Parking Recommendations Go Before Council (30. October 2007, 21:31 by Whitney) ~ Streetcars Are In!
After months of meetings, town hall sessions, and public input, City Manager Eric Anderson made his recommendations to the City Council on the issue of parking at the study session today. He made it clear the problem is not just where to put cars, but rather how to move people. He asked the Council to “think of our roads as transportation corridors for all types of transportation”. A group of active citizens had an enormous impact on the recommendations Mr. Anderson provided today. We’ve listed them below for your perusing. What do you think? Would these improve our fair city?
- Build a citywide streetcar system to connect the downtown, the neighborhoods, and the neighborhood business districts (implement Streetcar Task Force recommendations).
- Build a citywide bicycle/pedestrian system using trails and the existing street rights of way.
- Integrate #1 and #2 into a citywide multi-modal transportation system (buses, rail, bikes, cars, streetcars, pedestrians).
- Create an independent parking enterprise fund.
- Charge users for on-street parking.
- Use market price to regulate demand (15% vacancy rate=market price).
- Build parking supply on periphery of downtown using revenue from parking system.
- Consider eliminating parking minimums in zoning requirements.
It sounds so easy when it’s in a numbered list. We’ve been hearing about these proposals for a while. Are we any closer now?
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
The City Council and staff have travelled light years ahead of where they were a couple of years when they were considering putting in pay stations downtown.
Setting the vacancy rate at 15 percent would certainly put Tacoma on the path to implement the best practices in parking policy.
Of course, the areas which are appropriate to charge anything for parking and the parking rates have to be based on on occupancy rates which can be tricky to measure.
The city should have a transparent process in which everyone can see (online) occupancy data downtown in the various zones that are created.
If they are set too high, it could excess vacancies. Too low, and people are camping in a space.
The beauty of setting the rates at 85 percent occupancy is that it would keep downtown streets nearly full of cars, yet there is always some spaces open.
The NYC downtown group Street Films (our Exit 133 equivalent) explains charging the right price for parking well in the 6 minute video with parking expert Professor Donald Shoup.
Still a ways to go but getting there.
It’s a good start. The Council needs to understand that no single element is going to solve the parking and transportation issue. All of the elements need to work together if this plan will do any good. For example: the parking regulations will need to be removed to allow development to happen at densities where people will choose to utilize a streetcar.
Hmm… A list of objectives. yipee?
I got the impression that the Council was ready to sign off on a list like this months ago. What everyone wants is the details. (Where is the City charging? How much will they charge? When will the charges be implemented?) The presentation was (still) about the big picture.
I’m not sure about #4, a parking enterprise fund. Charging market rate does not mean enough will be charged to make the parking system self-sufficient. Similarly, a large surplus in the enterprise fund does not necessarily mean rates need to be lowered or more parking built. The supply needs to be managed with a market goal, but the system itself should probably not be “run like a business” (Anderson). (If it could be a viable business, why not just sub-contract the work out to private industry?)
5 | Posted by DavidS | Oct 31, 07:48 AM
You have to admit that it’s refreshing to see a serious list of real actions rather than dueling hand wringing and hair on fire demands for doing something about more parking. Not only does the list make sense it shows that City Hall is really thinking rationally about transportation improvements.
Since the traffic engineers have embraced angle parking everywhere I would add scaled parking fees so supersized twin cab, full bed, full elevated, mega tire, erect super long trailer hitch equiped monster vehicles would pay a bit more for the square footage they require than a prius. Either that or let folks stack in their minis, two to a space. Sorry random rant.
6 | Posted by artifacts | Oct 31, 08:44 AM
I love it! Heck, I’d be happy with a combo of 1 and 7 (streetcars and garages outside downtown). The rest is a bonus.
Regarding 7, I think the big question would be where to put the garages? Like, it seems like it would be good to have one aroud the Stadium District, but where (and how ugly)?
Here’s my biggest concern: If the region passes Prop 1 and our transportation taxes go sky-high, is Tacoma going to be in the mood to raise them even higher to pay for streetcars? I for one would much rather have streetcars to get people from homes in Tacoma to jobs in Tacoma than far more expensive minitrains to get people from homes in Tacoma to jobs in Seattle.
I think all of it makes sense…except parking garages surrounding our downtown. I don’t understand the logic or the desire for this. If we had a good streetcar network people would be apt to take that into downtown or pay for parking in the garages that already exist. Why ring our downtown with more ugly garages. Also includes should be getting rid of commerical off street partking requirments and a private commerical garage parking tax to pay for the streetcar.
8 | Posted by Andrew | Oct 31, 11:09 AM
Dang … that’s a hard call. Is it an either or for people? I hope not.
My big problem with Prop 1 is the sales tax hike; I wish it were a gas tax increase. But I really hope the streetcar can be funded without adding on to sales tax, which would be pushing 10%.
9 | Posted by Erik Hanberg | Oct 31, 11:09 AM
An eight point parking and transit plan. Sounds like a good start.
10 | Posted by Marty | Oct 31, 01:08 PM
We waited our turn on regional transportation and prop 1 is the payoff. Witness Ron Sims pulling out since he beleives King Co. doesn’t get enough. The only major reservation I have is that the Port quietly assisted in the situation with the Morgan bridge and now stand to really benefit from the new roads in Prop 1. There’s just a bit of arrogance in getting everything they want and not being loyal to anyone but themselves. Off point. Sorry.
11 | Posted by artifacts | Oct 31, 03:36 PM
I’m with artifacts. We need to support regional and local transit improvements, including Prop 1 and the recommendations laid out by Anderson.
I agree with Erik H. is that the sales tax is regressive and not a great way to fund things. But right now, it’s how we raise most of our money in this state. I don’t think we should sacrifice approving good transit measures to make a point about the regressiveness of sales taxes. The tax issue should be taken on directly by the state legislature. In the future, it would be great if new road and transit projects were funded through congestion pricing and carbon taxes (taxes on a miles traveled/MPG index), but those concepts will take a while to develop and sell to the public, and I think it would be a mistake to wait that long to get light rail to Tacoma — assuming we could even get it in a regional transportation package again.
12 | Posted by michael g. | Oct 31, 09:31 PM
Thanks to Eric B for the link to the right price of parking video. City-wide Tacoma doesn’t have the density to go to meters but in spots it does. The video also underscores a thought that has occurred to me from time to time, to wit: an essential aspect of dense urban living is inconvenience. The quest for convenience (like free and ample parking, at the mall, for example) is an essential aspect of suburban life.
13 | Posted by David Nicandri | Nov 1, 01:09 PM
David N — I’d argue that it’s much more “convenient” to live in a densely built city with lots of services within walking distance than to have to drive and park every time you go out.
14 | Posted by michael g. | Nov 1, 01:18 PM
Back to my question from earlier, if Prop 1 passes is Tacoma going to be in the mood to raise them even higher to pay for streetcars?
From these postings it sounds like this group of civic-minded, active-communicator Tacomans would pay for all of the above. I also get the feeling that this group passes most tax increases that are for the good of the city. I’m more concerned about the other 199,000 Tacomans who I believe will be so unhappy after receiving their first Prop 1 tax bill and their first few shopping trips at 9+ percent sales tax that there’s no way they will pass more tax for a streetcar. Especially when that initial streetcar system doesn’t service their neighborhood.
Quick clarification: I like the idea of garages at the far ends of streetcar lines more than at the outskirts of the city. Like, you live in Ruston and work in the city but the streetcar only goes to Sprague … it’s better you park at Sprague than downtown, right? Heck, I’m no fan of garages either but maybe that’s just the thing that butt-ugly Sprague needs to revitalize a bit. Then the old Wonder Bread building goes condo and some of the houses get fixed up and suddenly one of the main entrances to Tacoma isn’t a street stuck in Tacoma’s bad years. There’s a good reason why my directions to my photography studio are from Exit 133, not 132.
I see your point, Scott — funding one thing could make it harder for Tacomans to swallow funding the other. But in my view, regional transit is just as important as local transit. We have a good chance to get the former taken care of now with the help of the three county tax base.
If Prop. 1 passes (and probably even if it doesn’t), we’ll have to get creative with raising funds for streetcars, but I think it will be doable. Seems like something Norm Dicks might be interested in helping out with…
16 | Posted by michael g. | Nov 1, 06:24 PM
Thanks to Eric B for the link to the right price of parking video.
Sure. I thought it was pretty good.
City-wide Tacoma doesn’t have the density to go to meters but in spots it does.
I agree.
For those who walk around downtown alot, its apparent there are only a few blocks where occupancy rates are sufficient (above 85 percent) to justify charging for parking. Around the courthouse is certainly one of them.
I doubt there is more than 10 percent of the “working downtown” where charging for parking is appropriate.
I think the overall occupancy rate for the downtown (CBD) as a whole is in the 60 percent range.
That means that even when free, we still can’t give it away.
Commenting is closed for this article.
