 |
| According to one first-brush analysis--paid parking could more than replace the existing toll-booth revenue the County receives--while preserving LOTS of free parking at Pensacola Beach. |
...According to a knowledgeable source on this topic locally--the answer is yes.
I was contacted through staff by this veteran of the paid parking industry. This gentleman knows the business and has been in the business for a long time. He has key insight and knowledge of the local paid parking market.
So when I returned his call I asked him some specific questions:
"Could we eliminate the toll, improve traffic, disperse the crowds more evenly throughout Pensacola Beach and do this making up the revenue with paid parking at a portion of Casino Beach's lot while leaving a significant number of spots FREE for early-bird beach visitors?
The answer was certain and it was clear. "Jeff, you could do this, it would more than make up what you are currently netting at the toll booth, and you might even find that you make more."
I told him from my perspective I'm not interested in making more--just replacing existing revenue. Our Bob Sikes Bridge is in need of replacement over the next 10-15 years and the cost to do this will be borne locally. So capturing lost toll-booth revenue is essential to the plan, so that the excess funds generated by this can add to the existing $6.4 Million in our Beach Toll fund, a portion of which should be dedicated to a sinking fund for the Bob Sikes bridge.
I asked him what that would look like, and he sent over a rough analysis. I explained to him clearly, the following:
1. I was only doing initial fact-finding and research
2. I am only one vote on the board and only the full 5-member BCC can make this decision
3. My idea would be to keep ALL parking outside of Casino Beach free, and utilize just 75% of Casino Beach's lot for premium parking---leaving 25% free on a first come, first serve basis.
4. Any outsourcing of this function would be competitively solicited and bid--no one would have an upper hand over anyone else.
5. The commissioner from District 4 would need to support the effort as this is in his district--and his support would be critical.
"Jeff, if we took 1000 spots and analyzed the potential revenue it looks to be roughly $2.9 Million--and this is a conservative estimate. We could use a smartphone app and/or a stand alone kiosk that accepts payment, or some combination thereof." he stated.
His basic, first brush analysis contemplated an off-season, weekday rate of $2.00 per spot with a weekend off-season rate of $3.00 per spot. During season it would be $3.00 per spot weekday and $5.00 per spot on weekend. He also envisioned special event and VIP parking at higher rates for a certain small portion of the front row--and he said "These types of spots go over well in other markets. And you could play with the rates and do different combinations and different rates--there is a lot of latitude in what you could do there"
I asked about enforcement:
"That's touchy. We typically write a warning first, a citation next, then--if the same car doesn't pay we put a boot on the car." he stated. "This gets folks angry so it is something that has to be managed locally based upon what the local government wants in terms of enforcement balanced with constituent relations."
So the issue is out there--and perhaps one day it will be seriously considered by the full board. Meanwhile, the plan to open the toll booths during peak hours seems to be addressing the gridlock for now--and we will see how that works going through the summer and Blue Angels Weekend as folks get their bills in the mail.
I'll support whatever works best--be it more intelligently managing the toll booth, as we have now started doing over the last 10 days--- or replacing the toll booth revenue with some paid parking. But, full disclosure, I do favor being proactive in eliminating the choke-point which is the toll booth by either eliminating the tolls and replacing the revenue with paid parking (preferred option) or making the tolls fully automated 24-7, 365 to improve traffic and eliminate $400K yearly in salary for collectors (secondary option).
I will also support traffic and additional parking facility modifications at the beach as have been discussed ad nauseum in the press---- if these modifications are supported by D4 and the appropriate, legitimate funding sources are identified.
But whatever we do--we owe it to the citizens to be fiscally prudent while doing our best to keep the traffic moving at the beach---not gridlocking over two bridges all the way back to Pensacola.
3 comments:
Some paid parking on the Beach is probably a great idea. But I like it as enhanced revenue, not replacement revenue. This County needs all the revenue it can get. If Blue Angels weekend goes as well as the last two Saturdays--with traffic flowing beautifully, and no need whatsoever for the roundabout, then the only thing left is to figure out how to keep a cash option for people who don't want to get billed by toll by plate. They've increased the signage out there to make people more aware of that billing scenario, and in time these solutions will become more the norm. So YES to some paid parking (and increased parking) but let's not "or" with the toll funds...this County needs "and" when it comes to revenue.
Now let's start figuring out what to do with the 11M (ha!) that the County could supposedly afford on the roundabout... :)
--Melissa Pino
I can see no reason why the County would not have both the bridge toll AND paid parking. Or, perhaps an Escambia County Park pass for the County's largest park with reduced parking fees for County residents? I know the Florida business model seems to be "Let somebody else pay" (i.e. tourists), but I have never lived anywhere that the County did NOT charge residents for a daily or annual pass for their parks.
As I remember, the bridge tolls are not going to a fund to replace the bridge - they have been paying and will continue to pay for MANY more years for the boulevard on Via de Rinke...er, Via de Luna. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that there is currently no money set aside or available for replacing the Beach Bridge. I can't imagine representatives from Escambia County asking the State for funding to replace the Beach bridge and having to answer the hard question "Well, what have you been doing with all that toll money?".
Perhaps the LOST money that Grover pledged to the unwanted, unnecessary, and unworkable roundabouts can be more wisely spent on the eventual replacement of the Beach Bridge?
As always, thank you for listening.
Now, everyone who enters our Beach pays, just a Dollar, no matter when you get there. That's fair to everyone and as it should be. Plus, I don't look forward to turning Beach parking into the same pain in the rear deal as Downtown Pensacola has become. And weekends like the Blue Angels would be crazy. With the Toll Plaza going to all Sunpass or Toll by Plate, indent see it as a traffic issue. The traffic issue is still, at busy times, still a lack of parking. Neither paid parking or removing the toll plaza is going to fix the real traffic problem...the Beach needs MORE PARKING!
Post a Comment