ann arbor is overrated.

Parking Enforcement

Ah, summer. That time of year in A2 when everything slows down a little. Campus buses come far less frequently. AATA buses stop running earlier. North Campus metered lots are virtually empty all day.

It’s the time of year when you might expect a certain laxity to creep into the proceedings. So we’re relieved to report that Parking Services is still handing out tickets in said near-empty lots at 4:25 in the afternoon (the lots are free after 5) to cars whose meters ran out at 4:17.

51 Responses to “Parking Enforcement”

baby needs a new pair of luxury boxes.
posted by OFWinsurgent on June 9th, 2006 at 10:29 am
That’s what you get for not driving a Prius.
posted by haenck on June 9th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Parking enforcement is a revenue-generation scheme, nothing else. Therefore it is entirely predictable that tickets will be issued in near-empty lots.
posted by tom on June 9th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Tom is right. When I was in DC there was a spot in Georgetown with metered angled parking spaces. But off to the side was a sign that said you had to back into these spots. Nobody saw this sign and on Saturdays and Sundays tourists would come to G-town, nose in, put in their quarters and walk to brunch only to find a fifty dollar ticket on their car and not understand why. I ‘ve seen 20(ish) tickets on cars at a time!

The city was laying off cops and hiring parking enforcement people at the same time to balance their budget. I did enjoy though that the meter maids jackets were emblazoned with the line ‘It is a crime to punch Parking Enforcement personnel.’ Crime yes, but so tempting.
posted by abc on June 9th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Sorry to rain on the pity party, but you’ve only got yourself to blame if you get a ticket. It ain’t the U or City’s fault that your meter expires or you park illegally. I’m only mad at myself when I get ticketed.
posted by Brandon on June 9th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Durr, maybe you should just pay the meter!
posted by XYZ on June 9th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
If they didn’t give out tickets there would never be any place to park.
posted by Michael McC. on June 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I can’t imagine how parking enforcement could be profitable overall in mostly empty lots. I’m not asking for “pity”; I’m pointing out that with a vast surplus of parking and reduced bus schedules (I wanted to leave later than the number 3 bus goes that day) there’s no reason for the university to have academic-year parking restrictions during the summer for the few researchers and students who need to be on North Campus.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Michael McC, that’s true during the academic year, but not the summer on North Campus.

On North Campus during the school year, blue lots are restricted until 5pm; on some areas of Central, it’s 10 pm. This is due to demand. I realize that the issue of parking causes a knee-jerk “stop whining” reaction with some people, but if you consider it rationally, it makes sense to make similar adjustments for the difference in demand between winter and summer.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 9th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
f34r teh l33t m3t3r m4id! sh3 pwned u!
posted by h4xXor on June 9th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Isn’t this the same city that adjusted the budget to allow for the increased revenue additional parking enforcement people would bring? I think trying to bring rationality to the discussion ignores the monopoly the city has on parking. Rationally, one would expect the city to try to put meters everywhere, and ticket 24/7.

And as a side note to h4xXor, do you think it was l0vl3y R1t4, m3t3r m41d?
posted by David on June 9th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
It tells me the DPS maids are well-disciplined in the summertime.
posted by michad328 on June 9th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I think UM gets the money from their meters and their enforcement. It seems like anyone is free to operate a private lot but few people do. Maybe because parking is so cheap in A2. In Chicago where it is $8 for the first 30 minutes in a structure down town, there are many private, for profit structures. Maybe they need to raise the rates here. Hey, there is free parking right now at Ann & Ashley, all weekend.
posted by Dustin on June 9th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Brandon says, “Sorry to rain on the pity party, but you’ve only got yourself to blame if you get a ticket. It ain’t the U or City’s fault that your meter expires or you park illegally. I’m only mad at myself when I get ticketed. ” Brandon, did you ever think to ask how the rules could be changed to make it less likely that someone would get a ticket? Do you think it is legitimate for a public institution to intentionally snare people for the purpose of maximizing revenue? According to our Mayor, John Heifje, the main reason to have meters and parking enforcement is to ensure the fair distribution of a scarce resource. But what about times when the resource is not scarce? The case in point mentions the fact that many spaces were avaliable and no one should have been denied a spot by rude people who hog up a needed space too long. The complaint by the University against the users was frivilous but the fines are not. I feel both the University and the City of Ann Arbor should restrict the total number of tickets that can be issued in a year. I would start by looking at the current levels and cutting the limit to half what it currently is.
posted by Chuck on June 9th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
AAIO, try parking at the Northwood lots. I’ve been parking there for two summers now 9 to 5 every day and they almost never come by.
posted by Frank on June 9th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Chuck, it ain’t “The Deuce” that is scoring revenue with this one…it’s the U. Don’t blame Heifje for parking on N campus.
posted by OFWinsurgent on June 9th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Dustin wrote: “It seems like anyone is free to operate a private lot but few people do. Maybe because parking is so cheap in A2.”

Lots could be a different story, but as for structures, Ed Shaffran says, “If you look at the zoning, there is no parking zoning. I, as a private citizen, or you, as a private entity, cannot build a private parking structure. There’s no zoning for it. Now, I can build a building that has parking associated with it, but …”
posted by HD on June 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Chuck and HD. Chuck: What you are asking for is selective enforcement, the meter watcher would need to determine if the lot was full when the meter ran out, so write a ticket, or maybe it is almost empty, so don’t write a ticket, or maybe it is half full, so write a ticket or maybe not…

HD, you seem to know more about this than I do but I have seen some privatge lots that sell people permits to park, no structures, you’re right. But, I bet the city would let someone build their own structure in the right place ( not near a future greenway, an artsy, underground one) to avoid the cost themselves, isn’t it something like $30 to 45 K above ground and $45K and up under?
posted by Dustin on June 9th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Stick a quarter in the meter, then turn it half-way. As long as it’s not flashing or red, you’ll rarely get a ticket.
posted by Anna on June 9th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I was told once by a city meter maid (what’s the male equivalent of maid?) that even if an entire city street is empty (which it was), after the two hour limit (MWF or TTh 2-hr parking) was up, i had to move my car to a different block or risk the ticket. i think the logic there is sort of inverse stephen hawkingesque, in that instead of being so far above me i can’t understand it, it’s so far below me i can’t understand it. or maybe it goes around my head, i’m not sure. but either way, the cop standing next to the meter maid was sold on it, and so i didn’t argue (or punch him).
posted by Tim on June 10th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Seems like people who do enforcement type work are more likely to see things in black and white than the rest of us, you have been too long in the parking spot or not. Makes life easy, lower stress without all those decisions. They probably self select these careers.
posted by Dustin on June 10th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Come on AAIO fans your better then this. Contributors to this board routinely chastise students and residents for their ‘above the law’ attitude. So why are we grousing about getting a parking ticket when we are parked illegally?!? That’s part of the game and we know it. The whole ‘if a lot is empty then parking laws should be irrelevant’ argument confuses me. I’ve been to plenty of Tigers games where Comerica was only 10-20% sold. I guess I should have hopped the fence instead of buying a ticket because its just not fair for me to have to follow established policy when there are all those unused seats.
posted by Stephen Haas on June 10th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Not necessarily your fault. The five tickets I got for not having a residential parking pass when said damn residential parking pass was exactly where City Hall told me to put it prove otherwise.

But usually, yeah. It would be nice if surplus parking enforcement officers were trained to do something else in the summer, but as it is and they aren’t it’s fairly logical to expect more tickets. Less cars to check and all.
posted by Jen on June 10th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Although I do agree, AAiO, that some lots should be “while school is in session” only. Would’ve saved me a helluva lot of money last summer working on NC.

Quite honestly, not having tickets on North Campus during the summertime isn’t going to make everyone park there, especially if it’s just one lot. Unless you’re one of the few sorry people working there or using the Media Union, there’s no reason to even store a car there over the summer.

… and by more tickets, I mean “greater chance of getting ticket when technically illegally parked”.
posted by Jen on June 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Dustin,

I got news for you: all law or rule enforcement is selective in practice! If that fact were not true, we would all be in jail, on propation or awaiting trial/sentencing. It would also be impossible to maintain a vehicle operatiors license, since practically every driver would be ticketed off the road. We would all have rap sheets a mile long! And that would be especially true of law enforcement personel. Take all the law books just for the State of Michigan and stack them vertically, it’s pretty impressive. I think the real question is how anyone could ever not break a law.

The thing that grinds me to no end is when public institutions that nominally work for citizens start acting like money grubbing, for profit businesses. The Prision Industrial Complex is unfortunately big business in the US with parking enforcement a tiny slice of the pie, but still a slice. I really wish what the Mayor of Ann Arbor said to me once was true, that is, parking enforcement is intended to help distribute a scarce resource fairly not as a source of positive cash flow. The City or the University has no business using parking as a means of funding their respective general funds beyond the cost of providing and regulating the service. All they need to do is restrict the total number of tickets given out in a year to some reasonable level decided by elected officials and the tickets that are issued will tend to only be in cases of an egregious abuse.
posted by Chuck on June 10th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
So Chuck, in December when the quota has been met, it’s free parking for everyone!
I have no idea how selective inforcement would work, maybe you do. But overall, parking in A2 is not so bad.
Ever parked beyond your limit in downtown Chicago or better yet, parked for just a bit in a loading zone? Do you know what a boot is?

Parking in A2 is really not bad, there are pleanty of spaces in the structures and on the street.
posted by Dustin on June 10th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
So Chuck, in December when the quota has been met, it’s free parking for everyone!
I have no idea how selective inforcement would work, maybe you do. But overall, parking in A2 is not so bad.
Ever parked beyond your limit in downtown Chicago or better yet, parked for just a bit in a loading zone? Do you know what a boot is?

Parking in A2 is really not bad, there are pleanty of spaces in the structures and on the street.
posted by Dustin on June 10th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
When I work at the University of Chicago over the summer, I park on the street every day for free on an urban campus with very few lots. When I go to North Campus during the summer, it costs about $8 per 8-hour day with draconian enforcement on a satellite campus in the middle of nowhere with many empty lots.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 10th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
And actually, I’d be happy if they just made the lots free after 2 pm in the summer. That way, I’d still take the bus almost every day, but I could drive to campus without paying outrageous fees on days I want to stay later than it runs.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 10th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
The other day I noticed that they were doing somewhat of an enforcement blitz to coincide with the re-opening of Hubbard. Maybe you got caught up in that.

In any case, they’re still not ticketing any northwood lots.
posted by Frank on June 11th, 2006 at 4:02 am
Sounds like the University is more agressive than the city.
posted by Dustin on June 11th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Thanks for the Northwood tip, Frank.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 11th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Maybe it hasn’t been true lately, as Frank indicates, but a while back you could expect the U’s parking enforcement to average one pass a day thru the various Northwood lots. It could be they’ve reduced this for budget/personnel reasons, or else they still do it but don’t look real hard for vehicles that fail to display one of the appropriate stickers or tags.
posted by occasional nc commuter on June 11th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
They may not check the Northwood lots farthest from the actual campus, but I’ve seen them check the lots that border the northern edge of campus buildings many, many, many a time.

If you’re going to Northwood park, find a visitor’s spot. They usually have limits of 30 minutes to two hours, and in the summer the odds the officer is going to want to wait around to maybe give you a ticket are probably reduced significantly.
posted by Jen on June 11th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
I so agree with you. I am probably in the same boat. Stuck in the A&A building during the summer, and I have got more tickets this summer than I did all school year. In the A&A blue lot this summer, at max, there has been 10 cars out of the 150 spots. I swear that they are stalking the cars. If you are 10 minutes late, you are getting a ticket.

And for the finance arguement. The operating budgets has to be much higher than the revuene they are generating from the meters. (If we paid them.) If you didn’t patrol the lot, they would probably make more profit. If there are an average 10 cars a day, they can’t be making more money from the lots then they are paying the parking person a hour (+benefits).
posted by Urbanchords on June 12th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Chuck, I disagree with you on a number of points:

First, I don’t want to have meter enforcement making judgement calls on the spur of the moment about whether or not the meters should be enforced. Meter enforcement is not done (to my knowledge) by full-rank law enforcement personnel - at the U, especially. I’ve known sophomores who did parking enforcement for DPS as a part-time position. I don’t think enforcement should be a judgement call on the part of the meter reader, but should be a policy decision - I see AAiO’s suggestions that a different policy during the summer, when parking is not at all scarce in NC lots, as reasonable, and far better than having DPS’s students making minute-to-minute decisions about enforcement.

Second, parking enforcement is not, to my knowledge, primarily a money-making scheme in A2. The Council just changed the price of an expired meter early-pay ticket last summer from $5 to $10, because the cost of writing / collecting / administering the average such ticket was something like $8. The City was losing money on dozens of tickets a day.

Third, parking ain’t free, nor should it be. Social provision of free parking drains away money that could be used for better things, while reinforcing land use and transportation patterns that force auto dependency, and car ownership ain’t free, either. A policy that sets parking cost and fines at the absolute revenue maximizing point, and then uses the surplus to fund other transportation modes with a focus on those priced out of the parking would be theoretically pretty ideal, but politically completely unfeasible.

Fourth, parking meters as part of the prison industrial complex? Please. You trivialize the significant problems present in America’s justice and “correctional” system by trying to make such tenuous links. Is the $10 I pay for a campsite at a State Park part of the prison industrial complex, or is it a user fee that helps maintain the park facilities for the next user? Is the $1 I pay to ride the bus part of the prison industrial complex, or is it a user fee I pay to help fund the transit system. (And, yes, I do pay the $1 since graduating, even though I still have my MCard in my wallet.)

And, finally, I totally fail to understand how a quota-based parking enforcement system would fulfill any public good. The idea seems to assume that parking enforcement is an end in and of itself (which, I suppose, is consistent with your other statements on the topic), rather than an essential part of managing the use of a common pool resource.

(All this, of course, is said in hopes of provoking a response, as I do so enjoy geeking out on parking policy.)
posted by Murph on June 12th, 2006 at 11:00 am
He’s telling the truth.
posted by Dale on June 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am
I guess I will have to reconsider my “revenue generation” statement, which was colored by the $105 parking ticket I got in NYC on a residential street in Far Rockaway.
posted by tom on June 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Good Lord. You folks need more hobbies.

:)
posted by Nick on June 12th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I discovered the hard way that the lot across from the NCRB is no longer “patrolled” until 5pm, but 10pm….got my ticket on Friday. Figured I was safe (orange tag owner) since I got there after 5pm. Rules are rules, sure, but when they are not made clear, or change suddenly, then, yeah…you’ve got a good reason to feel pretty surly about the whole situation. On top of that, it makes NO SENSE. It’s summer, NCRB closes at 9pm (at the latest), and there were about 10-15 cars total on the lot. The U is a money-grubbing machine…period. I guess it’s good to be the king, eh?
posted by Pam on June 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Thanks, Dale. Love you too.

And I won’t deny that the U isn’t pretty hardcore with the parking enforcement - they are. (Sometimes I wish the meters cost more though - there always was that one time a semester I found myself driving to class, eager to pay for parking, and found no parking available to pay for.)

On the other hand, though, how many tens of thousands of free transit trips/day do they provide to students, faculty, staff, families, and the occasional other people who happen to find some other reason to go to North Campus?

When the sum of UM transportation expenditures is taken into consideration, I don’t begrudge them the parking prices at all.
posted by Murph on June 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Yeah, they have free transit, although the blue buses take a ridiculously circuitous route through the medical campus, which is one reason I really appreciate the MRide program. But the thing is, they have this two-campus system, and while it will never be as convenient as a single campus, I think it’s fair to expect them to make it run smoothly for those of us who have to commute. The situation now is okay, but I think it could be improved. First of all, I’d suggest having a North Campus express bus that goes straight from the Union to Pierpont. And second of all, fewer restrictions on parking when it’s not scarce.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 12th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I actually received a violation notice from AA with fines to boot.
posted by sammy on June 12th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I’m with you on the Express. The best route probably involves taking Fuller to Beal to come around to Pierpont on the right side, then Glen -> Huron -> Fletcher -> North U. -> Washtenaw -> Glen. No scheduled pauses at the ends, just back and forth.
posted by Murph on June 13th, 2006 at 9:54 am
the U parking enforcement — or the city who does it on behalf of the U — or whoever is really on crack. i’ve seen U owned vehicles with state plates parked in U lots get tickets. plant ops vehicles get tickets all the time. i’ve seen vehicles owned by construction contractors or workers get tickets when parked 10 feet away from a U construction project! it is just pointless. i think they must take the opinion that they’ll just ticket as much stuff as they can and, hey, if it doesn’t get paid, who cares, but if it does, its money in the bank. idiots.
posted by stc on June 13th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I foolishly forgot to feed the meter on Sat. AM while I attended the A2 Farmer’s Market. I am so used to NOT feeding a meter in Ypsi’s market that I just forgot. While shopping further into town, I oops, remembered and hurried back, no ticket though, lucky.
posted by eileenie on June 13th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
In Ypsi it is my understanding that implementing the parking enforcement program costs more than the revenue it brings in.
posted by eileenie on June 13th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Murph makes the important point that parking is never “free” and should be charged for at least to the point of covering the associated costs. I completely agree. Though I wonder if the summer use of NC lots is an exception because the facilities are built to accommodate a much higher demand during the school year. If providing parking at no charge increases demand, it is unlikely that that demand would ever come close to the supply available and, therefore, it doesn’t really create a need to expand parking. We are talking about an under-utilized resource here.

On the other hand, offering free parking always encourages driving. If reasonable bus service can replace free parking, that is likely a better solution. Summer is also the best time of year to be biking and walking to NC. While I don’t expect that a bike will accommodate every trip, offering free parking does little to encourage human powered trips. So even if the demand does not justify the fee, there are other reasons to charge for parking.

So, UM has an under-utilized parking facility on the edge of town at a time of year that is great for biking and walking. At the same time, the city is working to better manage parking downtown and encourage alternatives to single occupancy commuting and parking downtown. Perhaps these could be combined to offer the NC lots as free commuter lots for downtown commuters. Clearly there are a lot of obstacles to such an idea, but it would:
-take advantage of available parking supply
-reduce the number of vehicles going downtown
-provide commuter parking at a location with bike racks, bathrooms, and restaurants
-create demand for a more frequent transit service to NC over the summer

Would this ease AAIO’s commuting woes?
posted by Scott TenBrink on June 13th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
…What a wonderful world it would be.

This presumes the U and the City could cooperate on anything to benefit the students and residents of Ann Arbor at the same time.
posted by OFWinsurgent on June 14th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Dustin, Murph,

You both seem to be trying really, really hard to misconstrue, mistinterpret and misunderstand the point I am making. I’ll start with one of Murph’s points first: 1) Murph claims the city does not make any money off of its parking enforcement which is a false claim. Murph should do his homework before he goes making such claims; the Ann Arbor News did a study of the economics behind the city’s parking enforcement efforts and found the city was clearing about $2 million annually (the study was done about six years ago.) 2) How my initial statement got transformed into my supposed support for selective enforcement beats me but I guess non sequitors always make for humerous reading (some advice for Dustin & Murph–if your going to use non sequitors, it’s best not to do so when the mark’s posts are on the same page; it’s too easy for the average reader to check the marks’s original statement!) I made the point about selective enforcement being inevitable because in order to not be selective, laws and rules would have to be enforced each and every time an offense was committed according to a literal interpretation of the statue, rule or law; this, of course, is not feasable due to a lack of resources. I would also add that the result would not be desirable either since it would result in a huge swath of the population being caught up in an enforcement net. Rules and laws should be designed to snare the least number of people possible which is in opposition to using rule/law enforcement as a means to raise revenue. The point of revenue maximization is to entrap the maximum number of people to get the maximum cash flow. This leads to rules/laws that are not designed to reduce the number of offenses but to maximize the number of offenses; which, should be contrary to good public policy. 3) Murph, the reference to the Prision Industrial Complex was a reference to using law/rule enforcement as a means to maximize revenue, which as I’ve already pointed out leads to nasty side effects. Another nasty side effect is the short circuiting of democracy. Citizens should decide what level of public service they want to have by voting for the level of service they are willing to pay for and taxing themselves accordingly not by having unelected officials set price points that maximize revenue for law/rule violations.
posted by Chuck on June 15th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Alright, who told about my northwood spot?

1 ticket a month is still a pretty good deal though.
posted by Frank on June 21st, 2006 at 10:24 pm

Parking Enforcement

51 Responses to “Parking Enforcement”

Leave a Reply