home-
ownership costs increased, the cost of their purchases increased, or their wage
decreased, to pay for parking. Most Americans agree that the free market should
be our baseline approach to how business is conducted. Individuals should have
a broad range of economic choices. If a condominium owner wants to use 5 parking
spaces, so be it. If another condominium owner wants to use no parking spaces, so be
it. If a renter wants to rent a lot of parking or no parking at all, those choices need to
be available. Shoppers and shop owners should also be given new choices regarding
parking, to reduce the amount of parking cost that is hidden within the cost of goods
and services.
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 9 August 2,2008
More specifically for a given development, parking cost should be unbundled
from the cost of everything else offered at the development. This will result in
less car ownership and less car use at the development compared to the level if
parking costs were built in to the cost of what is offered at the development. The
excess parking that might result from the unbundling should be offered to the
general public, at a price that provides a reasonable rate of return on the cost to
build the parking. If there is insufficient demand for the excess parking, it should
be used or redeveloped in some non-parking way to make as much money as
possible. The view is taken that the parking or its replacement, if it is not
sufficiently needed, should benefit traditional groups that own or are otherwise
economically linked to the development. The unbundling is accomplished by
issuing a monthly statement to all the members of the traditional groups. These
statements will potentially show both a charge for parking and a parking lot
benefit payment. Employers, if they choose, can add in an amount so that their
employees that drive every day will break even, as described in Feature 3.
Besides providing basic fairness, relative to the unfortunate status-quo way of
handling parking, unbundling parking will favor transit, walking (living close),
biking, car pooling, etc. It will also favor owning fewer cars. In other words,
unbundling will reduce car ownership and car trips.
These methods will help any city attract the best employers, who would like their
employees to get extra money if they don't drive, since this will be done at very
little cost to the company. It will attract the best condominium owners, who will
appreciate the range of choices not offered in other cities. It will help our transit
systems be successful. The world will know that cites that implement Intelligent
Parking are ready for the best development and the best companies. Because
over utilization of cars is at the heart of our environmental and economic
problems, cites that implement Intelligent Parking will be recognized as the
"greenest" and "smartest" cities in America.
With air pollution, 42 thousand yearly roadway fatalities, peak oil, obesity, urban
sprawl, air pollution, congestion, and climate change, this is a patriotic and moral,
as well as an economic-fairness issue. Each gallon of gasoline burned results in
20 pounds of C02.
From the Deputy Attorney General Sandy Goldberg's letter of January 8, 2008, to
the City of Petaluma:
According to NASA's James Hansen, proceeding at the emissions rate of the past
decade will result in "disastrous effects, including increasingly rapid sea level rise,
and increased frequency of droughts.
Also:
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 10 August 2,2008
The need to make substantial cuts in emissions drives the global targets embodied in
the Kyoto Protocol and the State's targets established by Governor Schwarzenegger's
Executive Order S-3-05, and AB 32, California's Global Warming Solution Act of
2006. In California, by these authorities, we are committed to reducing emissions to
1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Achieving the 2020 target
will require California to reduce emissions by 29% below projected levels.
In short, our past and current GHG emissions have pushed us to a climatic "tipping
point." If we continue our business-as-usual emissions trajectory, dangerous climate
change will become unavoidable. The recent Bali accord recognized that we must cut
greenhouse gas emissions from 25 to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the
most catastrophic impacts of climate change, which is even more aggressive than the
reductions required in California under AB 32. And, the experts tell us, we have very
little time to take decisive action. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") recently declared: "If there's
no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will
determine our future. This is the defining moment."
Tables 6 and 7 show that if employees are offered the choice of earning money
by not driving, they will drive substantially less. Table 6 shows that bus ridership
increased by 1600%. If many adjacent employers adopted Intelligent Parking,
transit service providers would need less subsidy and be motivated to increase
transit service frequency.
6.0 Implementation Details, Variable Definitions, Sample Calculations
6.1 Development Parking (DP) Development Parking is all of the parking built
within a development or set of developments. This does not include the on-street
parking that is adjoining or across the street from the development or set of
developments. Any parking that is privately owned by individuals, within the
development, would have to be excluded from this set of parking. (If the owners
of such privately owned parking wanted, their parking could be offered for rent at
the same price as the Development Parking (DP), with the money raised going to
the private owner.) It is hoped that such privately owned parking is minimized.
Development Parking (DP) is owned jointly according to the rules of the
development or set of developments. It is operated in accordance with this plan.
Often but not always, developments could be mixed use. Different developments
can have their parking put into a single DP if the cost of the parking is the similar
and the locations are adjacent.
6.2 Number of Parking Spaces in the DP (N_DP) This is the number of parking
spaces in the Development Parking (DP).
6.3 Beneficiary Group (BG) This is a defined set of potential Development
Parking (DP) users. They are closely associated with the development. For
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 11 August 2,2008
example, if the development has condominiums and offices, one BG would be
the condominium owners and another BG would be the workers. All those living
in a single condominium constitute one unit of the condominium BG. Hotel guests
are another example of a Beneficiary Group (BG). It is possible for a user to be in
more than one group. For example, an individual could own a condominium (or
live in a condominium) and work at the development and therefore be a member
of both BGs. Beneficiary Groups (BGs) are sets of people that are grouped and
assigned parking places that will earn money for these people. These groups are
those that might have had the privilege of using the parking for free if there was
no unbundling. Therefore, according to traditional views, these are the people
that should benefit from the parking. Most Beneficiary Groups (BGs) are
associated with a Development Parking (DP). However there is one additional
set of units (households) that are BGs. They are the households of single family
homes that have on-street parking adjacent to their properties. They will benefit
economically from the use of that on-street parking. Therefore, a single-family
resident is handled like a development. Its on-street parking is its Development
Parking (DP). The household is a Beneficiary Group (BG) with a single element.
Criteria will be defined which determine when a single family's on-street parking
is brought into the parking plan. It is done either at the family's request or when
the impact of adjacent, charged parking is sufficient so it is unfair to the family to
suffer the intrusion of parked cars with no economic benefit.
Every Development Parking (DP) has the potential for users that are from no BG
associated with the development or set of developments. They are referred to as
members of the general public. Since unbundling parking reduces parking
demand, there will often be parking available to the general public. If so, this will
be a good thing because the revenue from these "outsiders" (the general public)
plays a vital role in keeping the net parking cost (charge minus earnings) close to
zero for members of the Beneficiary Group (BG) that park close to the maximum
time possible.
Finally, it may be desirable to sell parking spaces to condominium owners. This
should be very expensive so as to be unlikely because parking spaces sold are
removed from the pool of Development Parking (DP), violating the goal of shared
parking. Sold parking spots will only be shared at the whim of the owner. If the
owner wants to share their spot or spots with others, this can be done so as to
generate payments to the owner. Since the parking is to be priced to guarantee
vacant parking, the only advantage to the owner, of having privately owned
parking is to be able to always use the same spot. Since this is a small
advantage, few if any condominium owners will want to buy any parking.
6.4 Number of Units in the Beneficiary Group (N_BG) This is the number of
units in the BG.
6.5 Fraction Built (FB) This is N_ FB (amount of parking built) divided by the
amount of parking that would have been required for the Development Parking
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 12 August 2,2008
(DP) under the traditional parking ordinance. For example, if Development
Parking (DP) is build for 100 condominiums and 30,000 square feet of office
space, the traditional amount of parking required might be two per condominium
and 4 for every one-thousand square feet of office space, for a total of 2*100 +
4*30 = 320 spaces. If the Number of Parking Spaces in the DP (N_DP)
happened to be 250, then the FB for the development would be 250/320.
6.6 BG Parking (BGP) This is the parking assigned (allocated) to benefit a
Beneficiary Group (BG). They are not specific parking places. Rather, they are
some portion of the DP.
6.7 Number of Parking Spaces in a BGP (N_BGP) This is the number of
parking spaces assigned to a Beneficiary Group (BG). N_UGP is computed by
multiplying the amount of parking required by the traditional off-street parking
ordinance by the development Fraction Built (FB). For the FB example above,
the Number of Parking Spaces in a BGP (N_BGP) for the condominium owners
Beneficiary Group (BG) would be 2*100 * (250/320) = 156.25 parking spaces.
6.8 Parking Cost (PC) This is the cost to provide the parking. If parking is
underground or otherwise built into the overall building, then it is the difference
between the cost of the building with the parking minus the estimated cost of the
building if no parking were built. If the parking increased the amount of land
needed to build the development, then the cost of the additional land is added to
the construction cost to compute the Parking Cost (PC). The cost of surface
parking is the cost of the land plus the cost of the construction (surface, striping,
metering, landscaping, lighting and any other similar cost). The cost of on-street
parking is only the cost of striping and metering the parking plus the cost of
required signs. For the purpose of supporting the example calculations to follow,
it is assumed that the 250 assumed number of spaces cost $40,000 each for a
total cost of $10 M (10 million dollars).
6.9 Return on Investment (Rl) This is an agreed-upon number which is used in
the calculation of base parking price. It is the percent return on the capital cost of
parking. For example, it may be agreed upon that 6% is the Return on
Investment (Rl) to be used in the calculations of the price to be charged for
parking.
6.10 Percent Full (PF) This is the estimated yearly average of the occupancy
rate of the Development Parking (DP). For example if the actual, time averaged,
occupancy rate of a Development Parking (DP) is .7 (It is, on average, 70% full),
then the Percent Full (PF), which is an estimate, should be close to .7. The
Percent Full (PF) is given an initial estimate. That estimate is then continually
updated by the computer which keeps hourly records of Development Parking
(DP) population. Therefore, after a sufficient time has past, this estimate will have
sufficient accuracy to support its use in the calculation of price. As conditions
change, the true value and the estimated value of PF will both change. However,
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 13 August 2,2008
the estimated value should track the true value with enough accuracy to make it
reasonable to use this estimate (PF) in the calculation of parking price.
6.11 Hourly Rate (HR) This is the hourly rate charged to park. To conform with
Feature 5 it will be computed so as to increase during times of high demand.
6.12 Full Cost Pricing (FCP) This is a method of computing the Hourly Rate
(HR) so that the Return on Investment (Rl) is realized given the Parking Cost
(PC), even if there is no reason to raise the rate to limit use. As an example, if
the Parking Cost (PC) of a Development Parking (DP) is $10 M, meaning that the
cost of an individual parking space is PC/N_DP = $10M/250 = $40,000, the
Return on Investment (Rl) is 6%, and there is no need to raise the rate to limit
usage, then the rate per hour is set to earn .06 * $10M/250 = $2,400 per year,
from each spot in the Development Parking (DP). If the Percent Full (PF) is .6,
then, using 365 days per year and 24 hours per day yields a price floor of
HR = (RI)*[(PC)/(N_DP)] I [(24)*(365)*(PF)].
Using the example values from above yields
HR = (.06)*[($10M/250)/[(24)*(365)*(.6)] = 45.662 cents per hour.
This amount, which happens to be $3.65 for an 8 hour day, could be described
as the full cost price of the parking since it generates the desired return on the
investment required to build the parking. This is also shown in Table 1.
6.13 Full-Cost, Protected Vacancy Pricing (FCPVPP) The significance of a
vacancy rate of 15% was explained in the description of Feature 6. If demand is
high due to some special event or if parking was undersized at a development, it
may happen that during certain hours of the day, vacancy rates may fall below
the 15%, unless increases in price are applied. The "Preserved Vacancy" portion
of the name means that the price is then increased as needed to support Feature
6. Steep, geometric increases will probably be needed, applied as multiplication
factors to the Full Cost Pricing (FCP) derived price, as the vacancy range drops
below, 30%, in 5% increments. Until these diurnal, hourly effects or special event
effects are well understood, the geometric base value of 2 could be used. Using
this logic, since a vacancy rate of 15% is to be avoided, as soon as vacancy
drops below 30%, the hourly rate would double. If the vacancy rate continues to
decline to less than 25%, this method would double the rate again. If, in spite of
this quadrupling of the base price, the vacancy rate continues to decline to less
than 20%, the rate would double again, for an 8 fold increase in the price. For our
example, this hourly rate would be 8* ($.45662) = $3.65 per hour. If in spite of
this, the rate dropped below 15%, the rate would double again, to be $7.31 per
hour. This is shown on the left side of Table 2, for the base multiplier of 2.
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 14 August 2,2008
If the base multiplier value of 2 resulted in increases that were too small to
preserve a vacancy rate of 15%, the computer would learn this lesson and the
next time the vacancy rate dropped below 30%, the base factor would be
selected to be some value larger than 2, such as 2.5. Table 2 shows the hourly
rates for base factors of 2 and 2.5, given a baseline, full cost price.
The time and date of events must be known, data for them must be kept, and
they must be then be anticipated with appropriate price increases. Feature 6
requires that the price be increase to preserve a vacancy rate of at least 15%.
Table 3 shows multiplication factors which can be computed for any value of
vacancy, "V", without the stair stepping of Table 2. This means that every time a
car parked or left the parking block, the hourly rate would change. The charge
would be the time-weighted average of the various rates that were being applied
during the time a car was parked.
6.14 Set of Assumptions For Sample Calculation of Cost & Benefit, 4
Groups The following numbers are from the Belvedere application approved by
the City Council on April 16th, 2008. There are 8,000 square feet of retail/office,
65 condominiums, and 28 live-work lofts. Under a traditional parking ordinance,
the requirement would be 32 spaces for the retail/office, 130 spaces for the
condominiums, and 28 for the live-work spaces, for a total of 190 spaces. It is
assumed that there will be 150 spaces actually built. Table 4 shows the
beneficiary groups and the calculations leading to Number of Parking Spaces in
each BGP (each N_BGP).
6.15 Sample Calculation of Benefits and Costs Table 5 uses the assumption
that there are 150 parking spaces; each one is worth $40,000; leading to the
base price hourly rate of 46 cents. In Table 5 it is also assumed that during the
day there are 24 workers, 20 lofts owners, 40 condo owners parked, and these
groups of people benefit equally from the allocated number of parking. The name
of the groups and the allocations are shown in Table 4.
7.0 Supporting Tables
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 15 August 2,2008
Table 1
Full Cost, Base Price, Input Variable Definitions
Example
Name Variable Name & Descriptioin Value
N_DP
PC
Space
Rl
PF
Number of parking places in a development Parking lot
Parking Cost
Cost of single parking space
Return on Investment
Time Averaged Percent Full
175
$7,000,000.00
$40,000.00
.06
.60
Calculation of Full Cost
Base Price Hourly Rate, "HR"
HR = [ (RI)*(PC)/(N_DP) ] / [ (24*365) * PF ]
Using Example Values above: HR = $0.46
Full Cost (or Value) Pricing Example
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 16 August 2,2008
Table 2
Base Rate Multiplication Factors and
Stair-Step Hourly Rates, (HR's) for Two
Base Multiplier Values and a Base HR = $o.46
Vacancy
Rate
Above 35%
35% to 30%
30% to 25%
25% to 20%
15% to 20%
10% to 15%
5% to 10%
Base Multiplier = 2
Multiplication Factors
Formula
2°
2°
21
22
23
24
25
Value
1
1
2
4
8
16
32
Hourly
Rate (HR)
$0.46
$0.46
$0.91
$1.83
$3.65
$7.31
$14.61
Base Multiplier = 2.5
Multiplication Factors
Formula
2°
2.51
2.51
2.52
2.53
2.54
2.55
Value
1
0.456621
2.5
6.25
15.625
39.0625
97.65625
Hourly
Rate (HR)
$0.46
$0.21
$1.14
$2.85
$7.13
$17.84
$44.59
Stair-Step Price Multiplication to Achieve Protected Vacancy Pricing
Table 3
Base Rate Multiplication Factors for
Ramping Hourly Rates, (HR's) for Two
Base Multiplier Values and Base HR = $0.46
Vacancy
Rate
"V
Above 35%
35% to 30%
30% to 25%
25% to 20%
15% to 20%
10% to 15%
5% to 10%
Base of Multiplier ="B"= 2
Multiplication Factors
Formula
1
I
g(30 - V)/5
@ Middle "V" Value
1
1
1.414213562
2.828427125
5.656854249
11.3137085
22.627417
Hourly
Rate (HR)
$0.46
$0.46
$0.65
$1.29
$2.58
$5.17
$10.33
Base of Multiplier = "B" = 2.5
Multiplication Factors
Formula
1
I
g(30 - V)/5
@ Middle "V" Value
1
1
1.58113883
3.952847075
9.882117688
24.70529422
61.76323555
Hourly
Rate (HR)
$0.46
$0.46
$0.72
$1.80
$4.51
$11.28
$28.20
Continuous Price Multiplication to Achieve Protected Vacancy Pricing
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 17 August 2, 2008
Table 4
Calculation of Parking Spaces Allocated
to Each Beneficiary Group if
Total Parking Supplied = 150
Beneficiary
Group
Condo Owners1
Loft Owners1
Workers
Number
65
28
32
Sum:
Traditional
Amount of
Parking
Required
130
28
32
190
Fraction Built =
150 / 190
= 0.7895
Beneficiary Group
Parking Allocation
"N BGP"
102.63
22.11
25.26
150.00
Example of Computing Beneficiary
Group Parking Allocations
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 18 August 2, 2008
Table 5
Total Parking Supplied
"N_DP" =
150
Base Price 65 Condo owners
$0.46 28 Loft owners
Per Hour 32 Workers
General Public
Total
Fraction Full
Vacancy, "V%"
HourlyRateMultiplier
HourlyRate, "HR"
Hours duration
SPerSpaceOverHours
Total Collection
TotalForDay
Spending
Calculation =
Number Parked *
HR* 12 Hours
Day Night Total
Condo owners $219.18 $1,007.08 $1,226.26
Loftowners $109.59 $302.12 $411.71
Workers $131.51 $0.00 $131.51
General Public $109.59 $125.88 $235.47
Total $569.86 $1,435.09 $2,004.95
Collection
Calculations
Day
40
20
24
20
104
0.693
30.67
1.00
$0.46
12.00
$5.48
$569.86
Night
80
24
0
10
114
0.760
24.00
2.30
$1.05
12.00
$12.59
$1,435.09
$2,004.95
Allocated
Parking
N BGP
102.63
22.11
25.26
0.00
150
Earning Calculations
Percent of
Total, "N_DP"
N_BGP / N_DP
0.6842
0.1474
0.1684
0.00
1
Total For Day =
$2,004.95
Multiplied by
N BGP IN DP
$1,371.81
$295.47
$337.68
$0.00
$2,004.95
Each worker that parked paid
Each worker earned
Worker that parked netted
Condo & Loft Owners that parked in the day paid
Condo & Loft Owners that parked in the night paid
Condo & Loft Owners that parked 24 hours paid
However, all Condo Owners earned
Condo Owners that parked 24 hours netted
However, all Loft Owners earned
Loft Owners that parked 24 hours netted
The general public that parked all day paid
The general public that parked all night paid
Per
Worker or
Household
$21.10
$10.55
$10.55
$5.48
$10.55
$5.07
$5.48
$12.59
$18.07
$21.10
$3.04
$10.55
-$7.52
$5.48
$12.59
One Day Net Cost/Benefit for 4 Groups
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 19 August 2, 2008
Table 6
CH2M Hill Work Trips
Mode
Drive Alone
Carpool
Bus
Bike, Walk
Before
89%
9%
1%
1%
After
54%
12%
17%
17%
100% 100%
What $54/month (1995 $'s) for Not Driving Did at CH2M Hill, an
Engineering Firm in Bellevue, Washington, Near Seattle
Reference: How to Get Paid to Bike to Work by Patrick Siegman
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 20 August 2, 2008
Table 7
Financial Incentives, Impact on Parking Demand*
Location Scope Employees,
Assumed No.
Financial Incentive per
mo. (1995 $'s)
Group A: Areas with little or no public transportation
Century City District,
West Los Angleles
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
San Fernando Valley,
Los Angles
Bellevue, WA
3500 employees surveyed
at 1 00+ firms
9000 faculty & staff
1 large employer ( 850
employees)
1 medium-sized firm (430
employees)
Weighted Average of Group Sum
3500
9000
850
430
13780
$81
$34
$37
$54
$46.75
Group B: Areas with fair public transportation
Los Angeles Civic
Center
Mid-Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angleles
Washington DC
Suburbs
Downtown Los Angeles
10000+ employees at
several organizations
1 mid-size firm
5500 employees at 3
worksites
5000 employees surveyed
at 118 firms
Weighted Average of Group Sum
10000
430
5500
5000
20930
$125
$89
$68
$126
$109.52
Group C: Areas with good public transportation
University of
Washington, Seattle
Downtown Ottowa,
Canada
50,000 faculty, staff &
students
3500+ government staff
Weighted Average of Group Sum
50000
3500
53500
Weighted Average Over 3 Groups
$18
$72
$21.53
$46.35
Parking
Decrease
15%
26%
30%
39%
23.9%
36%
38%
26%
25%
30.8%
24%
18%
23.6%
25.3%
Ten Cases of Cashout, from How to Get Paid to Bike to Work: A Guide to Low-
traffic, High-profit Development Published in Bicycle Pedestrian Federation of
America, 1995
Bullock DraftOfParkingPlan 21 August 2, 2008
City of Carlsbad
City Council Meeting
San Diego Smart Parking Pilot and
Research Project Overview
March 10, 2009
2
Smart Parking
Pilot and Research Project
•SANDAG, NCTD, FHWA,Caltrans, PATH, CCIT,ParkingCarma
•State and Federal Grantefforts $1.28m
•Build on Findings andLessons Learned -Rockridge BART Station
•Deploy Smart Parking technology atCOASTER stations
3
Key Pilot and Research Project Objectives
•Maximize parking efficiency during
COASTER hours
•Improve parking management capabilities
•Enhance COASTER service by delivering
real-time parking information
•Evaluate/measure user acceptance of
pricing as a means to deliver enhanced
transit services
•Research findings to explore business
models
4
Key Milestones
•Phase 1 –Early 2008:
Preliminary, Research, Data Collection, and
Installation (Feasibility Phase)
•Phase 2 –Spring 2009:
Pilot Project Launch and Initial Evaluation
•Phase 3 –Summer 2010:
Project Evaluation/Monitoring (Summer 2010)
5
Key Phase 1 Findings
•Carlsbad Village (Before New Spots)
–Primarily COASTER riders use the lots
–NCTD Parking counts indicate long-term excess parking
demand
–Observational data indicates demand is strong five days a week
•Carlsbad Poinsettia
–Parking demand for COASTER highest
–Alternative uses
–COASTER parking spillover on Avenida Encinas
–Parking restricted by environmental and land use
considerations
6
Key Project Effort to Date:
•Working with NCTD Staff and Board on Phase 2 Pilot
Implementation:
–Launch Planned Spring 2009
–Development of Parking Management Strategies
•Maximizing Parking Efficiency During
COASTER Hours
•Encourage COASTER/Transit
Carpool/Vanpool
•Providing Enhanced Services –Paid
Reservation to COASTER/Transit User
•Examine Paid Parking Options to Non-
COASTER and Transit Users
7
Key Project Effort to Date (Cont.):
•Working with NCTD Staff and Board on Phase 2
Pilot Implementation:
–Pilot Deployment Phased Approach:
•Carlsbad Village
•Carlsbad Poinsettia
•Encinitas Station
–Public Outreach-Marketing
8
Next Steps:
•Present Parking Management Strategies to
NCTD Board Direction and Approval –
Planned May
•Initiate Phase 3 –Evaluation and Monitoring
9
Questions