Consultants fail to justify Short Street garage, Ian Thomas
finds
COLUMBIA, 4/18/11 (Beat Byte) -- In a logical and
eloquent analysis of a December 2010 City of Columbia parking study conducted by
Walker Parking Consultants (WPC), Pednet director Ian
Thomas cited several flaws and inconsistencies, urging City Council
members to reconsider data presented by the firm to justify a second parking
garage on Short Streeet.
Few people understand the ins and outs of Columbia's unique transportation
needs like Thomas, who provided the analysis at the request of Sixth Ward
Councilwoman Barbara Hoppe. He forwarded a copy of it -- and
the Short Street garage parking study -- to the Columbia Heart Beat
as part of a response to our pricey parking series (see Readers
Rite below).
"I believe there are some serious problems with parking
studies in general, and with these two parking studies in particular,"
Thomas told Hoppe, referencing the WPC study and an earlier report from
TransSystems Corporation. Ultimately, WPC's newest data do not
support the Short Street garage, he found. "Committing funding to more
off-street supply is not going to solve the problems of a lack
of on-street supply and associated traffic congestion."
Conflicting Interests
First hired
in 2009 to design Columbia's much-maligned eight story downtown
garage on 5th and Walnut, WPC was tapped
again for $503,000 to design a second
garage on Short Street.
But the WPC
study in support of that garage presents an obvious
conflict of interest, Thomas explained, because the firm that finds the
problem also gets to design the solution. "How independent and
objective was this parking study, when Walker Parking Consultants had
the incentive of a large public contract if a high level of unmet parking demand
were estimated?" Thomas wrote.
A WPC move to tie its own recommendations to H3
Studios' 2010 Downtown Urban Design Charrette Thomas also found
"unjustified." Charrette participants emphasized "livability and esthetics,
and enhancement of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options,"
he noted, only to have WPC wrongly co-opt that discussion, "as if the Short
Street Garage is a natural consequence of the Charrette," Thomas wrote. "The H3
Charrette report never discusses automobile parking," instead
emphasizing alternatives such as public transportation.
Planning for Peak
A central premise of the WPC study and its TransSystems predecessor
-- building more parking for peak demand during activities such
as the True/False Film Festival, Roots 'N Blues 'N BBQ, and home football games
-- is also wrong-headed, Thomas notes.
"Planning for Peak is never employed in the private sector because it does not make economic sense," he explained. "No restaurant designs its square-footage to ensure customers get a table immediately on the peak day, because large numbers of tables would stand empty most of the year. No store routinely carries enough inventory or brings in enough sales staff for its peak shopping day all the time -- that would be terribly inefficient."
Instead, "the sensible economic approach is to plan for some kind
of average or median demand, and accept that peak demand cannot be met
absolutely," he notes. "And yet every parking study I have reviewed designs for
peak parking -- with the result that parking efficiency is extremely poor for
most of the year."
Internal contradictions
Internal contradictions in the WPC parking study also suggest the firm has
not done its homework. Calculations of "walking distance" from the new garage,
for instance, do not account for people with disabilities. "Clearly, it is
important to consider downtown visitors who have less mobility than
others (senior citizens, those with disabilities, mothers with babies,
etc.) when designing parking supply," Thomas explained.
The study also neglects the critical difference between demand for on-street and off-street (garage) parking.
The study also neglects the critical difference between demand for on-street and off-street (garage) parking.
Though on-street parking spaces were virtually full, just five months ago
both Pednet and WPC found "more than 700 empty spaces
throughout two typical working days in the existing downtown
garages, BEFORE the opening of the Fifth/Walnut garage," Thomas notes.
Walker's increased demand numbers "fail to address the
difference between drivers' willingness to park on-street versus off-street."
Blueprint for Peak
Ultimately, WPC's data fail to support the Short Street garage, Thomas
concludes. In a bizarre irony, the WPC report itself says as much, showing it
to be merely a blueprint for peak -- not overall -- parking demand.
Although "several blocks experience a level of demand that indicates a
parking shortage during peak periods...the overall
demand does not in itself indicate a parking
shortage," the WPC
study claims on page 7.
NEXT: Other communities struggle with Walker Parking Consultants
NEXT: Other communities struggle with Walker Parking Consultants
Parts 1 and 2 of our series:
READERS WRITE: Pricey parking in
Columbia
Mike:
With reference to your comments about Walker Parking Consultants, I am
pasting in below an analysis I conducted of their December 2010 Parking
Study, which Councilwoman Hoppe requested. I have also attached the study
itself.
While I agree with you that the practice of conducting Parking Studies is
filled with spin in order to convince public bodies to build lots of parking, I
disagree with your assessment that increasing parking fees is unnecessary or is
simply an example of someone fleecing the "parking public."
The fact is that owning and operating motor vehicles is much more costly
than people realize and much of this excess cost is hidden in public subsidies
most people are unaware of. Parking and street maintenance are great
examples. If people realized how much it really costs us all to conduct
virtually all of our transportation needs by an immensely inefficient system, we
might choose alternative modes such as public
transportation or non-motorized modes for many journeys.--
Ian Thomas, PhD, Executive Director, PedNet Coalition,
Columbia
I believe people do realize that there's lots of cash flow being used to conduct virtually all of our transportation needs and it's a matter of opinion as to what's deemed as an efficient or inefficient system.
ReplyDeleteFor instance is it more efficient to use $25 million dollars for bicycle initiatives, or use it towards more
non-polluting electric trolleys or develop partnerships with major employers for user-friendly park and ride locations and car-pooling initiatives? Heck, even churches could get their congregations involved with transportation initiatives.
As of now, all I know is that I really hate driving my convertible behind a smelly smoke-spewing city bus and I'm not even allowed to honk at slow moving cyclists riding three abreast when they legally can ride on the sidewalk instead of over those countless numbers of bicycle logo tattoos painted all over our city roads. Once upon a time, a sign stating "Bicycle Route" was all we really ever needed.
I'm telling ya. It's certainly going to be a challenge driving around this town this summer. Especially with all those ugly "temporarily permanent" PVC post lane dividers being placed on College Avenue, or Clark Lane near 63/70 and on Broadway near Walgreens.
And don't even get me started on those tiny roundabouts. My other vehicle is a Ford Truck and I can barely get through those small roundabouts without going less than idle speed. (Are city buses jumping the curb to get through those?)
And how about them Tigers?