Exit133

January 23, 2008 · Derek

Parking Recommendations at CED Meeting

Yesterday’s Community and Economic Development committee meeting featured a presentation by the Transit & Parking Advisory Committee. The committee, chaired by Marty Campbell, was organized in 2005 and represents a cross section of downtown stakeholder and involves the City of Tacoma and Pierce Transit. The objectives of the group include making recommendations for the design and implementation of the city’s parking system. Given the City Council’s vote last week to support the City Manager’s parking strategy, it seems rather timely to look at the committee’s recommendations..

On the list:

  • Develop a downtown transportation plan that considers pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, bus, rail Flexcar and parking as coordinated elements of a strategic transportation system.
  • A more robust, employer-based transportation demand management program should be pursued. This program will build momentum – augmenting current CTR programs that already promote use of excellent local and regional transit services – to promote awareness and utilization of commute options.
  • The City of Tacoma, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, and downtown stakeholders should institute a Downtown Transit & Parking Panel to foster communication, facilitate collaborative decision-making among parking stakeholders, review parking and transit policies, provide a customer perspective and benchmark how well the system is meeting established criteria.

With a bit more detail:

  • Aggressively pursue enforcement against “chain” parking and step up commute alternatives (why are you looking at me?)
  • Two-hour limit everywhere except near the University of Washington campus, where the limit should be for 90 minutes
  • Selectively deploying pay stations or other forms of on-street metering has merit for “inventory control” purposes
  • Direct the funds gathered from metering in a distinct neighborhood into amenities that will benefit that specific neighborhood – defined by the stakeholders
  • remove off-street parking requirements to allow developers the flexibility to build the amount of parking required by the market – and step up commute alternatives
  • Expand Committee’s geographic scope and membership
  • Launch Destination Downtown Door-to-Door
  • Develop stakeholder consensus on streetcar system

Well, that’s one set of recommendations. Should this committee become the implementation team, maybe it’ll be reality. Otherwise, maybe we’ll see something a bit different… we’ll see. Anything we missed?

Filed under: Parking

8 comments

  • drizell January 23, 2008

    “There are still swaths of areas downtown which have no time limits which could be moved to 2 hour zones.”

    Yes, chain parking will still exist. I would personally recommend putting 4-hour zones far away from employment centers. That way it will take a chain parker 15 or 20 minutes of walking just to reach their car. Cutting into personal and break time may just convince some people that their actions cause little benefit. Also, as other areas fill in with housing and retail, the allotted times should change, eradicating chain parking completely.

    Finally, the tax rate on surface parking lots should be much higher. This may convince owners of these unsightly lots that there may be a higher and better use for them than daytime car storage.

  • Laura Hanan January 23, 2008

    Increasing surface parking lot tax rates is a great idea. “This may convince owners of these unsightly lots that there may be a higher and better use for them than daytime car storage.”

    …or bum/drug dealer Break Rooms with easy pickins for car break-ins.

  • Ben January 23, 2008

    “Develop stakeholder consensus on streetcar system”. This is one that I want to watch a little more carefully. Anybody who went to the meeting, are there more details then this? Who are the stakeholders going to be? Citizens living downtown?

    I’m a big fan of increasing the surface parking lot tax rate to the point where if you don’t have a 85% fill rate during the day, you won’t survive. There’s no worse use of downtown land AND I think they’re a prime contributor to illegal activities. However, don’t apply this to parking garages, anything defined as having a roof, entry/exit control, security system, security guard (maybe even have a tax break for companies willing to hire a 24hr guard, it’s literally like adding a permanent pseudo police officer to the downtown core) or multiple levels. I hate having so many parking garages, but I do understand the necessity of them. The surface lots all seemed to be owned by three main companies, WM Riley, Diamond parking and one that skips my mind. Considering the size of Diamond, I don’t feel bad taxing them to the point where the land has better uses. I REALLY don’t want to encourage these companies to buy old buildings and tear them down for the purpose of creating surface lots.

    “remove off-street parking requirements to allow developers the flexibility to build the amount of parking required by the market – and step up commute alternatives”. Letting market necessities is the best thing the city council can do. Obviously companies are going to build the parking if they need it. However, forcing them to build it is forcing them out of the region.

    Finally, I could care less about chain parkers. As long as the price of parking increases with the market (the 15% vacancy rate is key here), let people continue to push money into the meter. If downtown gets too full, the next 2 hours might cost them 3x as much as the previous three. Then they get up and move to a garage. I see this “15% rule” (my new term for it) as a solution to enforcement of chain parking.

    I also want to add that living on the east coast, everybody is guilty of chain parking one time or another. The enforcement of it was so problematic (and nobody liked getting their tires marked), that it became a real problem for the cities.

  • rich January 23, 2008

    my 2008 christmas wish……..REMOVAL OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT……..well, ok and a bunch others like downtown REAL RETAIL, and my 40 story class A highrise……..

  • Andrew January 24, 2008

    Overall I think it looks good. My only concern is, more studies, discussions, and task forces. Not enough empahsis on implimentation. Lets build a plan to start a streetcar pilot line by 2009. Lets make goals to get flexcar or something like it by next year. Lets come up with the plan and impliment. More time wasted talking is not going to reduce traffic, reduce emissions, and attrack good buisness jobs to Tacoma.

  • Brotha E January 24, 2008

    A little off subject but this is for you Rich. Attended a luncheon yesterday at Shenanigans held by the CCIM Institute (Commercial Investment). They (big wig builders,Bellevue square owner etc.) were comparing Bellevue 20yrs ago to Tacoma today. From the sounds of it Tacoma is ripe for the pickn and the cranes are on the way. The latest vacancy rate given for class A space was 1.75%. Tacoma is a builder friendly town (permit process and willingness to change) and they know it and are excited about our future. Our only problem is that most of the land is already owned and sellers want to much $ and the builders don’t want to pay. They talked about the mall and a host of other things but it was determined that realisticly the only type of downtown shopping we most likely will get are Pacific Place type buildings. Commercial RE is still hot and they need to spend $ to make $. If you think they aren’t watching and waiting your wrong, they know exactly what is going on in little ol T-town.

  • Republican (By Default) January 27, 2008

    My first concern (but certainly not my only or greatest concern) is who comprised this group of ‘stakeholders’. In case you’re not aware, that term is bureaucrat speak for “cronies and the absolute minimum of others who we can’t get away with ignoring”.

    Exactly how many of these ‘stakeholders’ would actually be paying for the parking?

    What about the people who would be most dramatically (negatively) affected by these changes?

    Here’s an example. A single parent who works full time and has to rush from work to pick up the kids at daycare/school/etc. Unable to use mass transit because of the time constraints, this person will now have to sacrifice money for parking (which may come off the kids table or off their backs), time to get to free parking (which could result in extra charges from the daycare) or will have to take a job elsewhere.

    What about people who won’t be able to take jobs downtown because of similar time/money constraints?

    What about the small business owners who will have to not only pay more to park, but will likely have to pay more to their employees who will have to pay for parking?

    What about their customers who will have to pay additional money just to shop at those businesses?

    What about the businesses who sell to, supply and support downtown businesses?

    Were all of these people represented in this group of ‘stakeholders’?

    And by the way, who’s going to keep watch on city government to keep them from expanding fee parking into a revenue stream? Do we really want to earn the same reputation that Seattle has for their ‘Parking Nazi’ enforcement (again, not my term)?

  • snoopy January 27, 2008

    removing the off-street parking requirement in any of the downtown zoning districts would make my job a hell of a lot easier.