Downtown parking study: 500 days and counting, still plenty of spaces
From the Woodland Record – New Woodland Courthouse:
On February 4, 2008, I posted the first of quite a few stories about Woodland's downtown parking (at WoodlandJournal.com and WoodlandRecord.com). Unbeknownst to me at the time, the post – entitled "Another downtown fee considered by council: $5,000 in-lieu of parking is 'fair share' amount" – eventually led to investigations about a proposed downtown garage and the New Woodland Courthouse.
The story was essentially the city's staff report with a brief commentary in which I questioned the in-lieu fee. I still believe the fee to be illegal since the mitigation fee is intended to be for an unknown, unplanned, phantom facility. Regardless, since that day I decided to keep track of my downtown parking habits and needs. It has now been about 510 days. So far I've NEVER had to park more than a half block from any downtown destination – any time of day, any day of the week. Once, last month, I parked three-quarters of a block away because I didn't want to bother moving my car out of a two-hour zone later. It actually saved me time since the extra seconds to walk a quarter block would have turned into a few minutes to "re-park" my car later. (And no, I'm not one of those habitual two-hour parking "rotators" or "hoppers" who work for the county.)
Again... I've never had to park more than a half block away from my downtown destination. I go downtown quite a bit – for work, for shopping, to eat, for recreation – at different times and on different days of the week. I am convinced downtown parking in Woodland is much better than most downtown parking in cities its size.
The city DOES NOT need one big garage at one location.
Those who say people in Woodland won't walk more than a block from their parked car are simply shooting a hole in the false-perception that Woodland needs a garage. If one big garage is built at one location, it won't be fully utilized if people don't want to walk more than a block. One big garage will only serve a one block circumference using that logic.
If a theater developer wants to build in the downtown, they should build a facility for their customers - not the City of Woodland. If the state intends to build a new courthouse downtown, they should build a facility (or facilities) for their needs - not the City of Woodland. I'm not saying the city can't facilitate or help build parking facilities. And I'm not saying I'm opposed to parking garages. I'm saying that the city should not be in the business of building and maintaining one big parking garage.
The city is currently waiting for yet another parking study to be done by a consultant. Hopefully, it will include common sense observations like my 500-day study and it will be more relevant than the city's 2001 Parking Management Plan, concocted by former city manager Richard Kirkwood and his drones. (Note: Clicking the link will download the 2.5 mb PDF)
Posts
18 comments:
I agree, I have lived in Woodland for over 40yrs and I can always park right in front or darn close to wherever I am going.
Have you considered what the parking would be like if all the storefronts on Main Street were occupied?
Yes.
Dino, you got it correct. I go downtown just about every day for lunch and banking and have never had to park very far away. I certainly would not park in a garage on Court and third and walk to Tazzina or Pacos.
another reason not to have a garage:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19892813/detail.html
I disagree because I had a store downtown back in early 2000 and there was no parking because the city employees and county employees parked in front and did the 2 hour shuffle. When all the stores are filled combined with the live work space from Chevy, Capital hotel and the other hotel, parking will be much worse. Add on to this the impact from a massive court house expansion bringing in the mobile offices they use scattered throughout the city and we will likely have a mess. The problem is for the small retailers that need customers to park and shop.
The other problem I had was the parking police ran off my customers, if a tire, door, bumper was even 1/16 out of bounds, they tagged them. Many from out of town said they would never come back. It was not friendly.
So a parking garage would be great. If we can leverage the downtown property owners to pay for this, it would certainly be for their benefit. I know we were supposed to have one on the Cranston's lot Tom Stallard bought a few years back. This would have helped. The new downtown group is supposed to try and levy funds for another BID district and for a downtown coordinator. The last time the city and Meg tried, it was voted down. I hope they can hire Gary Sandy and Joy back, they did such a great job for the downtown. The money that paid for this was from Walmart and the city should try and get Paul Petrovick to put up some money when he expands the mall site.
You said: "...there was no parking..." That discredits your entire soliloquy. That is absurd to think there is any time when there is NO parking available.
Dear Anonymous at 6/29/09 2:31 PM,
Chevy (a.k.a. City Lofts): Will have their own parking
Capital Hotel: Made their own parking
Courts: Will have (and should have) their own parking
Parking police: Wah! 1/16 of what?
Leverage property owners: Not city money
Cranston's lot: Wishful thinking
New downtown group: Stay out of it
Old downtown group: Should have stayed out of it
Walmart: Money wasted on Gary, Inc
Petrovich: Not city money
You just proved why the city should not fund and build a garage.
Respectfully,
The Insider
Dino it was next to impossible to parking in front of the business I had, one had to compete with city workers that got in early and rotated cars. Thus the reason for my opinion there was no parking and I will correct it to be " There was no parking in front of my business or close by that was readily obtainable during normal business hours." Tom Stallard even got to where he had to charge $50 per car for his tenants to park in his lot. It was not easy where I was located which is in th e core of the downtown area. Your business is located at the other end on a side street.
Also, City Lofts, which is a great development but does not have their own adaquate parking to handle the size of the development. They assume off site parking. There is no parking on site for the retail business and only 1.5 places for the apartments. We definalty need a parking garage at both ends of Main st.
Petrovick was supposed to put up money to offset or mitigate the impacts from the mall to downtown. If that money is available use it for the coordinator and to pay for parking solutions.
The only way the parking garage will work is if it is property owner money best obtained through property tax assessment and then getting government money. That is what Tom was doing. The money was not city money or out of the general fund, idiot. Think of all the people a new court house and living spaces at both ends of Main st will provide for the business owners that are down there and the resturants.
Also, I disagree ANON 3:34 Gary Sandy was God's gift to the downtown. I do hope the new group will find a way to hire him back.
12:07 Out-of-Business-Because-Customers-Could- Not-Park -Right-In-Front-Of-My-Shop
In addition to the 790 parking spaces provided in city-owned lots, there are 436 on-street spaces in the downtown. The on-street parking in downtown still does not include spaces available in adjacent residential areas (those within the three- to five-minute state standard).
That brings the total of downtown parking provided by the city to 1,226 spaces. The city has 70 employees in the downtown.
The county provides 220 parking spaces in the downtown. 149 of those are for the courthouse. The county has about 338 employees who work downtown.
The courts provide 0 parking spaces. They have about 140 employees.
The 2001 Parking Management Plan reveals a parking supply of 2,251 spaces in the extended area of Elm, North, Fourth and Lincoln.
The city negotiated with the Lofts project for spaces. Evidently, the city is satisfied with the parking that the project will provide... including the entire block of street parking surrounding the project that will supply retailers. So there goes your argument. And... that is not near your old shop. The Lofts parking around Walnut, Court, Elm and Main will have no affect on people's ability to park right in front of Tom's buildings at First, Main, Second and Lincoln.
Now you say "We definalty need a parking garage at both ends of Main st" – that's now TWO parking garages based on the only data that you can provide which is "it was next to impossible to parking in front of the business I had..."
There is no money available from Petrovich (not Petrovick). Period. There is no money from Walmart. Period. No coordinators paid for by them or our taxes will increase the parking supply. I don't want to pay a parking tax. I already pay taxes to the city. That is why I'm using actual numbers to support my opinion.
As far as my business is concerned, it IS in the core... not on the "other end." It's right next to the Corner Drug Store and on the same block as Tom's buildings. There is the same number of stalls on the street in front of my business as there is in any other part of the old downtown.
As far as the projected parking needs of the downtown, refer to the numbers above. The county and the state need to provide parking for their employees and customers. That should not be the city's burden. If a multiplex comes to the downtown, they will need to negotiate with the city as to what parking they need to provide to their employees and customers.
I stand by my assessment that is based on real numbers... there are plenty of spaces downtown and the city should not subsidize one big parking structure.
Your notion that the city needs to provide book-end garages because "it was next to impossible to parking in front of the business I had" is weak. Very weak and lame.
First DINO, I did not go out of business because of the parking. Second you said, "As far as my business is concerned, it IS in the core... not on the "other end." It's right next to the Corner Drug Store and on the same block as Tom's buildings. " Why don't you talk to Ed Shelly who owns the Corner Drug Store? He agrees we need a parking garage. He could have got the BID passed, but Councilman Flory changed his vote at the last minute. Since, your business in not on Main St. and you were not there during the time the downtown was thriving, under the direction of Gary Sandy, you are not qualified to speak to the parking problems that we had. When you see the parking problem created by the build out of the new business I bet you change your tune.
I have my own opinion, that includes real numbers, that may - or may not - be different than Ed's. And why are you dragging him into your inept argument?
The PBID failed because property owners voted it down. 45% of the fees were to be used for parking management... not to build a garage.
I am fully qualified to speak about parking (then, now and for the future) because I do my research. The downtown has not thrived for decades, and any recent upsurge of economic activity (as in your time period of "early 2000") was not because of any downtown coordinator. No downtown organization has had a comprehensive parking strategy or a comprehensive marketing strategy. If there was, we would now have a vibrant downtown with hopefully a parking problem. A parking problem in the future will be a good thing. That will mean business is good - and I don't mean government business.
One of the basic problems with downtown is the street parking is used primarily by those who work downtown and their customers have to park elsewhere. There I said it.
I agree. You would think that business owners and employees would have enough sense to limit their extended parking in front of their businesses (and also don't smoke in front of, or in back of, their stores). Obviously, brief visits or deliveries would be acceptable and natural uses of street spaces.
That said, even with that basic grievance - and the "two-hour shuffle" - the parking numbers still speak for themselves. So parking "elsewhere" means in the range of a half-block to three-quarters block according to my 500+ day study. This is well within the state standard of a three- to five-minute walk from public parking to a public facility.
Dear Anonymous at 6/29/09 2:31 PM, 6/30/09 12:07 AM, and 6/30/09 8:15 AM
It appears that Dino has effectively separated casual and random observances from true statistics and a more relevant qualitative assessment.
As one who knows, I agree with the position that the city should not fund and/or maintain even one parking garage. Good luck on rallying the troops to build two garages at either end of the downtown by taxing small businesses.
Respectfully,
The Insider
The suggested proximity is not good for developing a downtown that is a compelling, lively, architecturally distinguished place. The economics of parking and land values downtown allow such proximity, while the planning apparatus off city government remains weak. Rather than examine the health of street life or even desirable land uses for downtown, all decisions are subsumed by economic logic. That's well and good for function, yet we must remember downtown is not simply a series of useful structures, but also the core of our city that defines its architectural character to the world.
Obviously, we want to keep the courthouse downtown and it’s employees downtown. They will need parking. But we need a downtown that compells the visitors to stay and shop downtown and new businesses to locate downtown.
Bottom line if the city decides to build a parking garage it had better be the most useful parking garage ever!
Good find. Here's the link to the Ecology of Absence Web site, EcoAbsence.blogspot.com
Thompson Coburn Garage and the Economics of Parking Downtown
I know I like what they said so I just added my lines to it. No sense re-inventing the wheel.
Post a Comment