Laserfiche WebLink
��= .z� <br /> mean that tickets are issued immediately upon the expiration of the time limit, with no grace <br /> period, and enough officers are on duty to ensure that all violators are cited at all times. But <br /> aggressive enforcement leads to customers getting tickets too, often for just being a few minutes <br /> late. Who wants to find a$25 pazking ticket sitting on their windshield at the end of a visit for <br /> being two minutes late back to their car? Moreover, who wants their customers to conclude their <br /> Downtown experience that way? <br /> Even if a visitor is quick enough to avoid a ticket, they don't want to spend their evening <br /> watching the clock and moving their car around. If a customer is having a good time in a <br /> restaurant, and they are happy to pay the market price for their parking spot, do we want them to <br /> wrap up their evening early because their time limit wasn't long enough? Do we want them to <br /> skip desert or that last cappuccino in order avoid a ticket? <br /> A recent "intercept" survey of shoppers in downtown Burlingame were asked which factor made <br /> their parking experience less pleasant recently. (This is an interesting survey for us in Redwood <br /> City to examine, because their retail scene has evolved into a much more advanced and <br /> successful stage of development than ours has. It is a little like looking into the future.) The <br /> number one response was "difficulty in finding a space" followed by "chance of getting a ticket." <br /> "Need to carry change" was third, and the factor that least concerned the respondents was "cost <br /> of parking." It is interesting to note that Burlingame has the most expensive on-street parking on <br /> the Peninsula (75 cents per hour) and yet cost was the least troubling factor for most people. <br /> Downtown Burlingame has very strict time limits, allowing only one-hour parking on <br /> Burlingame Avenue (their "main street") and two hours on side streets. <br /> The ticket anxiety that results from time limits and backward pricing is a very real problem. <br /> When time limits and aggressive enforcement are implemented in an attempt to rectify the <br /> problems caused by bad prices (rather than fixing the bad prices) things can get ugly. On March <br /> 31, 2005 the San Francisco Examiner reported that parking enforcement officers were being <br /> assaulted by parkers who were frustrated over getting a ticket. One driver allegedly drove his <br /> Land Rover at a parking enforcement off'icer, hurling him onto the hood of the car and then <br /> fleeing the scene. Another parker threw scorching coffee into the face of an officer and served <br /> 200 hours of community service as a result. According to the Examiner, "abuse is so prevalent <br /> that there's a weekly report detailing incidents of spitting or threats, and workers at the citation <br /> bureau on Howard Street have a metal detector and a security guard to ward off angry drivers <br /> collecting towed cars..." San Francisco's parking prices are notoriously backwards, with <br /> curbside costing $1 to $2 per hour, and off street parking costing much more than that. <br /> Mazket-rate prices are the only known way to consistently create available parking spaces in <br /> popular azeas. If we institute market-rate prices, and adequate spaces aze made available, then <br /> what purpose do time limits serve? None, other than to inconvenience customers. If there is a <br /> space or two available on all blocks, then who cares how long each individual car is there? The <br /> reality is that it doesn't matter. <br /> Pa�e 21 <br />