Thread by @shayshinecastle

Next: Parking. Staff presentation. www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Boulder_A…

Notes were short on details, but it looks like parking will be getting more expensive in Boulder — both in city spots and in neighborhoods. Some v fascinating info on that.

OH, also parking tickets. Of which I've had many. (Though none in a long time)

This discussion is referred to as AMPS, which = Access Management and Parking Strategy

AMPS involved "measuring and capturing the value of public space currently dedicated to vehicle storage”

Hourly parking pricing not updated in 10 years — generally $1/25/hr for public facilities - $2.50/hr at Chautauqua

The dity owns/manages 33,200 public spaces citywide (30,500 on-street, 2,700 off-street)

“Overwhelming majority” is free, unregulated, staff wrote

“Downtown on-street parking can be scarce on busy days, but generally there is ample parking available in even the highest-demand parts of the city”

Staff would like to adjust pricing to demand, which early feedback suggests residents are OK with. 62% said it made sense to match parking prices to demand during busy times/in busy areas

70% disagree that public parking should be prioritized in right-of-way

No. 1 factor in pricing should be discouraging SOV trips, encouraging other modes of travel, people said

Per staff: “Generally, the community views improving the experience of multimodal travel choices (walking, biking, transit) as the most important goal of a parking mgt. program, and supports setting parking prices at levels that encourage travel choices beyond personal vehicles”

There are two goals for two big parts of this AMPS update:
Neighborhood Parking Permit Program: Achieve cost recovery
Parking pricing: Maintain cost recovery

Let's look a little bit at NPP, shall we? (Or is it NPPP?) Either way, it's when neighborhoods — often next to high-traffic areas — have parking permits so they can, you know, park by their homes.

NPP not changed since implemented in 1994(!)
NPP covers less than 50% of its cost; the rest is subsidized by the city’s general fund

2018 expenses: $351,686 vs. revenue: $203,460

Per staff: “Current permit prices, especially for residents, do not reflect the true value of the service being offered.”

Resident permits are $17/year
Business permits are $75/year
Commuter permits are $100/quarter

NPP started with 3 zones in 1994; 13 zones today
Serves 3,481 households; 1,812 permits

Zones are created and/or expanded by a neighborhood petition process with city review, including the Transportation Advisory Board

That's good for neighborhoods but not community-wise goals, staff wrote in notes to council.

That's reflected by NPP's current stated goals (again, written in 1994) Current goals “include protecting NPP zones from pollution and noise, preserving the value of property, and protecting residents from unreasonable burdens in accessing their residences.”

Updated goals will include alignment with sustainability targets.

Instead of neighbor petitions, staff suggest “data-driven process using key metrics (parking supply, parking occupancy and the availability of transit, pedestrian and bicycle amenities) to make strategic decisions about how to manage neighborhood parking throughout the city.”

There is no current way to amend an NPP as the neighborhood or nearby uses — and therefore parking demand — change

OK, that's all for my notes. Now gonna tweet what staff is saying.

I'll start with this, from Cris Jones: "Everybody has an opinion on parking."

Jones on what staff hopes to get from elected officials tonight: "We specifically want to get feedback on how council would prioritize quantitative data, qualitative data, and long-term goals" of the city.

I'm going to read between the lines (possibly unfairly; but I wanna provide context) and say Jones is gently reminded council that city goals are often thrown out when there is pushback from community members.

SEE: Folsom bike lane

Depending on the issue (and the feedback), council members are either
1.) Perfectly happy to accept qualitative feedback
OR
2.) Absolutely NEED a statistically valid survey

Jones: "The role of data is currently not front-and-center" in the NPP. "We're not using data to create" and change NPPs... "We're relying on the community to lead this process."

Idk if Yates is here tonight...? I haven't seen him, but maybe I'm just missing him.

Anyway, council giving feedback on new goals for the NPP.

Friend: What are we possibly driving towards? No pun intended.

(Sure, Rachel)

Current goals are "very much based" on "localized, neighborhood parking challenges," Jones says — people parking in front of residents' homes.

New goals would be about citywide value, Jones says.

Chris Hagelin: "If costs were increased, there could be ways to invest additional revenue" into the neighborhood, like for EcoPasses.

Mallory Baker: Right now, it foces pretty exclusively on parking permits: Enabling ppl to park and drive in certain areas. ... We're looking at (ways to make it "more about access ... rather than enabling more extensive or exclusive access to the curb outside (their) home."

I forgot to state, but the whole idea behind NPP originally was that it was for areas where parking "overflow" might happen. Like, you drive downtown and park for free in a neighborhood instead of a paid parking spot by where you want to go.

Weaver: "This is actually a fairly complex topic ... It's been stated a couple times we need to be careful that we're not preserving curb space for ppl who own a home there ... but in several of these homes they are RMX which prob have a high # of renters."

"It's about using a public good most effectively," Weaver says. "We want to use the public good in a way that maximizes value fo the entire Boulder community."

Weaver: "We need a little ore clarity on the type of data" we want to use. What's commuting like? What's the mix of housing? All these affect the eventual program.

"I think qualitative data" should be broken down by neighborhood, Weaver says, because they're all so dif and have dif needs.

Weaver: "It's about $1/day for commuter permits in NPP zones; it would cost way more if you were parking at a meter or a garage. ... It gets at equity, but we don't want to create through low pricing demand that otherwise wouldn't be there."

Commuters pay by far the most for parking among NPPs. More than 4X biz and 23X residents.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 3

He's for cost recovery for NPP. It's long past time, he says.

BUT... I hope you're looking at higher rates that will drive ppl to alternative transit, and not simply higher rates that will drive ppl to Flatirons (Mall) or downtown Louisville, Wallach says.

Wallach also doesn't like comparing Boulder's parking prices to Seattle, Boston and Portland since they're so much bigger than us. "I'd also want us to look at cities that are more closely related to Boulder in size to see if any of them have policies worth emulating."

Young: How are we considering equity for people who come to neighborhoods to work? They have to park, too.

Baker: We have heard quite a bit from domestic workers who benefit from NPP in some form. ... Service workers also benefit from the visitor permit program associated with the NPP. That part of the program will be preserved.

"We should maybe do some more work to specifically engage ... that audience," Baker says.

I also forgot to clarify that most NPPs are based on time. You can park in the neighborhood without a permit for 2-3 hours; after that, you need a permit. Or you get a ticket.

Young suggesting rather than asking "all the questions" in every neighborhood, staff should "pick and choose" based on the challenges of that neighborhood.

Nagle: "With pretty much everybody we see across the city, there's a few ppl who are on top of what hte city is doing and so they'll always respond ... I think a lot of the working ppl who just don't have the time ... miss out on what is happening."

Wants to look at "the actual data" rather than "just the comments that were put in."

This get back to the qualitative vs. quantitative data question.

Weaver says the words "guitar riff" which means it's time for your semi-regular reminder that Sassy Sam was once in a band. (I think he played the drums but I could be remember that incorrectly.)

Weaver: "It's really hard to say what's going to help meet" our climate goals or transportation goals. "It is complex to say what is actually going to promote your goals better." Lean on consultants for that.

That was another part of the packet that we haven't touched on yet: Developers always have to create these plans showing how many trips their projects will generate. But those requirements stick with the developer, not future tenants. And there's no (good) way to enforce them.

It's not really part of the work we're discussing tonight, but broader parking policy work the city has got on the burner.

Also on that list: Chautauqua-area parking. There's an NPP and a pilot shuttle to try and reduce demand. Some good data on that.

(All 2019 data)
2,570 daily visitors in the summer (doubled over 10 years); 652 avg. daily riders (down 3 from 2018)
21,187 total riders (down 484)
794 avg daily parkers (up 34)
26,266 total parking transactions (up 1,182)

Back to council. Friend asking what "negative" feedback was provided by the boards. (I was dissapointed by staff's summary of board feedback, which just said all the groups were "generally supportive" of staff's approach)

Typically, board feedback is given its own little section (one for each board) and summarized nicely. But maybe they didn't do that because so many boards weighed in...?

Transportation Advisory Board
University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission
Downtown Management Commission
Boulder Junction Access groups (2)
Planning Board

Still, I'd like to know.

I didn't really follow the answer staff gave Friend. Apparently it wasn't a good answer, bc Friend re-states her q: What negative feedback did you get?

Yvette Bowden, head of Community Vitality: "If there's one thing everybody wants to have input in, it's parking."

Also not exactly answering.... ? She's talking about how boards can better interact on this.

"Right now the boards are seeing this through the particular lens of their master plans"

Kinda gets at it by saying staff is trying to "reduce those tensions." But doesn't say what the tensions are.

"There's lots of input," Bowden says.

Jones: "Idk that i'd characterize it as negative, but some constructive feedback" we got was "the phrase 'preserving neighborhood character' certainly did illicit some strong feedback. "

Neighborhood character is a phrase with historically racist connotations. It's still used REGULARLY in official city capacities.

Baker: Also doesn't want to call it negative, but mentions some TAB feedback. The city only got 11 ppl to sign up for 6 virtual meetings. "We recognized ppl were just burnt out on new virtual meetings," she says.

The new plan is to present "modules" into already scheduled meetings hosted by various community groups.

AKA meeting people where they are. Always better than expecting them to come to you.

"TAB had some comments about how we could have done better and anticipated some of that burnout," Baker says. "We hopefully responded to that loud and clear direction from the community."

Erika Vandenbrande, head of transportation: I wouldn't say things were negative. We heard loud and clearly that TAB wants to be involved.

Joseph: We need to think of class as well as race when we think of equity. That matters in a discussion over parking pricing. Is our outreach going to diverse enough groups and people?

Young: "I have a comment about hte function of a board ... A board's function is to think critically and within their own board, consider those tensions and balance those tensions and make recommendations ....

... "To strictly provide advocacy for one viewpoint or another, I want to hear about that bc that is definitely not the function of a board."

Young, always so quick to remind a board what their place is.

Jones RE parking pricing: "It's almost like we wait until we have a problem until we start to figure out how to address it."

Really could apply to so many areas of gov't tho

Swetlik: What's our ability to change parking rates based on time and usage?

Jones: "Yes, soon. We have new parking pay stations that hopefully are going to be installed in the next couple months." They can handle dynamic pricing based on location, usage and time.

That will be system wide, except for a couple pay stations that still have some life in them.

Wait, Brockett asks a follwup q that might change my previous tweet: Can we do truly dynamic pricing, or just based on location and time of day?

Jones not exactly sure. But they'll get back to council. The eventual strategy will fit within what the new infrastructure can manage.

Weaver: "I'm interested in hearing bout increasing fines for repeat offenses. ... Presumably with fines, we're trying to discourage behavior."

It doesn't have to be "super high," Weaver says, but needs to communicate that we "mean it."

Weaver RE: dynamic pricing. Idk that I need that on a daily basis, changing with demand. But "those most in-demand spots are in demand for a reason, and we'd like to get more turnover."

Young: What's going to happen for the $3 from 3 to 3?

That's this, which was intended to help late-night, low-wage workers. boulderbeat.news/2019/11/29/bou…

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!