Cincinnati moves on from failed parking kiosk experiment

By Randy A. Simes, UrbanCincy

January 31, 2012

 

Approximately one decade ago, then City Manager John Shirey engaged in a real-world experiment with the way people use parking meters. The idea was that consolidated solar-powered parking kiosks could make the process more cost effective and beneficial for users and business owners. The reality, however, has been different.

 

The first kiosks made their way onto Third Street in downtown Cincinnati. Those two, $8,000-a-piece, kiosks were then followed by an additional ten kiosks on Court Street and Third Street. Early on it was touted that the maintenance costs would be less for these kiosks as opposed to the many individual parking meters they replaced. What seemed to spell the end of these kiosks, however, may have been the lack of maintenance they received.

 

Almost from the first year they were installed, users complained of problems with pay-and-display parking kiosks. Money would jam, credit card readers did not work, or the whole kiosk was for some reason malfunctioning.

 

These early and ongoing problems eliminated the possibility for users to see any potential benefit from the new form of paying for on-street parking. The early problems also eliminated virtually any and all possibility of the system growing into what was envisioned for it.

 

Originally, city leaders discussed the idea of allowing downtown visitors to purchase monthly parking passes for the pay-and-display kiosks. They also mentioned the idea of allowing a user on Court Street to take their extra time and use it somewhere else downtown without having to pay a second time. Both ideas were well intentioned, but both ideas never happened.

 

Maintenance issues aside, individuals around the country have complained about the lack of an individual parking meter at their space. The personal relationship between a person, their car, and their assigned meter is obviously stronger than what city officials thought.

 

The city appears to now have abandoned this experiment gone wrong. The pay-and-display parking kiosks on Court Street have been shut off and replaced by new individual electronic parking meters that are solar powered. Those meters are part of a larger $1.7 million effort to replace all 1,400 parking meters downtown with the new technology.

 

In cities where space on the sidewalk is a big concern, the initiative to reduce street furniture like parking meters should continue to remain a priority. In Cincinnati, however, most streets do not suffer from this severe lack of space, and therefore it is probably a better approach to use individual parking meters with these technological upgrades rather than completely overhauling the system.

 

While the parking kiosks originally envisioned by City Manager Shirey did not pan out, he should be commended for his leadership, because without that Cincinnati may not be where it is now in terms of upgraded the rest of its on-street parking payment technologies.

 

City officials should continue to explore creative options for its parking assets. In 2010 UrbanCincy estimated that a public-private parking partnership could result in an additional $3.06 million in revenues annually. The possibilities of leveraging these assets are intriguing, and nothing should be left off the discussion table during this time of limited resources.

 

More information and images here:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/01/cincinnati-moves-on-from-failed-parking-kiosk-experiment/

It's too bad that didn't work out.  If the technology hadn't failed, the benefits outlined in your article would have been nice.  I personally like using similar machines in Portland (and Seattle, if I recall), but solar meters that take credit cards are good enough, I suppose.

The parking kiosks may actually be better suited for neighborhood business districts. Downtown has so much volume and so many different users that it makes the use of these a bit cumbersome. Drivers in an NBD usually aren't as frenetic, and the space these would save would help create more room on already narrow sidewalks throughout most of the city's NBDs.

^There was one (or two?) installed in Mt. Lookout's parking island.

Discussion on city parking meter privatization has been moved to this thread.

 

 

Anyway, I recognize this isn't exactly streetcar related, but it is city transportation & financing related, and I really think it is a terrible move:

 

http://www.parking-net.com/parking-tenders/us-cincinnati-lease-of-city-owned-parking-assets

 

Tenders

 

US-Cincinnati: Lease of City-owned Parking Assets

CLICK FOR MORE INFO

 

Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:27 PM

 

Description

The City of Cincinnati ("City") has engaged Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. ("Walker") as owner's representative and to assist in evaluating a long-term concession lease for selected City-owned parking assets, including 6,000 on-street spaces (of which approximately 5,700 are metered), 2,528 off-street spaces in four parking garages and three surface lots and an additional 725 spaces in a proposed parking garage.

 

Contracting authority

City of Cincinnati

Location

Cincinnati, US

Time-limit for receipt of tenders or requests to participate

Monday, November 26, 2012 12:00 AM

Terrible idea.

Didn't the city just spend a ton of money installing new meters all over downtown? Wouldn't it have made more sense to lease the spots first, and let whomever leased them install new meters?

 

With the new meters, street spots are already nearing non-event prices for parking garages and lots downtown, so I don't know how much more money there is to be made.  Although, 6000 spots seems like it covers a lot more than just downtown.

^That's a good point about the potential lack of revenue.

 

I'm mostly concerned with 1) the silliness of it.  If the sale or lease goes through, then that means the value is there.  But because the City already runs the meters, they have the capacity to collect all that new revenue just as well as any leaseholder.  So the advantage of the lease is just as substantial up-front payment, which isn't an actual advantage to the City, but instead only an advantage to the current iteration of City politicians.  2) The City should be creating a plan to eliminate parking spaces once the streetcar goes in, at least in the streetcar zone, a la Munich.

Progressive Parking Policy? We could only hope. And a parking meter lease would only inhibit such a policy development.

I'm guessing the city wants to A) take the pay of the employees working the lots off of the books and B) retain a source of revenue at/near what they take in now (minus operating costs) but with a lot less effort.  They probably think that a private company can do it more efficiently, or that the lease payments will be a more predictable source of income.  I really know nothing about the city's motivations or the current workings of the lots and meters, but this seems like a typical situation.

There was some discussion of the Port Authority taking over the parking to provide them with funding while also keeping the revenue in the city - keep in mind the Port Authority is a city-county partnership.  City hasn't gone for that idea so far.

The only way this makes sense is if that big payment gets dropped into the pension fund so it doesn't crush the rest of the city's budget.

Terrible idea, ask Chicago how their parking meter sale is going.

 

I really wish the city would change the parking meter laws so that drivers are not allowed to park at damaged meters.  I see people taking baseball bats to the meters practically every night so that they can park for free the next day.  It's insane.  Look around OTR and you'll see at LEAST one damaged meter every block.

 

This won't be the case after privatization. No way a private company runs things as bad as the City does.

This won't be the case after privatization. No way a private company runs things as bad as the City does.

The British said the same thing but in the case of water supply after the utility was turned over the private companies they ignored the need for updates, even as water pipes rusted and corroded into oblivion.  Decades later the situation was so bad that the gov bought back the utility just to make the updates.  Whole thing was a net loss.

Just saying (and parking and water are not the same but...).  I really am in favor of private enterprise but its not always better, unless there is competition and vocal public demand for it to be better. 

>No way a private company runs things as bad as the City does.

 

I've worked for a half dozen companies more dysfunctional than anything any Tea Partier can accuse "government" of. 

This won't be the case after privatization. No way a private company runs things as bad as the City does.

 

LOL.

Partnership Has a Plus Side

-<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121206/EDIT02/312060031/Partnership-has-plus-side/">By Roxanne Qualls</a>

 

... the public-private partnership proposed by the city manager will be better able to meet the parking needs in Downtown and in many neighborhood business districts.

 

The partnership is a strategic realignment of Cincinnati’s parking system that would finance, build and manage parking garages and meters to support economic development, provide a major lump sum payment to the city, generate an annual revenue stream, and help balance this year’s budget.

 

The proposal is to lease five parking garages, approximately 6,000 on-street spaces, and three surface lots. Washington Park, Fountain Square North, Town Center, U-Square garages and four lots are not part of the proposal. The city is not giving up its ability to finance, build and manage a parking system.

 

...Once the bid is awarded, the city can negotiate any conditions for operation to ensure customer service, fair rates, etc.

 

The city manager set a minimum lump sum payment requirement of $40 million. Some proposals are expected to be in excess of $100 million. ....

 

A few questions.  Who will write tickets at these meters? and who collects the fines?  Are they paid and appealed in a similar fashion to current parking meter fines?  The City now is pretty lax at writing tickets on certain streets, especially low-traffic areas that have low-use.  I would suspect that a private company would try to write as many so that they can receive more income, which could result in more appeals to the Parking Violations Bureau.

 

Also it was mentioned in another thread that people intentionally destroy meters so that they can park there for free.  I agree that this seems to be a growing problem, at least in Over the Rhine.  North of Liberty, the tops of several meters on Vine have been missing for at least 5 months, and I am not sure if they are ever repaired or if they are repeatedly damaged.

 

I think we have to be careful with this privatization, because parking hassles can be a real deterrent to living downtown, and if the enforcement becomes too aggressive it can be enough to make people move.

>No way a private company runs things as bad as the City does.

 

I've worked for a half dozen companies more dysfunctional than anything any Tea Partier can accuse "government" of. 

 

Yeah, but they eventually lose money and go out of business, or are able to charge enough for something people really want and stay afloat.

 

I do think privatization of parking services would be more efficient in fixing “broken” meters, ticketing illegal parkers, etc.  Although, I don’t want it privatized for purely selfish reasons; I park at broken meters all the time (I don’t take bats to them, though), don’t want to see more meters pop up all over the place, and think my property taxes pay enough to cover the cost of free street parking in residential areas.

 

The trouble with privatization is that it becomes a money-making venture above all else.  As a municipal service, parking meters are supposed to be for allocating scarce street parking resources.  The money-making part of it is just gravy.  The only real benefit to a privatization scheme is a one-time cash windfall for some serious tradeoffs.  The horrible Chicago parking meter privatization leaves the city unable to remove street parking for other uses like bike lanes, the city has to pay when the meters are blocked for construction or parades, and meters have been installed in all sorts of out-of-the-way nearly abandoned blocks.  Sure a private company may be better at fixing broken meters or towing/ticketing illegal parkers, but is that worth the possible downsides?  The whole notion of giving a private company the authority to manage space public streets is frightening in and of itself.  It ties the hands of citizens who might want the government to reallocate that space to other uses, but with meter privatization that space is locked into parking cars and nothing else. 

Correct, the motive for on-street parking should be service, not profit.  We'll probably see the disappearance of free Sunday parking and after 6pm during the week.  I could see it getting even messier if the owner of the parking service starts influencing city policy to prevent private competition to its meters and former city garages.  This ability could itself be hijacked by private developers who use influence with the parking operator to exercise its authority against a competitor of the developer.  So if there are two proposed projects, the parking operator could sell its loyalty to one developer or the other.   

I'd also add that there isn't anything inherently wrong with having meters in a neighborhood like OTR.  After all, there's not enough street parking space to serve all the buildings, so it needs to be allocated in a rational manner.  That being said, meters that are primarily geared towards residents rather than shoppers or restaurant patrons should have at least a 24 hour time limit.  Residential permits are another option, but that gets complicated and ugly really fast.

I don't think this is inherently a bad idea, as a private company can streamline the funding process for various upgrades, or do any number of things more efficiently. But the devil here is in the details, and the city could get totally screwed if they don't do all their homework. See Chicago. I think they are off to a bad start with the capping of price increases, because I would like to see Shoup-style market pricing implemented. Let the private company bankroll the upgrade to smart parking meters, and get the system all set up. And don't put an absurdly long time period on the lease. 15-20 years max.

I enjoy the ease with which I can park whenever I'm in Cincinnati.  Be careful what you wish for folks, because if Cincinnati turns into Columbus in terms of parking patrol, towing, etc, I'm not sure how satisfied you'll be with the results.

Yeah can't wait for Shamrock Towing to migrate down I-71. 

Ease of parking generally comes from proper pricing.  If prices are too low then on-street spaces become overused and hard to find, leading to parking infractions and overzealous ticketing and towing.  One of the big rationales for meter privatization is that it divorces politics from price increases that are needed to properly control demand.  Cincinnati doesn't seem to have that problem (see the recent significant meter rate increases downtown), but it was a big reason for the Chicago deal where many ward aldermen opposed meter rate increases.  I can understand why city leaders might want to cap prices under a lease deal, but that just ignores what pricing is for in the first place and makes the whole endeavor that much more pointless and risky. 

Pretty big news about this

 

One bidder on City Manager Milton Dohoney’s proposal to contract out the city’s parking system offered to pay $150 million up front – that’s almost four times as much as Dohoney set as the minimum.

 

The city just released a memo summarizing the bidders. Nine responded, though one – Xerox State & Local Solutions – sought a temporary restraining order in court to prevent the release of its information.

 

Four didn’t comply with the $40 million minimum set. But Dohoney says three offered up front payments of $100 million to $150 million. Two more offered amounts between $45 million and $60 million. All offered various revenue sharing in addition to the up front payments.

Not much info there. That table released by the city is completely pointless. I would like to at least see what the proposed lengths of the leases are. Another key piece of information lacking is the revenue share the city would receive under each proposal.

^I agree we can't just say everything looks perfect. But a $100+ Million cash in would be pretty big. I believe the city has stated a 30 year agreement would be optimal. Though I am not positive

The more I hear about PG, the more he reminds me of Lippert, Murray, Bortz, and Ghiz.

 

PG giving out "parking tickets" to try to kill parking privatization

 

I don't necessarily agree wtih privatizing meters, but his tactics are pretty frustrating. Scare tactics are really annoying. Before we even know the results of the offers to the city he is opposed to it outright. What if our revenue is increased each year, we get a lump sum payment, all city workers are absorbed into the new enforcement, and rates don't increase dramatically? Not saying all the stars will align, but you have to at least wait for the bids to be released before you can hold a "press conference" about your opposition. And Dohoney wants to wait until Feb or March to start discussing it with council. He isn't trying to rush it through tomorrow.

Yep, it's just knee-jerk opposition.

 

It really annoys me how people who are usually all about privatizing everything are instantly against this because it is proposed by a Democratic administration.

PG is exactly what I thought he'd be. A huge waste of a seat. But he'll be the top vote getter next year. What has he accomplished? He got one towing company banned from the city. That's it.

I don’t have a problem with the city selling off lots, but selling street parking to one company is a bad idea, not to mention borderline monopolistic, especially if terms are as long as 30 years.  I could see this killing activity downtown and in OTR, especially as nightly rates would obviously start to be charged.  Not to mention that it would be horrible for residents of several neighborhoods who currently rely on nightly on-street parking.

Yeah, this proposal has talk radio tied in a knot.  They want government to "act like a business", then complain when it does.  It forces them to acknowledge that government subsidizes parking, but then they blame that on the supposed undesireability of cities. 

 

Fact is people make big decisions for fleeting reasons, and I can see higher parking rates and harsh ticketing and towing as having a significant negative effect. 

Detractors would do better demanding safeguards in the deal rather than just scrapping it.

You certainly don't want a hyper aggressive towing issue like UC had.

Detractors would do better demanding safeguards in the deal rather than just scrapping it.

You certainly don't want a hyper aggressive towing issue like UC had.

 

Yeah, let's see what the terms of the deal are and see if they can be tweaked to people's liking before we all go crazy against it. I am very skeptical of the whole thing, partly because I don't think government should be run like a business. But the role-reversal here is such a classic highlight of hypocrisy. Same with that goddamn bridge.

 

Cars are obviously a sacred cow entitlement for the anti-entitlement set.

Detractors would do better demanding safeguards in the deal rather than just scrapping it.

You certainly don't want a hyper aggressive towing issue like UC had.

 

Yeah, let's see what the terms of the deal are and see if they can be tweaked to people's liking before we all go crazy against it. I am very skeptical of the whole thing, partly because I don't think government should be run like a business. But the role-reversal here is such a classic highlight of hypocrisy. Same with that goddamn bridge.

 

Cars are obviously a sacred cow entitlement for the anti-entitlement set.

 

Even if the government should be run like a business, selling off a prime asset for a quick buck would be a bad business decision.  And as for street parking, even the most libertarian of people believe roads are one of the few things government should be providing.  Granted a private company could run a city wide parking system more efficiently than the city can, but it would only work with a government sponsored privately owned monopoly. Conservatives are upset because of the additional usage taxes being applied to infrastructure that tax dollars are funding. Democrats should be upset because a private company stands to profit immensely off of a public possession, not to mention that the parking fees will likely impact the urban poor the most.  I don’t know what end of the political spectrum could find this idea in line with their beliefs; it’s as if the people in support of it are basing the decision off of something other than political ideology.

additional usage taxes being applied to infrastructure that tax dollars are funding

 

Keep in mind that the purpose of parking meters is not, in fact, to fund infrastructure, but rather, to manage demand. There is a market value to any given metered spot. Supply of parking in urban areas is low (compared to suburban locations) compared to the demand. A private company or partnership would be more able to adjust pricing to reflect demand. IMO, a system like that used in San Francisco (real-time pricing) would be the best option for cities everywhere. It could result in lower prices (even $0, perhaps) at areas where demand is lower, and higher rates where demand is highest.

I am definitely not a supporter of the move at this juncture, but I am waiting to see what gives. I can definitely envision a proposal that I would support. If a company were to offer a major technological advancement of our parking meters (one component being all of them accepting credit cards), and adhere to a demand-based pricing scheme, where pricing adjusts in order to fill each block with a target number of vehicles, I would likely support it. (The target being one or two cars shy of full, so there is always a spot for someone who wants it badly enough.)

 

If a block won't fill regardless of price, then it is free to park there. By definition you do not scare people away from downtown, because the moment you do, prices lower.

 

I would also favor this as a tolling scheme for the Brent Spence Bridge (the current one), with a target number of vehicles (time sensitive) equal to the highest number which can bring the bridge back from being functionally obsolete. IMO what currently goes on is equivalent to allowing as many people into a building as wants to come in, regardless of fire code capacity. No one should be entitled to that.

Parking is privatized in Indy right now, it's $1.50 downtown and $1 in the neighborhoods.  Sounds crazy!!!!

 

Also, the meter can text your cell phone 5 minutes before your time runs out.  Horrible!!!

 

iPhone apps that point out open meters!?  It can't be!

 

http://www.parkindy.net/index.html

http://www.streetline.com/find-parking/parker-mobile/

 

 

^^I like the concept of a demand based system, but how often do the prices fluctuate? Are the prices updated every year? month? day? hour? minute? I could see the shear concept of fluctuating prices (even by the month) as a reason to not go downtown for some people. People like predictability.

SF Park promises not to change their pricing structure more than once per month.

People need to wait and see what our options are before they judge.

 

All I really hope is the city has some savvy negotiators. There's a reason the city has basically thrown up its hands regarding parking and it has nothing to do with a quick influx of cash. For whatever reason, it doesn't have the capability to do it well. That's just a fact - doesn't have to stay that way but that's been the status quo for awhile and it's not the personnel's fault.

 

Maybe someone else (Port Authority, an evil 'corporation', whatever, ...) can do it better and maybe the city should entertain that option while also making sure Cincinnati doesn't get screwed. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

 

The alarmism around this issue - from the media, certain city councilmembers, et al - is pretty disconcerting.

Cincinnati parking terms: No free spots

 

Written by

Barry M. Horstman

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121213/NEWS/312130027/Parking-terms-No-free-spots

 

Cincinnati drivers could say good-bye to the 10 minutes of free parking they now get on Downtown street meters and hello to the boot on ticketed cars if City Hall accepts some of the terms requested by groups seeking to lease most of the city’s garages and on-street spaces.

^ $10 event tickets will have a huge impact.  In fact, I’m going to hold off on my Reds half-season tickets for a while and see how that plays out.  I always park for free on the street and walk several blocks to the stadium.  An additional $10 a game for 40 games would put it out of my budget (and cost about as much as the game tickets).

 

This is the detrimental side effect I’m talking about.

 

^ $10 event tickets will have a huge impact.  In fact, I’m going to hold off on my Reds half-season tickets for a while and see how that plays out.  I always park for free on the street and walk several blocks to the stadium.  An additional $10 a game for 40 games would put it out of my budget (and cost about as much as the game tickets).

 

This is the detrimental side effect I’m talking about.

 

Agreed. Good reason for the city to reject that term from that bid.

While I am cautious about the proposal, we have to make sure not to buy into the Enquirer trap of highlighting one bidder's detail to shoot down the entire proposal.  They are cherry picking the most inflammatory parts of an open proposal process to rile everyone up.

 

I was at a meeting this morning where Milton spoke briefly on the subject.  He very clearly stated that the city is using the example of Chicago as a what not to do situation. He also articulated that they do not want to reverse all the progress the city has made in the past years by turning absolute control over to a third party.  Obviously we won't know until we see a more final proposal to be voted on in June, but I'm cautiously optimistic they will work a decent agreement.

What's interesting is that I'm seeing some corollary here between privatized parking and the streetcar franchises of old.  Formerly every city had privately owned and operated streetcar systems that were strictly regulated but those regulations varied wildly from city to city.  The public could be fooled into thinking some distant city had a much better franchise agreement, overall, due to one enticing aspect of their contract.  Politicians therefore positioned the transit companies as boogymen and promised they would restore cancelled service or keep fares at a nickel -- the equivalent of someone running for high school student council promising longer recess. 

 

I think one strategy for the contract would be to set a profit cap, above which all or nearly all revenue must be paid to the city.  Another would be to limit new spaces that could be created and limit even pricing to, say, 5 days per year. 

 

^I agree with the idea of putting a limit on profit a company can make. I think a better way of doing it would be like a graduated scale (like income tax brackets) that as the number of tickets increased, the city gained a greater percentage of the profit from the ticket. It would discourage the company from giving too many tickets, but would also encourage them to enforce the policy for an entire month. If there is a cap on profit, the company would most likely stop enforcing the meters until a new month starts.

^ $10 event tickets will have a huge impact.  In fact, I’m going to hold off on my Reds half-season tickets for a while and see how that plays out.  I always park for free on the street and walk several blocks to the stadium.  An additional $10 a game for 40 games would put it out of my budget (and cost about as much as the game tickets).

 

This is the detrimental side effect I’m talking about.

 

Agreed. Good reason for the city to reject that term from that bid.

 

First off, that was one companies proposal. And the City would be adding event parking anyway. I've been told that right before this proposal the city looked at adding $5 event parking.

 

Other options:

Take a bus.

Carpool.

Park in OTR or NKY & walk.