h1

Merchants are wrong about parking meter fees

August 13, 2009

This blog takes the position that high-profile claims by many merchants about parking are untrue. I mean merchants no disrespect: I have the highest regard for the entrepreneurs that give Oakland its flavor. Merchants are on the front lines of the economy, and contribute enormously to Oakland’s employment and sales tax base. Merchants deserve the city’s attention and dedication. But transportation policy is not their strong point.

While merchants are a vital and valuable part of the community, their perspective on transportation is not as well-rounded as one might assume, and, as has happened before, many merchants have taken a position contrary to the best interests of their customers. The claim that higher meter fees and longer hours are hurting business is not borne out by a careful examination of the evidence.

Some merchants argue that the new meter fees have had a direct and immediate impact on their livelihoods. They claim very frightening downturns in their business: in Grand Lake, a salon claims to suffer a one-fifth fall in revenue, a bakery says sales are down 25%, and Alan Michaan of the Theater says his sales are off by half. They attribute these huge declines in their revenue to a $.50/hr parking meter fee increase, as well as a two-hour increase in the hours of operation.

This is hard to believe for two reasons. First, it usually takes consumers a fair amount of time to change their behavior in response to price signals. For example, car driving has continued to fall after gas prices came off their 2008 highs. A less inspiring example is that consumer habit is a major barrier to establishing new retail districts in Oakland. So it seems unlikely that one trip to Grand Lake, paying more than expected for parking, would result in an immediate and drastic change in consumer habits.

Second, fifty cents an hour is not very much money. Dinners in Oakland for two often cost over $50. $4 more in evening meter fees, which many customers expect because of dining experiences in San Francisco and elsewhere, is about the same as sales tax. If $4 is crippling to one’s transportation budget, then the extra cost of driving to a restaurant with dedicated parking in Walnut Creek or Lafayette would be hurtful too (and of course there are establishments within Oakland with off-street parking). Despite what some merchants imply, street parking is not free or unlimited in Emeryville, Berkeley, Lafayette or Walnut Creek. Daytime customers who may be buying the apocryphal spool of thread are paying an extra fifty cents an hour more, which does not justify a substantially longer and less convenient trip. It’s really hard to believe that Oakland charging drivers an extra dollar would have a substantial and immediate impact on store receipts.

So what is going on? Are the merchants lying? No, they’re not, although I will point out that merchants’ business statements are held to a far lower standard than that applied to larger enterprises. It’s true that business is bad for Oakland merchants. But is that really a surprise? Merchants should have been prepared for a hot, difficult summer, given that the recession is (hopefully) hitting its bottom, and there is usually a summertime decrease in local business. Rebutting one neighborhood’s example, City Homestead writes:

It’s critical to know how much, if any, business the commercial districts are losing that’s directly attributable to the parking fees and not to the economy overall. (I’ll add that in Grand Lake’s case, my read as a neighborhood resident is that business has been down for months—it’s not a new thing. We’ve lost a number of businesses, and most of them closed well before the increased fees kicked in, so I’m wary of attributing too much to a drop in July business.)

So there are other explanations for a painful business downturn. A source reports that one large and well-known Oakland restaurant has suffered, since July, a 40% decline in business. This restaurant enjoys free dedicated parking. So it may not be true that recent decline in business can be attributed to increased parking fees.

Even the upset merchants themselves date their decline in business to before the meter fees were increased. Several say that business has declined since the beginning of July, when the Master Fee Schedule was passed. But the fees didn’t come into effect until July 11; it was only two days later that Michaan began his protest. While many merchants believe they benefit from cheaper parking for their customers, it is far from clear that meter fees have had a real business impact.

Some merchants are asking the City Council to believe that customers cannot afford an extra dollar for shopping or four dollars for dining, that they have drastically changed their weekly routines, and did so immediately after a Council meeting at which Alan Michaan was the only person to speak against the fees. It doesn’t make sense. There isn’t enough evidence that higher meter fees and longer hours are actually reducing business receipts for the Council to reopen the budget process. Merchants’ assumptions need to be challenged: is cheap street parking really that important to Oakland retailers? In conclusion, please enjoy a choose-your-own-adventure story inspired by Paramount Theater Boardmember Clinton Killian’s Oakbook op-ed.

It’s a bright and breezy summer Saturday. You’re half of a hot couple and you want to roll your Prius to Ozumo at 7pm, but are sensitive to parking problems. You could spend $10 on the valet, $2 on the meter, or go somewhere else. Emeryville’s meters are cheaper, but they run all night, so if you linger over langoustine at Town Hall you’ll lose more than a Jefferson. PF Chang’s at Bay Street will let you park for free for two hours, but mediocre fried rice doesn’t really go with your outfit. You could cruise all the way over to Lafayette, enjoying some Lady GaGa on the way, but Yankee Pier may not be your scene, gas just keeps going up, and all that time in the car is time you’re not admiring your date. If you’re determined to pinch pennies, you can take your high-heeled, clutch-toting companion to the Sinaloa truck on First Avenue, where there’s free parking and the lengua tacos with pickled carrots are cheaper than Ozumo’s tender toro. What do you do?

The classy answer is to go to Ozumo and pay the valet, or cough up the $2 and walk a block. I dare say that’s your date’s opinion too.

29 comments

  1. if your date is in heels, i am pretty certain you are paying the valet.

    good post. tis shame our council has a tendency to listen to the voice that screams the loudest, not the one speaking truth.

    spend fair amount of time on college ave these days, i’ve noticed a couple of stores which have closed. the least expensive items in these clothing stores was $100 for a shirt and those were the oddlots. Most items retailed for well over $200. Wild guess but I don’t think $0.50 increase in parking caused their demise.


  2. I’d like to respectfully disagree…I think they are probably exaggerating the effect a bit, but I had a very frustrating experience last night.

    I was trying to park in uptown to hang out with friends. It was around 6:30, and there was still some late workers filling up parking spaces.

    Because it was 6:30 and now the meters go until 8, we couldn’t park at the great many 1hr-only metered spaces we passed. After about 15 minutes of looking, we found a 2-hour metered spot. Then we had to pay something like four dollars to park there. Additionally, the spot didn’t allow parking between 12-3am, so our plan for staying out lake and stumbling home (and getting the car in the morning) were dashed.

    At this point we are frustrated and late, and end up spending less time spending money at businesses.

    I suspect that next time my girlfriend will suggest we go up to Temescal, where we can actually park. And Uptown (which I really like) won’t get any of my money.

    There needs to be a sane middle ground here, and 15 minutes of driving and $4 of parking fees for two hours of parking is not it.

    My 2c.


  3. Good post. Thank you for the logical, level-headed, and non-reactionary response. You bring up some good points. Here’s some anecdotal evidence from Copenhagen that when the elasticity of the consumers’ behavior (demand) catches up with the increased parking costs (supply) we will actually become better shoppers:

    http://tinyurl.com/6rlrn7

    I find it much more pleasant and safe to cycle or walk along a less crowded avenue. In short, fewer cars = more window shopping = more actual shopping! Unfortunately, the American Way seems to be to bitch and moan and blame someone else for one’s woes.


  4. Evan, thanks for your story. Though I didn’t go into this in this blog, parking pricing is a trade-off between price and availability. We really don’t want downtown workers using on-street parking, so higher fees should encourage them to park off-street or use transit, freeing up spaces for customers. Parking time limits are a direct response to parking being too cheap – if it’s expensive enough, time limits aren’t needed. And didn’t the city already get rid of time limits after 6? They probably haven’t made that clear.

    Uptown has parking problems. But the problem isn’t a lack of parking, or the high cost – Clinton Killian says that off-street parking can’t accommodate all the theater patrons, but if off-street parking can’t, than on-street parking certainly can’t. The city doesn’t even provide signs pointing people to parking lots! Some Uptown businesses have suggested extending meter hours to 2am to keep residents from parking on Telegraph and to change the street-sweeping hours.

    It’s easy to blame the recent change in policy for parking problems, but really there are bigger policy problems that have been festering for awhile. Hopefully the city will use this opportunity to address some of those parking headaches.


  5. I’ll totally buy that…I was venting my general frustration instead of focusing on the point that you were. :)

    Thanks for what you do here, love the blog and the tweets!


  6. There are no time limits on meters after 5 PM. Also, the meters stop at 8. Someone parking at 6:45 owes $2.50 for an entire evening of parking, not $4.


    • Don Shoup, author of “The High Cost of Free Parking” and Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, recommends that time limits for street parking be eliminated. He argues meter rates should be set so as to assure a 15% vacancy rate on every block. Market based pricing for meters will eliminate the “cruising for parking” that causes so much congestion in shopping districts. It is the lack of available street parking that often drives customers away, not the price of the meter.

      Book is available from Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988


  7. Ok, I’m going to get uppity again.

    V Smoothie: I appreciate the info, but this is again where the whole system is an unusable monstrosity. WHERE does it say that time limits don’t count after 5 PM? Is it even on the meters? Maybe…but it’s hard to figure it out with conflicting text all over the thing…like the meter that said “8am-6pm” on the bottom and “8am-8pm” on the bottom. D’oh!

    Oakland needs to fix the whole system, to dto510’s point, not have bizarre, impossible-to-find rules like “after 5PM you can actually park here as long as you like, surprise” that are supposed to make it ok.

    Whew, ok, I think it’s all out of my system now. :)


  8. I certainly agree the City has done an abysmal job of communicating clear information about what is and isn’t allowed at the parking meters. (This is true for both before and after the new parking rules adopted in July.)

    In any case, next time you’ll know.


  9. Very true, and I _do_ appreciate the info despite my rant! :)


  10. The city is absolutely blowing this. The city can not alienate businesses the way they currently are, as the city gets almost 10 percent of the gross revenue through sales tax. Cities have to be very sensitive to their actions. Right or wrong, you can’t shove something like this through. Businesses are not unions. They have places to go!

    Parking meters were put in to help business. Not to raise money for the city. They were put in so that parking spots turned.

    Right or wrong, Oakland businesses feel abused and that is why more people from oakland end up shopping in emeryville than Oakland. It is a shame.

    On the other hand, I can always get parking now, the parking spots are empty.


    • I don’t think people from Oakland shop in Emeryville because they “feel abused,” it’s because Emeryville has stores we don’t.


  11. [...] Future Oakland: "Merchants are Wrong About Parking Meter Fees" [...]


  12. Ever wonder why Emeryville has shops that Oakland does not?

    Emeryville has shops we don’t because they don’t abuse their retailers as much as Oakland. Emeryville seems to understand that retail is the goose that laid the golden egg.

    For a lot of business people, Emeryville is a much better place to do business as far as working with the city is concerned.


  13. Losing Business Because of Pay Parking? Charge More!
    Santa Rose Press Democrat 8/11/2009

    Don Shoup spoke about parking in Santa Rosa last week.
    Shoup is the author of “The High Cost of Free Parking,” a must read for anyone interested in this issue.

    http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090811/ARTICLES/908119888/1033/NEWS?Title=Expert-tells-Santa-Rosa-Raise-parking-fees


  14. I’m a merchant. I was on Dellum’s Parking Task Force and did a lot of research on parking rates in other cities like Portland, Seattle, Long Beach, San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Boston, etc.

    We already had what was considered fairly high parking rates/fees/fines. I think that extending hours was something we had recommended in the task force, and I’m all for that.

    Unfortunately our city needs money. One of the seemingly easiest ways to get it is to raise parking rates. Personally, I think it was a PR disaster and it wasn’t handled particularly well. I think that before raising the rates they should have extended the hours first as well as looking at the way they collect funds and the way they collect fines. If they were to collect more of the fines on their own, they’d save A LOT of $$$ instead of paying the City of Downey. If they also waited longer to send things to collection, they’d also make more money. They need to stop waiving fees for people claiming poverty. Create a community service program.

    Merchants are hurting right now regardless of the parking situation. The increase in fees just gives them an outlet for their woes. Trust me, it’s not easy paying worker’s comp, liability insurance, rent, ever increasing utility bills etc and then have people complain that you’re OverPriced. I have a theory that Wal-Mart is underpriced, but in any case it has affected how people see pricing in other areas.

    Anyway, neither side is handling this well and it doesn’t help that we don’t have a cheerleader at the helm rah rah rah’ing our residents to feel better about where they live and doing more to encourage shopping locally.

    I won’t be a merchant here for much longer… and I can easily say that I would never again be a merchant here in Oakland. There are too many other cities that are much easier to deal with and where people are much more supportive (and nice!) than here. :( Sad!


  15. A good follow-up to the previous article on Shoup presenting to Santa Rosa. There are even supportive quotes from business owners. http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090825/ARTICLES/908259938/1033/NEWS?Title=Santa-Rosa-may-use-variable-parking-rates-


    • Thanks for the link Liz! It’s interesting how new parking ideas are taking root in some places, but not others. Though the parking fervor here seems to have died down.


  16. I learn very fast when I get a $55 ticket. I learn even faster when the ticket is $80. I don’t notice a .50 increase much.

    I can work, shop, dine out and go to movies in Emeryville, Walnut Creek, Hayward, San Jose, Berkeley, Albany and in San Francisco which has mass transit that is fast and conveniently located near the shops et cetera.

    See this ordinary citizen Jane run to new shops! My focus: Never again will I get a ticket in Oakland, Ca.


  17. You’re going to shop in SF and Berkeley because you’re afraid of parking tickets? Good luck with that.

    By the way, city staff said on Tuesday that the perception that enforcement has been increased is “a myth,” and only 200 more tickets were issued in July and August 2009 than in July-August 2008. I don’t think 200 tickets in two months is a very large percentage, but we’ll learn more when the Council reviews the regulations.


  18. The Oakland parking site clearly states that feeding the meter to park longer than the maximum time limit for the zone will result in a violation. Is there really an exception to that rule after 5:00PM?

    If so, it must be a brand new regulation. An exception like that wouldn’t have made any sense back when meters were only enforced until 6:00PM.


  19. Yes, as part of extending meter operation past 6pm, the city abolished time limits after 5pm.


    • More revisionism. The change to allow 3 hour parking after 5 PM was done in response to complaints about the extended hours, not as part of the extended hour meters.


  20. Why is the world did they need to raise parking fees? The government doesn’t take enough money from the people? Ridiculous.

    If you’re gonna raise taxes at all they should ONLY be taxes on rich not regressive parking meter fees.


  21. “By the way, city staff said on Tuesday that the perception that enforcement has been increased is “a myth,” and only 200 more tickets were issued in July and August 2009 than in July-August 2008. I don’t think 200 tickets in two months is a very large percentage, but we’ll learn more when the Council reviews the regulations.”

    A myth? How come on the day after fines were increased , when i had never seen a meter maid in my neighborhood i got a ticket IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT for “blocking my driveway”. Something myself and my neighbors have done for years. Instead of it being a $30 ticket as it was only 2 days before, now its $90. Coincidence?


  22. according to my sources, in July and Aug 09, DPT issued on average just over 300 fewer ticket compared to the same period last year.

    as to the ticket for blocking in the driveway, while i agree with the ticket because it creates a hazard for pedestrians, i disagree with the way the city went about enforcing laws that it has not enforced for years.

    with the exception of meter violations, the city should have issued should have warning tickets for the first 30 days or so to make people aware of the new enforcement. More flies with honey.


    • If it is true that they issued fewer tickets this year, then the changed enforcement strategy of ticketing more of the parking violations in the hills was not even an effective money raising strategy. And yes, they did modify their enforcement strategy, to the extent that they publicly announce that they had created a special group of parking enforcement officers that were going to target violations in different areas of the city. Apparently ineffective in addition to highly annoying to citizens.

      Regarding the driveway parking, you are making a hugh assumption that the violator blocked the sidewalk. In most cases I have seen they are not blocking the sidewalk at all, the call is fully in the street. They are jsut parked in front of a driveway, and not on the sidewalk.

      In the areas I have seen in the hills, even folks who are parked ‘on the sidewalk” are not blocking passage on the sidewalk, or even parked onthe actual sidewalk. Mostly they are actually parked onthe parking strip between the sidewalk and the curb, shick does not impact the ability to navigate the sidewalk safely.

      I know that there are cases where cars have been parked where cars are parked blocing the actual sidewalk, and those should be ticketed, and there should not have been a warning, but that is not the ususal case up in the hills where the complaints have been.


  23. *shrug* You may speculate all you want about how cheap parking meters are in comparison to spending. But given the choice, I always choose to drive to vendors with free parking lots. When there is free parking, this means I don’t have to search or fight for parking. Paying for parking is more than about a few cents here or there, it’s about a massive hassle. Also, meters require you to guess in advance exactly how long you will be in a location, and then watch your time very closely or else you can face substantial fines which blow your calculations about parking expenses out of the water. And all that constraining of time and watching of the clock just makes going out that much more inconvenient.

    Free parking lots with adequate space are substantially better, and result in a much more enjoyable outing.


  24. Free parking lots are private property. The city cannot provide free parking lots because the city cannot charge rent from the benefiting businesses to cover the costs. Free parking lots do not permit parking by non-customers, another thing the city cannot do. Oakland has many free parking lots. So does Walnut Creek. That is not a reason for either city to reduce or eliminate parking meters. Again, the cities with the most shopping in CA (Emeryville, Walnut Creek, Pasadena, and Santa Monica) run their meters late at night.



Leave a Comment