Sunday, November 25, 2012
Pittsburgh City Council urged to lower Oakland parking rates
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: The hourly rate for on-street parking in part of Oakland could drop by $1 in January as Pittsburgh continues to wrestle with the question of how much to charge for parking.
Councilman Bill Peduto introduced a resolution Monday that would set up a year-long pilot project involving Carnegie Mellon University, the parking authority and Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
thank god
that is all
All I can think of after reading this article is location location location. I find this an absolutely fascinating subject. With the discussion in the article about peak usage times and how those differ during fall term and during the summer I think it really analyzes a big issue. For example when there is a large snow storm someone can't really park during this period so all usage is null. But during something like a move in weekend or when many scheduled tours are occurring the spots would be in their prime. I also think is interesting the usage compared to pricing. Parking downtown can be upwards of twenty dollars a day but based on its proximately to many different things: eateries, places of employment, and entertainment venues. I think this study could go even as far to lower pricing during the slow hours like 2 A.M. to say fifty cents an hour. This has so many variables and may even spred and lower parking across the city or heighten the pricing (clearly not the most desirable for the drivers of Pittsburgh).
I ALWAYS park for free. In the vast majority of locations, a space which is not too far from where you are going can be found at no cost. Sure, it might not be prime, but most of us have legs and if you get there a little early walking isn't too much of a hassle. I think that even with the decrease, it is still ridiculous to have to pay for as many parking spaces as we do in the CMU area. And also, nobody really carries change anymore so if I don't have any on me I'm probably going to have to go bother somebody. AND SINCE THERE ARE NO REAL STORES ON CAMPUS (that is a separate rant) I will probably just risk the ticket. And fight it when I get it. Or maybe I'll pay it, who knows? Any way you have it I'm not the easiest customer, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
The number that I found to be fascinating is the 80 percent usage number. Why would you not want to use these spaces at full capacity? They raised the price I assume so that they were to make more money off of the spaces and it had the opposite effect. With the new rate if there is 50 percent or higher usage that would make the same amount or more profit as 100 percent usage at the old rate which is a net gain. I think they are trying to make 80 percent usage at a median rate in order to maximize profit which is good financial practice but what about the environmental impact? If we were to limit the number of parking spots in proximity of campus or make them prohibitively expensive we could in turn make people seriously consider alternative and possibly more environmentally friendly methods of travel to school. While the bus system is massively overburdened as it is I think many more of us could walk or bike into campus than currently do. With American obesity rates as high as they are a little walk couldn't hurt most of us myself definitely included. Personally I find my 1.5 mile walk in the mornings, when I can't or do not want to take the bus, a great time to gather my thoughts before rushing into the largely hectic days that are found by all students. I also love that the CMU economics department is getting involved in public policy and getting first hand data and experience with micro economics.
So I don't have a car on campus, but If I did I might just stop driving it altogether. If there has to be a study to achieve 80% occupancy based on price for a parking lot then something is clearly wrong. Also, this is a college campus, if you really want to earn some money raise the fees on a heavily trafficked area. This is a college campus and most of us don't have a ton of money to spar so if you raise the price to park even a little the number of people parking will severely decrease because people will find other, free, places to park. Also, changing the cost of parking every month is only going to aggravate people. As to quarters, no one carries change anymore. I walked around Purnell for an hour the other day looking for quarters and I didn't find any, so it's no surprise that quarter only machines see fewer costumers.
This would be really great if this passed. I have a car in a parking garage all the way across campus from my house, and when I'm using my car until late hours of the night, I sometimes have to leave it parked outside my house and pay the parking meter in the morning to avoid tickets. Seriously... $1 every 30 minutes?! That's really ridiculous. Especially when there are other places in Oakland that only make you pay $1 an hour. Why aren't the meters around campus using that rate? It sucks for college students who are trying to save their money.
Pittsburgh does not do very well with their metered parking, lets be honest, but they are trying. They finally have stickered or replaced all signs as individuals were paying after 6:00 PM giving the city money for no reason. That was step one. Another reason why people dont park on Margaret Morrison is cause you have to pay now. You didnt have to pay in previous years, why would people want to start paying all the sudden. Besides some poor implementation issues, I do feel that this study, or a rendition of it, would be good to find a more appropriate parking price. The price increase isnt the greatest answer and too many spots are going unused. I guess the real question is do you wanna charge lots for the used spots to cover the not used spots, or make it convenient to everyone and always be full at a decent price? It should be for the people, not against, full at a decent price! Make it worth it!
Yes please. Parking in Pittsburgh is absolutely ridiculous! And by parking I mean parking prices. I dont know if altering the prices depending on the time of year and time of day is a great idea because it will only lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It's parking discrimination! Kassondra is right though. If you know the inside scoop you can park for free in lots of places, for the price of some extra walking, which can never be a bad thing. I have been downtown to fight a parking ticket of a certain friend of mine and its frankly just a giant chunk of your day wasted in order to save like 20 bucks (which is what the kind old parking judge will cut off your tab). Just park for freeeee people.
One thing that might be good about the higher prices is that less people will drive and more will use public transportation, walk, or bike. Thats always better for the environment and gets you more exercise. If that is the case they should stop cutting public transportation. Anyway, i will most likely risk a ticket, because there aren't many places i go that has paid parking.
Pittsburgh is a terrible city for getting anywhere. It's not big enough to have a subway like New York or DC, but it's too big, and too disorganized to have a bus system that is reliable and efficient. What the hell is up with so many intersections not having street signs? That's just the work of the devil. And, of course, there's never any good parking, anywhere.
So, parking prices suck. But I think our beef with that needs to depend on where the money is going. Is it basically a tax on only car-owners to keep up the roads? I have no idea, but for example, if this were the case, we wouldn't want to have free parking and have the roads start to suck and break apart with time. That's a clearly unrealistic and probably untrue black and white example, but I fully support more studies on parking tendencies and times of the day and all that. Especially if rates get lowered.
Post a Comment