New meters won't allow smartphone payments

 

All of Cincinnati’s meters most likely will accept credit cards in the coming months, but the technology upgrades will stop there for now – users will not be able to pay for parking from their mobile phones.

 

City Council’s Neighborhoods Committee on Monday approved paying to upgrade the rest of the city’s meters to accept credit cards and hiring more enforcement officers in an attempt to improve an inefficient and under-enforced system.

 

As expected, the committee also voted for City Council to keep control over the entire system – essentially ending the possibility of information-outsourcing giant Xerox or any other private firm having a role. Meter rates and hours also would remain as is across the city.

 

A full vote of council is expected Wednesday.

 

Cont

I think that’s a step in the right direction.  As has been discussed here before, the letter of the law reads that meter time limits double as parking time limits. Meters are supposed to be for short term parking, you shouldn’t be refilling it for 5 or 6 hours at a time, so why do we need cell phone payment? If you’re parking for that long, park in a lot or garage – some of which are cheaper than meter spots downtown, anyway.

^^These resident only parking plans are the DUMBEST idea.  I remember when I used to work downtown; I was too cheap to even consider paying for parking so I always parked north of Liberty and walked.  Prior to the resident only parking on Broadway around the old SCPA those spots were always full during the day.  Afterwards those streets were empty.  It didn't make any sense- enforcement was built around the hours that most of the residents were at work, and open parking existed when the residents were back home from work and people trying to hang out on Main Street in the evening showed up.

 

Just meter everything already.  Also, we are putting in a streetcar in that neighborhood.  Those residents don't need an extra input of special parking rights, they need to be disincentivized to have a car to begin with, and, you know, use the streetcar and other forms of transit.

 

Also, it's a shame that the smartphone app won't be a part of the plan.  A lot of the meters, particularly on the busier commercial streets, could be designed to prevent automatic refills on smart phones in order to allow for churn in those areas, but the less busy, less commercial or purely residential streets could allow for automatic refills.

It would be pretty easy to control how many times and for how long someone could adjust their parking time via cellphone. Like maybe you can only use that option to pay up to the difference between the max parking meter time and the time you initially paid (so if you pay an hour on a 2-hr meter, but you need more time, you can pay for a half hour or another hour, to get up to the 2 hr max). Once you've hit the limit, it won't accept payment from the same phone, or even not until the car is moved.

 

I know when I park at a meter and go out to eat, I try to guess how long it will take me to eat and get back to the car, and I undershoot it. Sometimes this results in a lengthy walk to the meter and back to the restaurant. Which really sucks if you're in the middle of a meal.

I think enforcement of meters should go until 9pm in downtown and OTR south of Liberty. If you really want a car in OTR, you can either pay for your own spot in a nice garage/lot, or you can deal with the hassle of finding free parking on the side streets. I think permit street parking in Clifton, CUF, and Corryville (outside of business districts) makes sense. It seems like the Pendleton parking plan was implementing in anticipation of a problem with the casino, though it doesn't seem like casino workers/visitors are parking in Pendleton anyway with the free garage. I would support permit style parking on Mulberry/E Clifton once that area fills up to prevent those on denser streets from clogging the on street parking.

 

But majority of OTR is largely a mixed district that needs people to support the businesses there. Blocking off half the spots during the day for people who won't be there seems silly to me. This whole thing should be about making parking easier for visitors, not for residents who have the option of buying passes in lots/garages.

3CDC plan aims to cure Over-the-Rhine parking woes: EXCLUSIVE

 

Chris Wetterich: Here's a map of 3CDC's proposed parking plan: http://media.bizj.us/view/img/205145

I think that’s a step in the right direction.  As has been discussed here before, the letter of the law reads that meter time limits double as parking time limits. Meters are supposed to be for short term parking, you shouldn’t be refilling it for 5 or 6 hours at a time, so why do we need cell phone payment? If you’re parking for that long, park in a lot or garage – some of which are cheaper than meter spots downtown, anyway.

 

Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but it's still a 2004 parking meter in 2014.  You want to get as close to 0% infraction as possible, and giving people options for payment is part of how you do that.  Given that we're spending money to upgrade the meters anyway, going to something that's already behind the times seems silly.  Also, with high tech meters, you could have an app that shows the availability of all of the spaces in a given neighborhood.  That would make parking much easier because you could just drive to where the spaces are instead of circling the neighborhood searching for an open space.  I'm not sure that you'd get that with a meter that just takes change and credit.  It could be done, but it's a lot less likely.

Cranley's plan passes 5-3

Meters are expected to cost about $2 million. Meter hours and rates will remain unchanged.

Supported by Mann, Smitherman, Flynn, Winburn, Sittenfeld

Simpson absent

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/26/divided-council-decides-to-buy-own-meters/

But majority of OTR is largely a mixed district that needs people to support the businesses there. Blocking off half the spots during the day for people who won't be there seems silly to me. This whole thing should be about making parking easier for visitors, not for residents who have the option of buying passes in lots/garages.

 

It makes perfect sense to 3CDC. Reserve half of the on-street spaces for residents and force visitors to park in 3CDC's garages. That's why they're planning to build a third new garage at 15th and Vine.

You saw this coming when they blocked off parking around Washington Park for "loading zones."

Was "loading zones" really the reason? That's pathetic.

Is following 3CDC's recommendation's an example of giving up local control?  I honestly don't know because I can't tell what that means anymore.

 

I also think it's funny how the paper had an online article describing the new parking upgrades as a political win for Cranley, in the headline.  I can't remember if they described the Streetcar continuation as a political defeat, but I doubt it.

 

3 Enormous Benefits to Charging the Right Price for Parking

Eric Jaffe

 

 

Costanza's universal theory of parking states that drivers should never pay for a spot because, if they apply themselves, they'll get it for free. Most U.S. cities do everything they can to abide the theory. They undervalue the price of street spaces. They keep parking so cheap it encourages driving (and thus undermines their own transit investments, leading to more driving). And they require a minimum number of parking spaces for new developments whether residents need them or not.

 

These policies conspire to create a situation in which even someone as lazy as George Costanza can eventually find a free — or, at least, very cheap — parking space in the city. But what's thrilling for Georgie Boy (assuming no one steals his space by pulling in head first) is bad for the city as a whole. Three recent studies highlight big benefits to setting the right price for city parking: less traffic, more transit use, and greater tax revenue.

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/04/3-enormous-benefits-charging-right-price-parking/8772/

Bob Schwartz pointed out on Twitter that Findlay Market began charging for parking two years ago. Despite predictions that it would hurt their business, the market is thriving. This is a perfect example of how reasonable parking rates (i.e., not free) and enforcement are good for businesses. And yet, businesses fought Mallory's parking plan, claiming that extended hours and slightly higher rates would hurt them. And Uptown business owners (and possibly Santa Ono) convinced Cranley not to extend enforcement hours around UC.

Bob Schwartz pointed out on Twitter that Findlay Market began charging for parking two years ago. Despite predictions that it would hurt their business, the market is thriving. This is a perfect example of how reasonable parking rates (i.e., not free) and enforcement are good for businesses. And yet, businesses fought Mallory's parking plan, claiming that extended hours and slightly higher rates would hurt them. And Uptown business owners (and possibly Santa Ono) convinced Cranley not to extend enforcement hours around UC.

 

"Convinced" is a strong word, unless you mean it as, "gave political cover to kill".  Of course, this whole letting politicians tinker with the policy was why they created the City Manager system in the 20's to begin with.  The funny thing is how, before Charter reform, there were 26 wards (and council member for each) and they reduced the number to resemble a corporate board.  Now these strong-mayor types want to go back to tinkering with policy but not add more representation.  Something to think about.

The Northside Business Association owns 3 parking lots in the neighborhood. They just updated their payment system to an electronic system & are now selling monthly & annual parking passes.

Parking meters have been removed on Plum Street, in between 4th and McFarland. On the eastern side, the meter poles remain just without meters. On the western side, the meters were removed at ground level. Not sure if this is related to the City's parking plan, or if they were removed for filming of Carol last week (which took place on the same section of Plum).

It's been 10 months since Cranley killed the parking plan.  And now he's talking about a $300-$400 per year resident parking pass in OTR:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/09/chart-of-the-day-300-for-a-residential-parking.html

 

 

Setting that aside, my question is... what's the status of parking modernization in Cincinnati?  I haven't heard anything in months.  Does Cranley have a plan in motion, or than buying a few meters back in February?  If so, what is the status of that plan?  I still see tons of broken parking meters in OTR.  I'm hopeful that Cranley's latest foray into parking will bring this topic back to light, since it seems like he has done nothing constructive since taking office.  I'm really looking forward to comparing the parking figures from this year to those of the last few years, after they become available.

I've noticed two other parking enforcement employees downtown in addition to the guy on the bike and the woman in the car.

 

Other than that, there are still a lot of broken meters, little turn-over at lunch as you see restaurant employees running out to feed their 1 Hour Limit meters, and after 4:00 no policing of cars parked in rush hour no parking zones (see 3rd, Walnut, etc. before a Reds game). So zero modernization...

Original article headline... "Coming soon: App to pay for parking here"  :-o

 

 

Coming soon: Feed the meter with the tap of an app

 

Cincinnati is close to a new parking deal with international data giant Xerox, but this time the city would be in full control of the system.

 

The controversial old plan called for leasing the parking system to the region's port authority and its private partners – including Xerox – for decades in exchange for an $85 million upfront payment to use for several economic development projects. But Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley followed through on a campaign promise, killing the deal the same week he was elected in November.

 

The worry under the previous deal was that Xerox would aggressively write parking tickets and increase meter rates to hit revenue incentives, and the city wouldn't be able to do anything about it under the terms of a 30-year lease.

 

Cont

So cranley uses the original parking deal as a wedge issue,  vilified xerox and the deal,  then proposes a new deal with the exact same company he villified.

 

Reading over his previous quotes on the issue will be interesting

 

Gotta hand it to cranley. He's politically brilliant.  He is 100% about politics 100% of the time. The man never stops

It should be interesting to find out exactly what factors make up the $85 million upfront payment difference between the two plans.  Is it possible the city comes out ahead on a per year basis under this new plan?  I know what article Chris Wetterich is writing Monday.

 

Also, this quote

 

""The problem with the old deal was we were giving control to a for-profit company with an incentive to issue a lot of tickets," Cranley said. "Now if we issue too many, we'll hear about it, and we can respond because we care about what residents think.""

 

Truth be told, I WAS worried about Wall Street taking their cut under the old deal.  But I don't know how you selectively enforce the rules and scale back the number of tickets you issue, or why that's a good idea?  If you are doing that it sounds like you need change the rules in the first place.

I'm not buying the rhetoric that City Hall will be more responsive to complaints about over-enforcement, implying possible acquiescence if that's the case.  It's been my experience as a CBD resident that enforcement's already pretty aggressive.  Maybe future rate increases will be responsive to complaints, but I doubt it since revenue goals are key.

 

I'm getting weary of the police and firefighter angle always being thrown out whenever the mayor addresses revenue and spending issues, as he did once again in this article.  God bless 'em, but I don't think the almost Sacred Cow status he confers upon them - considering how much of the City's budget they account for - is necessarily fair or appropriate.  For instance, a couple of Findlay Market vendors have complained to me that police are often nowhere to be found in the vicinity and that there seems to be a strategy of just letting the drug dealers have at it and shoot each other, instead of patrolling practices serving as a deterrent.  Also, why must fire engines accompany EMT units to the scene of drunks or drug ODs passed out on sidewalks?  As a result, the big fire trucks add to traffic congestion, plus it seems the vast majority of calls aren't for fire alarms anyway.  This seems like a costly and wasteful practice.  But maybe I'm just naive about the usual terms of union contracts.

^ I hate to say it, but there's very much a "boys and their toys" macho dick-measuring mentality with firemen.  It's super wasteful to have these big trucks go out on medical calls, but they lobby to make that the standard practice because otherwise they'd never get to take their big red trucks out with sirens blaring.  That's not to diminish the services they perform, but it's being carried out in a very counterproductive way. 

So cranley uses the original parking deal as a wedge issue,  vilified xerox and the deal,  then proposes a new deal with the exact same company he villified.

 

Reading over his previous quotes on the issue will be interesting

 

Gotta hand it to cranley. He's politically brilliant.  He is 100% about politics 100% of the time. The man never stops

 

I predicted this.  I'm going to further predict that in a second Cranley term we'll see him "renegotiate" the deal and have a lump sum redirected to his cronies and to himself. 

 

Meanwhile, any good explanation for why police, fire, and schools are funded locally in the United States?  I'd love to see all of that turned over to federal taxes, and all of it returned to localities at a proportional rate, so that we could end all of this small-town thinking that goes on in our country. 

So cranley uses the original parking deal as a wedge issue,  vilified xerox and the deal,  then proposes a new deal with the exact same company he villified.

 

Reading over his previous quotes on the issue will be interesting

 

Gotta hand it to cranley. He's politically brilliant.  He is 100% about politics 100% of the time. The man never stops

 

I could be wrong but just because he beat Roxanne Qualls, who ran a very lackluster and obstinate campaign, doesn't make him a political genius, at least if his ambitions look beyond the immediate area.  For example, his State of the City speech was very strange.  Imagine the mayor of a city that's the center of a 2M+ population metro area calling for one restaurant, one beer garden, one bike path and one grocery store - such small things that display no vision whatsoever.  AND he appointed Frank Wood, who probably no one under 40-50 even knows, Commissioner of Fun.  It all makes me think he recognizes his lack of popularity among younger voters, yet the speech was his lame notion of pandering to them. 

Appropriate timing: Donald Shoup is speaking at the Mercantile Library on October 28th as part of the Pyle Urban Lecture Series.

Donald Shoup is Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, where he has served as Chair of the Department of Urban Planning and Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies. His book, The High Cost of Free Parking, explains how better parking policies can improve cities, the economy, and the environment. In the book Shoup recommends that cities should charge fair market prices for on-street parking, use the meter revenue to finance added public services in the metered neighborhoods, and remove off-street parking requirements.

 

Donald Shoup is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, an Honorary Professor at the Beijing Transportation Research Center, and the Editor of ACCESS magazine.

 

$10 per person for Mercantile members

$15 for non-members

 

October 28, 2014

6:00 Reception

6:30 Remarks

 

http://www.mercantilelibrary.com/store/events/pyle-urban-lecture/pyle-urban-non-members.html

Downtown Cincinnati parking garages sold for $24 million

Tom Demeropolis - Reporter - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Three downtown Cincinnati parking garages will soon be under new management.

 

LAZ Parking Realty Investors purchased two garages, 36 E. Seventh St. and 609 Elm St., for $24 million, according to property records. In addition, LAZ Parking Realty acquired the long-term ground lease of a city-owned parking garage at 605 Plum St.

 

Larry Stubbs, managing partner with LAZ Parking Realty Investors, said this is LAZ Parking Realty Investors’ first purchase in the Cincinnati market. In six months, LAZ Parking, the third largest national operator of parking garages, will take over management and operation of all three garages.

 

Cont

Just saw this:

 

http://wvxu.org/post/parking-meter-changes-coming-downtown-and-otr

 

Of particular note:

 

A city memo said the long-term plan is create multi-space parking “that will produce more aesthetically clean public right-of-way areas in Over-the-Rhine.”  That likely means some of the new “smart” meters being installed in OTR could be removed in favor of the multi-space option.  That work could begin in the spring depending on when the equipment is available.

 

This is bad for Bicyclists, as it will remove a significant number of bicycle parking spots.  You guys should probably be working on this, caused huge uproar in Chicago when this happened, though the Active Trans alliance managed to preserve a few old meters for Bicycle parking - Cincinnati's bike advocacy group isn't that strong.

The meters with the wrought-iron looking loops for bikes are pretty nice looking IMO. Hopefully more of those stay and the old gray-ish meter poles bite the dust.

Those new multi-space parking meters would save money, so maybe some of the savings could go toward more bike parking. I'd rather see bike advocates push for that instead of holding onto an outdated parking system.

New parking meters that accept credit cards are now showing up in OTR. One serious concern I have about these new meters is that I assume they only accept magnetic stripe cards and not chip cards. Starting in 2015, U.S. banks will begin phasing out magnetic stripe cards in favor of chip cards. And since the city is responsible for purchasing and maintaining the meters, are we going to be forced to purchase new meters and/or pay to upgrade them in a few months?

I have the same concern. However, I think that you'll see the "phasing out" happen fairly slowly. In order for bank's customers to be happy with the change, that mean retailers will have to replace their equipment as well. Only so many stores accepting credit cards have NFC capable machines. We'll probably see banks and credit card companies add chips to credit cards and retain magstripes (like mine for US Bank has) until vendors have replaced the majority of machines. Could take many many years.

 

As a side note, this is a huge step forward in Credit Card security. It makes it far more difficult to skim credit cards with fake readers using NFC.

Magnetic stripe cards will not disappear overnight, but there will a penalty for merchants that do not accept chip cards and banks that do not issue them. Starting in October 2015, the liability for fraudulent transactions will be passed onto whatever party is stuck in the old magnetic stripe system. So if a merchant does not accept chip cards, the merchant becomes responsible for any fraud that occurs at their establishment.

 

Now, I have to imagine that there is very little fraud involving parking meters. But, often times when a credit card is stolen, the thief tries to make a small "test" transaction to see if the card still works before making a larger purchase. These new parking meters would be a perfect place to test a stolen credit card since you are not dealing with a clerk who might notice that something is suspicious.

I'd imagine if what they are buying is not compatible, that a retrofit reader could be swapped in.  I'd be curious how many current readers actually have both capabilities (if any). 

I think the phase out of magnetic strips will take a couple years for it to even be commonplace. But that is a concern that would be covered if the city was not responsible for maintenance.

New parking meters that accept credit cards are now showing up in OTR. One serious concern I have about these new meters is that I assume they only accept magnetic stripe cards and not chip cards. Starting in 2015, U.S. banks will begin phasing out magnetic stripe cards in favor of chip cards. And since the city is responsible for purchasing and maintaining the meters, are we going to be forced to purchase new meters and/or pay to upgrade them in a few months?

 

Chip-and-Pin cards still have a magnetic stripe on the back of them. When I had one of these in the UK, you could use either method to buy things at most places.

City of CIncinnati

FRIDAY: Parking meter hours change to 9am-9pm Monday-Saturday, 2pm-9pm Sunday (in Downtown Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati). Also, OTR meter rates will go to $1/hour. Feed the meter, don't get a ticket!

I've seen a lot of people with tickets on Main Street in the last two weeks. I typically see enforcement around 12-1pm but that will likely change with the increased hours. Seriously, don't get a ticket. You don't want to spend $45 when you could have spent $1.

I drove down Sycamore earlier tonight around 7pm and noticed tons of cars parked at meters that were flashing red. So people are obviously not getting the memo about the new enforcement hours. I wonder if they are actually going to start ticketing today or just give warnings.

Do they have the staff and time to issue more tickets?  I think that was the problem lately, just not many meter maids on salary and the cops too busy with other things.

they doubled the number of people to 10 I heard. plus, I've never heard of or seen a "warning" ticket. I think they'll consider the notices through the press to be the warning, and then issue real tickets.

 

On elm street a few months back they stepped up enforcement (as in, they went from no enforcement to cruising every weekly "street cleaning" night). I picked up three tickets in two weeks. The last one was when one side of the street was closed off for parking due to streetcar construction, and the other side was no parking for the regular "street cleaning" activity. I figured they would call of the hounds on account of the construction issue and allow parking on the only side you could park on. I figured wrong.

 

At that point I seriously contemplated a freedom of information act request for all emails from Cranley's offices related to parking enforcement in OTR, and on the streetcar route specifically.

Not to sound rude, but you could just follow the signs? Even if enforcement isn't consistent, the signs tell you when and when not to park. If you don't want any risk, park somewhere else.

I noticed that the street cleaning machine comes down our street about midnight, two hours before you have to move your car. I know in other cities the street cleaning is very exact (like no parking for just one hour and that is when they clean). 

I've heard it at various times, but it usually comes down Republic and 15th between 2 and 4 am. I don't face Race so I don't know when it goes down that but I definitely notice it during the times posted. I wonder if they just don't have enough street cleaners to realistically get to all the streets in the posted times.

I often hear the street sweeper on Main Street before the posted time as well.

they doubled the number of people to 10 I heard. plus, I've never heard of or seen a "warning" ticket. I think they'll consider the notices through the press to be the warning, and then issue real tickets.

 

On elm street a few months back they stepped up enforcement (as in, they went from no enforcement to cruising every weekly "street cleaning" night). I picked up three tickets in two weeks. The last one was when one side of the street was closed off for parking due to streetcar construction, and the other side was no parking for the regular "street cleaning" activity. I figured they would call of the hounds on account of the construction issue and allow parking on the only side you could park on. I figured wrong.

 

At that point I seriously contemplated a freedom of information act request for all emails from Cranley's offices related to parking enforcement in OTR, and on the streetcar route specifically.

 

10!?!  Milwaukee has nearly 100 parking enforcement officers who operate 56 parking checker jeeps 24/7 citywide.  I think it's insane how much people protest enforcement of parking laws here. 

 

Just check out the numbers in this news story: http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/Crossing-The-Line-266031891.html

 

Cincinnati's new "modern" parking system is still insanely inefficient.

I don't think it's insane; I think it's expected. Complaining about anything is probably a function of rate of change as much as anything else. Once things get to a new normal I'd think the rhetoric will change.

 

Not to sound rude, but you could just follow the signs? Even if enforcement isn't consistent, the signs tell you when and when not to park. If you don't want any risk, park somewhere else.

 

Ha sure. I did pay them by the way.

 

It was really that they did not enforce AT ALL for two years I was living on elm. I guess that I'm not such a good citizen that I won't take advantage.  (These are all unmetered spaces  in front of my house by the way. So the only tickets given are on street sweeping nights.)

I wish they would enforce it on Mercer--it's no parking on both sides of the street, and people are constantly parked there.  It's really not wide enough in many places to have parking on it.