Category: parking management

SacCity parking for free

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts on parking in the City of Sacramento, see category: parking management.

The proposed City of Sacramento budget has increases in penalty fees for parking illegally, as documented in the recent SacBee article (Sacramento proposes hiking parking violation fees amid $66M budget shortfall, Ishani Desai, 2026-04-30). Not explicitly stated, but implied, is that parking fees will not be increased at this time.

I am glad that penalties will be increased, though I think they should be increased a great deal more. The ‘The fee for parking in a bike lane could increase to $150, up from $50.’ is great, though it should be much higher. Not called out in the list is parking blocking crosswalks. This may fall under one of the other categories, or it may not. When I have reported blocked crosswalks via 311, the report back is usually either no citation was issued, or the vehicle was gone, though I have observed many times that the vehicle is still there. Apparently the parking officers don’t consider blocking crosswalks to be a big deal. I do! The penalty for blocking a crosswalk should be enforced, should be a separate listed category, and should be $500. When people walking have to go outside the crosswalk to cross a street, it reduces their visibility and increases their exposure to traffic violence. This is not a victimless habit.

Increasing parking fees was one of the possible budget solutions proposed by Public Works, which controls parking in the city. The proposed budget does not increase parking fees. I understand this, given the current focus on affordability. But I think increased fees should be on the table. Even in the highest rate zones, the parking fee does not cover the true cost of providing that on-street parking space.

But the elephant in the room is that the city gives away free parking almost everywhere.

Residential parking permits, required to park in non-metered parking spots in the central city (the map below shows more or less where those zones are), are available to any resident. The cost? Free, zero, nada, zip. Residents can park their privately owned vehicle on the street within three blocks of their residential address, and pay nothing to the city for that privilege. See Residential Permit Parking (RPP). Charging a minimal fee for a residential parking permit would be a good start on actually managing parking in the city. How about $20 per month, or $240 per year?

How many vehicles are on the street with free residential parking permits? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a big dent in the city budget deficit.

Even more egregious is that the city charges absolutely nothing in the vast majority of the city. The map below shows metered parking in the city, which is essentially just the central city. Outside this area, parking is free. Storing a private vehicle on public property provided by the city, and taxpayers? Nothing! These areas outside the central city are probably not a ‘valuable’ as the central city (though the cost of providing free parking is just the same), so maybe a offer a deal, $10 per month, or $120 per year.

How many vehicles are on the street in this vast free parking area? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a huge dent in the city budget deficit.

Note that I am not proposing that additional areas of the city be metered, though there are arguments for metering some locations with high commercial and residential activity. The investment in meters, installation and maintenance, is worthwhile only where parking is heavily used, and turn-over is highly desirable.

map of SacCity boundary, and metered parking
SacCity boundary, and metered parking

There is no such thing as free parking. The cost of parking includes, but is not limited to:

  • the original cost of constructing the parking lane
  • the land value of parking lane that could be occupied instead by more productive uses
  • maintenance of the parking lane, including street sweeping, leaf season pickup, and pavement replacement
  • resistance from people parking for free to any change in the street that might decrease parking, while improving safety and livability; this might include wider sidewalks, bike facilities, and traffic calming measures such as curb extensions
  • increased heat island effect from black asphalt in the parking lane
  • increased storm runoff from the parking lane

I am not against on-street parking. It does serve a public need, and it does slow traffic speeds a bit through ‘friction’. But why do we give it away for free, ever, and particularly under a budget crisis? Because we privilege the desires of private motor vehicle owners over all other people and all other priorities.

daylighting enforcement?

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento has announced that it will be enforcing the state intersection daylighting law, AB 413 (Lee, 2024), starting today. Tickets will be $25.

Higher income people will of course just see this as the cost of parking, and won’t care. An open spot at every corner, only $25? Yes! With the new parking rates, a person could park in a daylighted space for 8 hours for less than the cost of a metered space.

Daylighting increases safety for people walking by providing increased visibility between drivers and walkers crossing the street. As with all crosswalk laws, it applies whether the crosswalk is marked (painted) or not.

I’m a little cynical about this. Over the years, I have reported about 60 violations of drivers parked ON the crosswalk. Once, the driver was cited. Often I would wait to see if parking enforcement officers would show up, and what they would do. Sometimes, the vehicle was gone. Often, the vehicle was still there, but the 311 report closed without action. Sometimes, it was closed without the officer even showing up.

Traditionally, parking enforcement has only been concerned about drivers overstaying time at parking meters.

Administration of the parking and parking enforcement program has changed, so perhaps the city is serious about enforcing daylighting. Time will tell.

SacCity parking revisions meeting

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Revised 2024-11-14, to add detail

Yesterday the city held a Zoom meeting entitled ‘SacCity Parking Revisions Community Project Update Meeting’. The second and last meeting is today, 5:30PM, via Zoom. Registration is required, at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMlf–gqjwsHdbLbRtxQ1_-59HFgLSajWJx#/registration.

The city is developing what it calls a ‘Parking Strategy‘ with a ‘Parking Management Toolkit’. This is not a parking management plan, which the 2040 General Plan requires. Though the city keeps claiming that it already has a Parking Management Plan, that is being revised, no such plan exists. More than half the 190 page Parking Strategy document is Appendix A ‘Economic Conditions and Housing Development Funding Assessment’ (page 68 of the pdf) and Appendix B ‘Best Practices Research’ (page 83 of the pdf) with examples from other cities and standards. A twelve page Executive Summary provides key information for those who don’t have time for the whole document.

The parking revision process is led by Community Development Department, under Senior Planner Vic Randall, vrandall@cityofsacramento.org, but Public Works is also participating, under Parking Manager Staci Hovermale, shovermale@cityofsacramento.org. The presentation was mostly by the W-Trans consultant, Brian Canepa.

I encourage you to attend and comment. In particular, pay attention to what is excluded as well as included. Kendra Ramsey of CalBike had some of the best questions and comments, so I hope she can be on the Zoom again today.

In addition to the meeting, you can also comment via email to ParkingRevisions@cityofsacramento.org, or by adding comments to the document via konveio at https://sacramento.konveio.com/parking-strategy-public-review-draft.

Read More »

SacCity parking revisions

Dan Allison2 Comments

The City of Sacramento is undertaking revisions to parking requirements for private motor vehicles and bicycles, as directed by council and the 2040 General Plan.

The draft parking strategy is available for review, as a document review webpage, and here as pdf.

Two online meetings are being held, Wednesday, November 13 at 10:00 AM, and Thursday, November 14 at 5:30 PM. Registration is required, and available on the city Parking Revisions webpage. You can also email the city, address on the webpage.

The city removed parking mandates in the central city in 2013, and within 1/4 mile of transit in 2019, and state law now prohibits mandates within 1/2 mile of ‘major transit stops’.

I have not had a chance to review, so don’t have any comments at this time.

SacCity backs off parking reform

Dan Allison4 Comments

There are a number of things the City of Sacramento could be doing to better manage parking: Parking reform for Sacramento. But perhaps the most important is removing parking mandates, those city regulations that require developers to put in parking whether it is needed or will be used, or not.

The city council in January 2021 adopted the Proposed Roadway Changes document that had been recommended by staff working on the 2040 General Plan update. This is a very large document, so the relevant section on parking is excerpted. It states, in unequivocal terms:

10. Eliminate City-mandated parking minimums citywide and introduce parking maximums.

City of Sacramento, Council Report 15, 2021-01-19, 2040 General Plan Update – Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and other Key Strategies

Here we are, about two years later, and the staff is recommending considerably less in the draft plan, that action ‘could include’. Not will include, not studied on a timeline, not implemented, but maybe we will think about it, if we get around to that. Could that city have come up with any more vague and unserious language?

M-2.17
Parking Management Strategy. The City shall continue to deploy a parking management strategy that optimizes the use of existing supply, minimizes the need for the construction of new parking facilities, and promotes the use of active modes of transportation, public transit, and highoccupancy vehicles. Program components could include the following:

  • Adjusting parking management strategies based on goals and needs;
  • Adjusting parking meter hours and pricing for effective management;
  • Eliminating City-mandated parking minimums;
  • Implementing parking maximums along established transit corridors;
  • Allowing unbundled parking in conjunction with strategies to reduce the need for private automobiles;
  • Incorporating or facilitating technology such as smart-phone apps and wayfinding signage that direct drivers to open parking spaces in real-time, automated and/ or stacked parking systems, or parking technologies that improve parking efficiency in mixed-use centers and corridors;
  • Supporting the use of alternative modes by providing alternative programs in lieu of monthly parking passes and discounts; and
  • Improving branding, communications, and wayfinding signage.
City of Sacramento, draft 2040 General Plan

It should be noted that the General Plan language implies that the city has a parking management strategy, or a parking management plan. So far as the public knows, it does not. So the city is referencing something that either does not exist or has never been shared with the public. The first thing that the General Plan must include is a commitment to developing a parking management plan, with public engagement, and then sharing the plan with the public. The plan does not even mention this.

Parking reform for Sacramento

Dan Allison2 Comments

Note: Added item to Parking fees below, in italic, based on an idea from an article in Streetsblog USA.

Following on to the discussion group topic this week of Walkable City this week, Part 3: Get the Parking Right, here is a list of my thoughts about parking reform in the City of Sacramento. Almost all applies to parking anywhere. I think nearly every one of these has been mentioned in previous posts, but I’ve not brought them together in a single place.

The City of Sacramento has a Parking Services website. Parking Services is part of Public Works.

  • Parking management:
    • Parking must be managed under a city-wide parking management plan, and the plan must be consistent with city and state policy for reducing motor vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The city does not have a parking management plan, so far as is known.
    • Parking mandates must be removed city-wide, not just for the central city and transit oriented locations.
    • The city should foreswear any new structure parking (parking garages or parking decks). Though the city does not have any active plans for new parking, it has had recently, and they may come back.
    • Require all new housing or mixed use developments to unbundle parking, meaning that no free parking is provided for residents, and all parking is available to any person who wants to rent the space. Unbundling should be phased in over five years for all existing parking.
    • Prohibit commercial parking lots adjacent to sidewalks, meaning the buildings must face sidewalks and not parking lots.
    • Property assessment of surface parking lots will be at the same value as the productive land use that existed there before, to discourage building removal and and to keeping of land in less productive or unproductive uses; this requires cooperation from the county
  • Parking fees:
    • A base rate for all parking will be set such that it covers installation, maintenance, and management of all public parking; this rate might vary by whether parking is metered or not, or might be uniform throughout the city.
    • Charge at least the base rate for all street parking, everywhere in the city, via meters or permits, that recovers base rate; NO FREE PARKING!
    • Set variable rates for residential parking permits based on the size, weight, and fuel source of the vehicle
    • Formally implement variable pricing of street and structured parking to achieve Shoup’s 85% utilization
    • Charge for handicapped spaces (this eliminates the motivation for non-handicapped drivers to illegally use handicapped spots)
    • Eliminate all holiday or promotional free parking; research indicates that free parking actually reduces business customers by reducing parking turnover
    • Pilot ideas for charging for delivery use of street parking
  • Parking revenue:
    • Parking revenue will not go into the general fund or to pay off bonds not related to parking, but be used for specific purposes related to parking and neighborhood improvement
    • 50% of parking revenue (above base rate) will be spent on neighborhood improvements on the same streets or within parking districts
    • 50% of revenue (above base rate) will be allocated to transit operations and transit amenities
  • Parking conversion to higher uses:
    • Add trees in the parking lane on all streets without sidewalk buffers; many of the lower income neighborhoods in the city lack sidewalk buffers and private trees, making walking unpleasant and hazardous
    • Do not charge for conversion of street parking to dining space, and minimize permit costs for street dining
    • Provide one or more short-term (20 minutes or less) parking spaces on every block with retail
    • Provide one or more delivery spaces per block with any retail, and enforce against double-parking for delivery where delivery spaces are available
    • Replace parallel parking with diagonal parking on overly wide streets, to slow traffic; most streets in the city are overly wide
    • Where sidewalk or sidewalk buffer space is not available for micro-mobility (bike share, scooter share) parking, street parking will be converted in sufficient quantity
    • Modify development standards to allow only one-side parking in new residential developments
    • Allow conversion of parking to bike facilities where a reduction of travel lanes is not practical (on streets 30 mph or higher)

I strongly believe that the single city action most responsible for the renewal of midtown Sacramento, all the infill development and successful business, is the removal of parking minimums (mandates) from the central city in 2012. Since that time, the city has removed parking mandates from land near major transit stops, and in 2022, the state prohibited cities from establishing mandates near major transit stops (the definition of a major transit stop is fuzzy, however).

The city has proposed, in its draft 2040 General Plan, to remove parking mandates city-wide. It remains to be seen whether pressure from politicians and suburban protectors of ‘their’ street parking spot will subvert this recommendation. 2040 General Plan draft, Chapter 8 Mobility, Goals and Policies M-2.17 Parking Management Strategy, page 8-18.

Other resources:

SacCity motor vehicle parking

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Part of an ongoing series of posts to support better streets in the City of Sacramento during their 2023 update of Street Design Standards. New standards must be innovative, safe, and equitable, and it will take strong citizen involvement and advocacy to make them so.

  • Street design will recognize that on-street parking may have a traffic calming effect, however, this effect will not preclude the use of existing parking for other purposes, including but not limited to wider sidewalks, bicycle facilities, parklets, street dining, bicycle and shared mobility parking, planting strips or parking lane trees, and transit lanes
  • Where current streets with parallel parking have excess width that encourages speeding, one or both sides of the street should be converted to diagonal parking; new diagonal parking will be back-in
  • Parking design will offer dedicated loading and delivery zones as needed; and will include time-limited green curb as needed by businesses
  • Parking spaces will be sized for normal passenger vehicles; oversized width or length vehicles may be restricted to certain spots or areas which are designed for them
  • Parking areas of streets need not be maintained to the same level as travel lanes

Parking Management

  • Parking will be managed and priced so as to create about 15% open parking on every block
  • Free parking will be eliminated throughout the city; where metered parking is not practical, parking permit fees will be set at a level that recovers the complete expense of parking space installation, maintenance and management

▾ Design diagrams:

  • Parallel marked and unmarked spaces
  • Diagonal parking (back-in)
  • Curb and pavement markings for prohibition (red), loading (white), delivery (yellow), and time limited (green) parking
diagonal parking on 26th St, Sacramento
diagonal parking on 26th St, Sacramento

PRN parking lot map for Sacramento

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Parking Reform Network (PRN) website on parking minimums (also called mandates) and minimums has been recently updated and enhanced. Take a look!

I have in the past worked to compile information about parking in the central city, but it turned out to be more complex that I had realized and I never completed it. It is fairly easy to map surface parking lots, that lowest common denominator of land use, but mapping parking garages is more complicated because many of them have commercial at street level, so are not all parking, and many developments have either underground or parking in the middle of the building. All of these are much harder to document and map. So I am glad that PRN, with partner Strong Towns, is mapping.

You can see the primary map at Parking Lot Map. Use the city pulldown if you don’t go directly to Sacramento. Note that this map covers just most of downtown, it does not cover the entire central city, nor any of the rest of the city. Be sure to click on the ‘View More’ button, which provide detail that is difficult to find elsewhere, including on the city’s own website.

PRN parking lot map of 'central city' Sacramento
PRN parking lot map of ‘central city’ Sacramento

The city’s 2021 Housing Element includes policy H-1.4: Facilitate Infill Housing Development. The City shall facilitate infill housing along commercial corridors, near employment centers, near high-frequency transit areas, and in all zones that allow residential development as a way to revitalize commercial corridors, promote walkability and increased transit ridership, and provide increased housing options . (page 23)

The implementation chapter of the housing element includes Program H8. Revisions to Parking Requirements (page 46) that is included in the PRN website. The general plan update for 2040, which would implement this program, has been delayed beyond 2022. The city has not provided a target date, so far as I know.

does Sacramento enforce illegal parking?

Dan Allison2 Comments

As a person who walks a lot in the central city, and some in other areas, I often see and report illegal parking to the city through the 311 app. I’m not talking about parking too long, or not paying, but about blocking driveways, sidewalks, and crosswalks. 90% of the time, the response that I get was that a parking officer was dispatched and the vehicle was no longer there, so no citation was issued. I provide the license number, vehicle description, and a photo, but the city will not use that information to ticket once a vehicle has moved. But, the real issue it that they often ignore the violation completely.

An example. I reported this illegally parked vehicle at 9:17AM. It was blocking the crosswalk over 13th St, and the ADA ramp. The remaining ramp area was not wide enough to allow a wheelchair to pass. At 11:09AM I received an email reply from the city, stating: “A Parking Enforcement Officer arrived at P ST & 13TH ST, SACRAMENTO, 95814 to find that the vehicle(s) reported were no longer on the scene.” At 7:30PM, the vehicle was still in exactly the same place. The officer was lying. The vehicle was still there. Either the officer never visited the location, or decided not to cite the vehicle.

illegally parking vehicle blocking crosswalk and ADA ramp
illegally parked vehicle, 13th St, not cited

This is the sort of attitude the city has toward people who walk, or roll. They are always less important than people who drive.