- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
- Size of Philadelphia government?
Ray, Dewitt, Greg Heller in the Metro
Submitted by Dan U-A on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 12:28pm.
link:
It is a real who's who of internet savvy, Philly youngsters in this weeks reformer's roundtable at the Metro, talking about parking and congestion. All around, I thought the answers were solid. OK, except the idea from one respondent (who is on the planning commission) that we shouldn't regulate parking. I think that sounded a little strange.
However, I am wondering how many people did and did not get this joke from DeWitt, when asked about congestion pricing:
Congestion? We're talking about congestion? How silly is that?
Ray didn't get it.
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this Quick Hits
- Printer-friendly version
shocking
It's so shocking I did not get a sports reference. Or that i could care less. And do you see me making fun of you here for not getting it when I told Bret he should watch Roz Russell in "The Trouble with Angels" after he made a joke about Audrey Hepubun in a "A Nun's Story (a real snoozer I might add)? No. So back off straight boy.
Anyway, what is shocking is that Dewitt and I agreed. In print nonetheless.
I don't get it
:(
The sports thing
I mean. I get Audrey and all that.
I was wondering if anyone
I was wondering if anyone would get the reference.
As for Ray and I agreeing, I've always maintained that we agree about most things, it's just the 5% or so we disagree on that causes all the fireworks.
______________________________
Phillyville
Dan, thanks for the shout
Dan, thanks for the shout out, and for grouping me with such elite company.
I don't think Natalia was saying the City shouldn't regulate parking, rather that if we raise meter rates, privately-operated garages are free to respond. I agree, and so in my blurb I provided a suggestion of how the City can ensure cheap off-street parking. Anyway, I'm sure she'd be glad to debate the point.
(Incidentally, I didn't get the reference either.)
I am pretty sure that once
I am pretty sure that once you are mentioned with those guys, it is time to move.
Anyway, the joke:
I've since learned that I'm
I've since learned that I'm just about the only person in Philadelphia who hasn't seen this before. Apologies for my cultural illiteracy.
I guess I still don't get
I guess I still don't get what Natalia is talking about. It seems to me that in thinking about transit in our city, we should think more, not less, about how we regulate those parking garages, especially considering that many are publicly owned, and therefore in theory should serve a public good.
If the City had control of them, and we switched pricing around so that short term rates were lower, and long term rates were higher, wouldn't that make sense for down town, getting people off of the street, having more people use SEPTA to commute, etc?
How do you figure?
It doesn't. The goal of
It doesn't.
The goal of lowering short-term garage rates below the rate of metered parking is to reduce traffic congestion caused by drivers circling the block looking for a space. A New York Times reporter surveyed drivers in two parts of Manhattan and found something like 30% of drivers on the street were circling for a spot (I wish I could find that article again). Clearly we're not Manhattan, but although we have astronomically less congestion, I would not be surprised if Philly had about the same percentage of block circlers.
The good thing about reducing congestion by taking the circlers off the street is that it allows crosstown SEPTA buses to flow more efficiently.
Overall, we don't want to reduce long-term parking rates. These rates are the ones that are going to make parking costs a deterrent to folks heading into town by car (and thereby encouraging SEPTA usage). My argument: increase parking rates overall, intervene to ensure garage rates are competitive with meters so SEPTA buses can flow.
I am certainly in favor of boosting parking rates across the board (in garage and on-street) so as to discourage car usage for most trips downtown. However, we have to acknowledge that PPA and/or the City do not control most garages in Center City. Natalia's point is that private operators are free to raise costs as they see fit. I agree, but in addition, I encourage public intervention so that short-term rates in garages stay competitive with metered parking, for the reasons stated above.
At the same time we have to acknowledge that SEPTA does not currently provide the level of service necessary to replace car travel for many trips (especially late night). Parking pricing needs to go hand-in-hand with the City increasing its local share of SEPTA funding so that we can see commensurate service improvements.
I'm with you
Greg, I see your points.
The context of this convo though is that Dep. Mayor Cutler wants to up meter rates to decrease CC congestion. But unless the media is mis-reporting this, it seems like she wants to do this mostly to make it easier for folks to cokme into to town to shop or do whatever for short periods of time. That's fair, but that's not really a pro-transit perspective. If it was a useful stop-gap, like she planned to dedicate meter revenue to SEPTA capital expansion, I guess I could see it. But otherwise, I'd rather her leave meter rates and garage rates alone until the city lays out a clearer plan for SEPTA expansion that does actually make it more attractive for neighborhood folk and suburbanites to take SEPTA into town rather than drive. Abd I'd imagine this kind of plan would take up a lot of her time, and it seems fair to consider whether or not a meter project would distract from that.
Further, there are plenty of other ways to reduce on-street congestion in the CCD report that don't actually reaffirm the negative parts of car culture.
last, my original post stated simply, and I think Natalia's point reaffirms, that a plan to raise meter rates with no other controls on garage prices means garage owners profits will rise. And I am not totally getting how that is in the public's interest.
You left out a key phrase
First, the best way to have more people ride SEPTA is to make SEPTA better, which I am sure we agree on.
Second, you seen to have left out something:
I don't think lowering short term rates would encourage shoppers to use SEPTA. However, I would bet that if you have a car, and you are not right next to a very good SEPTA line, you probably won't be waiting for the bus to do some quick downtown shopping. You will either drive, or go somewhere that you can park easily. Until we get better infrastructure, it makes sense to me to still encourage those people to use downtown, and not a suburb.
But, I think that commuters- who spend 8 hours a day, etc- are more likely to be willing to take an extra 10 minutes to walk to the train, etc., if it makes economic sense. So, if you flip around the pricing scheme, I don't think SEPTA will lose much in quick shoppers, and will gain in commuters. And then coming downtown for a quick shopping trip is much easier, and might spur center city retail.
Yes, sorry if I wasn't
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. We want higher meter rates, lower short-term garage rates, and higher long-term garage rates.
Don't sweat it, I think I
Don't sweat it, I think I was responding to Mr. Murphy.
now i am not with you/agenda setting
Let's back up. Rina Cutler says we should raise meter rates, lower short-term rates. She says nothing about long-term garage rates. And she says nothing about where increased meter revenue would go.
Um, what's wrong with this picture?
I think it's great to see folks in Nutter admin rolling up sleeves and getting to work. But after so little leadership for so long on transportation issues, it's a bit jarring to have our newly appointed Deputy Mayor make this her first priority.
For the rest of us Philadelphians:
#1- Is reducing CC congestion our top priority when it comes to transportation issues?
#2- Even if so, is raising meter rates alone the right thing to do (cause that is actually what is on the table now. of course we can all come up with suggestion to make that basic plan better, but why do so if this method to reducing CC congestion, or the issue of CC congestion at all is not actually what the majority of us would say is most worthy of Cutler time?)
#3 - Would this even reduce congestion?
I guess I just don't buy the premise that Center City congestion has a whole lot to do with people driving around and searching for a space. (Seriously. Are there any kind of numbers for this?) Or that it will deter people from parking on the streets. Either they'll just pay more, or they'll park one or two blocks away on a neighborhood street with 2-hour parking.
The reason why people don't like to park in garages when they're making short trips has little to do with money and has much more to do with time. Garages are actually harder to find than a parking meter (making it more likely that folks will circle the streets to find a garage), and they take forever to get into and out of. The spots closest to the ground level fill up early (or are reserved for monthly customers) which means instead of circling in the city, you circle in the garage, until you finally reach the first open spot on the 8th floor. Lots, rather than garages, are faster, but they're also eyesores and inefficient uses of premium downtown space. Parking garages are just a total loser.
Center city is congested to the degree that it is (which isn't very much) because you have buses, cars, cyclists, cabs, delivery trucks and pedestrians all trying to navigate through small streets. It's hard to turn, because pedestrians cross in the walkways. When a delivery truck or taxicab double parks, everyone gets held up behind them. Cabs and buses circle the blocks, but that's what they're supposed to do. Everyone else is just trying to get across town, or to get on the highway.
I'm reminded of Tom Knox's comment in one of the mayoral debates when he said that the first thing he would do for his transportation policy is to change the timing of all the lights to make it easier to get through the city. "We were driving on the way here, and it seems like the lights are all timed wrong," Knox said. Admittedly, the guy lives on Rittenhouse, so he probably doesn't drive much. But this idea seems so anecdotal, so seat-of-the-pants, that it may have come from the same source.
See here for a good
See here for a good discussion of the issue in the Inky
What about tax structure?
So besides getting the PPA to set their rates differently, we might be able to make a small dent by changing the tax structure of lots. For example, what is we set a tax rate based on the time in a lot, rather than just an overall price? So, the city tax on parking for less than 2 hours could be minimal, or nothing... But then, if you stayed 6 or 8 or 10 hours, the City could significantly raise the tax rate, again incentivizing shorter trips in lots, and going after longer ones.
As far as I know there are
As far as I know there are only 10 PPA garage facilities in Center City. Certainly we should regulate publicly owned/operated garages. The issue is that the large majority of garages are privately operated. This gets to the point that I made in my blurb that we need more publicly operated garages so that we can control pricing. Another option is a public/private lease arrangement for short-term spaces in private garages, or public incentives for keeping short-term rates low.