My Performance Parking Experience at Eastern Market

One evening, I went to pick my wife up at work (it was her last day in that office and we had to move boxes out).  Since it was getting late, the dinner plan was to eat out.  I work at the Navy Yard, and one of my favorite nice lunch spots is The Old Siam, which is essentially at 8th and E SE, at the north end of the 8th street "Barracks Row" area.  The vast majority of parking meters in that area are under the "Performance Parking" system, where meter rates are supposed to adjust based on demand, with a goal of providing some parking space availability.

According to a recent report by Harvey Damon, there aren't any blocks in the ballpark zone that need higher rates.  My experience trying to visit this area at 7pm on Friday doesn't match this report.  My wife and I circled about a mile, and we must have passed about a hundred full metered spaces, one instance of double parking, and a few instances of waiting in non-legal spaces.

After driving nearly a mile looking for a parking space, my wife and I decided to give up.  As we drove out, we noticed that the meters on M street (which charge the same price or perhaps 50 cents cheaper) were completely empty, but that was far to walk with two kids.  We drove to Pentagon City to eat and paid $2 for an hour of parking.  We would have been willing to pay the same or maybe a little more to park on 8th for dinner. 

While I understand that this might have been an anomaly, I'm guessing it's not.  According to the performance parking report (PDF) for the Columbia Heights zone, DDOT stated that only three multispace meter blocks have occupancy above 85%.  However, it appears that this is based on average occupancy, rather than maximum occupancy.

It's important to adjust meter rates based on maximum occupancy because the goal of performance parking is to ensure that a parking space is always available on each block.  If the rates are adjusted based on average occupancy, all that ensures is that the overcrowded parking during peak times is balanced by relatively empty parking during some other time of the day.  If demand throughout the day is highly variable, it's probably better to have two tiers of rates or some other way to offer discounted parking during off-peak times.  The Port of San Francisco has two tiers and highly varied prices by location in order to better match prices with demand.  Their maximum is $3 per hour (4 hr. max), and the minimum is $0.50 per hour.  Some spaces are available for $1.00 per hour for a maximum of 12 hours.

Having the parking meter fees too low but with no spaces available is like a grocery store that offers heavily discounted bread.  Sure, it's a great deal, but they never have any bread.  Eventually, you give up going to that store and to to a more expensive store that you know always has some bread available.  That's the point of performance parking, making sure that there's always a space available.

My recommendations for DDOT are to report the data they’ve collected about the performance parking zones on a block-by-block and hour-by-hour basis.  Rather than use the average occupancy to determine what areas need price changes, they should look at either the maximum occupancy, or throw out maybe a couple of outlier hours and look at the nearly maximum occupancy.  If even at the peak, the blocks are still empty, the fees should decrease.  But if at the peak, people are finding the spaces all full, then a meter fee increase is justified.

San Francisco board approves “parking toolbox” study

The San Francisco County transportation authority board recently approved this extensive on street parking management and pricing report.

As part of the report, the study team put together some neighborhood case studies that are relevant in Washington, DC, Arlington, and other parts of the region.

Some interesting findings from the report:  Resident permit parking fees are $76 per year, more than five times as high as Washington, DC.  According to the report, this price is set based on the costs of administering the program, and requires the largest amount of parking officer enforcement effort.  If San Francisco says it costs $76 per vehicle to administer the program, why is DC only charging $15?

San Francisco allows up to four permits at the base price, but households (if they qualify for an exemption) can pay a graduated rate for additional permits.  Visitor permits are available in short durations (as low as two weeks) and are priced at around $40 per month.  Permit zones appear to be limited to walking distance, minimizing cross-commuting.  The rules for setting up zones are similar to Arlington’s, which require a certain amount of observed outsider parking, parking congestion, and neighborhood approval.

On-street parking occupancy in some areas was very high.  All reported surveys showed the Cow Hollow area as 90% occupied or more.  The study also found that compliance with traditional time limits was low.  Average vehicle duration at 30-minute meters was over 40 minutes, and at 1-hour meters was over 85 minutes.

The study team interviewed pedestrians in the study areas.  They found that more than half of people surveyed were non-drivers.  Among drivers, many reported having to search for 5 minutes or more to find parking.  In the most parking-constrained neighborhood, less than 40 percent of drivers expected to find free parking.

In a mail-reply survey, residents rated availability (ease of finding a space) as the most important parking attribute, with cost of metered parking rated below safety, appropriate time limit and convenience.  When asked to rate their experience parking, availability was at the bottom, with cost rated a better experience than time limits, information, and the availability of various payment options.

The survey results imply that residents would be willing to pay more for spaces that are more convenient and available.  Among availability, convenience, and neighborhood improvements, availability beat convenience and improvements in forced-choice questions.

Businesses also rated availability highest in importance, with cost also rated below time limits, convenience and safety.  “Being able to find a parking space more quickly” was rated by businesses as the improvement customers would be willing to pay extra for, with “extended time limits” running a close second.  More than 50% of businesses surveyed said they would be more likely to support an increase in parking meter rates if a portion were dedicated to neighborhood improvements.

The recommendations also read like the Shoup model of parking management: variable prices, extended time limits, devoting a part of the revenue to the neighborhood.

Something "Infosnacky" for a change

I don't blog much about the data and stuff anymore, working on parking and transit issues takes up most of the blog time I have.

But I saw this and wanted to share. What a fantastic presentation of data.

Some really interesting things going on there, click on any profession and it will expand, you can type a search, breaks down by male/female, etc.

For example, type "fa" and look at what happened to farming. It used to take about 50% of the US workforce to grow crops, now it's down below 2%.

What's an "operative", by the way? There sure were a lot of them in the 1960s and 1970s.

Petition regional governments for more Metro funding

If you don't have time to read, click here to sign Coalition for Smarter Growth's petition to local government officials asking for more financial support for Metro.

We've recently discussed Metro's funding shortfalls, in the current fiscal year (about $22M based on declining ridership and revenues), for next fiscal year (projected at about $100M due to high cost growth in Metroaccess and employee compensation, and a reduction in advertising revenues), and about $3B for the next 10-year capital funding cycle (where the needs include track maintenance, new storage and maintenance facilities, and new railcars/buses).

Coalition for Smarter Growth, a little organization (only five staff members) with a big impact, now has a petition to local elected officials to request that they fully fund Metro’s needs.  Here’s the text of the petition:

“I urge you to commit to fully funding our region's Metro System, which is the lifeblood of the Washington region. Our roads and transit systems depend on your leadership to maintain Metro as a world-class transit system.

Please:
1) Commit to providing Metro with sufficient annual operating funds.
2) Meet Metro's needs for $11.4 Billion in capital improvements over the next ten years. This money should come from all levels of government -- local, state, and federal.

This effort is crucial to keeping Metro operating.  With the recent Board guidance to General Manager Catoe, he is required to propose enough cost reductions, including service cuts, to balance the budget for next year.  The Board wants to consider only small inflationary fare increases and does not expect an increase in operating subsidy next year.  With the two sources of revenue constrained, that could mean fairly substantial cuts in service.  We need to ask our local elected leaders to make a commitment to Metro.  Please sign the petition today.

Streetcar on the “Honor System”

Like most other rail street transit systems in the world, the DC streetcar should be on the honor system.  This system requires passengers riding the streetcar to have proof that their current ride is paid for, but does not require riders to show their ticket unless asked by an inspector.  This system is extensively used in Europe and in various American cities like San Diego, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, and Los Angeles.

Honor system boarding allows people to board at any door of the vehicle and speeds up vehicle travel speed.  If you have a valid day or week pass or prepaid cash ticket, nothing would be required.  Just board and go.  If you have a Smartrip card, readers at each door would be available to register your payment.  Cash fares could be accepted at the driver’s door only, but this could be discouraged by increasing the fare (for example, by charging $2.00 at the farebox instead of $1.50 at the station machine).  The goal would be to encourage most riders to prepay their fares so the boarding process can happen smoothly and with a minimum of delay.

Fare verification would require random inspection of tickets.  First-time non-payers could be warned, repeat offenders could be fined or (in rare cases) asked to leave the train.  A reasonable first fine (after a warning) could be $50, with a maximum $200 fine.  Citations could be paid by mail or contested at the Metro or DDOT office, with judicial appeals available if required by law.  I’m not sure what to do about passengers that are not carrying photo ID. Some systems have difficulty compelling fare evaders to show ID, at worst they could be asked to leave the vehicle.

Having enough inspections to give people more than a 10% chance of being asked to show payment is a reasonable balance `between too many inspectors and rampant fraud.  With this level of inspection, the TCRP reports that most transit operators see between 1 and 6% non-payment rate.  For example, Phoenix’s new light rail transit line reports about a 1% non-payment rate with about a million rides per month.  For DC’s streetcar lines, three to five full-time inspectors for each line should be sufficient to provide this level of coverage, supplemented by additional temporary staff inspectors occasionally to provide more robust coverage and audits.

Inspections would be kept brief, paper fare media could be inspected visually, and Smartrip payment or passes could be validated by hand-held readers.  To reduce confrontation and security risks, inspectors might be sent in pairs, boarding the vehicle at both doors and meeting in the middle.

There are some alternatives to the honor system.  One would be to require all passengers to board at the front door and pay or show a pass, involving longer waiting times at stops.  Another would be to have a conductors at each door (I saw this in Germany) which would increase operating costs.  Finally, DDOT could somehow limit access to streetcar stations except through faregates, which is likely impractical or impossible without encasing the station and providing street-side doors for boarding like in Curitiba.

Since these alternatives are slower or more expensive, I recommend that DC follow other cities and use proof of payment/honor system for collecting streetcar fares.

London’s “Spider Maps”

Transport for London has these great bus maps that show routes traveling in all directions from major transit nodes. 

These maps are more abstract than the previously mentioned station-oriented bus maps.  They combine several useful features:

1.  A local area walking map, showing the location of the different bus stops keyed to a table of routes

2.  A schematic route map for the bus, showing routing to other transit nodes in the area

3.  A table of routes leaving from that node, either daytime or nighttime routes

These maps, Metro’s station area maps, Los Angeles Metro’s “12 Minute” maps (discussed here), and improved bus schedules are all created by CHK America, Inc. 

Some issues with this mapping method:

You have to name the “dots”.  Could DC residents agree on what to call the many new places we’d have to represent as a dot on a map?  Or would the dot names become conglomerations, like some Metro station names?

Our bus service seems more complicated.  Some routes only travel certain times or have “turn-back” service.  For example, there are some Metrobus routes that operate only two or three trips a day.  Is it better or worse to put them on the map?

Our buses are not as frequent as London’s.  This kind of map is most useful if the rider only has to worry about routing and not schedule.  Once a rider has to worry about bus schedule and timetables, it’s likely this won’t be enough information.

Infosnack and Greater Greater Washington Mentioned in the Post

I was mentioned in the Washington Post. Woot. Probably because Unsuck DC Metro mentioned me or perhaps Lena Sun of the Post has my business card after I talked to her at a WMATA board meeting, before I was writing more heavily for Greater Greater Washington. See this article, "Catoe should make gadfly bloggers his new best friends". We should convene a meeting of the WMATA bloggers and strategerize or something. I'm still looking to meet the bloggers from DCist, Metro Man, Why I Hate DC and We Love DC.