How to solve downtown Salem's parking problem

Last night I attended a meeting of a group that has been discussing parking problems in downtown Salem, Oregon. I don't know if it has an official name, so I'll call it the Parking Group.

From what I could tell it is made up of small business owners.

A few outside observers, such as me, also were in attendance. The Parking Group's goal is to come up with some recommendations to improve the downtown parking experience, then send them on to the Salem City Council.

Some background: 

Last year a City Parking Task Force was well on its way to inflicting parking meters on downtown. That committee was run in a closed bureaucratic fashion, allowing minimal public input and almost no involvement of downtown small businesses.

An entirely appropriate revolt ensued. Organizers of Stop Parking Meters Downtown gathered 9,000 signatures on an initiative petition to ban meters and do away with the current two-hour parking limit.

Instead of allowing Salemians to vote on the initiative in May 2014, as the organizers preferred, in October 2013 the City Council decided to implement the initiative language immediately.

So either the Mayor and councilors had a quick change of heart about the desirability of parking meters, or they were playing an unethical political game: pretending to favor the initiative so they could later undermine it.

The Stop Parking Meters Downtown folks recognized the games Salem City officials play these days. 

If Salem City council adopts our petition, it will NOT go on the ballot in May for us to vote on.  If council voluntarily adopts the petition, they can vote to change it whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.  If this goes to a vote of the people, history shows us – no council will touch it for years.  We want, and need, that long-term protection.   

...Bottom line, Council – implement the initiative if you are honestly committed to making it work; reject it otherwise. Don’t play the annoying political game of pretending to follow the will of the people by adopting the measure, then seek to undermine and ultimately kill it.

Unfortunately, this has happened.

The Parking Group spent quite a bit of time talking about how the City of Salem has essentially stopped enforcing the ban against downtown employees using onstreet parking. 

So if you're having trouble finding a space downtown, this is a central reason. City officials also haven't done anything to ban the increasing number of downtown residents from using onstreet spaces that should be available to visitors.

Last night there were lots of different ideas thrown out about how to improve downtown parking. One idea, though, seemed to be favored by everybody in the room. 

Use a blend of "carrots" and "sticks" to keep employees (and ideally downtown residents also) out of onstreet parking, and in the parking garages.

Many downtown businesses have urged their employees not to use the now-unlimited onstreet parking, but this is still a significant problem. (How large, nobody knows for sure.)

Carole Smith, a downtown business owner and resident who was one of the leaders of the Stop Parking Meters Downtown movement, handed out a one page "Why Has Downtown Parking Failed?" document. It won't be totally understandable by anyone not into the geekiness of this issue, but most of it is appealingly clear.

Have a read.
Download Why has downtown parking failed?

A "carrot" to entice employees into the parking garages would be a one-year trial of charging everybody who uses the garages $1. So a full-time employee would pay $21 or so a month to park, $1 a day, much less than the current charge of $58 to $72 a month. 

This also would bring in revenue to pay for maintenance of the parking garages, which currently is being subsidized by urban renewal funds at the rate of about $700,000 a year. 

At the Parking Group meeting I heard several people say, "We don't have a parking problem; we have a revenue problem." Meaning, the City's push for parking meters wasn't because so many people are thronging to downtown Salem, meters are needed to increase turnover of onstreet spaces and lessen the number of people coming downtown.

Charge for something that used to be free, and basic economics says you'll have fewer customers. City staff estimated a 20% loss of visitors to downtown if parking meters were installed.

So it makes sense to keep the current unlimited onstreet parking policy the City Council unanimously adopted less than a year ago. Several councilors promised to do everything they could to make the new policy successful.

Well, the time has come to keep that promise. City officials need to enforce the ban on employee parking, the "stick," and offer the "carrot" of $1 a day parking in the three downtown garages -- which have plenty of unused spaces.

As does downtown as a whole, likely.

This was the conclusion of a study discussed by the Parking Group. It only went up to 2012, so nobody knows current onstreet parking occupancy rates. Anecdotally, I haven't had any more trouble parking downtown than I did when two-hour limits were the rule.

That study found that only for the noon hour on a few streets did the occupany rate exceed 85%, which is an oft-used standard for concluding "we have a parking problem." This fits with the general impression I have of downtown: most of the time, by no means is it overcrowded with customers and other visitors. Parking is available within a few blocks of where I want to go.

I made a couple of comments during the Parking Group meeting.

I suggested that the members take a look at how the No 3rd Bridge folks have been analyzing traffic patterns on Salem's current bridges, as the situation bears a lot of resemblance to what seems to be the case with downtown parking. 

Namely, congestion only occurs for a brief period each day.

I noted that in the Los Angeles area, where my daughter and her family live, lack of parking and freeway tie-ups are a way of life. Yet the area is highly attractive to residents and visitors, and is economically vibrant. We'll have a lot of trouble finding a parking space, then finally enter a restaurant and find it crowded with southern Californians.

My other comment to the Parking Group was an invitation for them to take a copy of a three page "Observations on the downtown Salem parking situation" document I shared with them. 
Download Parking thoughts 8-11-14

Here's an excerpt from what I wrote:

Parking experts agree on this: downtown parking policies need to be aimed at improving the ambience and attractiveness of urban cores. They aren’t a way to add money to a depleted City budget.

Unfortunately, the backwards attitude of City officials was that parking meter revenues are needed to support the downtown parking garages. I can tell you that this has just about zero appeal to the citizenry, as evidenced by the resounding success of the Ban [oops, Stop] Parking Meters Downtown initiative effort.

Parking garages don’t bring people downtown. A vibrant, attractive, energetic, diverse downtown brings people to an urban core.

Comments

[Jeff Schumacher]

Your last line is: "A vibrant, attractive, energetic, diverse downtown brings people to an urban core." How does encouraging more people to drive to and park in the downtown make it more vibrant, attractive, energetic, and diverse? The best downtown areas I've been in - whether it is the Pearl District in Portland or someplace like London - are generally hostile to cars. I don't agree that free parking makes our downtown better; in fact, I think fewer cars and fewer lanes of travel would make for a better pedestrian experience and a better downtown experience.

[Brian Hines]

Jeff, if you read my entire letter to the Parking Group (click on the PDF link) you'll see that what I was referring to was the use of parking meter revenue to make a downtown more attractive to visitors through such things as...

Making the area more walkable and bikeable.
Adding trees, landscaping, water features -- Streetscaping.
Reducing the number of lanes on streets (something the Salem Streetscape plan called for).

In a town like Salem with poor public transportation and poor bicycle lanes, it isn't feasible at the moment for lots of people to give up driving to downtown. I wish it were, but it isn't. So the question is how to make downtown more attractive to people walking and biking, while also accommodating those who drive.

[Jeff Schumacher]

Brian, thank you for the response. I'm not advocating that people stop driving downtown; rather, I would suggest that free on street parking does not make a downtown vibrant. People should be able to drive downtown, but the easiest parking should be in the garages or just outside the heart of downtown. Again, I look to other cities with vibrant downtowns and think of parking as a difficult endeavor that is still worth the hassle because pedestrians have been given the priority. I certainly agree with the ideas you list for making downtown better - I just don't see how free parking on the streets fits into that equation.

[Brian Hines]

Jeff, we just have different variables in the equation, so to speak. I think some advocates of making parking more costly/difficult in Salem's downtown are correct in theory, but aren't taking into account the bigger socio-political-cultural actuality of Salem.

I'm really just re-stating themes here that I talked about in my 3-page communication to the Parking Group.

Downtown needs more people on the streets, and in the businesses. People will only visit downtown if it is an attractive, vibrant, pleasant place. Ditto for residents, and potential new business owners.

So job one is doing no harm to downtown. It is unclear whether downtown has a parking problem. Knowledgeable observers say "this is a revenue problem, not a parking problem." The City wants more revenue for the parking garages. It isn't much, if at all, concerned with making downtown a more viable place to visit, live, and work in.

Thus there is a tension between City Hall and downtown interests. This likely exists in most downtowns, but is especially acute here because of past outrageous behavior by City officials such as the Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director.

So given the current City leadership, trust is lacking that they are open to a collaborative, open, far-reaching look at a downtown vision that makes the area more appealing through Streetscaping and making it less auto-centered.

When a downtown is overly packed with people wanting to visit and park, that is one thing. When a downtown is teetering on the edge between vibrancy and non-vibrancy, that is another thing. Given the evident lack of interest in downtown by our City leaders, I fear that their premature push for parking meters would harm the vitality of downtown, since it isn't nearly as much of a destination draw as it could and should be.

Thus it is important to strike the right balance here. The situation is sort of akin to the "austerity" vs. "stimulate" debate between economists in a recession. Meaning, there is a time for considering cutting government spending, but not when economic activity is lagging.

Likewise, there is a time for considering cutting the easy availability of parking, but not when a downtown area lacks visitors. I'm pretty sure that restricting parking through meters and other means has worked best when a downtown has enough vitality and attractiveness to draw people in, even if it costs more (in parking fees or walking distance after parking).

Yes, I'd like to see pedestrians given the priority in downtown. But this requires a City leadership that isn't mired in the car-centric days of the 1950's and recognizes we're in the 21st century.

[Jeff Schumacher]

It appears that you and I agree on many points, but I guess I still don't understand how unlimited free parking improves downtown for visitors. I certainly didn't see anything wrong with two hour parking, and I also would not have a problem with metered parking. I assume the new policy reduces ticket revenue, and it makes enforcement exceedingly difficult (i.e., ticketing employees of downtown businesses). And it decreases turnover, which seemingly would be contrary to any business owner's interests. This unlimited free parking, which you and many others pushed prior to the City Council taking action, has seemingly exacerbated whatever parking problems existed previously. I don't see City Council doing anything to improve the bike/walk aspects of Salem, and I don't see them doing anything to improve the vibrancy of downtown. And I don't see unlimited free parking doing anything positive either. It feels like a subsidy for something that is, on balance, a negative.

[Brian Hines]

Jeff, let's be clear about a couple of things:

The Salem City Council and Mayor unanimously approved the move to unlimited free parking. They now own this policy. If they thought it was a bad idea, they should have let the initiative go to a vote of the people, which would have been preceded by a debate regarding the pros and cons of banning parking meters and two hour limits from downtown.

Instead, the City Council and Mayor embraced the policy whole-heartedly. So now they have a responsibility to make it work. If they don't, one of two things is true, neither good.

(1) The Council unethically voted for a policy they wanted to then make fail, by undermining its enforcement. (2) The City of Salem is incompetent in handling downtown parking policy, being clueless about what it is doing.

It turns out that enforcement is indeed lacking. So this explains why confidence in City officials is almost non-existent at this point. As I've said before, theoretical statements about what parking policy would be best for downtown Salem need to be embedded in the reality of this town's dysfunctional political system, which includes the disbanding of the downtown association by the City Manager, Linda Norris.