Robert

The ones hardest hit actually aren’t the merchants, but those of us who live in Transit-Oriented neighborhoods near commercial districts. In my case, I live half block off Telegraph and pay out hundreds of dollars each year in completely bogus parking fines. My house, incidentally, has off-street parking (driveway) — and yet the ubiquitous parking officers still figure out a way to write a ticket if you take too long to back out, or pull in, temporarily block a sidewalk, or just dropping somebody off at the curb.

This kind of abuse used to happen with speed enforcement. After localities got way too clever with speed traps, the State changed the rules such that any fines collected by local law enforcement go into the State General Fund. That eliminated the inherent conflict-of-interest (perhaps too well, given the lack of speed enforcement these days). Really, the same thing needs to be done with parking enforcement. That would certainly reduce revenue cities are collecting from double parkers, but at least they would be restricting their enforcement efforts to areas and situations where there is legitimate need, as opposed to what we have today (i.e. highway robbery).

I don’t agree with Mr. Michaan or his politics, but he surely is a unique character that adds something special to Oakland. I would not call him greedy at all, especially since so many people seem to agree with him.

If he were greedy, he would move his business to emeryville like everyone else and not deal with all the craziness of our city.

Greedy can be used to describe a city charging 55 bucks for a parking ticket.

I think the study is headed in the right direction and was also very impressed by the in depth discussion on the study at last week’s committee meeting.

Dto, I agree that most things I mentioned as parking goals can be defined in the parking study, and indicated as much in my comment. But this proposal needs to be explicit that that definition of those goals is going to be an outcome of the parking study. Another required outcome is a formal recommendation, based on information gathered during the study, that a pilot program is going to be performed. While I think everyone is assuming that the pilot will happen, there is no documentation in the proposal of the rationale for performing that pilot. Perhaps more importantly, the parameters to be evaluated during the pilot, and the criteria that will be used to evaluate the pilot, have to be defined. That is a required outcome of the study, but it is nowhere indicated that it will be done. Things such a sminimum and maximum praking prices to use in the pilot need to be set, whether the pilot will extend into evening hours, how is parking utilization coing to be determined (kiosk data or street counts), etc.

“City parking policy should be explicit in encouraging the use and development of off-street parking over on-street parking.” I sense that you feel that this should be part of this parking study, while I think that it is better part of a transportation policy. But either way, the lack of definition of outcomes for this parking study allows staff to take either route, or a third path, at their whim. Almost certainly leaving some dissatisfied with the study report.

“85% occupancy target for parking is well-established…” It is my understanding that the 85% number comes from a single transportation researcher. In which case it is not yet well established. I could be wrong about the number of sources however. The 85% occupancy is about 1 out of 7 spots being empty. In parallel parking situations this would mean a couple of empty spots per block. And I agree that this seems about right. But in diagonal parking, this means 4 or 5 spots per block, which seems excessive. And this is why I think that an operational measure on parking availability should be incorporated if at all possible, although it will clearly be more difficult that counting empty spaces. But again, parameters, measures and evaluation criteria for the pilot need to be established in this initial parking study.

My concern is not about the activities suggested in the proposal, but in the lack of procedural control on the process. Each step in the process, parking study, pilot, and full implementation, needs to have established goals that will allow a determination of whether/how to proceed with the next step.

If Ralph is right and this proposal includes the pilot program, then the setting of goals for the parking policy does need to take place now in the proposal, because the setting of these goals is an inherently political process. And if you wait to after the pilot is completed, it will be too late to factor in any changes in the goals from the political process into the pilot program. I think that this is another reason to split the parking study from the pilot program, since otherwise council will be setting goals without information. Staff needs to translate the policies in the proposal into measurable goals so that the pilot program can then be designed properly.

I live in a dense neighborhood next to downtown. I ride my bike and take Amtrak to Davis for school, use BART most often to get into the City, and drive my car with my tools to my gardening job 2 days a week. My apartment is old, there’s no parking. Still my car is parked on the street 5 days a week. Two weeks ago I got a 55 dollar ticket for being parked over a white line. The new markings they painted on part of the block next to the Essex to separate parallel parking spaces? That’s the white line they were talking about. Because for years people have parked tightly on that block, they continue to do so, ignoring the brand new, space-wasting and arbitrary marks. I did too, and got dinged for it. This is complete bullshit. I know and understand why cars need to be moved for street cleaning, but enforcing lower density parking practices based on nothing more than the decision to paint some unnecessary lines is stupid. Do they want fewer cars taking up more parking space and the space around them?

I know parking enforcement doesn’t t ticket this way where the new meters are because the more cars jammed onto those blocks, the more money they make (well, up until 6pm, anyway). Thanks to greedy business owners I get a stupid ticket enforcing a ridiculous practice, while people in Grand Lake save four bucks. I don’t think I will ever be pleased how parking and transportation issues are handled in this city- they are all based on 20th century thinking. People who leave theier cars at home should be encouraged to do so, not the other way around.

Oops, I just missed the “edit” window on my previous post. We were looking for a house “south of the Bay Bridge,” not just in Crocker Highlands.