Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[RegalTDP]

This will be part of the new Laker Line BRT. I don't think that venturing off of the main artery goes along with the efficiency models. 

 

Efficiency for the bus, or efficiency for the rider?  This bus stop looks absurdly inconvenient, especially for the morning commuters (which I assume are mostly riding eastbound).  Are they going to run a shuttle between the parking lot and the bus stop?  Who needs efficiency if you're treating your riders this way...

Edited April 30, 2015 by RegalTDP

[GRDadof3]

Efficiency for the bus, or efficiency for the rider?  This bus stop looks absurdly inconvenient, especially for the morning commuters (which I assume are mostly riding eastbound).  Are they going to run a shuttle between the parking lot and the bus stop?  Who needs efficiency if you're treating your riders this way...

 

There's not really much else they can do. The Eastbound bus stop is safer near the corner where there will be a traffic signal and pedestrian crossings. If you put it directly across from the Westbound station there's no light and no safe way to cross.

 

I measured the distance and it's about 1200 feet from the lot to the EB station. About the same walking distance as going from the LMD/Seward stop to walk to the Devos Center. 

 

Unless they put a light at Lake Michigan Drive and the private drive that runs behind the retirement home, and then had the stations right across the street from each other. Not sure if MDOT can do that? 

[mpchicago]

Maybe this was already addressed, and I missed it, but why couldn't they just have the buses travel up to the lot and make a central stop there?  

[GRDadof3]

Maybe this was already addressed, and I missed it, but why couldn't they just have the buses travel up to the lot and make a central stop there?  

 

Efficiency. The whole purpose of a BRT is to reduce time over what a normal bus would do along that route. Adding twists and turns off the main corridor adds time,and more complication of traffic light priority. People walk miles to get to bus stops, they probably figure 1/5 of a mile is not that far. 

[Raildudes dad]

BRT is a ways out yet. Not going into the lot and back out EB is just PPP. WB is easy. (Pxss Poor Planning) Walking across Division to to wait at a BRT station is a bit different than walking from a commuter lot across LMD to an ordinary  bus stop. The 60th / Division lot is on the inbound side, not the outbound side.

[x99]

I don't know if anyone caught the most recent transit nonsense coming out of the City...

 

First up is the brilliant concept of shoving cars into a single lane, while marking two bike lanes along the edges. 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/05/2_travel_lanes_for_bikes_1_for.html  Not surprisingly, the mLive comments by and large are griping about how they were duped and money isn't being used to make roads better for cars.  Well, no kidding...

 

While the concept seems generally stupid at first, it is fair that this is the de facto situation on most streets.  Still, why it makes sense to spend any extra money marking the pavement is beyond me.  Most bike lanes are typically empty and underutilized already.  It was a cute idea to put bike lanes everywhere, but let's face it:  It hasn't been working very well (at least not in terms of promoting bikes as a major secondary mode of transit).

 

Next up is the somewhat-related news from the former Parking Department, which is now the "Mobility Department".

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/05/parking_pam_gets_new_nickname.html.  Don't even get me started on the idiocy on display here.  It wasn't in the article, but per the comments section Sundstrom apparently justified this in part by acknowledging that they lost 300 jobs because of a lack of parking (Advantage Marketing).  His solution, of course, is not to build more parking, but to promote "alternative modes" like bikes and buses for the low, low cost of only $250,000 per year.  Mind you, they are simply promoting stuff everyone already knows exists, and which has been soundly rejected by most downtown employees and employers. 

 

On a good day, there are maybe 4-5 bikes in any given parking ramp, tops.  Most of the cars in those ramps could not feasibly be replaced by bikes, period.  No parking, no employer growth. Deal with it.  Retail, without cars and cheap parking?  Forget it.  You can't have a vibrant downtown without people, and you can't have people in a Midwestern snowbelt city without places for them to park their cars.  Deal with it.   I am worried for the future of downtown with these reality-deniers in charge.

 

I am all for making the city open more open to alternative modes of transportation, and pursuing them as an added option.  Unfortunately, they are being promoted as the option at the expense of automobiles and building better ramps.  I don't think it's disputable that 1000 new parking spaces and an across the board reduction in rates to $95 a space monthly and $.50 per hour would do wonders for downtown.  Probably.  Certainly more than a bunch of bus routes and bike lanes. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by x99

[wingbert]

When it's 90 degrees and humid or 15 degrees and snowing, my first thought is to jump on my bicycle and ride to work.  

[GR_Urbanist]

That is for real??

 

What is with this obsession with getting people to take bikes and buses? They dont work for the majority of people. I used to use both, and I would never do it as a matter of daily life. Too much wasted time and headaches.

 

Te weird thing about the lanes is mind-numbingly dumb on a street like that. I want to laugh, but they are serious.

[GRDadof3]

That is for real??

 

What is with this obsession with getting people to take bikes and buses? They dont work for the majority of people. I used to use both, and I would never do it as a matter of daily life. Too much wasted time and headaches.

 

Te weird thing about the lanes is mind-numbingly dumb on a street like that. I want to laugh, but they are serious.

 

I caught this article in MiBiz yesterday about the 616 non-parking proposal for Creston.

 

http://mibiz.com/news/real-estate/item/22494-reporter-s-notebook-how-412-feet-nearly-doomed-one-mixed-use-development-in-gr

 

“I came here to talk to about vibrancy, city-building and critical mass, but I think we are here to talk about parking instead,” said Mark Miller, an architect and urban planner at Grand Rapids-based Nederveld Inc. and a consultant for 616 Development. - 

 

I know Mark used to post on here and get people pretty riled up, lol. But that is silliness. They're trying to fit vacuum cleaner attachments on to a vacuum cleaner that doesn't exist. And then when the immediate surrounding neighborhood's quality of life goes down because of the flood of cars onto the side streets, they can just say "oh well, you people should take the bus more."  

 

But I think it goes to a bigger trend that indeed the city is moving to. A friend of mine says the city has been taken over by a "cabal" of uber urbanites who don't really give a damn about anyone else's opinion but their pseudo PhD's in European City Design. 

 

So how does the city improve on these things (alternative modes of transportation for instance) without treating people who don't or can't go without a car like they're losers. 

[x99]

But I think it goes to a bigger trend that indeed the city is moving to. A friend of mine says the city has been taken over by a "cabal" of uber urbanites who don't really give a damn about anyone else's opinion but their pseudo PhD's in European City Design. 

 

So how does the city improve on these things (alternative modes of transportation for instance) without treating people who don't or can't go without a car like they're losers. 

 

That sounds like an accurate assessment, and I don't know how you fix it other than by getting fresh blood on the city commission and cleaning house.  What so many of the current "cabal" seem to have forgotten is that Grand Rapids needs to compete for home-buying, retail-store, and office dollars.  Volumes have been done for low-demand bikes and buses of late.  Nothing for high-demand cheap parking.  Like it or not, single passenger automobiles are a primary transit mode, and the discounted present value of these $250k worth of employees over 10 years could have paid for construction of 110 new parking ramp spaces.

[jas49503]

I may be in the minority's here but under really tired of people complaining about lack of parking. In 6 years of living and working in the city I can probably count on one hand the number of times that I haven't been able to find convienient parking. The only time I can't find a spot in about two minutes is when I am looking for free street parking downtown at night or on the weekend. The problem is that the same people who complain about parking are the same ones that are to lazy to walk a block and want to roll out if their SUV right into through the automatic door onto the elevator of wherever they are going. And then they'll complain about being 50lbs overweight.

This new street layout is rather pointless it seems as a method to encourage bicycle commuting. I would agree that just about anything is pointless in that regard. This layout would help improve connectivity throughout the city for recreational biking, which for me at least, would be beneficial. My only request would be that with the bike lanes and the center lane that it is wide enough to accomadate two cars, other wise it becomes a huge pain to pass someone going the opposite direction. Obviously this would only work on low traffic volume streets, which makes you wonder why bother in the first place.

[Quercus]

Uhhhh...Is this Urban Planet or Suburban Planet? So many of you get excited about the population growth and all the new developments around town, then you turn around and slam the City for trying new things. Have you ever stopped to wonder if GR might be one of the few major Midwestern cities reversing negative trends because of decisions you disagree with? Take a visit to any of the Midwestern municipalities that continue to cater exclusively to cars and let me know how they're doing.
 

First up is the brilliant concept of shoving cars into a single lane, while marking two bike lanes along the edges.

This is a bit different! Remember when the City installed all of those traffic circles! What a disaster /sarcasm.

The City will not be "shoving cars into a single lane" like you say, x99. 14-16 feet can accommodate two vehicles, though it will feel tight and will have the effect of slowing people down. Jefferson Ave is a residential street and a popular north-south bicycling corridor. I see this increasing safety and redirecting speed demons to major roads. But let's say it's a complete disaster. The City will have to repaint a road. Boo hoo.

 

Still, why it makes sense to spend any extra money marking the pavement is beyond me.  Most bike lanes are typically empty and underutilized already.  It was a cute idea to put bike lanes everywhere, but let's face it:  It hasn't been working very well (at least not in terms of promoting bikes as a major secondary mode of transit).

 

I love you how demand instantaneous results from public investments and you don't have any figures to back up what you're saying. Here are some numbers for your reading pleasure, though I suspect bicycle lanes in GR will be a failure in your mind until we have more bicyclists than Amsterdam. Additionally, projects like the Burton Street road diet weren't done exclusively for bicyclists. More often than not a bike lane is part of a larger safety and traffic flow improvement project (Burton Street is a good example).

 

Next up is the somewhat-related news from the former Parking Department, which is now the "Mobility Department"....Sundstrom apparently justified this in part by acknowledging that they lost 300 jobs because of a lack of parking (Advantage Marketing).  His solution, of course, is not to build more parking, but to promote "alternative modes" like bikes and buses for the low, low cost of only $250,000 per year.  Mind you, they are simply promoting stuff everyone already knows exists, and which has been soundly rejected by most downtown employees and employers...No parking, no employer growth. Deal with it.

I am all for making the city open more open to alternative modes of transportation, and pursuing them as an added option.  Unfortunately, they are being promoted as the option at the expense of automobiles and building better ramps.  I don't think it's disputable that 1000 new parking spaces and an across the board reduction in rates to $95 a space monthly and $.50 per hour would do wonders for downtown.  Probably.  Certainly more than a bunch of bus routes and bike lanes. 

 

There are going to be some suburban-minded companies used to a vacant downtown with a massive supply of parking. Some of them will leave downtown. Call it growing pains. There will also be companies excited by the fact that Grand Rapids once again has a city center worth calling a downtown and they will move there. The City built a couple of parking garages in the 1990's and they had to wait how long for them to even come close to filling up regularly? 20 years? Not exactly the kind of instantaneous result you demand from public investments. I don't think it's the City's job to provide a parking space for each and every person thinking about taking a trip downtown in a single-occupancy vehicle. It's the City's job to make sure there are multiple options for every citizen regardless of age, handicap, or class. $250,000 is chump change for alternative modes. If you can build a 1,000 space parking garage for that kind of money it's time for you to start a construction company!

I fail to see how extremely modest investments in alternative modes of travel are making downtown GR inaccessible to cars.

 

...you can't have people in a Midwestern snowbelt city without places for them to park their cars.

 

When it's 90 degrees and humid or 15 degrees and snowing, my first thought is to jump on my bicycle and ride to work.  

 

 

People choose to commute without a car in all sorts of harsh environments. Austin gets hot. Minneapolis is frigid. They're both regularly noted for their continued investments in alternative modes of transit.

Weather impacts decisions...so what? Both cities are growing like crazy as well, by the way. I don't think it's a coincidence that they cater to non-motorists.

[Quercus]

What is with this obsession with getting people to take bikes and buses? They dont work for the majority of people. I used to use both, and I would never do it as a matter of daily life. Too much wasted time and headaches.

 

Maybe it felt like wasted time and a headache because the system was not very good back then. The "obsession," if that's really an appropriate word, is probably because the City recognizes how lopsided and expensive decades of automobile-centric investments have been.

 

 

A friend of mine says the city has been taken over by a "cabal" of uber urbanites who don't really give a damn about anyone else's opinion but their pseudo PhD's in European City Design.

 

If your doctor recommends a certain course of action, do you consider it a simple opinion? There is research and science behind urban planning just as there is in medicine. Sure, there are different courses of action, but many of the decisions the City is making are backed by solid research. Maybe the City and media have a problem expressing the rationale behind these plans.

 

 

So how does the city improve on these things (alternative modes of transportation for instance) without treating people who don't or can't go without a car like they're losers. 

 

Automobile drivers feel like losers now? I guess there will always be a group of people who can't imagine someone else living without a car. Maybe the City should encourage such people to go for a spin and see how ridiculously overbuilt the City's automobile infrastructure is.

[GRDadof3]

Uhhhh...Is this Urban Planet or Suburban Planet? So many of you get excited about the population growth and all the new developments around town, then you turn around and slam the City for trying new things. Have you ever stopped to wonder if GR might be one of the few major Midwestern cities reversing negative trends because of decisions you disagree with? Take a visit to any of the Midwestern municipalities that continue to cater exclusively to cars and let me know how they're doing.

 

 

This is a bit different! Remember when the City installed all of those traffic circles! What a disaster /sarcasm.

The City will not be "shoving cars into a single lane" like you say, x99. 14-16 feet can accommodate two vehicles, though it will feel tight and will have the effect of slowing people down. Jefferson Ave is a residential street and a popular north-south bicycling corridor. I see this increasing safety and redirecting speed demons to major roads. But let's say it's a complete disaster. The City will have to repaint a road. Boo hoo.

 

 

I love you how demand instantaneous results from public investments and you don't have any figures to back up what you're saying. Here are some numbers for your reading pleasure, though I suspect bicycle lanes in GR will be a failure in your mind until we have more bicyclists than Amsterdam. Additionally, projects like the Burton Street road diet weren't done exclusively for bicyclists. More often than not a bike lane is part of a larger safety and traffic flow improvement project (Burton Street is a good example).

 

 

 

There are going to be some suburban-minded companies used to a vacant downtown with a massive supply of parking. Some of them will leave downtown. Call it growing pains. There will also be companies excited by the fact that Grand Rapids once again has a city center worth calling a downtown and they will move there. The City built a couple of parking garages in the 1990's and they had to wait how long for them to even come close to filling up regularly? 20 years? Not exactly the kind of instantaneous result you demand from public investments. I don't think it's the City's job to provide a parking space for each and every person thinking about taking a trip downtown in a single-occupancy vehicle. It's the City's job to make sure there are multiple options for every citizen regardless of age, handicap, or class. $250,000 is chump change for alternative modes. If you can build a 1,000 space parking garage for that kind of money it's time for you to start a construction company!

I fail to see how extremely modest investments in alternative modes of travel are making downtown GR inaccessible to cars.

 

 

 

 

People choose to commute without a car in all sorts of harsh environments. Austin gets hot. Minneapolis is frigid. They're both regularly noted for their continued investments in alternative modes of transit.

Weather impacts decisions...so what? Both cities are growing like crazy as well, by the way. I don't think it's a coincidence that they cater to non-motorists.

 

They're growing because they have jobs, lots of them. Not because they have bike lanes (that should be a "duh" statement). Even in the most robust bicycle friendly city in America, Portland (a Platinum level community for bike friendliness), only 6% of commuters use bicycles. Minneapolis, a "gold" level bicycle friendly community, 4.1% of the population bicycle commutes. But just because they are making huge investments in bike infrastructure does not mean it is paying off. 4.1%....6.0%?

 

That means that 94% of commuters use a different mode. 12% of Portlanders use transit, 15% of Minneapolitans use transit. 

[GRDadof3]

Maybe it felt like wasted time and a headache because the system was not very good back then. The "obsession," if that's really an appropriate word, is probably because the City recognizes how lopsided and expensive decades of automobile-centric investments have been.

 

 

 

 

If your doctor recommends a certain course of action, do you consider it a simple opinion? There is research and science behind urban planning just as there is in medicine. Sure, there are different courses of action, but many of the decisions the City is making are backed by solid research. Maybe the City and media have a problem expressing the rationale behind these plans.

 

 

 

 

Automobile drivers feel like losers now? I guess there will always be a group of people who can't imagine someone else living without a car. Maybe the City should encourage such people to go for a spin and see how ridiculously overbuilt the City's automobile infrastructure is.

 

It's not that the city is asking people to accept other people living without a car, they're asking everyone to live without a car. And if you don't, you're looked down upon (the urban snobbery is beginning to run deep in this town). If you think I'm wrong, look at comments on Mlive and on the Salon from the anti-car crowd. 

 

A lot of the urban planning "science" is not the same as the human body. And yes, it's quite common for people to seek a second and third opinion when a doctor recommends a drastic procedure, for good reason. Some doctors base their experimentation on the latest article they read in some medical journal, without ever validating the procedure. Same with urban planners. If it works in Copenhagen, why can't it work here? 

 

If the city is indeed relying on "science," then let's see it. It's a public body, I'd like to see this science put in the spotlight. I'm going to go out on a limb, and based on my experience working with the urban science slingers, the evidence is weak at best. 

[jas49503]

It's not that the city is asking people to accept other people living without a car, they're asking everyone to live without a car.

I don't see it. This town is about as easy as it gets when it comes to driving and owning a car. Certainly easier than all the suburbs that I've lived in ( which are numerous) when you take into account the costs/time of

Commuting/traffic. I drive just about every day and live my day-to-day life inside the city. I can tell you first hand that there is nothin to complain about. We're not even close to being able to complain.

It seems to me that they are just adding some other options to make it somewhat more appealing to try another mode of transportation. I don't see any evidence of people being discouraged from owning/operating a car.

[Quercus]

 

They're growing because they have jobs, lots of them. Not because they have bike lanes (that should be a "duh" statement). Even in the most robust bicycle friendly city in America, Portland (a Platinum level community for bike friendliness), only 6% of commuters use bicycles. Minneapolis, a "gold" level bicycle friendly community, 4.1% of the population bicycle commutes. But just because they are making huge investments in bike infrastructure does not mean it is paying off. 4.1%....6.0%?

 

That means that 94% of commuters use a different mode. 12% of Portlanders use transit, 15% of Minneapolitans use transit. 

 

They have jobs in large part because they are desirable places to live and employers choose to locate there. They are desirable places to live, in part, because they have diverse, robust transportation options. I would say "duh," but I like to think of Urban Planet as a classier establishment than the comments section of MLive.

So "only" 6% of commuters bike. What was that number before the investments that lead to the designation as a Platinum level bicycle-friendly city? How much did it cost? Bike infrastructure is dirt cheap upfront and it can pay dividends in the long run.

I'll take your word for it on the Portland and Minneapolis commuter numbers. I have a feeling those are the numbers for daily commuters. Typically the share of bicycle and transit commuters is higher when you count part-time users. Even so, I don't think the bike and transit commuters should be discounted because they represent a minority. If anything, the affordability of bicycle infrastructure calls for matching investments (i.e. 6% of Portland's transportation should go to bikes).

 

 

It's not that the city is asking people to accept other people living without a car, they're asking everyone to live without a car. And if you don't, you're looked down upon (the urban snobbery is beginning to run deep in this town). If you think I'm wrong, look at comments on Mlive and on the Salon from the anti-car crowd. 

 

A lot of the urban planning "science" is not the same as the human body. And yes, it's quite common for people to seek a second and third opinion when a doctor recommends a drastic procedure, for good reason. Some doctors base their experimentation on the latest article they read in some medical journal, without ever validating the procedure. Same with urban planners. If it works in Copenhagen, why can't it work here? 

 

If the city is indeed relying on "science," then let's see it. It's a public body, I'd like to see this science put in the spotlight. I'm going to go out on a limb, and based on my experience working with the urban science slingers, the evidence is weak at best. 

 

I just don't see how people are interpreting this all as anti-car. It's not like GR is razing streets, putting up barricades, or requiring expensive neighborhood parking permits. I find it to be incredibly easy to own and operate a motor vehicle in GR. Again, maybe my exposure to media is different and the City needs to work on its outreach a bit. But this all strikes me as an overreaction.

Keeping the medical analogy going, I don't see any of these recent decisions as a "drastic procedure."

Edited May 29, 2015 by Quercus

[GRDadof3]

 

 

 

 

They have jobs in large part because they are desirable places to live and employers choose to locate there. They are desirable places to live, in part, because they have diverse, robust transportation options. I would say "duh," but I like to think of Urban Planet as a classier establishment than the comments section of MLive.

So "only" 6% of commuters bike. What was that number before the investments that lead to the designation as a Platinum level bicycle-friendly city? How much did it cost? Bike infrastructure is dirt cheap upfront and it can pay dividends in the long run.

I'll take your word for it on the Portland and Minneapolis commuter numbers. I have a feeling those are the numbers for daily commuters. Typically the share of bicycle and transit commuters is higher when you count part-time users. Even so, I don't think the bike and transit commuters should be discounted because they represent a minority. If anything, the affordability of bicycle infrastructure calls for matching investments (i.e. 6% of Portland's transportation should go to bikes).

 

 

 

I just don't see how people are interpreting this all as anti-car. It's not like GR is razing streets, putting up barricades, or requiring expensive neighborhood parking permits. I find it to be incredibly easy to own and operate a motor vehicle in GR. Again, maybe my exposure to media is different and the City needs to work on its outreach a bit. But this all strikes me as an overreaction.

Keeping the medical analogy going, I don't see any of these recent decisions as a "drastic procedure."

 

 

The city is looking at neighborhood parking permits, and they are hoisting the burden of parking onto the neighborhoods around the business districts, instead of the developers building the projects who are creating the parking demand. 

 

Portland and Minneapolis are the EXTREME examples. Less than 1% of GR commuters bike to work, and about 5% take transit. But developers are asking for waivers for ALL of their parking requirements, and have hired urban planning consultants l to then denigrate the 95% of people who drive a car that they're wrong in complaining that their driveways and quiet streets are going to be chocked full of drunkards and haphazard parkers blocking their driveways. "But there's a Silver Line and bike lanes so what are neighbors complaining about?" "Millennials are living without cars." (They forget to add that 95% of millennials still have cars). 

 

What started off as some pretty decent ideas to improve mobility in Grand Rapids in neighborhood discussions and on sites like UrbanPlanet, has swung too far in the wrong direction, with no one standing up and saying the emperor has no clothes (most of the neighborhood association leaders do not have urban planning or scientific degrees to question the decisions being made). 

[jas49503]

I don't think parking in neighborhoods is do bad. I grew up partially in Chicago and Evanston where we parked on the street in a neighborhood every day along with everyone else. It didn't make our neighborhood dangerous or undesirable or generally have any effect on it. In fact the neighborhood has been completely revitalized and is almost Unrecognizable compared to when I lived there so it obviously didn't hurt property valueless or redevelopment potential.

People park in front of my house everyday now. It's not a big deal where I live, they stay on the street and out of my yard. If I did t want people to park in front of my house I wouldn't have moved to a place with in street parking. By not utilizing the neighborhood parking spaces you are letting a huge parking resource go to waste.

[Veloise]

...This new street layout is rather pointless it seems as a method to encourage bicycle commuting. I would agree that just about anything is pointless in that regard. This layout would help improve connectivity throughout the city for recreational biking, which for me at least, would be beneficial. My only request would be that with the bike lanes and the center lane that it is wide enough to accomadate two cars, other wise it becomes a huge pain to pass someone going the opposite direction. Obviously this would only work on low traffic volume streets, which makes you wonder why bother in the first place.

My gut reaction to this design: it takes a low speed, low volume, straight, flat street -- already optimal for bicycle use -- and dumbs it down. This helps spread the mentality of "I need a bike lane in order to be able to ride anywhere." I'd prefer to see bicyclist and driver education implemented so that we can all use the thoroughfares that we already have.

[arcturus]

Knew something like this was going to happen when the 'vital streets' tax passed with so few votes.   The proposed list of committee members includes a bike coalition and liberal environmental appointee.  Assuming there's been little change this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/07/16_people_tapped_for_vital_str.html 

[x99]

What started off as some pretty decent ideas to improve mobility in Grand Rapids in neighborhood discussions and on sites like UrbanPlanet, has swung too far in the wrong direction, with no one standing up and saying the emperor has no clothes (most of the neighborhood association leaders do not have urban planning or scientific degrees to question the decisions being made). 

 

The idea went from "Let's give people a viable option" to "Now that we spent cash on bike lanes and are all infatuated with them, we will get you out of those g@dd@*n cars by any means necessary."  Even if that isn't actually the mentality, that seems to be the perception among the general public.  From a marketing perspective, that's horrible!  Virtually all of the extant research indicates that for a city of our size to have any sort of viable retail, it is a "must have" that you are perceived as having parking that is cheap and accessible.   The constant pounding on the "parking is too cheap" and "we love bikes, hate cars" drums makes me very nervous.  To me, retail and getting a critical mass of people downtown takes prevalence over all else. 

 

In that vein, it is hilarious that we will subsidize mass transit and dedicate outsize portion of primary roadways to bikes, but will not subsidize parking costs (because parking is "evil" and "ruins" a downtown, of course...)  I don't think the urbanist consensus was ever that parking ramps downtown are necessarily bad, or that expensive parking is good, or that cars downtown are bad.  Rather, the practical message is that: 1) Surface parking is horrible, 2) Ramps without ground-floor uses are horrible, 3) Plentiful and cheap parking ramps are a must-have, and 4) Alternative modes of transit are desirable, but not at the expense of primary modes. 

 

I would like to think of downtown as the biggest and best multi-use residential, retail, and office environment in the area.  I simply cannot imagine trying to pull that off without catering to how people want to get here first and foremost. 

Edited May 29, 2015 by x99

[gvsusean]

The idea went from "Let's give people a viable option" to "Now that we spent cash on bike lanes and are all infatuated with them, we will get you out of those g@dd@*n cars by any means necessary."  Even if that isn't actually the mentality, that seems to be the perception among the general public.  From a marketing perspective, that's horrible!  Virtually all of the extant research indicates that for a city of our size to have any sort of viable retail, it is a "must have" that you are perceived as having parking that is cheap and accessible.   The constant pounding on the "parking is too cheap" and "we love bikes, hate cars" drums makes me very nervous.  To me, retail and getting a critical mass of people downtown takes prevalence over all else. 

 

In that vein, it is hilarious that we will subsidize mass transit and dedicate outsize portion of primary roadways to bikes, but will not subsidize parking costs (because parking is "evil" and "ruins" a downtown, of course...)  I don't think the urbanist consensus was ever that parking ramps downtown are necessarily bad, or that expensive parking is good, or that cars downtown are bad.  Rather, the practical message is that: 1) Surface parking is horrible, 2) Ramps without ground-floor uses are horrible, 3) Plentiful and cheap parking ramps are a must-have, and 4) Alternative modes of transit are desirable, but not at the expense of primary modes. 

 

I would like to think of downtown as the biggest and best multi-use residential, retail, and office environment in the area.  I simply cannot imagine trying to pull that off without catering to how people want to get here first and foremost. 

The problem, as I see it, is that parking is already plentiful and cheap. However, unless it is in the same building and pretty much free, we will still hear people complaining about the lack of cheap parking... 

[GRDadof3]

The problem, as I see it, is that parking is already plentiful and cheap. However, unless it is in the same building and pretty much free, we will still hear people complaining about the lack of cheap parking... 

 

The parking "challenge" is way more complicated than that. Even for residential units it matters if it's apartments or condos. If you're talking retail, it's different if it's a restaurant/bar vs another type of retailer. Same with work situations, it depends. 

 

My issue is that it seems like just because there's now the Silver Line, then the ENTIRE parking situation in the ENTIRE metro area has changed. It would be like if you built a light rail line to downtown on one corridor, then the mantra would be that EVERYONE should just ride the light rail line and live without cars. Even though you might live 10 miles from any light rail station. Either that or use one of the new bike lanes. That's how ludicrous the Mobility department has become. 

 

You build the mobility infrastructure and then push to get 10% to use it (that's a pretty hefty goal). But you still have 90% of the rest of the population that you can't ignore, alienate or denigrate. 

 

Hope that clears it up. 

[jas49503]

I don't see it like that.  developers are trying to get away from providing parking and the city seems to be ok with that, but until there is a actual shortage of parking, I don't see what the problem.  While "letting the market decide" isn't always the best way to get things done, in this instance I would allow it.  a developer isn't going to have a very marketable property if parking isn't taken into consideration.  Existing properties, relying on other parking solutions will have the lack of parking built into their pricing.  Additionally, there are plenty of places to build parking garages if they are needed.  Sure it will cost money for parking downtown but how much is a much shorter commute and less traffic hassles worth to you.  I would say a lot.