Parking problem downtown - too much of it? Not enough?

[joeDowntown]

I actually think the future will be transportation as a service. Whether you pay for it (like your cell phone) or pool a fleet of vehicles. BUT, I think that is pretty far away. Even if the infrastructure were in place for fully autonomous vehicles TODAY, it would be a good 15-20 years before people change, and the supply of manual driven vehicles work their way out of the market. Plus, it's going to be a big break for supremacy between tech and car manufacturers.

Again, I think it'll happen eventually, but it shouldn't change what we need today, tomorrow, or in the next 20 years. 

Joe

[organsnyder]

It absolutely doesn't change our current needs. And I agree that it's probably not as close as some believe—in the software development field, a common adage is that the last 10% of the work takes 90% of the time. However, if I were a lender (the reason I brought this up initially), I wouldn't be funding any private parking development, in case the optimistic estimates turn out to be true.

[GRDadof3]

5 minutes ago, organsnyder said:

It absolutely doesn't change our current needs. And I agree that it's probably not as close as some believe—in the software development field, a common adage is that the last 10% of the work takes 90% of the time. However, if I were a lender (the reason I brought this up initially), I wouldn't be funding any private parking development, in case the optimistic estimates turn out to be true.

Really? You're a commercial lender at Macatawa Bank (hypothetically) and you wouldn't finance a parking facility because of a cars that aren't even really offered at any local dealerships yet? 

[GRDadof3]

9 hours ago, temporary.name said:

Even with the rate hike, money is still cheap. I agree with what you're getting at: majority of lenders would lend to a qualified developer looking to build a parking garage. After all, even if teleportation becomes the norm tomorrow, that developer is still on the hook for the funds borrowed. 

I see autonomous vehicles lasting a day before the insurance companies make it so cost prohibitive to have your car drive itself around that no one will do it, and any kind of uber-esque business model unprofitable. I also wouldn't be surprised to see individual municipalities put heavy restrictions on them. One day of cars driving around with no drivers and everyone over 55 is going to be calling his or her legislators to put an end to it. Or one kid hit by a driverless car and it's all over Sally. The parents will sue the owner of the car, the dealership, the automaker, and everyone else they can get their hands on.

Just sayin.

 

[organsnyder]

27 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I see autonomous vehicles lasting a day before the insurance companies make it so cost prohibitive to have your car drive itself around that no one will do it, and any kind of uber-esque business model unprofitable. I also wouldn't be surprised to see individual municipalities put heavy restrictions on them. One day of cars driving around with no drivers and everyone over 55 is going to be calling his or her legislators to put an end to it. Or one kid hit by a driverless car and it's all over Sally. The parents will sue the owner of the car, the dealership, the automaker, and everyone else they can get their hands on.

The emotional reaction (especially after the first tragedy grabs headlines) will definitely be a hurdle. However, the lower accidents-per-mile figure of autonomous vehicles will win out—especially in the insurance industry (do you really expect actuaries to ignore the data!?!).

10 hours ago, temporary.name said:

After all, even if teleportation becomes the norm tomorrow, that developer is still on the hook for the funds borrowed. 

Good point. Let's look at it from the developer's standpoint: If I was looking to develop a parcel of land, why would I dedicate it to parking that I'd simply be renting out for public use? A typical parking space is at least 160 sqft. Add in the driving lanes, etc., and 200 sqft is probably more accurate (likely still quite a bit low). I'm not sure how much people are willing to pay to park downtown, but my hunch is that $400/month is probably the upper limit today. What developer would focus on projects that could only be leased out for $2/sqft? Of course, developers need to include parking to make office and residential projects feasible, but there simply isn't an economic incentive for any private developer to build public parking facilities.

[GRDadof3]

6 minutes ago, organsnyder said:

The emotional reaction (especially after the first tragedy grabs headlines) will definitely be a hurdle. However, the lower accidents-per-mile figure of autonomous vehicles will win out—especially in the insurance industry (do you really expect actuaries to ignore the data!?!).

Good point. Let's look at it from the developer's standpoint: If I was looking to develop a parcel of land, why would I dedicate it to parking that I'd simply be renting out for public use? A typical parking space is at least 160 sqft. Add in the driving lanes, etc., and 200 sqft is probably more accurate (likely still quite a bit low). I'm not sure how much people are willing to pay to park downtown, but my hunch is that $400/month is probably the upper limit today. What developer would focus on projects that could only be leased out for $2/sqft? Of course, developers need to include parking to make office and residential projects feasible, but there simply isn't an economic incentive for any private developer to build public parking facilities.

I know at least one of the largest dealerships in the area is not crazy about offering self-driving cars. They can actually get some on the lot today but haven't yet (Ford offers a driver assist that's pretty much a self-driving car).

When you're talking about liability, actuaries tend to hedge on the high side. Just ask any doctor how much malpractice insurance is today. 

[organsnyder]

37 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

When you're talking about liability, actuaries tend to hedge on the high side. Just ask any doctor how much malpractice insurance is today. 

Wouldn't they also be doing this for human drivers?

[Kinkema]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

I see autonomous vehicles lasting a day before the insurance companies make it so cost prohibitive to have your car drive itself around that no one will do it, and any kind of uber-esque business model unprofitable.

Insurance rates will be lower with driver less vehicles, insurers will see it as a risk if you are able / do drive your own vehicle.

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, organsnyder said:

Wouldn't they also be doing this for human drivers?

Speaking from personal experience, I have a new car with over a dozen proximity sensors on it, one step below driver assist. In heavy snowfalls, those things light up like Christmas trees because they mistake the snow for other objects. So what happens when the car is driving itself and tries to correct itself on snowy roads? I don't know but I wouldn't want to find out. It's jarring enough just having all the little sirens go off and the dash screen light up. I can think of a lot of things that can go wrong in a car and not cause a chain reaction multi-car accident, but just one sensor going out on the left front corner panel and you could have a catastrophe.

They do price high for high risk human drivers, ie teenagers. I have one who drives and another on the way to driving. It's $3000 a year to insure the one on a car with just PLPD. Once word gets out that driver assist vehicles are $5000/year or higher to insure, because there's not enough data to show that they're safer (questionable), who's going to buy them? 

I'm done. I'd say in 20 years they'll be common enough to change business plans. The average age of all of the cars on the road right now is 9 years, so you need to move all of those cars off the road first. 

 

[GRDadof3]

52 minutes ago, temporary.name said:

Heated sensors much like you see today with heated side mirrors. But the biggest fail safes against bad weather are learned roads (rely on data acquired during a trip down the same road a day before or month before, or years before; the more time you drive down a road the better the system knows it) and communication with other vehicles. Or, a simple pull over and deactivate the system and have the driver to take over. 

Its definitely an issue but not an unsolvable one. 

The same people who bought / buy hybrids, EVs, and other cars that command a premium. 

1. Insurance companies already insure autonomous vehicles.

2. People have already been hit by driverless cars. 

3. This all comes with the territory of trying new technologies. 

4. Cars had their "firsts" also; http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/World's_First_Automobile_Accident?rec=2596 And society managed to figure it all out.

You don't understand, people in this thread and others are making the claim that autonomous vehicles are going to become such the norm that it will change (or should change) the way businesses do business. Today, now. And that you won't need parking ramps because your car can drop you off and drive around town for 8 hours while you're working? Or drive home and then come back and get you later? 

Your example of hybrids and EV's make my point beautifully. What percentage of cars on the road are hybrids and EV's? They've been out for what, 10 years now? The only thing that's changed is that some parking lots have car charging stations, like two or three of them.

I feel like I smoked some really bad blunt while reading some of this, like in college, lol. 

[x99]

9 hours ago, organsnyder said:

I'm not sure how much people are willing to pay to park downtown, but my hunch is that $400/month is probably the upper limit today. What developer would focus on projects that could only be leased out for $2/sqft? Of course, developers need to include parking to make office and residential projects feasible, but there simply isn't an economic incentive for any private developer to build public parking facilities.

At $400 a month, all you would see anyone build would be parking ramps! Problem is, you would also be able to shoot a missile into downtown and not hit anyone at that sort of bonkers price.  Just looking at past history,  why the heck did Ellis ever build that giant parking ramp if there isn't money to be made?  The cost of constructing a ramp can run about $18,000 per space (with a lot of slop in either direction).  With just monthly parking at an overall income of $200 per space (which is not unrealistic since monthly passes are typically overbooked) the rate of return can easily exceed 6%, more than justifying the investment before accounting for daily parking.  The problem is the government can come in and ruin you because it owns boatloads of parking on which it does not have to run a profit.   Although, for the record, the government is currently turning an extremely tidy profit.  The only reason more ramps are not being built is because of bad politics and pie-in-the-sky "mobility" policies  which are currently in fashion.

[TheSutterKing]

The city decides not to ban parking lots downtown.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/04/facing_pressure_grand_rapids_d.html#incart_2box_news_grand-rapids

[scottythe1nonly]

2 hours ago, TheSutterKing said:

The city decides not to ban parking lots downtown.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/04/facing_pressure_grand_rapids_d.html#incart_2box_news_grand-rapids

Wouldn't this proposal simply have been a zoning change for NEW surface lots? it wouldn't have closed existing lots. What developer in their right mind downtown would build a new surface lot?  I don't think this will change much.  In fact, there are a number of developments downtown coming up that will eliminate existing surface lots.  Like the Loeks Theater development, the 40 story tower, etc. Surface lots will continue to disappear as economics makes development of empty property worthwhile. 

 

[GRDadof3]

On 4/4/2017 at 3:49 PM, scottythe1nonly said:

Wouldn't this proposal simply have been a zoning change for NEW surface lots? it wouldn't have closed existing lots. What developer in their right mind downtown would build a new surface lot?  I don't think this will change much.  In fact, there are a number of developments downtown coming up that will eliminate existing surface lots.  Like the Loeks Theater development, the 40 story tower, etc. Surface lots will continue to disappear as economics makes development of empty property worthwhile. 

 

The GR Forward plan was recommending that NO surface lots be built anywhere downtown, by anyone, city or otherwise. Due to pressure from business leaders downtown, they've reversed that and they are allowed by a special land use and need to be approved, like it was before. The reason being that there are no new ramps planned and they take years to build. 

[x99]

On 4/8/2017 at 6:52 AM, GRDadof3 said:

The GR Forward plan was recommending that NO surface lots be built anywhere downtown, by anyone, city or otherwise. Due to pressure from business leaders downtown, they've reversed that and they are allowed by a special land use and need to be approved, like it was before. The reason being that there are no new ramps planned and they take years to build. 

Some of the problem was expanding the definition of what any sane person thinks of as "downtown".  In the actual downtown, this is all a moot point.  There is pretty much nowhere to put a surface lot where there isn't one already.  

[GRDadof3]

On 4/8/2017 at 6:52 AM, GRDadof3 said:

The GR Forward plan was recommending that NO surface lots be built anywhere downtown, by anyone, city or otherwise. Due to pressure from business leaders downtown, they've reversed that and they are allowed by a special land use and need to be approved, like it was before. The reason being that there are no new ramps planned and they take years to build. 

In the article, it talked about the new lot by the downtown market not being true to the spirit of the "gr forward" plan. 

GVSU is also planning to build one on the West Side. And MSU is looking to build one at Michigan and College. There are plenty in the works. 

[x99]

17 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

GVSU is also planning to build one on the West Side. And MSU is looking to build one at Michigan and College. There are plenty in the works. 

Indeed.  But none of those places are actually "downtown" in the first place.  The whole thing struck me as little more than another stab by a few cranks to make sure using a personal vehicle would be increasingly difficult.  For once, they lost and business won.  It's funny how much the city leadership has shifted from pushing economic development to pushing social projects over the last 10 years.  Their arrogance concerns me.

[GRDadof3]

11 minutes ago, x99 said:

Indeed.  But none of those places are actually "downtown" in the first place.  The whole thing struck me as little more than another stab by a few cranks to make sure using a personal vehicle would be increasingly difficult.  For once, they lost and business won.  It's funny how much the city leadership has shifted from pushing economic development to pushing social projects over the last 10 years.  Their arrogance concerns me.

Most of us here don't like to see surface parking lots, but to completely prohibit them, even for short term parking solutions, is bad management in my opinion. Density will come, has come and is coming. It's not like the only thing being proposed is surface parking lots and nothing else. 

[GRDadof3]

MobileGR (previously named parking commission) now has their agenda packets on the city's main calendar. They're looking to fill 6 open seats on the 13 seat commission. I think a few people on here would be good for this. 

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2599&Inline=True

[Sparty97]

Management Business Solutions moves out of downtown partly due to parking.
http://www.grbj.com/articles/88132-staffing-firm-moves-out-of-downtown

Moving

Floriza Genautis, MBS owner and founder, estimated the former space was about 1,200 square feet.

The firm’s eight employees and two interns didn’t have enough desk space, and the firm’s planning to grow its staff. Genautis also said the lack of access to affordable and convenient parking was a factor in the decision to move.

“As we increase employees and start hiring…we pay for parking for everyone,” Genautis said.

“It’s gotten a little harder for employees to go to DASH lots, especially in the winter time. It was making it harder to attract talent. It was a small portion of the decision but not entirely.”

She said the decision to leave downtown was not easy.

“We love Grand Rapids, and we wanted to stay there, but there was a shortage of properties available to purchase,” Genautis said. “We looked at downtown, near downtown....I love downtown and being able to be there and be walking distance to clients, festivals, events, but there wasn’t anything available. We needed parking and space.”

[wingbert]

30 minutes ago, Sparty97 said:

Management Business Solutions moves out of downtown partly due to parking.
http://www.grbj.com/articles/88132-staffing-firm-moves-out-of-downtown

Moving

Floriza Genautis, MBS owner and founder, estimated the former space was about 1,200 square feet.

The firm’s eight employees and two interns didn’t have enough desk space, and the firm’s planning to grow its staff. Genautis also said the lack of access to affordable and convenient parking was a factor in the decision to move.

“As we increase employees and start hiring…we pay for parking for everyone,” Genautis said.

“It’s gotten a little harder for employees to go to DASH lots, especially in the winter time. It was making it harder to attract talent. It was a small portion of the decision but not entirely.”

She said the decision to leave downtown was not easy.

“We love Grand Rapids, and we wanted to stay there, but there was a shortage of properties available to purchase,” Genautis said. “We looked at downtown, near downtown....I love downtown and being able to be there and be walking distance to clients, festivals, events, but there wasn’t anything available. We needed parking and space.”

Hey look!  An opportunity to convert some former office space to LIHTC housing! 

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, wingbert said:

Hey look!  An opportunity to convert some former office space to LIHTC housing! 

We don't need your stinkin workers and their city income tax. We want more low income households with very little disposable income to drive more retail out. And bikes!

[Morris]

After walking around downtown at Festival, what needs to happen, is to convert Ellis's surface lots into ramps......That would solve all of downtown"s parking woes. 

[scottythe1nonly]

On 6/2/2017 at 3:18 PM, Sparty97 said:

Management Business Solutions moves out of downtown partly due to parking.
http://www.grbj.com/articles/88132-staffing-firm-moves-out-of-downtown

Moving

Floriza Genautis, MBS owner and founder, estimated the former space was about 1,200 square feet.

The firm’s eight employees and two interns didn’t have enough desk space, and the firm’s planning to grow its staff. Genautis also said the lack of access to affordable and convenient parking was a factor in the decision to move.

“As we increase employees and start hiring…we pay for parking for everyone,” Genautis said.

“It’s gotten a little harder for employees to go to DASH lots, especially in the winter time. It was making it harder to attract talent. It was a small portion of the decision but not entirely.”

She said the decision to leave downtown was not easy.

“We love Grand Rapids, and we wanted to stay there, but there was a shortage of properties available to purchase,” Genautis said. “We looked at downtown, near downtown....I love downtown and being able to be there and be walking distance to clients, festivals, events, but there wasn’t anything available. We needed parking and space.”

Parking "was a factor."  But it seems obvious from this that they simply had outgrown their space and needed something larger.  It was that and not parking which led to the relocation.  Everything is "a factor" in running a business.  But it doesn't appear that parking drove them out of downtown.  

[GRLaker]

1 minute ago, scottythe1nonly said:

Parking "was a factor."  But it seems obvious from this that they simply had outgrown their space and needed something larger.  It was that and not parking which led to the relocation.  Everything is "a factor" in running a business.  But it doesn't appear that parking drove them out of downtown.  

Space may have driven them out of their office, but parking may have been the factor that drove them out of downtown entirely.

On 6/4/2017 at 4:34 AM, Morris said:

After walking around downtown at Festival, what needs to happen, is to convert Ellis's surface lots into ramps......That would solve all of downtown"s parking woes. 

Agreed. And with a monopoly on the parking biz, there's no reason why they couldn't afford to do it.