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

[GRDadof3]

54 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

I hope that was a joke? 

Joe

I think ctpgr was being sarcastic. 

 

[ctpgr34]

12 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I hope that was a joke? 

Joe

Yes, yes it was

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, ctpgr34 said:

Yes, yes it was

I wasn't implying that mpchicago should stop posting his thoughts. Just like he wasn't implying that I'm a grandma.

The situation would be like Verizon saying "no more data available folks" and you'll have to just have to get your data from somewhere else, or use your landlines again, fax machines, two cans and a string, you really should get outside more and not be on your phones so much anyway. That's what the city has been telling the downtown business community for several years now and it has come to a head. And on top of that, let developers build projects that don't include any parking, or not nearly enough, further pushing demand on the public system while limiting supply.  You can get away with these things in Chicago or New York, because everyone has just thrown their hands up and accepted the punishment because they want to be in those cities so badly.  That's not the case in a city of GR's size which is just like 50 other cities in the country that you can move to, that are warmer with less snow.

 

[x99]

On 12/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, thebeerqueer said:

Well, City Commissioners are split on this decision: http://woodtv.com/2017/12/12/resolution-for-downtown-grand-rapids-parking-fails/

It's disappointing that our mayor cast the deciding vote against instructing the parking department--err, "Mobile GR"--to put serious effort into downtown parking based on some obtuse fear the vote in favor would show the city "is not taking the parking issue seriously."  You couldn't conjure up a more bizarre justification if you tried.  I think Dave Shaffer made his point.  The sad thing is that commissioner and mayor positions are elected.  At what point does the business community finally say that it has had enough of this and put some money into backing candidates that will stop jeopardizing future growth in the name of the fat bike?  I've heard it from fairly reliable sources that the sense of the parking department is that the city really does not want more parking... They get a lot of push back to find "alternatives" to expanding the existing system.  Recall, if you will, that Commissioner Joe Jones actually ran on a platform saying he wanted more surface lots downtown and less public parking ramps.  "I'm not in favor of downtown businesses re-locating due to parking shortages, and yet I'm not a fan of building new public parking structures. Therefore, I believe we should continue to promote surface parking lots downtown to meet the parking demand."  So this does not really surprise me all that much.  

Edited December 18, 2017 by x99

[EastownLeo]

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transport
— paraphrased from Enrique Penalosa, former Mayor of Bogotá, Colombia

http://newyork.thecityatlas.org/lifestyle/developed-area-rich-public-transport-ways-city/

a little relevant?

Edited December 18, 2017 by EastownLeo

[GRDadof3]

20 hours ago, x99 said:

It's disappointing that our mayor cast the deciding vote against instructing the parking department--err, "Mobile GR"--to put serious effort into downtown parking based on some obtuse fear the vote in favor would show the city "is not taking the parking issue seriously."  You couldn't conjure up a more bizarre justification if you tried.  I think Dave Shaffer made his point.  The sad thing is that commissioner and mayor positions are elected.  At what point does the business community finally say that it has had enough of this and put some money into backing candidates that will stop jeopardizing future growth in the name of the fat bike?  I've heard it from fairly reliable sources that the sense of the parking department is that the city really does not want more parking... They get a lot of push back to find "alternatives" to expanding the existing system.  Recall, if you will, that Commissioner Joe Jones actually ran on a platform saying he wanted more surface lots downtown and less public parking ramps.  "I'm not in favor of downtown businesses re-locating due to parking shortages, and yet I'm not a fan of building new public parking structures. Therefore, I believe we should continue to promote surface parking lots downtown to meet the parking demand."  So this does not really surprise me all that much.  

I think Rosalynn is just saying that the resolution was not needed, that the parking department is already looking for solutions and alternatives. 

Quote: 

The resolution failed on a tie vote, with one dissenter, Mayor Rosalynn Bliss, who said there is already a process in place through GR Mobile to address parking issues.

She said the resolution implies the city is not taking the parking issue seriously.

There is a resolution before today's city commission meeting to specifically start exploring a parking ramp and mixed use development at the Library site:

5. Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the next steps in exploration of the potential development of a parking and mixed use facility at 111 Library Street NE (Public Library Main Branch)

 That meeting is tonight at 7:00 and it's the 5th item in Committee of the Whole so it will be a late night getting to that item. 

[GRDadof3]

Here's a quote from one of the commissioners regarding the parking issue, from the resolution vote earlier this week (?):

The City's funding model for development in GR, and our budgeting model from a cash flow perspective is that we basically mortgage future real estate tax incremental growth in order to get residents and jobs downtown to capture exponentially more income tax.  Thus far, this has worked well because income tax revenues have annually outperformed projections.  However, when we have an employer with 400 downtown employees move from downtown to Wyoming, citing parking as one of the reasons, this is a warning sign we cannot ignore because the fall out from this could be fatal.

 

[Quercus]

If the City gives into suburban pressure to promote auto-oriented developments downtown, how long will it be until people begin calling for the expansion of existing roads? People have to get to and from all of those parking spaces, right? 10 years from now we will be having a conversation about adding lanes to US-131 and Fulton St instead of installing commuter rail. I can see it now: dozens of thriving businesses demolished through eminent domain in order to make room for a sparkling new expressway lane. Sounds familiar.

On the world stage it's laughable that a metro area like GR is so committed to a single form of transportation.

[GRDadof3]

17 minutes ago, Quercus said:

If the City gives into suburban pressure to promote auto-oriented developments downtown, how long will it be until people begin calling for the expansion of existing roads? People have to get to and from all of those parking spaces, right? 10 years from now we will be having a conversation about adding lanes to US-131 and Fulton St instead of installing commuter rail. I can see it now: dozens of thriving businesses demolished through eminent domain in order to make room for a sparkling new expressway lane. Sounds familiar.

On the world stage it's laughable that a metro area like GR is so committed to a single form of transportation.

Holy cow, I hope those discussions come a lot sooner than 10 years from now. Most people here (and everywhere) would agree that many of the freeways in this area are badly in need of expansion in some key areas. 

I just went through my websites of world stage conversationalists and didn't see any mention of Grand Rapids and its transportation choices. Might you share a link? 

[joeDowntown]

26 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

 

I just went through my websites of world stage conversationalists and didn't see any mention of Grand Rapids and its transportation choices. Might you share a link? 

Don’t know if he has them. Remember, Quercus only swoops into conversations when it involves parking and is critical of DGRI/Mobile GR. Coincidence?

Joe

[GRDadof3]

31 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

Don’t know if he has them. Remember, Quercus only swoops into conversations when it involves parking and is critical of DGRI/Mobile GR. Coincidence?

Joe

Oh that's right! Me thinks someone's job is at stake if the tides turn in another direction? 

 

[Quercus]

11 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I just went through my websites of world stage conversationalists and didn't see any mention of Grand Rapids and its transportation choices. Might you share a link? 

Huh? I am referencing the fact that throughout the world urban areas similar in size and population to metro GR tend to have a more diverse and robust transit suite and do not rely so heavily on automobiles.

11 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Quercus only swoops into conversations when it involves parking and is critical of DGRI/Mobile GR. Coincidence?

It's true most of my time here us spent lurking. I would "swoop" in more often if the mods didn't immediately respond to my posts in order to disparage me.

10 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Oh that's right! Me thinks someone's job is at stake if the tides turn in another direction? 

Wrong. I'm just a citizen like you.

 

It seems to me the whole argument for requiring additional downtown parking boils down to: "Grand Rapids has always been and will always will be auto-oriented." The former is not true and the latter doesn't have to be.

[x99]

20 minutes ago, Quercus said:

It seems to me the whole argument for requiring additional downtown parking boils down to: "Grand Rapids has always been and will always will be auto-oriented." The former is not true and the latter doesn't have to be.

The former was not true only in the horse and buggy days.  Ever since the Model T came out, it's pretty much been true.  As for the latter... Well, snow.  Snow, snow, snow.  And a downtown that is nothing more than a glorified office park.  Every single data based study tells the same story:  Yes, it does have to be auto-oriented until the city itself become "multi-modal" and has ample good reasons to put up with the hassle of public transit.  Right now, those reasons simply do not exist.  The occupants of the office park will simply leave if the office park fails to provide parking. 

[MJLO]

21 minutes ago, Quercus said:

It seems to me the whole argument for requiring additional downtown parking boils down to: "Grand Rapids has always been and will always will be auto-oriented." The former is not true and the latter doesn't have to be.

Honestly I think it's multi-faceted.  I think your statement is as hyperbole ridden as those made opposing your view point.  It simply can't be an either or scenario.  Does there need to be a transportation mode shift going forward?  Yes of course there does?  Does that mean we should ignore the fact that the city hasn't quite hit the threshold to justify complete demand for it?  Should we only focus on transit oriented solutions?  I would argue no,  we are at a precipice where demand for parking is currently impairing redevelopment and investment efforts in the core.   I feel like we'd be lying to ourselves to suggest otherwise.  The city needs to remain competitive in order to not go back into decline.   The immediate suburbs will absolutely siphon out tax dollars where they can, if not from the convenience factor alone.  It's not realistic to suggest that the city can simply ignore current market conditions that help maintain the momentum we've seen over the last several years. 

Why can't we agree that something needs to be done on both sides of the argument.  

[GRDadof3]

4 hours ago, Quercus said:

Huh? I am referencing the fact that throughout the world urban areas similar in size and population to metro GR tend to have a more diverse and robust transit suite and do not rely so heavily on automobiles.

It's true most of my time here us spent lurking. I would "swoop" in more often if the mods didn't immediately respond to my posts in order to disparage me.

Wrong. I'm just a citizen like you.

 

It seems to me the whole argument for requiring additional downtown parking boils down to: "Grand Rapids has always been and will always will be auto-oriented." The former is not true and the latter doesn't have to be.

Nobody is disparaging you, just vehemently disagreeing with your dangerous viewpoint. To disparage you would be to call you an idiot or something similar. 

When you say "around the world" I assume you mean outside of the United States. How about making a comparison to other North American cities? I'll even let you go as large as 2 million metro population. 

If it were me, I would make direct investments in transportation modes based on what percentage of commuters are using those modes now, with some slight variations based on goals to mode shift. So if .5% of commuters are biking now, and you want that to get up to 1.5% (which would put it in a very elite group of bicycle friendly cities), then devote 1% more to that mode. If transit is at 5% now, and you'd love to see it get to 7 or 8%, shift your spending priorities to match. If 94% or your commuters drive to work downtown, then you better put 94% of your budget toward that end. I would almost say that anyone that doesn't follow that formula truly is an idiot. 

The other thing to note is that monthly permits are at 96% use? That's really not a good place to be in when you're talking the business community. Ask a commercial Realtor what percentage of vacant office space they like to have on hand? They actually don't want to be sold out. Same with hotel vacancies, the visitors bureau does not ever want to see all of the hotels "sold out."  Being sold out is lost opportunity cost. To sell out the parking system is a massive failure of planning, particularly with how long it takes to add capacity. 

 

[x99]

19 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

They actually don't want to be sold out. Same with hotel vacancies, the visitors bureau does not ever want to see all of the hotels "sold out."  Being sold out is lost opportunity cost. To sell out the parking system is a massive failure of planning, particularly with how long it takes to add capacity. 

To roughly quote a Colliers rep (I believe) from earlier this year in what may have been a GRBJ article... "I can't even tell you how many leases that didn't happen because of the parking situation."  

My point is this:  Slapping up a ramp out by the library does nothing to rectify that situation unless the ramp somehow frees up a large swathe of passes in the actual downtown.  Whether it makes sense or not, telling potential tenants you can get them space half a mile away isn't going to cause one more lease to be inked, or one more store to open its doors.  They would have to lease a ramp with a $40,000+ per space construction cost for $100 a space to get people to use in a way that was meaningful to the downtown crunch.  That vastly underutilized County parcel could make a real difference, and probably for a more realistic cost profile.  Why are there no "serious" discussions?  I think it is because of the "message" it would send:  That the city actually WILL add spaces downtown and deal with this issue in a fashion other than "take a bike, sucker".  A significant number of commissioners are opposed to new ramps downtown.  They want to be "sold out".   I don't buy for a minute the lame excuse that they voted against telling parking services to explore parking because it would send a message that they were not doing enough.  

Edited December 21, 2017 by x99

[joeDowntown]

I still don’t understand why the city doesn’t work with private developers who are building ramps. Warner Tower and 601, 601 Bond and Embassy Suites all have a parking component. That space is there. Why not partner and build up (you can always go up)? Say the city had worked with the developers of each site to build 3 additional stories of parking into their buildings (too late now, but say they had worked with the developer from the design stage). That’d be nine stories of parking with ZERO additional space taken up.

I’m sure it would be complicated complicated, but it can’t be impossible.

Joe

[GRDadof3]

12 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I still don’t understand why the city doesn’t work with private developers who are building ramps. Warner Tower and 601, 601 Bond and Embassy Suites all have a parking component. That space is there. Why not partner and build up (you can always go up)? Say the city had worked with the developers of each site to build 3 additional stories of parking into their buildings (too late now, but say they had worked with the developer from the design stage). That’d be nine stories of parking with ZERO additional space taken up.

I’m sure it would be complicated complicated, but it can’t be impossible.

Joe

They could have probably but at the time when those projects were in the planning phases, the city had declared that it was getting out of the parking business (or adding any more parking). This has been building for some time.

14 hours ago, x99 said:

To roughly quote a Colliers rep (I believe) from earlier this year in what may have been a GRBJ article... "I can't even tell you how many leases that didn't happen because of the parking situation."  

My point is this:  Slapping up a ramp out by the library does nothing to rectify that situation unless the ramp somehow frees up a large swathe of passes in the actual downtown.  Whether it makes sense or not, telling potential tenants you can get them space half a mile away isn't going to cause one more lease to be inked, or one more store to open its doors.  They would have to lease a ramp with a $40,000+ per space construction cost for $100 a space to get people to use in a way that was meaningful to the downtown crunch.  That vastly underutilized County parcel could make a real difference, and probably for a more realistic cost profile.  Why are there no "serious" discussions?  I think it is because of the "message" it would send:  That the city actually WILL add spaces downtown and deal with this issue in a fashion other than "take a bike, sucker".  A significant number of commissioners are opposed to new ramps downtown.  They want to be "sold out".   I don't buy for a minute the lame excuse that they voted against telling parking services to explore parking because it would send a message that they were not doing enough.  

I met with a Colliers rep last Summer who said the situation was so strained that they had to produce a report for all of their clients (and prospective clients) specifically addressing the parking issue.  

Here's some eye opening data:

http://www.grbj.com/articles/89557-bad-doesnt-even-begin-to-describe-parking-plan

I haven't heard what the decision was about pursuing the Library ramp at the meeting the other night. 

The  new lot by the Downtown Market just opened, which to me was stupid and costly.  It seems like there could have been a slew of other opportunities to build a surface lot outside of downtown that didn't require massive expensive retaining walls, across the street from the Downtown Market (a prime redevelopment site).

http://fox17online.com/2017/12/14/meeting-local-needs-city-opens-new-downtown-parking-lot/

300 more spaces added...

[demhem]

On 12/19/2017 at 9:24 PM, GRDadof3 said:

Holy cow, I hope those discussions come a lot sooner than 10 years from now. Most people here (and everywhere) would agree that many of the freeways in this area are badly in need of expansion in some key areas. 

I just went through my websites of world stage conversationalists and didn't see any mention of Grand Rapids and its transportation choices. Might you share a link? 

 

Just a reminder. Increasing and expanding lanes does not necessarily solve or mitigate traffic issues. This is older thinking and has been challenged by the idea of "induced demand" or "induced traffic." 

[wingbert]

18 hours ago, x99 said:

My point is this:  Slapping up a ramp out by the library does nothing to rectify that situation unless the ramp somehow frees up a large swathe of passes in the actual downtown.  Whether it makes sense or not, telling potential tenants you can get them space half a mile away isn't going to cause one more lease to be inked, or one more store to open its doors.  They would have to lease a ramp with a $40,000+ per space construction cost for $100 a space to get people to use in a way that was meaningful to the downtown crunch.  That vastly underutilized County parcel could make a real difference, and probably for a more realistic cost profile.  Why are there no "serious" discussions?  I think it is because of the "message" it would send:  That the city actually WILL add spaces downtown and deal with this issue in a fashion other than "take a bike, sucker".  A significant number of commissioners are opposed to new ramps downtown.  They want to be "sold out".   I don't buy for a minute the lame excuse that they voted against telling parking services to explore parking because it would send a message that they were not doing enough.  

This is true but with one caveat, you can't look at this new ramp in a vacuum.  A new ramp here adds to overall capacity.  It's safe to assume that there will be some shifting from other ramps for those who find the new site's location to be more convenient.  Which will create openings elsewhere which again might create additional shifts.  Is a new ramp by the library a panacea for all of downtown's parking issues?  No.  However, any new parking is going to help.  Swing the Dash West route a block further east and this new ramp will be easily served by our beloved transit system which means with minimal walking you could catch free bus rides all the way to Leonard and Monroe from here.

Edited December 21, 2017 by wingbert
fixing poor grammar

[demhem]

On 12/19/2017 at 10:23 PM, GRDadof3 said:

Oh that's right! Me thinks someone's job is at stake if the tides turn in another direction? 

 

Can we please not do this? This is the definition of disparaging and beneath the conduct of a Mod, IMO. 

[MJLO]

14 minutes ago, demhem said:

Just a reminder. Increasing and expanding lanes does not necessarily solve or mitigate traffic issues. This is older thinking and has been challenged by the idea of "induced demand" or "induced traffic." 

Well anyone assuming that added lanes of traffic are there to address rush hour have the wrong idea.    Added lanes improve flow through out the day,  anyone who has been forced to choose between driving 10mph under the speed, or 12 over on I-96 between M-6  and the EBL split would understand.  An additional lane would make a big difference in that flow(among other places).    Rush hour traffic will always be there.   Go ahead and drop the freeway lanes in Detroit and Chicago down to three  each way and show how it will make no  difference. 

[GRDadof3]

18 minutes ago, demhem said:

Can we please not do this? This is the definition of disparaging and beneath the conduct of a Mod, IMO. 

Edited: I will take the high road on this. Thanks for the reminder. 

22 minutes ago, demhem said:

Just a reminder. Increasing and expanding lanes does not necessarily solve or mitigate traffic issues. This is older thinking and has been challenged by the idea of "induced demand" or "induced traffic." 

I'm not suggesting adding multi-lanes to every highway in the metro area. But there are definitely some really stupid sections of highway that were designed in the 1960's (I-96/196/beltline for instance) that really put people's lives in danger, that MDOT has ignored for years. There should really be no reason why people entering a highway and trying to accelerate/merge should be crossing traffic that is exiting and decreasing speed. That situation is prevalent throughout this highway system we have.  What happens when one car (object) rapidly decelerates in front of a car (object) that is accelerating?  We all learned about it in physics class. 

 

[demhem]

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Edited: I will take the high road on this. Thanks for the reminder. 

I'm not suggesting adding multi-lanes to every highway in the metro area. But there are definitely some really stupid sections of highway that were designed in the 1960's (I-96/196/beltline for instance) that really put people's lives in danger, that MDOT has ignored for years. There should really be no reason why people entering a highway and trying to accelerate/merge should be crossing traffic that is exiting and decreasing speed. That situation is prevalent throughout this highway system we have.  What happens when one car (object) rapidly decelerates in front of a car (object) that is accelerating?  We all learned about it in physics class. 

 

This I agree with. Some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes, particularly downtown, are incredibly short. 

[MJLO]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/12/downtown_parking_garage_next_t.html#incart_2box_news_grand-rapids

Looks like the ramp at the library is a go.