Tag Archives: TPP-2013-07-

Why Going Green Makes Business Sense

TPP-2013-07-Why Going Green Makes Business SenseBy Dominick Brook

With pressures from stakeholders, customers, and, to some extent, government entities and regulations, many companies are increasing their focus on sustainability strategies. Along with these motivations, certain green initiatives, particularly focused around the reduction of electricity use, have a quick and positive payback and can help a company’s economic bottom line.

For parking facilities, one major energy cost comes from the need for lighting. In enclosed garages, lighting may need to be on 24/7; open lots may require energy-intensive lighting overnight. Given the number of hours that the lights need to be on, any increase in energy efficiency can result in sizeable reductions in electricity costs. Payback periods of 18 months are not uncommon for lighting retrofits, and may be even quicker when certain technologies such as LEDs are used, especially where electricity prices are high or where continuous lighting is needed. In addition, with bulbs for new technology lasting longer, maintenance costs can also be reduced.

Lighting Incentives
The payback period can be further reduced through incentives available at the federal and state levels and from individual utilities. At the federal level, a tax deduction of up to $0.60 per square foot is available for investments in energy-efficient lighting that’s installed in either new or retrofitted parking garages. An energy-efficient lighting retrofit of a 250,000-square-foot parking garage would generate a $150,000 deduction, which at a 35 percent federal tax rate would be worth $52,500 on the current year’s tax return. The deduction can also be claimed by a taxpayer who designs the lighting retrofit of government-owned property by having the government entity allocate the deduction to the taxpayer; to the extent that parking garage operators are involved in the specifications of lighting for these retrofits, they may be considered “designers.”

State and utility incentives vary, but often come in the form of cash rebates based on the fixtures installed or performance-based incentives, which depend on the actual reduction in energy use. While it may seem strange that utility companies would incentivize their customers to use less electricity, government regulation in many states encourages utilities to assist their customers with improving their energy efficiency.

Other Expenses
Beyond lighting, incentives are available to improve the return on investment (ROI) of other sustainability-related capital expenditures. There is a federal tax credit and numerous state incentives for refueling stations for electric vehicles (EVs) that can help offset some of the costs of investing in this technology. Even the costs to power energy-efficient lighting and EV charging stations can be offset by incentives, further improving the ROI for the property.

The federal government offers a renewable energy investment tax credit that can be stacked with other state, local, and utility incentives. An investment in solar technology would result in a 30 percent federal tax credit, and may qualify for state tax credits and grants and utility rebates.

Investing in sustainability initiatives for a parking facility can result in reduced ongoing operational and maintenance costs, and can positively influence a company’s bottom line in addition to being beneficial to the environment. The numerous incentives that are available at the federal, state, and utility levels can help reduce the cost of going green, resulting in lower payback periods and improved return on investment for the property.

Dominick Brook is senior manager, tax credit and investment advisory services with Ernst & Young LLP. He can be reached at Dominick.Brook@ey.com or 614.232.7376.

TPP-2013-07-Why Going Green Makes Business Sense

One Year Later NYC’s EStar Test

TPP-2013-07-One Year Later NYC’s EStar TestBy Guillermo Leiva

Last year, I wrote about the New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) Bureau of Parking’s audition of all-electric eStar vans in our meter collection fleet (see the July 2012 issue of The Parking Professional). We began our tests as optimists, hoping this new, sustainable technology would be a good match for our department. After a year, our reviews are mixed.

The eStar, already outfitted with a wooden slat support system, was customized by carpenters from DOT’s Bridge Repair Division to bureau specifications. The final design allowed for an ergonomic layout and an 80 pay-and-display canister payload. While the racks were being installed, a smart charger was installed by DOT’s street light electricians. Charging a completely drained battery pack takes approximately eight hours. The range of each full charge depends on several factors, but the suggested range is 80 to 100 miles per full charge.

Our concerns about the eStar’s real-world working range limited its initial assignments to those close to the meter collection facility. Without any real range problems, the eStar assignments were expanded, first with tandem diesel and electric power, later with inbound diesel escorts, and finally, on its own. The eStar proved a capable collection vehicle.

We first made the eStar part of our routine collection schedule, using it weekly to collect our entire off-street inventory, 218 muni-meters (multi-space), and 4,277 spaces throughout all five boroughs.

Over time, the eStar’s performance became suspect. On a number of occasions, drivers experienced a loss of power steering. This occurred while pulling away from a dead stop and during normal driving. The power steering failure resulted in the steering wheel feeling very heavy or tight, making responsiveness an issue.

The vehicle is equipped with a continuously variable transmission (CVT) and an E-Brake parking brake, which must be engaged when the vehicle is stopped. Failure to engage this brake results in the vehicle rolling on an incline. There have been instances in which a driver stopped without fully engaging the brake and the vehicle rolled up to several feet.

A fully-loaded eStar proved very slow to accelerate, which is an issue when entering highways. It feels less than intuitive and its acceleration seems to be linked to load and battery power. This has left some drivers unable to predict the rate of acceleration. Some operators have also complained that the awkward positioning of the door behind the passenger seat, combined with poor sight lines while exiting the vehicle, leaves them vulnerable to possible injury by passing vehicles or bicycles.

Because the system is based on regenerative braking, any extended period of highway driving quickly depletes the battery. Due to this, the vehicle has limited use in outer-borough collections. In the city, this system extends battery life, but heat and weight generated unexpected power-related shutdowns.

The Transit Connect vehicles in the fleet, which we used for meter maintenance, offered a well-­running ­option with excellent maneuverability. They have enough power to keep up with flow of traffic, are simple to maintain, and have no gas or water to refill. Storage capacity proved adequate for technicians and the maneuverability made them easy to park. As with the eStar, mileage was limited, but these vehicles have air conditioning (unlike the eStar). On average, the Transit Connects traveled 20 to 25 miles before the meter indicated that a recharge was needed; this distance was shorter with the air conditioning or heat engaged.

The reviews are in and they are mixed, but as long as you are OK with their limitations, both the eStar and Transit Connect Electric are alternatives to thirstier vans.

Guillermo Leiva is assistant commissioner, NYC DOT-Bureau of Parking and a member of IPI’s Sustainability Committee. He can be reached at gleiva@dot.nyc.gov or 718.786.7300.

TPP-2013-07-One Year Later NYC’s EStar Test

What’s the End

TPP-2013-07-What’s the EndBy David Feehan

A remarkable story continues to unfold in the United States: the rebuilding and reinvention of our core cities. One of the fundamental lessons we’ve learned is that there aren’t really any silver bullets. After many years of building and implementing the projects and programs du jour, we’ve learned that none somehow magically cures all urban ills and brings investors clamoring to city hall.

We’ve also learned that getting the basics right—cleanliness, safety, maintenance, good design, access, and transportation—is absolutely essential. If things aren’t clean, safe, attractive and user-friendly, people won’t come to work, shop, live, and play. And that simple truth applies to parking as well as everything else.

A quarter century ago, most parking systems were geared to enforcement or revenue.
As a result, in many local surveys, people ranked parking as the most noxious aspect of visiting downtown. On-street parking was hard to find. Meters didn’t work or required a pocket or purse full of quarters. Parking garages were dirty, dark, and dangerous. Parking tickets were a supremely annoying possibility.

In 1990, the downtown organization in Kalamazoo, Mich., turned many theories of parking upside-down. Instead of seeking to maximize revenues or concentrate on efficient enforcement, this organization put the customer first. Rules were changed, services were invented, and friendliness became paramount. As a result, customer complaints dropped by 80 percent, ticket issuance was reduced by more than 60 percent, and revenues increased by 50 percent.

Today, we have the technology and the data to make parking a non-event. However, two recent developments in the parking industry could turn back the clock to a time when parking was the most hated aspect of a visit to downtown or an urban business district.

One of these developments has to do with variable meter rates, also known as dynamic pricing. This concept has been adopted by an increasing number of cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Montreal. Dynamic pricing works, according to an interview with author and professor Donald Shoup in the Los Angeles Times, because of the Goldilocks principle—the idea that pricing will reach a point where it’s not too low, not too high. Evidence in San Francisco seems to support this concept.

What we don’t know yet are the mid- to longer-term effects on downtowns and business districts. Will potential retail and restaurant customers gladly pay whatever the rate might be for a space on the street close to their destination? If restaurants and retail shops find changing prices are driving customers away instead of drawing them in greater numbers, will that make downtown living less desirable as these restaurants and shops slowly close?

Will politicians see dynamic pricing as a way to milk more money out of downtown customers seeking a new urban lifestyle?

Most importantly, is this a customer-friendly solution to what we all know is a problem in many cities? It’s probably too soon to know.

Another development that should be causing great concern for parking professionals is the monetization of municipal parking systems. Many cities are struggling mightily. One way some have sought to alleviate such budget pressures is to monetize or sell the rights to operate their parking systems.

As both a parking professional and a downtown revitalization professional, I worry that we may soon reach an annoyance threshold where downtown parking once again becomes so painful and expensive that drivers opt for other places where parking is ostensibly free, undoing a couple decades of progress.

As all of us know, parking is not an entirely rational business. Will dynamic pricing and monetization be useful tools for cities to use? Or will they eventually prove to be a stake in the heart of the downtown golden goose that is now returning to health after years of illness? If parking is a means to an end and that end is healthy, vibrant cities, are we choosing the right means?

David Feehan is president of Civitas Consultants, LLC., and a member of IPI’s Consultants Committee. He can be reached at civitas.dave@me.com or 202.288.0528.

TPP-2013-07-What’s the End