Parking Meter Rate Increase to Take Effect Nov 30th
Last month it was announced that parking meters throughout the urban core of Columbus were being considered for a 50% rate hike. Randy Bowman, the Administrator of the city’s Division of Mobility Options within the Department of Public Service gave a surprise presentation to a select group of city officials detailing the meter rate hikes throughout Downtown, The Short North, and German Village. The announcement also included extended meter enforcement hours in the Short North from 6pm to 9pm, and the addition of 1,800 new parking meters to be added to currently meterless areas in the city.
A second private meeting took place on Monday to announce that this plan is moving forward and the meter rate changes should start taking effect on November 30th. City Council is not required to vote on these updates, so no public meetings will be held, and no public input will be gathered during this process.
The new meter rate increases are expected to generate an additional $1.4 million annually, which initially will be going towards funding reserve bonds for the development of the new Downtown Hilton Hotel at the Convention Center. City officials are stating that eventually these funds could also be used for upgrading existing meter technology to accept credit cards.
Randy J. Bowman, Administrator of the Division of Mobility Options can be reached at 614.645.2464 or rjbowman@columbus.gov.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am and is filed under Development.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Related Tags: city hall • downtown • parking • parking meters • Randy Bowman • Short North • transportation
November 18th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Posted some of my personal thoughts on this yesterday… here: Parking Meters: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
November 18th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Dumb. Way to go boneheads. “Eventually fund new meters”. Unreal.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:50 am
They should let you park free at the new garages they just built if you spend a certain amount of money at the businesses downtown. Your ticket would be validated by the business. I’ve seen this done other places.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:55 am
JonMyers Says: Dumb. Way to go boneheads. “Eventually fund new meters”. Unreal.
Right. Pay more money today for a convenience we may see in a few years. Hopefully someone in the Division of Mobility Options will put stickers on the meters explaining that concept so that suburbanites will keep venturing Downtown.
“Oh! These expensive meters are a fundraiser for new technology to be introduced down the road? I guess I won’t just go to Easton or Polaris instead!”
November 18th, 2009 at 9:59 am
@Walker - Yeah, it’s extremely disappointing. Without any specific goals or measures attached to the pricing increase that money will vanish into the ether.
What they’re also not saying is what volume of parking ticket increases they are predicting. It’s inevitable. There is a model to make such a prediction.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I’m not sure this is the best way to revitalize the downtown.
It would be more direct if the mayor would just bitch slap anyone from the burbs who tries to come downtown and spend money.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ah yes, counterproductivity. I was in Knoxville earlier this year and they have quite the revitalization of their own downtown going on (including their own Gay St.), and much of what I was impressed with was the fact that they LESSEN the parking restrictions during evening and weekends opening up parking garages for free and otherwise trying to pull people to the center of the city… but I guess that’s all just silliness and Knoxville just has it wrong trying to get people to come downtown with their dollars and STAY for a few hours. FAIL.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Thanks for the commentary Walker.
This issue has been discussed extensively with a variety of different groups and largely met with little drama. The meeting on Monday was not meant to be a surprise, it was held out of respect for people who were most worried. Nor was this the first meeting where folks have talked about the meter increases, which have been in discussion for months. This meeting was to bring in a small group of concerned stakeholders to discuss our final decisions, to let them ask questions and to ask them to consider serving on a Parking Meter and ROW advisory group so they have more input on future decisions. It was much the same group as we brought together to formulate new Valet Zone policies during the past year.
Since last May when this was first publicly brought up, we’ve talked to many folks to get input, no one likes increased rates, but many do see the value.
This new revenue will go to install much better meters across the city that are solar powered, digital, tough enough for winters, and take credit cards. The meters are not free, but cost about $3.6 million in total, and all should be in place by 2012. We hope to put the first ones in by next summer, in highest demand/cost areas.
You are correct that higher rates also encourage greater turnover at the meters, which is good for smaller businesses.
Higher rates also encourage more use of alternative transportation.
As a correction, we are not currently extending times of meters in SN or in any area. We simply asked the folks in the meeting to work as the advisory panel to help study that and other issues on future meter policy changes. I saw this statement in emails and want the record to be clear. That decision has not been made.
We also want the group to study whether or not we should have the 12 hour meters anywhere, and where we could grow the system.
Yes, at least half of the meter zones have not been changed at all since 1998, including the Short North, according to PVB. Downtown zones are the exceptions because we did away with 3 and 6 hour meters and made almost all of them 30 minute or 2 hour in 2005. This affected the rates on some streets, like Gay, but did not raise the entire downtown system either.
That said, this planned increase is the same amount as if we had a automatic annual increase of 3-4% set in policy, instead of looking at it every 5-10 years.
In the end, the process didn’t have a ton of public meetings and hearings, it is an administrative decision. We’ve made sure that everyone inside City Hall has heard the complaints about this and are offering to engage a group of citizen stakeholders as advisers for future changes to hours, locations, durations, prices, etc.
We also were clear that if these meters are a real hardship, and it can be shown by looking at the data over the coming year, we’ll work with this same group to help address the problems.
Finally, most of the small businesses we are getting emails from are in a position to benefit greatly with the creation of a large hotel by the Convention Center. It will bring more/bigger conventions, conferences and sports into the area and it will have its own parking garage. This increased business will continue to accentuate the great work being done in the Arena District, Short North and Downtown.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:54 am
While the meter times allegedly have not been altered (see Mike Browns post above), YET (it likely will be) and COTA being unreliable and raising their prices; it makes me that more less likely to want to drive downtown for anything.
As Liz pointed out, why do I want to shell out a roll of quarters to eat on Gay St? Sure, there are good places there, but there more than enough elsewhere where I dont have to fork up to park.
I think in this economy, the Knoxville, TN., example provided by Brothermarcus seems like a much more feasible plan otherwise downtown Columbus will clear out after 5PM….
November 18th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Still think it’s amazingly counterproductive. People will come downtown, be surprised by the high costs and low durations of the meters, and upon getting their first ticket they’ll decide to take their business to a more hospitable locale (see Easton, Polaris, etc.) This will, at least occasionally, include me.
I’ll be interested to see how this progresses. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if the income this generates will be far less than expected.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I think the part that is most head slapping is that the parking meter revenues will be used to fund more parking meters.
“This new revenue will go to install much better meters across the city that are solar powered, digital, tough enough for winters, and take credit cards. The meters are not free, but cost about $3.6 million in total”
Hey! I just found a way to save the city $3.6 million!
“Higher rates also encourage more use of alternative transportation.”
I’m not buying this. That only works when you do not have an alternative (like Polaris).
“benefit greatly with the creation of a large hotel by the Convention Center”
Red Herring. Or are you saying that the decreased shoppers put off by the increased meter will be offset by the new hotel?
“Yes, at least half of the meter zones have not been changed at all since 1998″
Something not been changed in the past is not a reason to change it now.
I just don’t see a net advantage for the city here.
There are many alternatives for people spending their money. The city has just increased the insentive for people to go elsewhere.
Let’s see it costs me $1.50 in gas and 10 minutes to make it to Easton.
It will cost me $2.00 in quarters and it takes me 10 minutes to find a meter. Plus sometimes I have to leave my dinner half way through and run out to plug the meter again.
I live 1.5 miles from the short north and you are making it more attractive for me to go to Easton. So what do you think people who live further away are thinking?
“I’ll be interested to see how this progresses. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if the income this generates will be far less than expected.”
Guessing the lost tax revenue will end in a net loss.
FAIL
November 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I know most people come downtown not for the convenience but to only support downtown during its struggling time..I along with other people who live downtown could easily go elsewhere in the city to shop yet I try to stay downtown….I could understand raising the price of the meter if retail and other businesses were thriving but it seems to me alot of the businesses downtown are barly open with the amount of customers they already have, 3.50 or 4.50 whatever it will go up to for an hour is far to much!
November 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
It’s been awhile since I posted on here, but this proposal makes very little sense. I live in the ‘burbs, so there is very little difference between heading downtown or to Easton for me. I don’t understand why the city would implement a proposal to make heading to one of the 270 malls (or anywhere other than downtown) even more attractive. If I’m a small business owner, I would be even more hesitant to locate downtown–there’s already so little traffic, and raising costs is not likely to spur activity.
I already pay for parking at the City Center, so I can walk a few blocks and avoid the meters. I would pay meter rates in bad weather, but higher rates will discourage that activity. It was already tough enough to tell family / friends to come downtown and pay $1.50 for 60 minutes at a meter. I can’t imagine it’ll be any easier if the rate increases. OTOH, my parents were more than happy to visit Creekside at Gahanna where the garage validates parking for patrons. Cincy also has very cheap garage rates on weekends. Those seem like a much more productive ways to attract visitors.
Also, if you expect meters to generate revenue, then install the meters and let them generate revenue. Don’t have current meters subsidize the purchase.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
We could bullshit all day long about where, what and how the additional revenue will be spent. At the end of the day there is no accountability attached to the increase.
The bottom line is a pricing increase without new meters will hurt the perception and growth of downtown.
That’s coming from someone who doesn’t even own a car anymore.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Mike Brown Says: Thanks for the commentary Walker.
No problem at all. Thanks a bunch for taking the time to add to the conversation, Mike. ;)
Mike Brown Says: This issue has been discussed extensively with a variety of different groups and largely met with little drama. The meeting on Monday was not meant to be a surprise, it was held out of respect for people who were most worried. Nor was this the first meeting where folks have talked about the meter increases, which have been in discussion for months. This meeting was to bring in a small group of concerned stakeholders to discuss our final decisions, to let them ask questions and to ask them to consider serving on a Parking Meter and ROW advisory group so they have more input on future decisions. It was much the same group as we brought together to formulate new Valet Zone policies during the past year.
I can appreciate the attempt at being inclusive to multiple groups and concerned stakeholders, but that’s no excuse for a lack of public input on this. Everyone who lives, works, shops, and visits Downtown, The Short North, and other urban neighborhoods are stakeholders in this. Which brings me to this…
Mike Brown Says: Since last May when this was first publicly brought up, we’ve talked to many folks to get input, no one likes increased rates, but many do see the value.
How exactly was this “publicly” brought up in May? As you’re well aware, I get an emailed copy of nearly every single public communication message that comes out of City Hall, and I had never heard anything about it until the Dispatch article appeared last month. Were any public input meetings held? How exactly were people asked to get engaged? I consider myself to be fairly plugged in to what’s going on, and this was a completely surprise to me in October. I’ve heard the same sentiment echoed from a variety of friends and colleagues who felt that this plan was laid out in advance and the announcement was sprung upon everyone to let the public know what the city officials had already decided.
Whoever was in charge of handling the public communications on this really dropped the ball big time. I’m disappointed that decisions of this magnitude are being made behind closed doors.
Mike Brown Says: This new revenue will go to install much better meters across the city that are solar powered, digital, tough enough for winters, and take credit cards. The meters are not free, but cost about $3.6 million in total, and all should be in place by 2012. We hope to put the first ones in by next summer, in highest demand/cost areas.
I do consider this to be the silver lining in what is otherwise a pretty dark storm cloud. I personally looking forward to being able to park Downtown again in 2012. Not sure what I’ll do in the two years between now and then.
Mike Brown Says: You are correct that higher rates also encourage greater turnover at the meters, which is good for smaller businesses.
Right, but isn’t there a ceiling on that? If $4/hr is better for customer turnover for small businesses than $2/hr does that mean $10/hr would be even better? At what point does it become detrimental? Have there been any local studies done on this? If so, why haven’t they been made public?
Mike Brown Says: Higher rates also encourage more use of alternative transportation.
I agree with Tenzo on this, and said something similar in my blog post linked above: Driving and parking throughout Central Ohio does need to become more challenging to make alternative transit a more viable option… but when the inconvenience and higher prices are limited to a very specific area such as Downtown, the impact on transit ridership and support will be minimal.
Mike Brown Says: As a correction, we are not currently extending times of meters in SN or in any area. We simply asked the folks in the meeting to work as the advisory panel to help study that and other issues on future meter policy changes. I saw this statement in emails and want the record to be clear.
I apologize if my information was incorrect on that aspect… but when no public communication is being released on these meetings and decisions and conversations, then all we’ve got to go by is second-hand information.
Mike Brown Says: Yes, at least half of the meter zones have not been changed at all since 1998, including the Short North, according to PVB. Downtown zones are the exceptions because we did away with 3 and 6 hour meters and made almost all of them 30 minute or 2 hour in 2005. This affected the rates on some streets, like Gay, but did not raise the entire downtown system either.
That’s the most clear definition I’ve heard on this so far. I don’t know why it’s being communicated in a misleading manner as if meter rates have not increased at all in 10 years.
Mike Brown Says: That said, this planned increase is the same amount as if we had a automatic annual increase of 3-4% set in policy, instead of looking at it every 5-10 years.
But only on the half of the meters that have not had rate increases, right? What would the increase be for the meters that have already had rate increases in the past 10 years? Closer to a 10% annual increase? Are those meter increases outpacing inflation? If so, why?
Mike Brown Says: In the end, the process didn’t have a ton of public meetings and hearings, it is an administrative decision.
I’d like to know the exact number of public meetings and hearings. Because I’m counting zero right now. Which I guess could correctly be described as not being “a ton”. Administrative decision or not, I don’t think that’s a very good excuse for leaving so much of the public in the dark.
Mike Brown Says: We also were clear that if these meters are a real hardship, and it can be shown by looking at the data over the coming year, we’ll work with this same group to help address the problems.
How are hardships going to be measured? Anecdotally? Or will these businesses owners and stakeholders have to show some sort of tangible connection between the increased meter rates and drops in business or business closures? I want to know how many businesses will have to close before rate decreases would be considered.
Mike Brown Says: Finally, most of the small businesses we are getting emails from are in a position to benefit greatly with the creation of a large hotel by the Convention Center. It will bring more/bigger conventions, conferences and sports into the area and it will have its own parking garage. This increased business will continue to accentuate the great work being done in the Arena District, Short North and Downtown.
I totally agree that the new Convention Center hotel will be a huge benefit to Downtown, and I’d even go so far as to say that the impact will be felt throughout the entire region. Which I guess is why I’m confused as to why the reserve bond funding scenario is set up only to come out of the back pockets of businesses and customers that are located Downtown. To me, it feels as if the city needed to find a way to budget for this bond funding and in order to avoid the hassle of running it through the city budget, City Council, public scrutiny, and all of those other potential “hassles”, it was pushed through the parking meter system as a way to raise funds through administrative decisions where the public would not get in the way.
If this hotel was not being built, I’m skeptical that this meter rate hike would even be on the table right now. Let’s call a spade a spade.
Again, at the end of the day, this isn’t going to keep me from going Downtown, and I’m really hoping that it’s not going to keep anyone else from doing so either. But I am really disappointed in the way that this has all come about. This doesn’t feel like the way Columbus city government normally does things.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
This is a terrible decision for downtown, I live in merion village, work near osu and try to support downtown businesses when I can, but to be honest, having to deal with more inconvenience parking downtown (not so much the cost but the practical issue of coming up with lots of change) will keep me from visiting as often to eat/have lunch or coffee meetings/go to the gym at lifestyle/shop etc.
I’ll be more likely to stay near my office during the day and/or spend my money in the southside villages.
I also did not appreciate the comment in this week’s dispatch article on this topic, where the city mentioned what a great source of revenue parking tickets are. (….really the city is counting on ticketing people as a source of revenue?)
I feel that city employees giving tickets are pretty predatory and look for any reason to ticket (I was once given a ticket downtown before my meter expired for my front plate not being fully visible…should meter readers be searching my car for any potential violation to ticket me?).
The quote in the dispatch supports that notion and that’s not the perception we want our visitors to have when coming downtown.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Apparently the City spoke extensively to a variety of different groups. However, the SNBA, the Restaurant Associations and the Downtown merchants weren’t any of the groups that were contacted. We feel the most impacted by the new meter rates. Is there any reason why the main stakeholders weren’t included in this extensive discussion?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Maybe because you wouldn’t have agreed with the predetermined outcome?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
+1
November 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
A decision backed up by research would have been better. Parking in some prime areas (Park Street) is extremely underpriced presently. Other places are extremely overpriced (Gay Street.) By doubling rates across the board, this may make those underpriced meters close to right-priced. But those already expensive meters? Totally out of whack with what people will want to pay. Parking meters are about the only place I ever use nickels. Now a nickle will buy ONE minute on Gay Street. Also, raising the rates without first having debit-enabled meters will create a lot of unnecessary hassle for people and businesses.
I understand that the city is looking at ways to increase revenue. If it were my decision, I would have found those undervalued meters and increased their cost and left the overpriced ones alone.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Because it’s pertinent to the discussion, and reflective of my opinions on the change. Here’s a recent letter sent from the SNBA to the city regarding the proposal as it stands.
“Mike and Randy -
Thank you for the briefing. Though it was exo facto, it was good to at least know what is coming and when. After digesting the information, I am compelled to make a plea that the rates in the Short North not be changed.
From the presentation, the goal is to increase parking revenues 50% across the board. By making other changes, including some selective meter rate changes, the Short North can increase its contributions to the city by 100% (double what other areas would bring to the table).
The city can achieve its revenue goals in the Short North merely by:
1) extending the active hours of the meters.
As an example, the 12-hour meters on Park Street (one block from the heart of the shopping and dining) are rated at 5 hours for $1. No joke. 75 minutes for a quarter.
The Short North has four meter rates:
15 minutes per quarter at Martini Modern Italian
25 minutes per quarter at Hyde Park Steakhouse
30 minutes per quarter at GrandView Mercantile
75 minutes per quarter on Park Street
If they are all made standard at 25 minutes per quarter, there would be an across-the-board gain.
If our meter times are extended AND our rates are increased 50%, our visitors and residents will be contributing nearly 200% more than they are now paying over the course of a day (see calculations below)… whereas the city is only looking for a 50% increase. Conversely, other effected areas such as downtown will only be paying 50% more over the course of a day. Additionally, since the Short North would be moving toward metered parking at night, and the city’s downtown hours are not changing whatsoever, it puts the Short North at a disadvantage. A person deciding to come to the Short North will have to pay considerably more to park, while they could go downtown and park for free. This is an unfair incentive if the rates are increased to the point being discussed.
Net: It is too aggressive a change to hit the Short North with both rate increases AND extended hours. Of note, the community is asking for the extended hours. We need the extended hours to help address parking issues. We do not need the rate increases to address those issues… in fact, the rate increases on top of extended hours could be detrimental.
Can we talk about achieving the city’s goals and meeting our merchant’s needs by extending the meter hours in the Short North versus raising the rates? As the holiday season approaches and we struggle with the effects of the recession, it is vital that we give the businesses a fair shot at surviving. Doubling parking revenue while addressing parking issues seems to be a reasonable plan.
Thank you.
John
Sample calculation of meter revenue from the Short North:
Assume that a meter is occupied 40% of the time from 9:00AM - 6:00 PM
9 hours x 60¢ per hour x 40% yields $2.16 average per day
Assume that a meter is occupied 100% of the time from 6:00 PM to 9:00PM
3 hours x 60¢ per hour that yields $1.80 new revenue per day
Simply by extending the hours, the revenue has nearly doubled to $3.96.
If we increase the rates 50%, the $2.16 becomes $3.24 during the day.
If we increase the rates 50% AND extend the hours, the evening revenue increases to $2.70
Today a meter generates $2.16 from 9:00AM until 6:00PM
With rate changes and hour changes, the meter generates $5.96
That is 175% more than the revenue currently generated…
over three times the city’s goal of a 50% increase.
This only takes into consideration the extended hours and sample rate change at a
meter than is rated at 25 minutes for a quarter. This does not take into account switching meters that are at 30 minutes per quarter or the 75 minutes per quarter. Factoring in these changes, the Short North’s increase in parking revenue would be over 200%.”
November 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
+1 to JoeV
It doesn’t make sense to raise rates city-wide or even across all of downtown. Each street is different. The hours and rates need to determined on a case-by-case basis.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
To be fair, Park Street is along Goodale Park and I think the intention of lower rates is to allow people to enjoy that public amenity as opposed to more commericial uses.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Walker says;”I agree with Tenzo on this”
Holly Carp! I didn’t hold any confidence in the Mayan calendar heralding the end of the world, but this sure is a true indicator.
I remember reading…somewhere.. way back; that if you wanted to speak before the city council all you had to do was register your topic and comments and you could speak on a Tuesday at some designated time.
Was I tripping on mushrooms one night or is this true? I mean it’s one thing to type out snarky remarks from the anonymity of the Internet, posting under a person’s pet’s name. I’d like to call “Shenanigans” on this idea and demand an appropriate response.
Since I’ve been here (a very short time) I’ve seen nothing but tax increases and city services decrease. And as I’ve told people; “If you don’t like the way things are going, it’s your responsibility to bring it up. You can’t just sit back and bitch about stuff and not do anything”
So how do I get on the agenda?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
A major concern of mine is the “1,800 new meters” to be placed in currently unmetered areas.
I for one live at the north end of the Short North (just south of High and 5th), and am not fortunate enough to have off-street parking. My only option then is to park in the public lot next to Skully’s (where I cannot leave any items in my car for fear of it being broken into, and cannot walk to my front door from my car without being panhandled for money), or to park a few blocks west near Thompson Recreation Center. If this lot becomes metered, I have no idea what I would do about simply parking at my residence.