To: Transportation & Parking Commission From: Ward 3 City Councilor Owen Freeman-Daniels Date: May 15, 2012

Regarding: Memorandum on Parking Permit Fees I propose to the Transportation & Parking Commission the following motion: Motion: Recommend to City Council an ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances, City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section 31236 of said Code; providing that Meter Locations And Regulations. Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows: Section 1: That section 312-36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows: Delete: 312-36: "E1 Class 4C Monthly Parking Permit Fees $30.00 Monthly" 312-110: West Street (after "10 hours; no overnight parking/Class"): "3D" Add: 312-36: "3B 10 hours $0.25 per hour

Parking Permit for Zones 3C, 4C: $45.00 Monthly Parking Permit for Zones 3C, 4C, and 3D: $60.00 Monthly" "P. The maximum number of Parking Permits sold for permit parking in zones 3C and 4C will be set by majority vote of the Transportation and Parking Commission." 312-109: Bridge Street (under "10 hours"): "3D" Elm Street (under "10-hour metered parking"): "3D" King Street (under "10-hours"): "3D" New South Street (under "10 hours"): "3D" State Street (under "10 hours"): "3D" 312-110: West Street (after "Class"): "3C" [End Recommended Ordinance]

Analysis of Current Code and Categories of Parking My analysis of the parking permits reveals a clear division between the types of parking offered and covered by the single pass. The first category of parking is the "Long-Term Lot", a term that has no consistent usage within the current code. The second category is the 10-hour Meters, which has some consistent usage within the current code, but not entirely. Some sections of the city that contain 10hour Meters are Zone 3D, some are not. Curiously, the current code only specifies a $30 Parking Permit for zone 4C, which is solely the James House parking lot. As far as I can tell, there is no other provision for charging for parking within the James House parking lot. The intent of providing a parking pass for all the "Long-Term Lots" and 10-hour Meters is not reflected in the current code. Assuming there are consistent categories of what areas the parking passes cover, there are still significant differences between the two categories being discussed. -Long-Term Lots This is off-street parking, some of which is visible from the street and some of which is not. Drivers have to enter the lots to determine if there are any spaces available, and walk to a ticket dispenser and back to their car to pay for parking. The lots are labeled around the city as follows: Pleasant St next to Yes Computers, Hampton Ave across from the Brewery, West Street past the Smith parking garage, Old South St across from McDonald House, and the Round House parking lot behind McDonald House. Most of these lots are not considered prime downtown locations. Nevertheless, most of these lots get heavy use and the city has 534 spaces in them. Aside from free parking, the city charges the least for these lots at $0.25/hr. -10-hour Meters These meters are a combination of on-street parking largely on streets further away from downtown and off-street parking in the back section of the Strong Avenue lot. The city has far fewer of these spaces (176) and they are distributed throughout many streets; these meters are on: Bedford Ter, Bridge St, Elm St, King St, New South St, State St, and Strong Ave. It is noteworthy that streets like King, Bridge, and Strong Ave have a mix of shorter-term, higher-rate parking and the 10-hour Meters, based loosely on proximity to Main St. The assumption here is that value increases with proximity to Main St. The city charges less than short-term parking for these meters, but still charges a significant amount at $0.50/hr. All these rates were lower as of last year. Before the summer of 2011 the Long-Term Lots' rate was $0.15/hr. Raising the rates to $0.25/hr represents a 66.66% increase. The 10-hour Meters had a rate of $0.25/hr. Raising the rates to $0.50/hr represents a 100% increase. However these numbers are misleading since there are far more Long-Term Lot spaces (534) than 10-hour Meter spaces (176). The weighted increase uses the following formula: (534/710) x 0.6666 + (176/710) x 1 = 74.93% the weighted average increase of the parking rates for both the Long-Term Lots and the 10-hour meters. Thus a proposed increase of 100% on parking passes out of line with the weighted average increase in parking rates from last year. It is unknown how the 10-hour Meter spots are used by permittees versus the Long-Term Lots. For the 10-hour Meters, given that the permittees will be competing with anyone looking for on-street parking, I theorize that they will either park earlier than most occasional users or use the spots merely as convenience spots, taken if available on the way to more probable parking in the Long-Term Lots. In other words, a permit for 10-hour Meters is either a bonus benefit to having a permit for the Long-Term Lots or it frustrates the goal of having workers and other habitual parkers give preference to visitors, shoppers, and other occasional users. The theory changes when discussing the 10-hour Meters on Bedford Ter, Elm St, and State St. I believe these are mostly used by people employed or enrolled at Smith College. There is no Long-Term Lot near that section of town and even the parking on Bedford Ter

is further away from the center of town to make a Long-Term Lot just as preferential for a downtown worker. Possible Goals for Parking Permits Though there are many possible reasons to have parking permits, I will list a few: 1) Price: To give a discount from high-cost parking to workers and students 2) Convenience: To make parking easier for workers and students 3) Commerce: To create a price mis-match between on-street rates and warehouse rates so that visitors, shoppers, and occasional users have an easier time parking 4) Revenue: To gain revenue because permittees won't use the spots enough to break even or realize financial benefit Discussion on Possible Goals 1) Price This is a worthy goal that was available for both users of the Long-Term Lots and the 10-hour Meters. To have a policy of offering parking passes with a goal of a Price benefit shows that the city recognizes its parking fees are generally priced to raise revenue from tourism and to discourage worker- or residentuse of prime parking locations. However, a permittee had to use the Long-Term Lots for over 75% of their billable hours in order to realize a Price benefit. This leads me to conclude that offering a Price benefit for parkers in the Long-Term Lots was not a primary goal-- however worthy it is-- in establishing parking passes. On the other hand, the permittee realized a Price benefit much more rapidly when using the 10-hour Meters. This is the oddity of combining the two categories of parking under the same parking pass. I don't believe these two categories should be included under the same parking pass. 2) Convenience From the perspective of a long-term user, Convenience is probably the second largest benefit and may even exceed Price in importance in some circumstances. There is no doubt that parking passes provide a Convenience benefit. However, Convenience will be weighed against cost when passes are priced above what the user would ordinarily pay on-demand. Thus Convenience has a value that can probably be expressed in dollar terms. By raising the prices on parking passes for Long-Term Lots to $60/mo, most users will experience a financial loss by purchasing a parking pass. This is because the break-even point for usage moves from ~77% of a Long-Term Lot's billable hours to 92% of them. Viz., a permittee must park at the Long-Term Lot for over 55 hours/week (out of the 60 hours/week the fees are charged) to merely break even. This means whatever value Price did have in the creation of the parking passes, it is all but gone for users of the Long-Term Lots. Not only that, but most users will have to weigh Convenience against the financial loss they incur for purchasing a parking pass. Convenience includes: eliminating risk of a parking ticket and reducing the need to carry cash to pay for parking fees. Note that Convenience can be based on location as well. It is likely some 10-hour Meters (and Long-Term Lots) are more convenient based on the permittee's circumstance. Again highlighting the need to separate the two categories of parking, the permittee that consistently uses the 10-hour Meters will realize the same Convenience benefit and also a likely Price benefit. Interestingly, a user who parks in a residential neighborhood and pays nothing (parking without a fee is "free") should be willing to sacrifice some Convenience in having to walk a longer distance to his/her destination but still recognizes the other elements of Convenience: no parking ticket nor the need to carry cash for parking fees. Users will likely find a balance between Convenience and expense: as the price to park goes up, users will be willing to accept less Convenience. This means moving from paying for parking to parking in residential neighborhoods further away from the downtown.

3) Commerce It is likely that raising parking pass rates will have some favorable benefits on Commerce. This is because fewer passes will be sold and fewer long-term users will use the Long-Term Lots. Users will likely park in residential areas as close as possible to downtown as they can get, and bear the burden of longer walks to their destinations. The residents too will bear a burden by experiencing increased traffic and loss of available parking on their street. However, raising rates will mean that more spots in the Long-Term Lots and among the 10-hour Meters will open up to tourists, visitors, and other occasional users. This is in some relationship to the loss of Price benefit due to raising the prices of the passes. 4) Revenue It may be that users feel there is still enough Convenience in obtaining a parking permit even if they suffer a financial loss on its use. In that case, the city would recognize added revenue by both selling the passes and also renting out the spaces the permittees aren't taking advantage of. (This does not assume any parking tickets.) In most other circumstances, the parking passes are either a financial loss for the city or neutral. The only other case where parking passes would enhance the city's revenue would be if the city had unused spaces that permittees were filling. I.e.: there isn't a parking problem downtown. If this is not the case, then the city will only get Revenue out of parking passes when users are willing to take a financial loss for the sake of Convenience. I believe this is unlikely. Comparison to "Market Rate" There is no good way to compare the public parking rates to the "Market Rate" because the city of Northampton is by far the biggest supplier of parking downtown. The amount of private spots are dwarfed by the public ones offered, thus market economics should result in the private market adjusting to the public one. Hence, looking toward the private market to set the public one is backwards. What we can expect is that the limited amount of private parking will be bid up until it reaches the public price point. Then, elements like covered parking, guaranteed spots, or location will be additional premium or discount. Here is a summary of the public parking options: -Parking Garage pass: $75/mo There is no guaranteed spot but the sheer size of the garage and the facts that it rarely fills and there is some dedicated parking for pass-holders means there is a very high probability of finding parking. Most floors are covered, so there is also a (less) high probability of covered parking. It is one relatively central location to drive to and from. -Parking Passes: $30/mo, and possibly illegal There is no guaranteed spot but again the fact that there are over 700 spaces available should mean there is a high chance of finding a spot. However, the convenience is much lower, involving searching for a spot and most spots involve a walk to Main St that is greater than what the parking garage offers. Northampton's code carries a prohibition against parking in many of those lots during snow emergencies. -On-Street parking: Varies, and possibly illegal Parking on residential streets with no meters is clearly the most cost-effective way for long-term parkers. Indeed this happens frequently on residential streets surrounding downtown. Increasing parking meter fees as well as the parking pass rates will drive more people to take the free parking offered on residential streets. This is not fair to the residents. Users may also simply "feed the meter" until the enforcement time expires (6 PM) in spaces with meters, then let the car sit overnight. While the final cost of this varies, it is illegal to do this for longer than the space's time allows (e.g. renew a 1hour meter when the time is expiring) according to (312-36 E(2)).

The private spaces available downtown have a range of prices. The Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce (GNCC) has provided me with some data. Here is a summary of a survey of 4 private lots that are close to Main St.: -Parking Lot permit: $25-30/mo This is for a guaranteed space in a private parking lot. The pass-holder knows there will be a space available somewhere within that one lot. This is more valuable than a public pass for the Long-Term Lots because it eliminates the hassle of searching different lots for an available space. It should also be closer to Main St than the public Long-Term Lots. -Personal Parking space: Varies, starting at $50/mo This is a personal, reserved space in a private lot. The high end of a very small number of spaces (under 10) reaches $95/mo, but a greater number (roughly 50) are offered at $50/mo. The great variance in location and price make it difficult to make generalizations about this category of parking, but it stands to reason that the higher prices are due to specific locations and specific benefits that employees or downtown residents feel is worth it. Even at the high end, this is only $20 more than the public parking offered at the garage. Even the low price of $50/mo for a personal parking space is more valuable than a parking pass for a Long-Term Lot since the private space guarantees parking, and is closer to Main St (the assumption here is that proximity to Main St is more valuable). Both private options included here are more valuable than parking passes for Long-Term Lots since they guarantee parking in just one lot and are closer to Main St. And yet despite those valuable elements, the private parking that is most like the parking passes for Long-Term Lots sell for as low as $25/mo. The options that are more like the Parking Garage pass range from $50 to the very rare $95, which may indicate that covered parking is slightly more or less valuable than specific locations. The conclusion from this comparison is that there is no good basis from the private market to increase parking passes above $30/mo. Response to Mayor's Memorandum The mayor's memorandum dated February 21, 2012 was incorrect because it contained a few technical and calculator errors. This lead to a correction dated April 17, 2012. While the math was fixed, it revealed what a significant change increasing parking passes for Long-Term Lots to $60 would be. Prior to the parking fee increase from summer 2011, a worker who came downtown five days a week to work a 40-hour/wk job (with a 1-hour buffer for lunch, walking time, etc.) would spend 45 hours/wk in the Long-Term Lot. At the $0.15/hr rate, this worker would almost break even each month. He/she would lose less than $1 each month. Thus for this worker the reason to buy a parking pass was not Price but Convenience. In this case, the pass eliminated the need to carry cash for parking fees daily, it provided flexibility for extended hours worked or staying around the downtown for various reasons, and gave protection from a parking ticket. Under the mayor's proposed change, this same worker would suffer a loss of more than $11/month. Far from breaking even, the worker would be forced to choose between Convenience and financial loss. The only advantage the city might see is Revenue at the expense of the worker. The worker will either absorb the parking fee increases or park elsewhere, most likely in residential neighborhoods where parking is "free". The greater distance from downtown means longer walks for the worker and less parking available on residential streets. The problem here is that a 100% increase in a parking pass that is meant to adjust to a 66.66% increase in parking fees is excessive. It is likely just enough of a difference to create a choice between financial loss and Convenience for the worker in this example.

Advantages to Recommended Ordinance The recommended ordinance at the beginning of this memorandum calls for two classes of parking passes. One class provides a pass for parking within the Long-Term Lots (3C and 4C). The second class allows for parking within 3C and 4C (the Long-Term Lots) but also includes parking at the 10-hour Meters, a zone that the proposed ordinance fits into the category "3D". (I have not checked all the 10hour Meters throughout the city so it may be that some of parking fees within the 3D category are mispriced. To fix that will take a small amendment to the ordinance after conferring with the administration. This is the reason for creating another parking zone "3B".) The recommended ordinance simplifies the current code by supplying sets of zones that represent both the Long-Term Lot category and also the 10-hour Meters. It places authority to set the number of passes to be sold with the Transportation & Parking Commission. It considers both classes of pass under the same maximum, which means for instance that 300 total passes from either class would be sold on any given month. The pricing for each pass reflects the differences in value between the Long-Term Lots and the 10-hour Meters. The Long-Term Lots are not more valuable than $48/mo from the perspective of the increase in parking fees there. However, comparison to the private market shows that any increase will overprice the Long-Term Lot passes. Keeping the Long-Term Lot parking passes at $30/mo shows that Northampton cares for the workers of downtown and also the residents who live in surrounding neighborhoods whose streets will likely be even more inundated with long-term parking if the prices were increased. Thus there is modest Price benefit now being offered in addition to Convenience for these permittees. The pricing for the 10-Hour Meters is more experimental. Given that prior to the 100% increase in parking fees, a holder of a parking pass would recognize a significant Price benefit by parking in the 10hour Meters, increasing the pass by 100% simply brings the same percent Price benefit to such holders. I would expect that these passes would be less popular than the Long-Term Lot passes. But if not, this is valuable information the city can use when evaluating the benefits of the parking pass system. Course of Action Since there was technically no referral made from the City Council to the Transportation & Parking Commission, I believe this commission is free to recommend this ordinance to the City Council on this date.

To: Transportation & Parking Commission From: Ward 3 City Councilor Owen Freeman-Daniels Date: May 15, 2012 Regarding: Memorandum on Parking Permit Fees I propose to the Transportation & Parking Commission the following motion: Motion: Recommend to City Council an ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances, City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section 31236 of said Code; providing that Meter Locations And Regulations. Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows: Section 1: That section 312-36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows: Delete: 312-36: "E1 Class 4C Monthly Parking Permit Fees $30.00 Monthly" 312-110: West Street (after "10 hours; no overnight parking/Class"): "3D" Add: 312-36: "3B 10 hours $0.25 per hour

Parking Permit for Zones 3C, 4C: $45.00 Monthly Parking Permit for Zones 3C, 4C, and 3D: $60.00 Monthly" "P. The maximum number of Parking Permits sold for permit parking in zones 3C and 4C will be set by majority vote of the Transportation and Parking Commission." 312-109: Bridge Street (under "10 hours"): "3D" Elm Street (under "10-hour metered parking"): "3D" King Street (under "10-hours"): "3D" New South Street (under "10 hours"): "3D" State Street (under "10 hours"): "3D" 312-110: West Street (after "Class"): "3C" [End Recommended Ordinance]

Analysis of Current Code and Categories of Parking My analysis of the parking permits reveals a clear division between the types of parking offered and covered by the single pass. The first category of parking is the "Long-Term Lot", a term that has no consistent usage within the current code. The second category is the 10-hour Meters, which has some consistent usage within the current code, but not entirely. Some sections of the city that contain 10hour Meters are Zone 3D, some are not. Curiously, the current code only specifies a $30 Parking Permit for zone 4C, which is solely the James House parking lot. As far as I can tell, there is no other provision for charging for parking within the James House parking lot. The intent of providing a parking pass for all the "Long-Term Lots" and 10-hour Meters is not reflected in the current code. Assuming there are consistent categories of what areas the parking passes cover, there are still significant differences between the two categories being discussed. -Long-Term Lots This is off-street parking, some of which is visible from the street and some of which is not. Drivers have to enter the lots to determine if there are any spaces available, and walk to a ticket dispenser and back to their car to pay for parking. The lots are labeled around the city as follows: Pleasant St next to Yes Computers, Hampton Ave across from the Brewery, West Street past the Smith parking garage, Old South St across from McDonald House, and the Round House parking lot behind McDonald House. Most of these lots are not considered prime downtown locations. Nevertheless, most of these lots get heavy use and the city has 534 spaces in them. Aside from free parking, the city charges the least for these lots at $0.25/hr. -10-hour Meters These meters are a combination of on-street parking largely on streets further away from downtown and off-street parking in the back section of the Strong Avenue lot. The city has far fewer of these spaces (176) and they are distributed throughout many streets; these meters are on: Bedford Ter, Bridge St, Elm St, King St, New South St, State St, and Strong Ave. It is noteworthy that streets like King, Bridge, and Strong Ave have a mix of shorter-term, higher-rate parking and the 10-hour Meters, based loosely on proximity to Main St. The assumption here is that value increases with proximity to Main St. The city charges less than short-term parking for these meters, but still charges a significant amount at $0.50/hr. All these rates were lower as of last year. Before the summer of 2011 the Long-Term Lots' rate was $0.15/hr. Raising the rates to $0.25/hr represents a 66.66% increase. The 10-hour Meters had a rate of $0.25/hr. Raising the rates to $0.50/hr represents a 100% increase. However these numbers are misleading since there are far more Long-Term Lot spaces (534) than 10-hour Meter spaces (176). The weighted increase uses the following formula: (534/710) x 0.6666 + (176/710) x 1 = 74.93% the weighted average increase of the parking rates for both the Long-Term Lots and the 10-hour meters. Thus a proposed increase of 100% on parking passes out of line with the weighted average increase in parking rates from last year. It is unknown how the 10-hour Meter spots are used by permittees versus the Long-Term Lots. For the 10-hour Meters, given that the permittees will be competing with anyone looking for on-street parking, I theorize that they will either park earlier than most occasional users or use the spots merely as convenience spots, taken if available on the way to more probable parking in the Long-Term Lots. In other words, a permit for 10-hour Meters is either a bonus benefit to having a permit for the Long-Term Lots or it frustrates the goal of having workers and other habitual parkers give preference to visitors, shoppers, and other occasional users. The theory changes when discussing the 10-hour Meters on Bedford Ter, Elm St, and State St. I believe these are mostly used by people employed or enrolled at Smith College. There is no Long-Term Lot near that section of town and even the parking on Bedford Ter

is further away from the center of town to make a Long-Term Lot just as preferential for a downtown worker. Possible Goals for Parking Permits Though there are many possible reasons to have parking permits, I will list a few: 1) Price: To give a discount from high-cost parking to workers and students 2) Convenience: To make parking easier for workers and students 3) Commerce: To create a price mis-match between on-street rates and warehouse rates so that visitors, shoppers, and occasional users have an easier time parking 4) Revenue: To gain revenue because permittees won't use the spots enough to break even or realize financial benefit Discussion on Possible Goals 1) Price This is a worthy goal that was available for both users of the Long-Term Lots and the 10-hour Meters. To have a policy of offering parking passes with a goal of a Price benefit shows that the city recognizes its parking fees are generally priced to raise revenue from tourism and to discourage worker- or residentuse of prime parking locations. However, a permittee had to use the Long-Term Lots for over 75% of their billable hours in order to realize a Price benefit. This leads me to conclude that offering a Price benefit for parkers in the Long-Term Lots was not a primary goal-- however worthy it is-- in establishing parking passes. On the other hand, the permittee realized a Price benefit much more rapidly when using the 10-hour Meters. This is the oddity of combining the two categories of parking under the same parking pass. I don't believe these two categories should be included under the same parking pass. 2) Convenience From the perspective of a long-term user, Convenience is probably the second largest benefit and may even exceed Price in importance in some circumstances. There is no doubt that parking passes provide a Convenience benefit. However, Convenience will be weighed against cost when passes are priced above what the user would ordinarily pay on-demand. Thus Convenience has a value that can probably be expressed in dollar terms. By raising the prices on parking passes for Long-Term Lots to $60/mo, most users will experience a financial loss by purchasing a parking pass. This is because the break-even point for usage moves from ~77% of a Long-Term Lot's billable hours to 92% of them. Viz., a permittee must park at the Long-Term Lot for over 55 hours/week (out of the 60 hours/week the fees are charged) to merely break even. This means whatever value Price did have in the creation of the parking passes, it is all but gone for users of the Long-Term Lots. Not only that, but most users will have to weigh Convenience against the financial loss they incur for purchasing a parking pass. Convenience includes: eliminating risk of a parking ticket and reducing the need to carry cash to pay for parking fees. Note that Convenience can be based on location as well. It is likely some 10-hour Meters (and Long-Term Lots) are more convenient based on the permittee's circumstance. Again highlighting the need to separate the two categories of parking, the permittee that consistently uses the 10-hour Meters will realize the same Convenience benefit and also a likely Price benefit. Interestingly, a user who parks in a residential neighborhood and pays nothing (parking without a fee is "free") should be willing to sacrifice some Convenience in having to walk a longer distance to his/her destination but still recognizes the other elements of Convenience: no parking ticket nor the need to carry cash for parking fees. Users will likely find a balance between Convenience and expense: as the price to park goes up, users will be willing to accept less Convenience. This means moving from paying for parking to parking in residential neighborhoods further away from the downtown.

3) Commerce It is likely that raising parking pass rates will have some favorable benefits on Commerce. This is because fewer passes will be sold and fewer long-term users will use the Long-Term Lots. Users will likely park in residential areas as close as possible to downtown as they can get, and bear the burden of longer walks to their destinations. The residents too will bear a burden by experiencing increased traffic and loss of available parking on their street. However, raising rates will mean that more spots in the Long-Term Lots and among the 10-hour Meters will open up to tourists, visitors, and other occasional users. This is in some relationship to the loss of Price benefit due to raising the prices of the passes. 4) Revenue It may be that users feel there is still enough Convenience in obtaining a parking permit even if they suffer a financial loss on its use. In that case, the city would recognize added revenue by both selling the passes and also renting out the spaces the permittees aren't taking advantage of. (This does not assume any parking tickets.) In most other circumstances, the parking passes are either a financial loss for the city or neutral. The only other case where parking passes would enhance the city's revenue would be if the city had unused spaces that permittees were filling. I.e.: there isn't a parking problem downtown. If this is not the case, then the city will only get Revenue out of parking passes when users are willing to take a financial loss for the sake of Convenience. I believe this is unlikely. Comparison to "Market Rate" There is no good way to compare the public parking rates to the "Market Rate" because the city of Northampton is by far the biggest supplier of parking downtown. The amount of private spots are dwarfed by the public ones offered, thus market economics should result in the private market adjusting to the public one. Hence, looking toward the private market to set the public one is backwards. What we can expect is that the limited amount of private parking will be bid up until it reaches the public price point. Then, elements like covered parking, guaranteed spots, or location will be additional premium or discount. Here is a summary of the public parking options: -Parking Garage pass: $75/mo There is no guaranteed spot but the sheer size of the garage and the facts that it rarely fills and there is some dedicated parking for pass-holders means there is a very high probability of finding parking. Most floors are covered, so there is also a (less) high probability of covered parking. It is one relatively central location to drive to and from. -Parking Passes: $30/mo, and possibly illegal There is no guaranteed spot but again the fact that there are over 700 spaces available should mean there is a high chance of finding a spot. However, the convenience is much lower, involving searching for a spot and most spots involve a walk to Main St that is greater than what the parking garage offers. Northampton's code carries a prohibition against parking in many of those lots during snow emergencies. -On-Street parking: Varies, and possibly illegal Parking on residential streets with no meters is clearly the most cost-effective way for long-term parkers. Indeed this happens frequently on residential streets surrounding downtown. Increasing parking meter fees as well as the parking pass rates will drive more people to take the free parking offered on residential streets. This is not fair to the residents. Users may also simply "feed the meter" until the enforcement time expires (6 PM) in spaces with meters, then let the car sit overnight. While the final cost of this varies, it is illegal to do this for longer than the space's time allows (e.g. renew a 1hour meter when the time is expiring) according to (312-36 E(2)).

The private spaces available downtown have a range of prices. The Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce (GNCC) has provided me with some data. Here is a summary of a survey of 4 private lots that are close to Main St.: -Parking Lot permit: $25-30/mo This is for a guaranteed space in a private parking lot. The pass-holder knows there will be a space available somewhere within that one lot. This is more valuable than a public pass for the Long-Term Lots because it eliminates the hassle of searching different lots for an available space. It should also be closer to Main St than the public Long-Term Lots. -Personal Parking space: Varies, starting at $50/mo This is a personal, reserved space in a private lot. The high end of a very small number of spaces (under 10) reaches $95/mo, but a greater number (roughly 50) are offered at $50/mo. The great variance in location and price make it difficult to make generalizations about this category of parking, but it stands to reason that the higher prices are due to specific locations and specific benefits that employees or downtown residents feel is worth it. Even at the high end, this is only $20 more than the public parking offered at the garage. Even the low price of $50/mo for a personal parking space is more valuable than a parking pass for a Long-Term Lot since the private space guarantees parking, and is closer to Main St (the assumption here is that proximity to Main St is more valuable). Both private options included here are more valuable than parking passes for Long-Term Lots since they guarantee parking in just one lot and are closer to Main St. And yet despite those valuable elements, the private parking that is most like the parking passes for Long-Term Lots sell for as low as $25/mo. The options that are more like the Parking Garage pass range from $50 to the very rare $95, which may indicate that covered parking is slightly more or less valuable than specific locations. The conclusion from this comparison is that there is no good basis from the private market to increase parking passes above $30/mo. Response to Mayor's Memorandum The mayor's memorandum dated February 21, 2012 was incorrect because it contained a few technical and calculator errors. This lead to a correction dated April 17, 2012. While the math was fixed, it revealed what a significant change increasing parking passes for Long-Term Lots to $60 would be. Prior to the parking fee increase from summer 2011, a worker who came downtown five days a week to work a 40-hour/wk job (with a 1-hour buffer for lunch, walking time, etc.) would spend 45 hours/wk in the Long-Term Lot. At the $0.15/hr rate, this worker would almost break even each month. He/she would lose less than $1 each month. Thus for this worker the reason to buy a parking pass was not Price but Convenience. In this case, the pass eliminated the need to carry cash for parking fees daily, it provided flexibility for extended hours worked or staying around the downtown for various reasons, and gave protection from a parking ticket. Under the mayor's proposed change, this same worker would suffer a loss of more than $11/month. Far from breaking even, the worker would be forced to choose between Convenience and financial loss. The only advantage the city might see is Revenue at the expense of the worker. The worker will either absorb the parking fee increases or park elsewhere, most likely in residential neighborhoods where parking is "free". The greater distance from downtown means longer walks for the worker and less parking available on residential streets. The problem here is that a 100% increase in a parking pass that is meant to adjust to a 66.66% increase in parking fees is excessive. It is likely just enough of a difference to create a choice between financial loss and Convenience for the worker in this example.

Advantages to Recommended Ordinance The recommended ordinance at the beginning of this memorandum calls for two classes of parking passes. One class provides a pass for parking within the Long-Term Lots (3C and 4C). The second class allows for parking within 3C and 4C (the Long-Term Lots) but also includes parking at the 10-hour Meters, a zone that the proposed ordinance fits into the category "3D". (I have not checked all the 10hour Meters throughout the city so it may be that some of parking fees within the 3D category are mispriced. To fix that will take a small amendment to the ordinance after conferring with the administration. This is the reason for creating another parking zone "3B".) The recommended ordinance simplifies the current code by supplying set of zones that represent both the Long-Term Lot category and also the 10-hour Meters. It places authority to set the number of passes to be sold with the Transportation & Parking Commission. It considers both classes of pass under the same maximum, which means for instance that 300 total passes from either class would be sold on any given month. The pricing for each pass reflects the differences in value between the Long-Term Lots and the 10-hour Meters. The Long-Term Lots are not more valuable than $48/mo from the perspective of the increase in parking fees there. However, comparison to the private market shows that any increase will overprice the Long-Term Lot passes. Keeping the Long-Term Lot parking passes at $30/mo shows that Northampton cares for the workers of downtown and also the residents who live in surrounding neighborhoods whose streets will likely be even more inundated with long-term parking if the prices were increased. Thus there is modest Price benefit now being offered in addition to Convenience for these permittees. The pricing for the 10-Hour Meters is more experimental. Given that prior to the 100% increase in parking fees, a holder of a parking pass would recognize a significant Price benefit by parking in the 10hour Meters, increasing the pass by 100% simply brings the same percent Price benefit to such holders. I would expect that these passes would be less popular than the Long-Term Lot passes. But if not, this is valuable information the city can use when evaluating the benefits of the parking pass system. Course of Action Since there was technically no referral made from the City Council to the Transportation & Parking Commission, I believe this commission is free to recommend this ordinance to the City Council on this date.