Reading the Highland Villager Op-Ed Extra #9

[Not photo of actual Highland Villager.]

A not so Grand idea deserves the dustbin
By Michael Mischke

How shortsighted, counterproductive and just plain stupid is the city of St. Paul's plan to install parking meters on the 10 blocks of Grand Avenue between Dale Street and Ayd Mill Road? Let me count the ways.

1. The additional revenue from parking meters on Grand would ostensibly fill a hole in Mayor Chris Coleman's proposed 2016 city budget. The Public Works Department estimates that in eight months from May through December 2016, revenue from the parking meters would be $634,500, and thereafter $672,500 a year. Public works also estimates the total initial cost of installation at $590,000. The eight-month estimated costs for maintenance, service charges and credit card processing fees total another $130,125. That translates to a $85,625 loss in 2016, not a profit. However, the city has supplied no information about you have to believe would be additional costs for parking meter enforcement as well.

[This is pretty basic stuff, with initial capital costs and annual revenues, like with anything involving money. Re: enforcement, see below.] 

2. City officials insist that parking meters would actually be a boon for businesses on grand because meters would promote parking turnover for the street. However, of the 10 blocks being proposed for meter,s eight are already posted for parking time limits of anywhere from 1 minutes to two hours. If parking turnover were an issue, the obvious solution would be better enforcement of the existing time limits. And anyone who lives or works on Grand can tell you that St. Paul's ticket-happy parking enforcement officers are nothing if not ubiquitous on that stretch of the street. Parking turnover is not the issue it's being made out to be.

[So, is parking a pain in the ass now, with ever-changing time limits and "ticket happy officers" getting paid lots of money to chalk tires or whatever they do? It seems like it is! It would certainly be a lot easier to enforce parking rules if you could just glance at a meter. Enforcement costs would likely go down quite a bit.]

3. There are currently 26-28 parking spots per block face on Grand between Dale Street and Ayd Mill Road. The longer 22-foot standard parking spots proposed by the city would actually reduce on-street parking spaces by as much as 16 percent on those blocks.

[Fair point.]

4. Parking meters would motivate customers to spend less time on Grand or prompt them to spend more money where parking is free and abundant.

[Would it? Only if those customers are extremely petty. Also how many people avoid Grand Avenue because of the aforementioned chaos of the existing situation?]

5. Reduced sales would result in reduced sales tax revenue for the city.

[If sales would be going down, which they likely would not. See also: any thriving street with parking meters.]

6. Reduced sales would also ultimately result in reduced commercial lease rates, which would reduce commercial property values and property tax revenue for the city.

[Ditto.]

7. The cost for parking on the street would be $1 an hour from 8 a.m.-6 p.m. and $2 an hour from 6-10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and motorists would have to pay for a full hour even if they planned to park for only a few minutes. [This last statement is factually incorrect.] The residents of the 700-plus single-family homes, apartments and condominiums on that length of Grand, many of which had insufficient or no off-street parking, would be forced to park elsewhere or pay six days a week to park near their homes when they get home in the evening.

[So is parking a problem right now or isn't it?]

8. Grand Avenue residents and customers who choose to avoid paying for parking -- and many will -- would look for free places to park on nearby residential streets, increasing traffic and parking congestion on those streets.

[Isn't this already happening?]

[Some existing residential parking areas around Grand.]

9. The additional pressure on those other streets would inevitably result in the expansion of the resident-only parking districts that already exist both north and south of Grand.

[People at the city have some interesting ideas about how to change resident parking districts, as is mentioned in regular Villager article.]

10. In an ideal world, all commercial off-street parking would be shared by businesses for the convenience of all customers. Parking meters would prompt private lot owners to more closely monitor their suddenly more precious free parking and take measures to ensure their lots are used only by their own customers.

[So parking sucks right now and there are no realistic solutions and nobody gets along? That's what I'm reading here.]

When what he referred to as a "pilot project" was first announced in his budget address, Mayor Coleman assured us that affected neighbors and businesses would be "engaged through pop-up meetings, surveys along commercial streets, and meetings with district councils, business associations and advocacy groups." That never happened and city officials responsible for this impending calamity deserve all the scorn that is not almost universally being heaped upon them.

[Fair enough. It's not that this is wrong, it's just that I don't share at all the notion that nobody will go there any more, because it'll be too crowded. That seems like a bleak view of Saint Paul.] 

Michael Mischke is the publisher of the Villager.

[I come for your soul!... Or you know, fifty cents for storing your car.]

The Best of the Mayor's Forum on Parking Meters

[Saint Paulites gathering to protest racism parking meters.]

 [Note: I have left this semi-rough transcript largely unedited and uneditorialized. Though they completely fail to capture the angry intensity of the room, hopefully the words speak for themselves.]

Mayor Chris Coleman: Welcome. I'm happy to talk about issues around Grand Avenue and the future of parking meters on Grand, or the lack thereof.

[cheering and clapping]

Mayor: [making calm down gesture] This meeting can go until 8:30. We can have that...

[some cheers and jeers] 

With the opportunity for people to weigh in and have a conversation. I respect that people's emotions are high but the more you all scream, the less people will have a chance to talk and have an opportunity for people to talk, if that's OK. We're going to start with three presentations: from GABA, the Summit Hill Association (SHA), and a rep from Transit for Livable Communities (TLC). We want to hear from people with different perspectives on this issue, so what I'd like to do before without further ado, is turn it over to the representative from the Grand Avenue Business Association (GABA) for a presentation. Jon?

[clapping]

[People lined up to testify against fossil fuels parking meters.]

Jon Perrone, Executive Director of GABA: There's quite a few more people than I expected. As you all know, I'm not a great public speaker, so I'll apologize in the beginning.

This morning the members of GABA, SHA, their board of directors, and also residents of Summit Hill, met with Mayor Coleman and his staff to discuss the concerns raised regarding the proposed parking meters.

I wish I could say that this meeting went well, but it didn't. It was more of the same. They heard us but are not listening to to our concerns. It was the same excuses, with a few new ones added in. This is why we're having the problem with the city, now. City Hall has given us plenty of reasons, but none of them have ever checked out as to why meters are beneficial for businesses on Grand Avenue.

As soon as a business or resident starts using facts to support our opposition, their reasons change. When the meters were first proposed, it was stated that the meters were being done for the businesses, and that the businesses wanted them.

This was wrong. Once we started showing the data that 88% of businesses were recently polled opposed, they changed their reason.

The next reason stated was the at the meters were to help with turnover. This information came from a 2006 parking study.

Once we started to point out that the study was old, and that the facts of the study were inconclusive and that it was never determined by the members participating in the committee that the meters would help Grand Avenue, the reasons changed again.

[Shouts of "of course"]

Once it was turns to us [sic] from the City Council president Russ Starks [sic] was that the meters were to help with the budget. Now we believe this reason as its the only one that's been sticking.

[pause, fumbling with paper. big cheer from crowd]

The question we raise from this: Why are we taxing only one area of Saint Paul to make up for a city-wide budget problem?

[clapping, cheering]

The administration is spending money on pet projects like the Riverwalk or the renovation of the Palace Theater, or the soccer stadium that they'd like to get. We have a budget problem period.

Most recently the mayor said that this proposal would help fight greenhouse gases and pollution...

[loud groans, boos]

When this was mentioned, all of us started to laugh a little to be honest. But representing the businesses, we asked the mayor: How much do those jets you're flying on cost and pollute? Are the cars that are going to be removed from the Avenue going to make less of a difference than those trips you're taking to Germany, Japan, and France this year?

The only consistent reason for the parking meters is the 2016 budget. This is why the vote has to take place before the end of the year. This is why there's been no process. This is why we're all upset.

The $400K in net revenue that will come from the parking meters in 2016 is 1/7 of 100th of 1 percent of the overall [inaudible from clapping] and in my opinion is a cheap gimmick by Mayor Coleman and city leaders to help fix a much larger problem.

This issue has not only united the Summit Hill Association and its residents, the GABA and its members, it has also united several other business associations. [lists a few] All of them have come out in opposition because they fear they will be next.

[some more more about petitions, loud clapping]

On behalf of the GABA, its board, our businesses, and the community, I am asking the mayor, city staff, and City Council Members not to install meters on Grand. It is sending a very loud and clear message to the citizens and the city that they as elected officials think government knows best, and does not need to listen to the majority. It's also sending a loud and clear message to all the other neighborhoods who may be affected by the projects they're working on, such as the soccer stadium, that government officials do not listen. GABA is keeping all its options open as to stop the installation of the meters on grand avenue.

One more thing; today the city has been wasting taxpayer dollars today emailing people to get them out here to speak pro-meter.

[laughter]

I would like to point out one thing. We didn't need to do that.

[calls for shows of hands, etc. lynch mob vibe.]

Mayor: Now we'll hear from Mark, rep of SHA

Mark from Summit Hill Association (SHA): I'm here to speak on behalf of SHA and its members which include all the residents of Summit hill which are renters and home owners, prop owners, and business owners. I'm here on behalf of SHA not for myself.

When SHA learned about that the parking meter pilot project was going to be Grand Ave and only Grand Avenue, we decided we needed to take the temperature on this issue. So we held a meeting on Sept. 29th and had a turnout of 140 people, which pales by comparison to tonight, but we thought it was a good turnout.

The mood in the room was similar to tonight overwhelming opposition to meters. We did allow about 20 people to get up to speak, and they were unanimous in opposition. That's not to say the room did not have people in favor.

We received emails and people left comment cards, and the percentages were 82% opposed and 18% in favor, which exceeds Mayor Coleman's percentage int he last election, which was a landslide.

Afterward, we met as a board to decide what our response would be, so we took a vote and sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council to express overwhelming opposition to the parking meter proposal and frustration with the lack of transparency with the process.

On that issue, district councils have been around for 40 years, and the purpose of the district councils is to allow citizen participation in helping to shape Saint Paul  neighborhoods. The city and district councils are supposed to work in collaboration as partners. For example, if a business or homeowner wants a variance, they come to the SHA first and we take a vote, and forward that to the city.

That should have been the process here, where as a district council we take a vote. And that didn't happen and it was frustrating for us. We felt we should have been included but were excluded.

[clapping]

And assuming no representation by our elected officials. As long we're on the issue of transparency in the spirit of full disclosure, if someone were to ask me, I'd probably raise my hand and say, "ah, parking meters might not be such a bad thing."

[silence]

I'm not here to speak for myself, I'm here to speak for the SHA, and on behalf of the SHA we're against parking meters and overwhelmingly against them, and we want our elected officials to hear that. Thank you.

[clapping]

Mayor Coleman: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Next we're going to hear from Barb Thoman from Transit for Livable Communities. I know that most of you don't agree with her position, but in the Saint Paul tradition, I would hope you listen to her with the same respect as you listened to the first two speakers, and give her a chance to explain some of the thinking behind it. Then I'm going to have a chance to say a few words. Then we'll open it up for conversation.

[Barb Thoman before a crowd of anti-poverty anti-parking meter advocates.]

Barb Thoman, former director of Transit for Livable Communities (TLC): Good evening. I guess I'm a brave soul, as a lot of you out there... I am the former Executive Director of Transit for Liveable Communities, and I'm also the author of a report entitled "the myth of free parking."

Like many of you I'm also a longtime resident of St Paul, and someone who shops and dines on Grand Avenue fairly often. I'm not here to defend the city's process for the pilot project, but I want to talk about the merits of paid parking, of metered parking.

In the last decade, there's been a great deal of study about the topic of metered parking, and the impacts of not charging for parking on communities. If you go to the website of the Transportation Research Board, or the American Planning Association, you will find dozens, if not hundreds of articles, about parking and its impacts on community. There's even a popular book by an author named Donald Shoup called "The High Cost of Free Parking."

And that's the topic that I'd like to address first. The curb parking along Grand Avenue, which is provided to drivers free of charge, isn't free. It's subsidized. The city incurs costs to build and repair that parking lane, to provide winter maintenance, to maintain the signage, and to enforce the parking requirements.

[loud shouts and murmurs from crowd. no no no, etc.]

Just a minute. I'd like to have my time. The vast majority of these costs are paid for with property taxes and the city's right of way assessment.

[clapping]

I just got my bill for $230 for next year for my right of way assessment. Neither of these revenue sources have anything to do with how much people drive, or how much they use on-street parking. So people who drive less, and car-pool, bike, and bus more often, pay the exact same amount as people who drive more and use on-street parking more frequently. That isn't fair.

[loud groans and boos]

There are also indirect costs of driving and parking. Vehicles cause traffic congestion, noise and air pollution. In the case of Grand Avenue, motorists access Grand Avenue using many of our collector streets -- Cretin, Cleveland, Lexington, and Dale -- and contribute to traffic and noise in many neighborhoods including mine. I live 3 houses off of Cretin, and 27,000 cars a day pass very close to my house.

[derisive laughter, murmurs]

Installing parking meters on Grand Avenue and other commercial corridors will help level the playing field and contribute directly to the costs of parking. Alternatives like taking the bus and biking, or sharing a ride with family and friends, will be more competitive options. Today with subsidized parking and bus fare at $2 round trip, there is an incentive to drive in our city. Grand Avenue has really good bus service with the 63 bus, and in our city we have good North-South connecting service on Dale and Cleveland and some service on Lexington. Starting in 2016, Snelling will be served with the best bus in the region.

People who can't get to Grand Avenue on bus or transit are going to pay for it. Grand Avenue has statewide appeal, similar to other commercial corridors in the region, and in other states where people pay to park: Uptown Minneapolis, Lake Street or Riverside Avenue in Minneapolis, Michigan Avenue in Chicago...

[loud gasps, boos, derisive laughter, more boos]

Most noteworthy are the number of places in California where a percentage of parking meter revenue is returned to the Commercial Corridor. In those cases, money is used to promote the district, plant trees, install sidewalks, install bike parking, and cover those costs that are priorities of the businesses. That concept is called a parking benefit district, and is something I believe should be considered if this proposed Grand Avenue pilot is considered. Thank you.

[People spending their evening fighting for affordable health care free parking.]

Mayor Coleman: Thank you. I appreciate everybody giving a chance to hear from her perspective. We have other city officials here, if there are are questions I can't answer. The fact of the matter is we've had many opportunities lot of emails and calls on this issue. I understand the concern. Let me just tell you a little bit about the process that led to this proposal.

First off, there have been no less than 8 studies since 1985 that have studies the issue of parking on Grand Avenue. In 2006, a study was conducted that identified some options and goals associated with managing traffic on Grand Avenue.

A couple things that were noted. Almost 70% of businesses identified parking on grand ave and the crowded parking on grand as specific problem. second, it was stated as a goal that one of the things that people wanted to see, was an increased use of alternatives to cars to go to Grand Avenue, to take buses, to bike, to walk, whatever it might be.

There was a stated desire to have people find alternative means to get to Grand Avenue. So if you were in a neighborhood where you were close enough to walk, you would choose that, as opposed to driving your car up there and parking on the street. Or if you had a opportunity to take the bus up, you would choose that route as opposed to driving there as well.

The third goal, I'm sure there were others, but this is the one that stuck out in my mind. And this has been a goal since I was a City Council member representing the Avenue, is to try to get employees of businesses to park further away so that those parking spots on Grand Avenue were freed up for customers. Very specifically, it was identified as a major problem that people would park on grand avenue work at a business all day long taking away a valuable spot for a customer, reducing the opportunity for people to come in and patronize businesses.

[loud murmurs from the crowd]

So one of the specific things ... [tries to quiet crowd] I'd like to have the opportunity to tell you why we got to this decision....

[more loud murmurs]

In spite of eight studies, in spite of all the people that have looked at this problem, no one has been willing to advance a specific way to deal with the challenges that we saw on Grand Avenue.

It's unfortunate that the Director said that people were laughing at the environmental impact of parking and the use of free parking, because the fact of the matter, and the very scientific evidence, is that there is a very direct and very dramatic cost of having people circling the block looking for a free parking space over and over and over again.

[groans, loud boos]

Barb referenced Donald Shoup's book, and you don't have to believe me on this...

[crowd boos]

This is an opportunity for people to take a look, and look at some of the reports that have been made. In 1935 the first parking meters were installed in Oklahoma City. When meters were installed, the businesses that benefited from that were looked at with envy, and surrounding businesses said, "we want parking meters."

That was the beginning of parking meters in this country and you go across the county and go to various cities of all shapes and size. I don't know if you didn't like Chicago, or Michigan Avenue... [referencing the mocking of Barb Thoman's earlier example.]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't have be a city the size of Chicago. It can be cities large and small, urban and rural, across the country in every way, shape, and form. The fact of the matter is parking meters have been looked as a way to solve a parking problem. They have been specifically identified

Take the example of Vail, which you can argue is different. Obviously its a unique town. Vail had a major parking problem, and so the city responded by building an expensive parking ramp.

[Lady next to me who has definitely gotten pissed off parking her car in Vail before, shouts loudly "It costs twenty bucks to park there!"]

It cost $1.25 a day to parking in the parking ramp in Vail, but no one was using it. And the reason no one was using it was that people would circle around and look for a free parking spot. So instead of paying $1.25 to park all day in Vail, they chose to continue to circle the block.

[loud boos]

The fact of the matter... it is true... but the fact of the matter is that when they started putting in parking meters their parking challenges were dramatically reduced. Their traffic problems were reduced.  I want people to understand that I'm not doing this simply, just to have a way of somehow making money...

[loud boos, derisive jeering]

There are better ways to do that if I wanted to. Specifically this proposal was advanced this year because of the developments downtown. There was a parking study conducted in Downtown. I'm not comparing downtown to Grand Avenue, but that was the conversation. One of things the study identified was that there were plenty of parking spaces but people weren't using them very efficiently.

Particularly, people that were parking for an extended period of time that should have been using the parking ramps downtown, were parking on the street, and as result of that, poorly managing traffic. The consequences of that was two-fold: one of them was, How do we deal with parking in downtown better and what are the budgetary implications of that?

I know people are upset that we're putting this into the general fund, and we can have a conversation about that. But the fact of the matter is I know that all of you, particularly if you live in Crocus Hill, have concerns about the rising costs of property taxes.

[some sporadic clapping]

I tried to be as cautious as I could to try to keep the property tax levy as low as I could. And to do it in such a way to have opportunities to collect money from people that are using city services in the city of Saint Paul, but that didn't necessarily have a stake in the game, as it were, because they weren't property tax payers.

Because we looked at every opportunity and everything we could, we were able to keep the property tax levy below 2% this year, which was a real challenge to do while continuing to maintain the quality of services we have -- parks, police, fire, and whatever -- it continues to be a challenge, and we continue to be pressed on it. We're continuing to look for different ways, so that we can not put all the burden of the challenges we have in our city on home owners and business owners in the form of property taxes.

So the conversation came up as we extended the conversation about parking ramps in downtown, someone mentioned the fact that there have been numerous studies about parking on Grand Avenue, and one the things we should look at is what would happen if we extended the parking district from downtown.

Now. other communities have begged for parking meters...

[groans, shouts]

I'm not sensing that you're begging for parking meters on Grand, but the fact of the matter is that other businesses that have had problems with traffic and problems with parking have asked for it and it has been successfully implemented. Parking meter strategies that have made a huge difference.

One of the things we hear is that installing parking meters would reduce the number of parking spots on Grand Avenue. If you put meters in, and define a spot, the loss will be minimal.

[groans, shouts]

I feel like I'm in a Republican debate. I'm just giving the evidence...

[shouts, boos]

The fact of the matter is, if you have a spot instead of turning over once or twice a day, it turns over four, five, or six times, that's four or five or six spots available because people aren't going in and parking their car and hanging out all day.

[Scattered shouts about time limits]

Some of them are two hours, some are 15 minutes... There's a whole patchwork quilt of how long you can park on the Avenue at different times. The fact of the matter is that enforcement alone, when I talk to people, they say, "I can't believe I got a parking ticket, I parked for 5 extra minutes."

Well, one of the things we can try coming out of this meeting, I will ask the police chief to enforce to the letter of the law parking on grand avenue, but..

[Cheers, though that last sentence seemed rather like a threat to me.]

As part of this conversation, we'll look at that whether its having the same effect as people circling the block constantly. etc.

Those are the conversations we will have. I appreciate having an opportunity.

[Mayor introduces the "rules" for the rest of the back-and-forth. I take the opportunity to get the hell out of there. As I leave, CM Thune says something about Cupcake. The crowd howls.]

[Young people getting their first political experience in the fight against unjust war parking meters.]

TCSidewalks Tour: Noteworthy Parking Lots of Minneapolis Bike Tour

It's time once again for a psychogeographic tour of noteworthy places led by yours truly. This time we're going to "look at the parking lot, really see the parking lot for what it is, and try to find god in the parking lot." We will examine the past, present, and future of parking lots, the faded utopian dreams of parking visionaries. So much happens in a parking lot, glazed with oily water, beside the white Hondas.

Questions asked will include:

Q: What is a parking lot?

Q: Is it it nothing?

Q: Is it everything?

[Crown jewel of the parking lot park system.]

In a sense, parking lots are the urban water through which we swim. They sit invisibly, the emptiness around us, that which keeps us apart. 

We will visit and explore five noteworthy parking lots centered around downtown Minneapolis, beginning with the parking lot in front of the Lake Street K-Mart at the corner where Lake and Nicollet ought to be.

We will travel north from there to visit two parking lots in downtown Minneapolis, and two parking lots in Northeast Minneapolis.

• What: Bicycle tour of five parking lots in Minneapolis
• Where: Meet at the K-Mart parking lot (Lake and Nicollet) 
• When: Wednesday 4/29; departing at 6:30 pm
• How long: About 5 miles on bicycle, probably 90 - 120 minutes
• Why: To explore the urban landscape of the Twin Cities

[RSVP at the Facebook invite here. Or don't. Bring a friend.]

[The parking lot from Fargo.]

The tour will include the K-Mart parking lot, the downtown parking lot where the film Fargo was shot, the parking lot at the former Nicollet Hotel site, the parking lot outside Nye's Polonaise room, and the Northeast Bank parking lot park, probably the most unique parking lot in the Twin Cities!

[See previous tours here: Dive Bars of Old Fort Road, Dive Bars of South Minneapolis, The Last Holidazzle, Overlooked Parks of Saint Paul, Dive Bars of the Green Line, Skyways of Minneapolis, and Chinese Restaurants of East Lake Street.]

[Parking space: the final frontier.]

Notable Quotes #4: Donald Shoup describes Grand Avenue's Parking Meter Debate

[Mayor Coleman describing Shoup's work to an angry crowd.]

[From Chuck Marohn's latest Strong Towns Podcast, legendary parking guru and retired planning prof, Donald Shoup, talks quite a lot about Saint Paul's recent thwarted attempt to put parking meters on Grand Avenue.]

Saint Paul only got half of the message. Every city should charge the right price for curbed parking. Every city should charge the right price for curbed pricing, and by “right price”, I mean the lowest cost a city can charge and still leave one or two open spaces on every block, on both sides of the block, so wherever you go, you can see just what you want: an open space waiting for you. So nobody can say there’s a shortage of parking.

And the cities that have done this, like LA and San Francisco in their downtowns, more prices went down than up. Because we have to charge a different price at different times of the day. If you have the same price all day long, it’s often too high in the morning and too low in the afternoon.

Saint Paul wanted to put in parking meters partly because there’s a parking shortage. Is it Grand Avenue? I think they made a big mistake by saying ‘we’re doing it because the city needs the money.’ They actually counted the money in the next year’s budget!

Clearly they were taking money out of the neighborhood and spending it every place else. I don’t think that’s fair. What has been politically successful is that, if you went to Grand Avenue and said, “we’ll offer you these parking meters”, but all of the meter revenue will go to repair your sidewalks or plow snow or plant street trees or put in historic street lights, and street furniture or have added police protection or whatever is your #1 priority something you’d like to see done on Grand Avenue, but don’t have a way to pay for it, here’s a way to do it.

If you’d like to have the meters you’ll get all the money for it. If you don’t want the meters, you won’t get the improvements. And we’ll run the meters just as long as it’s necessary to manage parking. If the demand falls at 7PM, then the prices go down or it becomes free at 7PM. If the demand doesn’t increase until 10AM, then the price remains free until 10AM. So I think it’s, combined as a package of prices and public services, the merchants and the property owners would begin to see it in a different way. It’s totally different from saying, “we’re going to give you parking meters but we’re going to take all the money.”

It’s pretty elementary that the city made a mistake saying that “we want the money” and therefore we’re going to put in parking meters. Of course that’s going to be unpopular. But in cities that do offer meters and public services as a package, they’re very welcomed.

[.…]

Every city thinks it’s unique. I’m sure Saint Paul thinks its unique, different from Minneapolis, or Osceola or any other little town nearby. But I think most cities are very much alike when it comes to parking. If you have a parking problem, and there’s a shortage of parking on Main Street in a small city, that’s the same as the parking shortage on Grand Avenue in Saint Paul.

And you can do the same solution. It just means there won’t be nearly so many parking meters in the small city. And they won’t charge as high a price, but you have to manage parking.

Parking is kind of like successful socialism. There’s an enormous amount of very valuable land that the city owns, and it’s squandering the results. It’s really mismanaging, and I think the example you showed in Saint Paul is an example of this mismanagement. The transportation experts say that parking meters would prevent employees from parking all day long in front of their restaurants, and prevent complaining about that there’s no parking for customers. And it would provide a lot of revenue for things that the neighborhood wants, even to build an off-street parking structure, if that’s their first priority. But it rarely is, because parking is so expensive. They’d probably rather have clean sidewalks, than a parking structure. I think when we get parking right, cities will right themselves.

[Check out the whole conversation.]

Surface Parking in Dinkytown is Imperiled by Redevelopment Plan

[The surface parking lot in question.]

[Note: In the interests of journalistic accuracy, I have made a few edits to a recent Star Tribune commentary for your clarity and edification. For a full explanation of these changes, see here.]


Wayward redevelopment threatens the character of this eclectic parking lot district near the U (and later, one near you).

Surface Parking lots in Dinkytown, USA, the unique historic small-business district in the Marcy-Holmes neighborhood near the University of Minnesota, is are targeted for destruction.

 The Opus Development Company, part of the Rauenhorst Trusts, wants to tear down The Podium, The Book House, House of Hanson and other small businesses in order to build a six-story upscale “dormitory-style” complex affordable to well-off university students.

To do so, the developer needs Minneapolis City Council members to approve an arguably illegal “spot zoning” change from “C1” (small-scale neighborhood commercial uses) to “C3A” (higher-density, mixed-use commercial and housing) for a roughly half-block area of Dinkytown.

The Save Dinkytown movement opposes this change. It seeks to preserve the historic and eclectic character of the half-block four-block surface parking lot Dinkytown commercial district. The parking lots independent local merchants and distinctive parking appeal of this cherished community commercial and cultural center will disappear without the public’s help.

Suppose Opus gets what it wants. Rezoning this key parking lot property un-paves the way for all of Dinkytown's parking lots to be rezoned. Other developers will jump in to rezone other parking lots blocks there. Gone could be such treasured businesses as Al’s Breakfast, Magus Books & Herbs, Kafe 421 and Vescio’s. All could fall prey to the next developer’s rental towers. Once rezoning to higher density is allowed, future development is virtually unrestrained. We will watch helplessly as the “march of the towers” obliterates Dinkytown's unnecessary parking lots.

Allowing such spot zoning also creates a precedent that threatens other C1 neighborhood parking lots commercial nodes. If we don’t act now, Dinkytown's surface parking will disappear forever — on our watch. And, yes, your neighborhood’s small-business district's surface parking lot could be next.

Dinkytown's surface parking has been, is and should continue to be a historic cultural treasure for all Minnesotans. Bob Dylan hated Dinkytown referred to “The University of Dinkytown.” Countless students have got drunk and/or rioted here passed through it. Countless more could do so, if it were still there for them. To be preserved, it needs to keep the protection of C1 zoning, as does any deeply rooted surface parking lot neighborhood business district in Minneapolis.

This development issue is about the history and character of a surface parking lot neighborhood, its values, and what each neighborhood wants to preserve and protect.

Everyone understands that carefully planned mixed-use housing and commercial development has a role to play in any city’s growth. Its best use is in empty surface parking lots economically depressed neighborhoods where revitalization depends on bringing in both new businesses and new residents.

Dinkytown is not such a place. There is already a glut of new rental housing going up along 4th Street, University Avenue and 15th Avenue in southeast Minneapolis. The Marcy-Holmes master plan specifically envisioned such development on these major transit corridors. That plan explicitly states that Dinkytown should continue to provide parking for small, locally owned businesses and cultural amenities, not housing.

Moreover, spot zoning is a political issue and most definitely a proper subject for public comment. Every council member should be asked publicly: “Will you take into account the public interest, neighborhood master plans, and the opinions of all neighborhood residents in evaluating such developments? Will you support preserving and protecting parking lots the surface parking lots cultural, historical and aesthetic qualities of neighborhood commercial districts that attracted people and businesses to Minneapolis and our diverse neighborhoods?”

Help stop this tragedy in the making. You can visit us at Save Dinkytown.com to sign our online petition opposing this development and find out how you can help. Discuss it with your friends on Facebook. E-mail Mayor R.T. Rybak and ask him to notify the council members of your view. Minneapolis residents can contact their council members directly.

University students and graduates should let the school’s president, Eric Kaler, and its regents know that every alumnus, in Minnesota and nationwide, deserves to be alerted about this issue and given a chance to weigh in.

What matters is the unique historic character of every surface parking lot neighborhood. When developers seek to provoke fundamental changes to the parking character of a neighborhood that doesn’t need or want them, we need to tell our council members to tighten the reins and just say “Whoa.”

Matt Hawbaker is coordinator for Save Dinkytown. Bill Lindeke is responsible for the edits to his original piece.

[The footprint of the proposed development: 2/3 surface parking, 1/6 one-story bldg, 1/6 dilapidated house.]

 

Rough Sketch of a Solution to Downtown Saint Paul's Parking Problem

Last night, there was a meeting at the Jerome Theater about parking in Lowertown, Saint Paul. I wasn't there, but (as always) dogged Pioneer Press reporter Frederic Melo attended.

He tweeted thus:

Parking is a big deal, for lots of reasons. It's something I've been thinking about more and more these days, and I'm not alone. Last night's meeting is not unusual in local city politics. Ask any elected official. Parking is near the top of what people complain about in everyday city life.

But accommodating parking comes at a high cost, in terms of both city budgets and urban fabric.

Here are the problems as I see them:

[Two Costanzas.]

Problem #1: Parking cars in downtown Saint Paul can be frustrating.  Last night's meeting is Exhibit A. (Meanwhile, others find it easy.) This problem will only get worse as more businesses, residences, and activities locate downtown. Picture driving around for 20 minutes looking for a spot, turning down one-way streets, cursing. Picture a city of Costanzas.


Problem #2: The city is already filled with expensive parking lots. The city and developers have already spent many millions on parking garages downtown. Historic buildings have been converted into parking garages. [Shudder.] There are lots of parking garages, and they're really expensive.

[One of downtown's many blank walls & unappealing sidewalks.]

Problem #3: Large parts of downtown are ugly and unappealing to pedestrians. Walk around and see this for yourself. While there are a few really nice parts of downtown Saint Paul, many streets are lined with windowless concrete walls. (Usually, these are off-street parking garages.) The sidewalks are covered with litter, especially this time of year. Once you leave Lowertown or Rice Park, there aren't enough businesses, people, or street activity to make walking in downtown Saint Paul very pleasant.

These problems are interlinked. Solving Problem #1 comes at the expense of Problems #2 and #3. It seems an impossible challenge.

[Leave Lowertown or Rice Park, and lots of downtown Saint Paul is ugly and empty.]

Here's a rough sketch of a solution. Almost all of this is based on the work of the economist and planner Donald Shoup, the expert on US parking policy.

 
Step #1: Do a parking survey. Count the number of on- and off-street spots downtown. Also, get a rough measure of how "used" each spot is. What is its average occupancy throughout the day and week?

You'll probably find (as the city repeatedly says) that there are lots of parking spots downtown. You'll probably also find that a some of these spots are in very high demand. Most of these will be on-street surrounding prime attractions (e.g. the Farmer's market). On other hand, you'll probably also find that many spots have low demand, and sit empty much of the time. Most of these will be off-street garages, or in marginal locations.

 
Step #2: Set prices according to demand. Make the prime spots expensive and the distant spots cheap. This will ruffle a few feathers, but making prime spots expensive will encourage people to "turn over" the spots more quickly. Parking at in-demand locations will become easier but more expensive. This would eliminate "cruising" for parking, and end Costanza frustration. It's pretty straightforward: those who value convenience pay more, those who want to save money walk farther out of their way. The important thing is that all the parking gets used. We get full return on the investments that the city and developers have made over the years.

[You could hire way more people like this guy.]

Step #3: Take the added revenues and create a downtown Business Improvement District (BID). During recent discussions of downtown's future, some folks in the city have said they'd like to see a BID. This parking plan would provide a funding stream with no added property or sales taxes on local businesses or residents. How we spend the money would be up to residents, businesses, and the downtown Chamber. Some possibilities: streetscape improvements, ambassadors / people to pick up the ubiquitous litter, nicer bus shelters, bike racks... I don't know! How the money would be spent should be up to the people that use the space. Give those 100 people in that room a pot of money to fix their problem. If they want to build a parking lot with it, more power to them.

 
Step #4: Repeat as necessary. This might involve several iterations, as the supply and demand of parking shifts over time and prices need to be adjusted. Ideally, you could make this process automatic using "smart" meters. (This is what they are doing in San Francisco.)


That's it!

[They're doing this in San Francisco. They made an app for it.]

There are three benefits of this plan.  First, parking becomes easy and transparent. We make an app for it. If you are looking for a spot on Mears Park, there will be one there for you. No more Costanzas. Never worry about it again. Second, it's far cheaper than any other solution out there. Parking ramps are very, very expensive, both in terms of dollars and in terms of opportunity costs. For every block of downtown Saint Paul that's a windowless parking garage, that's one block that won't have people in it, and that will be horrible to walk next to. This is way cheaper, and preserves the urban fabric. Third, it gives people some political control over their own destiny. What would those 100 people do with thousands of dollars per year to invest downtown? I don't know. I doubt they know either, but it'd be interesting to find out.

The bottom line is that parking in downtown Saint Paul should not be free after 4:30. Free parking might benefit a few lucky people, but causes lots of problems and frustration for many others. As long as parking is free on the street, nobody will use the thousands of spaces in the huge ugly garages we've spent millions to construct. People will waste countless miserable hours cruising the streets looking for the perfect spot in order to save $5 on their way to see the Wild, the Saints, Keillor, or whatever Scientologists do at night. Meanwhile, off-street garages will just sit there, underused. That's not a happy situation.

This solution is an outline. Details need to be added. But this would work. It'd be cheap, and in the long run, it would make some of the 100 people in that room yesterday happy. It would improve downtown Saint Paul as a place to work, live, and play. It would be a great stride toward making our downtown a "real city" once again.

Reading the Highland Villager #155

[Villagers in bags on Selby Avenue.]

[Basically the problem is that the best source of Saint Paul streets & sidewalks news is the Highland Villager, a very fine and historical newspaper. This wouldn't be a problem, except that its not available online. You basically have to live in or frequent Saint Paul to read it. Until this newspaper goes online, sidewalk information must be set free. See also: Three Reasons Why I Re-Blog the Highland Villager.]  




Headline: Cleveland bike lane putting a squeeze on permit parking in Merriam Park; Council opens one permit district to two-hour parking
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: A main north-south street is being striped with bike lanes instead of parking. The area around it is lined with “permit parking” districts which only allow residents to park in them. Because businesses want to have parking, CM Stark is suggesting giving business-oriented 2-hour parking access to the parking districts. The parking districts have arcane rules, like only being in effect from 8am to 8pm M-F or having one-hour parking. Quote from an area resident with a disability: “It’s already difficult to find parking on the street.” Permit parking is very difficult to enforce.  Some Tommies have fake permits. CM Prince would have liked more process. [Well, in this case the process is broken. I heard a report from the St Paul administrator in charge of permit parking this week and it was mind-boggling. Prices for permits haven’t gone up since they were started in 1980, and are still $10. Depending on the district, each house can have up to six car permits, but this varies quite a bit in a mind-boggling manner. A fair market value for one of them might be ten times that amount, and even keeping up with inflation they’d be about $30 per year. Some permit parking areas have very obscure rules, like the ones around Cretin Derham Hall, which are in force during only certain months and hours depending on what side of the street you are on. Because of these crazy rules and the fact that there are only 14 parking enforcement officers, they have a basically impossible job. There’s no way the city can enforce this, especially with 2-hour parking areas involved, without it being extremely expensive. The only cost-effective way to enforce parking rules is to have a blanket permit zone OR parking meters. Everything else is simply parking theatrics, and amounts to a joke. Meanwhile, actual businesses in the area are going to struggle to provide expensive off-street lots and to find places for their employees to park, etc. The whole thing is a mess and the “hidden costs” include huge amounts of  administrative time, especially around all the public meetings, enforcement costs, and the opportunity costs of the fact that some of these districts don’t support nearby commercial neighborhoods and that I’d wager the parking in many of the districts is underused. And once again, it’s all the fault of wayward Tommies...? Or people who are too attached to having easy parking in front of their house 24/7/365. OK, that’s my rant. The city is doing a study of this and it’ll come up quite a bit over the next year. I think at the very least, the cost of the permit parking permits should pay for their own administration and enforcement. That’s the only fiscally responsible approach. The ideal solution for businesses is to let business owners purchase a few of them for employees, and to install parking meters in areas with a lot of demand. Like Grand Avenue maybe.]


Headline: County gives its blessing to bike lanes
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: The county is striping bike lanes on a street in an uncontroversial vote. [Only CC Rettman, who was also against the Front Avenue bike lanes and the Dale Street 4-3 conversion, voted against it.] The county did not approve reducing the speed limit to 25 mph. The county PW director claims it might “divert traffic.”Article quotes CC Carter saying the lanes are an “important first step” and “create a critical north-south corridor.” The county would have paid for the costs if they had been done last year. [Instead, the city is picking up the tab.]


Headline: Condemned Grand Ave. buildings are leveled
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: Two old buidlings that were falling apart were torn down. They dated to the 1880s. [They have been bought by a developer, as in this recent news story.]


Headline: Little Free Libraries turn a page with first fest
Author: James McKenzie

Short short version: People put books in little boxes along the sidewalk and anyone can take them. [See also this fun quiz!]


Headline: Neighbors push for tighter restrictions on new home designs
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: People keep buying smaller houses, tearing them down, and building larger houses where the smaller houses used to be. A while ago the city tried to reign in the practice with new “design standards” but it keeps happening. The Board of Zoning Appeals keeps granting variances. Article quotes BZA chair as saying the new regulations are “guidelines.” [As opposed to hard and fast rules I suppose.] CM Tolbert responds saying “They’re not guidelines, they’re an ordinance and it needs to be followed.” Article quotes BZA chair: “to make people do a sidewall articulation on the second floor, for example, doesn’t always seem to make sense.” [Well I can’t make sense of it, that’s for sure.] More houses have been torn down. Quote from a neighbor: “I wouldn’t spend $700,000 to look down from my towering windows at smaller quainter homes where generations of families have lived.” [The main thing the city can do, IMO, is to reign in the noise and nuisance violations by contractors. As for the design rules, no matter what rules they come up with, developers will work around them. I foresee a lot of unintended consequences.]



Headline: City allows four-story apartment building next to Nova Academy
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: The City Council voted unanimously to allow a four-story apartment building to be constructed in a new mixed-use neighborhood. The building is next to a school. CM Noecker is concerned about pedestrian safety. Neighbors and school parents are concerned about traffic, safety, but not necessarily parking. [Apparently there’s a lot of speeding here, which is quite irresponsible of people and should be stopped using infrastructure.] Quote from school administrator: “our neighborhood doesn’t have to be an example of how not to do things.” He commends having more of a grid pattern in the street. [That would be nice. Development planners are way too enamored of curving parallel streets. Can’t beat the grid.] Building designs have been tweaked to try and accommodate concerns from the school. Article includes brief history of the site, which was an industrial “tank farm.” [I like to think about tank farms, like planting a tiny Matchbox tank and watering it until you get a full-grown Sherman.]


Headline: BZA approves new variances for redesigned Grand Avenue condo
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: A 8-unit condo building that was planned but then rejected has been re-planned and now approved for a now-vacant lot site on Grand Avenue. [This apartment is less dense, and with more off-street parking, than its two historic neighbors. Also worth noting that CM Thune was the CM during the rejection, and CM Noecker is the CM of this area for this approval.] Neighbors are concerned about traffic and parking. Article includes a lot of design details. [This is classic “missing middle” type infill. Read more about that in my recent article.] Article quotes upset neighbor: “This building is out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. It’s going to stick out like a sore thumb.” [It’s almost exactly the scale of its two neighbors. I’ll stick out like a middle finger with two fingers on either side. Hold out your hand and you’ll see what I mean.]  Quote from BZA member: “If there’s any place for a building of this size, it’s here.”

Headline: County OKs restoration for evening parking along University Avenue
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: People can park on certain parts of University Avenue now during the evenings. But there won’t be a bicycle lane striped along the choke point by the railroad bridge by the Menards. Article quotes CM Stark: “That is an accommodation that our Public Works engineers thought would be feasible.” Reply from the County Public Works director: “Share the road arrows aren’t something we would implement with that volume of traffic.” [I can see both sides of the debate, though having the two public works’ departments in opposition with each other is a bit troubling. Sharrows are nobody’s idea of a good time. The vast majority of bicyclists will take the cantilevered sidewalk.]

Headline: Apartments, townhomes proposed for city-owned lot on Chestnut St.
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: A parking lot behind West 7th by the Xcel Center might become 175 unites of housing. There will be parking.


Headline: Sale is expected soon for Summit’s historic St. Paul’s Church on the Hill
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: A 100-year-old church is for sale. It costs $1.7M. Article includes architectural and historic details. There are interested buyers. It might be “re-purposed” as an arts or performance space.


Headline: Neighbors suggest where to locate facilities as part of UST master plan
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: St. Thomas is planning its campus and neighbors are giving advice. Neighbors are concerned about parking, and Tommies living off campus. Article quotes neighbor: “part of it is developing a culture where more students want to live on campus.” Some people suggested that the school should offer discount transit passes. [The new bike lanes will surely help this problem, also.]

Bonus:

The Highland Villager operatic accompaniment for this fortnight was Verdi's Il Trovatore (the troubador), which features "the anvil chorus."

Reading the Highland Villager Op-Ed Extra #10

[Cleveland Ave before picture; dangerous street next to a University.]

Pros and cons of two road projects
By Michael Mischke

Two local road projects -- one all but a done deal and the other just a proposal -- share two common features: the laudatory goal of making the streets safer and the potential to cause serious unintended consequences. Let's examine the pros and cons of each.

Dedicated bike lanes on Cleveland Avenue along the 2.75 mile stretch from Eleanor Avenue in Highland Park to University Avenue in Merriam Park were approved by the St. Paul City Council on March 17. The controversial $362,000 project pitted individual bicyclists and bicycle advocacy groups against local residents and businesses who are concerned about the resulting loss of on-street parking on the narrower stretch of Cleveland north of Randolph Avenue.

In just the most recent battle in the ongoing war between bikes and motor vehicles in St. Paul, the bikes won 5-2 before the City Council. Ramsey County is now expected to give its blessing to the bike lanes. (Cleveland is a county road!)

[This is the only part of the column that annoyed me, the idea that there is a "war" between cars and bikes or that "individual bicyclists and bicycle advocacy groups" were "pitted" against local residents and businesses. 

The reality is the bike plan is part of a much larger movement. For years in Saint Paul there have been people from all over the city working on improving street design, walkability, and bike access for a whole bunch of different reasons including safety, sustainability, livability, personal and public health, and even local business reasons. Highland and Mac-Grove are full of people that want safer streets for bicycling, and there's a lot of local support for better streets and bike lanes that go far beyond the usual bike advocacy suspects. That's one reason that the Council vote was 5-2 in favor of bike lanes, and the Highland District Council vote was 14-0 in favor of the ped medians. 

In my experience, safer streets don't come at the expense of cars. On the contrary, making Snelling safer, and adding bike connections from Highland Village through both Colleges all the way to University Avenue, will improve the  neighborhood in many ways, including making it safer for drivers. Once you stop thinking that convenient parking is the only thing that matters, street design is no longer a zero-sum game.]

There's little doubt that bicycling on Cleveland will be safer and more popular after parking is banned, the bike lanes are striped and the speed limit is reduced from 30 to 25 mph.

There's also little doubt that another north-south designated bike route on the western end of St. Paul is desirable for the growing number of people who are biking for recreational and commuting purposes.

However, the loss of nearly all of the on-street parking for Cleveland Avenue residents and businesses will mean more traffic, and parking congestion on nearby side streets and the real possibility that customers of Cleveland businesses will opt to make their purchases where parking is more convenient and plentiful. There are already 10 resident-only permit parking districts near Cleveland Avenue owing to the presence of St. Thomas and St. Catherine universities. The added parking pressure on streets outside of those districts can be expected to create a push for expanded permit parking districts, thereby compounding the problem.

The Highland District Council has not come up with a plan to construct a series of center medians on Snelling Avenue between Randolph Avenue and Ford Parkway. There too the goal is to create a safer street by slowing down traffic, creating a safe haven for pedestrians crossing the street, and eliminating half of the left turns on to and off of Snelling from and to local side streets.

However, there too the benefits come at a cost beyond the estimated $2.25 million tab for construction. the eight-to-10-food-wide center medians would mean the elimination of nearly of the on-street parking on the east side of Snelling, pushing those vehicles onto local side streets. The elimination of half of the left turns to and from Snellign would force more motorists to use side streets to get where they're going. And access to the parking lots of local businesses would be restricted, further exacerbating parking and traffic congestion in abutting residential areas.

But Snelling serves the parking needs of more than just residents and businesses. The worshipers at three churches along that length of Snelling also use the street for parking, as do the people who attend services at three funeral homes, watch hockey games at the Charles Schulz Highland Arena, and hop buses to the Minnesota state Fair with the satellite shuttle service that operates annually from Gloria Dei Church. Those people too would be forced to find alternative parking elsewhere.

The board of the HDC voted 14-0 on April 7 to recommend going forward with the Snelling medians. The City Council must sign off on the project, as must the Minnesota Department of Transportation because Snelling is a state highway. Construction could begin next year.

Both of these road projects have the potential to improve the quality of life for people living in and traveling through local neighborhoods on these two arterial streets. But they also have the potential to increase parking and traffic in nearby residential areas and adversely affect the business that operate along those streets. A good case can be made that the cons outweigh the pros.

Michael Mischke is the publisher of the Villager.

[Well, I like this editorial because it least Michske lays out the facts in a pretty straightforward way, although his description of the Cleveland Avenue situation differs markedly from my own. The only strange part is the very end of the column, where Michske comes to the conclusion that convenient parking trumps walkability and safety. That's exactly the opposite conclusion that I make.

I think it boils down to a difference in vision for Saint Paul. Michske sees the goal of competing with the suburbs, places (as he says) "where parking is more convenient and plentiful." Presumably Michske's ideal kind of commercial land-use for Saint Paul would be one of the few places where the retail has a distinctly suburban character, like the Midway Shopping Center, the Highland Lunds' strip mall retail area, or maybe the Kowalski's or Trader Joe's stores. All of these buildings place parking front and center, and use a suburban design that values easy parking over walkability, a quality streetscape, or connection to the neighborhood.

Personally, I think the strength of Saint Paul's small businesses comes from creating walkable places without large parking lots in between all the buildings. People don't shop or dine in Saint Paul because its easy to park. They come for the unique neighborhood businesses, the quality public space, and because our streets are beautiful and historic. The more we can entice people out of their cars and onto the sidewalks of Selby, Marshall, Grand, St. Clair, or Cleveland, the more our businesses and communities will thrive. Safer, more walkable, more bikeable streets are a big step in the right direction.

If they are thriving, and as long as parking meters are voted off the island, high-demand areas like Grand or Selby Avenues will always be places where it's rare if you find a parking spot in front of the business. That means that  people will always complain about parking, either because its too expensive or too difficult. The solution isn't to pave more of our city for parking lots, but to create safe and inviting streets that people enjoy. Improving Saint Paul's streets and sidewalks will mean that customers will more gladly walk a few blocks or pay a few bucks. Great streets will make our unique local businesses all the more inviting. That's why, for both these projects, the pros greatly outweigh the cons. In fact, it's no contest.]