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

[WMrapids]

Not sure if anyone else saw this but I got an email from Rapid Growth. It's nice that they're starting discussions about the parking lots too.

 

 

Image is my own

[GRDadof3]

If you enjoy discussions about parking and land use, you should come to the event Thursday evening at The Rapid. The discussion is permeating up through the ranks of decisions makers in the city.

[wingbert]

Saw this snippet in a larger LinkedIn news collection article:

 

"SPACE EQUALS MONEY – Here's a problem that no European will understand – America may soon have way too many parking spots. The new generation has become disinterested in car ownership (author's proof: I'm turning 30 this week, still no license) but the fabric of American cities is still very much car-oriented. Many municipalities still require parking spots for any new developments before granting permits. In Hartford, Connecticut, from 1960 to 2000, parking space grew at six times the rate building space did. And as anyone who's played SimCity will understand, if an occupied parking spot doesn't earn a city much, an empty one is economic nonsense. According to a couple studies at the University of Connecticut, highlighted by Businessweek, the opportunity cost for American cities is up to $1,000 per year per parking spot. Maybe turn them into bike lanes?"

 

- Isabelle Roughol  Editor at LinkedIn

Edited April 2, 2014 by wingbert

[jas49503]

50 million dollars per year, lost to parking. that would buy a pretty sweet light rail or street car system. maybe some nice roads. I was thinking about nice the roads that I road on today in southwest germany are. way better than the ones that bent the rim on my, not low profile tire having, car recently.

[GRDadof3]

The city's getting ready to do a $168,000 study on its parking rates and capacities.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/04/are_downtown_parking_rates_too_1.html

[x99]

“You don’t want to drive up prices too rapidly to stifle (economic activity)," Heartwell said. "On the other hand, parking rates are a legitimate tool to shift (transportation) mode."

 

A legitimate tool?  If they couldn't park a car, every professional outfit that makes downtown anything other than a ghost town would bolt.  Mr. Mayor is dead right about the economic activity factor.  Parking costs are included as a component in almost every lease analysis.  Raise the parking rates, you raise the effective lease rates, and the big tenants that are downtown but don't really need to be will start to migrate out of downtown.  Good luck keeping a downtown going on hippie shops and other street-level outfits that take up a couple thousand square feet.

 

Don't me wrong, I love pie-in-the-sky as much as the next guy, but Heartwell and the Commission often seem to want to run the City on pie and fantasy.

 

 

 

 

The city's getting ready to do a $168,000 study on its parking rates and capacities.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/04/are_downtown_parking_rates_too_1.html

[GRDadof3]

“You don’t want to drive up prices too rapidly to stifle (economic activity)," Heartwell said. "On the other hand, parking rates are a legitimate tool to shift (transportation) mode."

 

A legitimate tool?  If they couldn't park a car, every professional outfit that makes downtown anything other than a ghost town would bolt.  Mr. Mayor is dead right about the economic activity factor.  Parking costs are included as a component in almost every lease analysis.  Raise the parking rates, you raise the effective lease rates, and the big tenants that are downtown but don't really need to be will start to migrate out of downtown.  Good luck keeping a downtown going on hippie shops and other street-level outfits that take up a couple thousand square feet.

 

Don't me wrong, I love pie-in-the-sky as much as the next guy, but Heartwell and the Commission often seem to want to run the City on pie and fantasy.

 

I found the quote interesting that you should "never price a parking space less than a monthly bus pass." I think that's a bit of flawed logic. How many people who work downtown even LIVE near a bus line? I think they should do a study of downtown employees and see where they live, do a cross-study of how many of those people live within walking distance of a bus stop (or a mile from a park-n-ride lot). I bet it's pretty low. You can't shift behavior when that shift is unrealistic.

 

And no one moves to be closer to a bus stop (edit: very few people do).

[x99]

I found the quote interesting that you should "never price a parking space less than a monthly bus pass." I think that's a bit of flawed logic. How many people who work downtown even LIVE near a bus line? I think they should do a study of downtown employees and see where they live, do a cross-study of how many of those people live within walking distance of a bus stop (or a mile from a park-n-ride lot). I bet it's pretty low. You can't shift behavior when that shift is unrealistic.

 

[Apologies... this turned into another of my terribly enlightening rabbit trails to a weird insight.... follow along for a really thrilling ride]

 

Many people (like me) live right near a bus stop and will never get on the bus.  Besides, the City makes nothing off of buses.  The last thing it needs are empty parking lots because people all took the bus because parking was too expensive.  So why advocate shifting use from a money-maker to a money-loser?  His idea is to make parking less utilized by jacking up the parking rates.  Let's follow along and see where that leads.  Suffice to say it ain't where you think...

 

Let's do some handy-dandy parking math.  Maxed out, you can squeeze in about 150 spaces per acre.  At $30 a month, the cheapest parking lot grosses $54,000.00 an acre/year off of the monthly parking, plus some tack-on for after-hours parking.  Let's say maintenance, repair, and other costs suck up 35% of that.  By my back-of-the-napkin math, that makes an acre of cheap parking on the fringes worth darn near half a million bucks.  But keep going with this... That makes a "full" acre of downtown parking at $140 a spot worth over $2 million. Now add the crazy high daily rates for a few empty spots and it gets even higher.  Way higher.  Can you spell o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-t-y?  They can't raise the rates too much or some enterprising soul will conjure up a shuttle bus to non-City lots to start collecting some of that cash.  Or they might just go and build their own ramp to collect some of the loot.  Or they might just buy up every last chunk of dirt around and turn it into parking lots...

 

Think about that.  If anyone ever wondered how it was that downtown real estate was worth $2 million an acre...apparently it's worth about that much as a parking lot because the City keeps the rates cranked up with their handy-dandy parking duopoly.  Want a weird paradox?  In order to get better usage of land than parking lots, you need to make ramp parking so cheap that it isn't profitable to run a surface parking lot downtown.  Else, why build a building?  Build a parking lot.  Heartwell and the geniuses on the Commission need to keep in mind that increases in parking rates do more than just influence driver behavior...  They influence land usage decisions, too.  And decisions about where to locate.  Social engineering isn't quite so simple as it seems... And people wonder why they paved paradise and put up a parking lot...

Edited April 4, 2014 by x99

[wingbert]

Well Mr. Mayor, in deploying these sound bites regarding how downtown parking rates aren't high enough I think you've really helped to convince the non-downtown dwelling public that the malls and fast casual restaurants with their free parking out in the 'burbs are just fine.  Way to give downtown retail a real shot in the arm by playing right into the perception that it's too expensive for the occasional visitor to find a place to park downtown... and that the prices are going up too. 

 

Also, why is the assumption that if the ramps are not full and the surface lots are then the surface lots must be underpriced.  Why not assume that it's the ramps that are overpriced? 

Edited April 7, 2014 by wingbert

[GRDadof3]

Well Mr. Mayor, in deploying these sound bites regarding how downtown parking rates aren't high enough I think you've really helped to convince the non-downtown dwelling public that the malls and fast casual restaurants with their free parking out in the 'burbs are just fine.  Way to give downtown retail a real shot in the arm by playing right into the perception that it's too expensive for the occasional visitor to find a place to park downtown... and that the prices are going up too. 

 

Also, why is the assumption that if the ramps are not full and the surface lots are then the surface lots must be underpriced.  Why not assume that it's the ramps that are overpriced? 

 

Because there are certain people at the city now who believe that all parking downtown is underpriced. They read a study somewhere that has them convinced of it and they have flipped common economic graphs upside down (raise prices and people will always buy more).

 

Here's what they should do: get RID of the surface lots, and drop the prices on the ramps to fill them up and keep downtown business owners happy. That's apparently too complicated of a math problem though.

 

Instead, let's raise the prices of surface lots, making them higher revenue sources and much harder to get rid of, and hope it doesn't piss too many people off, and hope it doesn't drive employers away from downtown, and hope and hope and holy cow that's a lot of hoping and wishing.

[Jippy]

City-owned parking is a public good. As such, the City needs to weigh the competing public needs, wants and impacts that the parking produces. I generally agree with the strategy the City has set-forth. The messaging could be improved.  

 

Downtown parking pricing should be structured to yield an 85% occupancy rate at peak times. If parking exceeds 85%, it is priced too low. Under this rate, then it is priced too high. The policy objective is to ensure that sufficient people are utilizing the system, but also ensuring that parking is made available for the times one needs it. To achieve this objective, parking rates should be variable based on usage at any given time. Having a parking rate system structured in this manner actually makes parking easier, as it ensures constant access to parking spaces.

 

While the City and the Rapid do not share revenue, it is a good policy goal to ensure that transit rates are lower than parking rates. Ideally, the City will reinvest a portion of parking revenue into alternative transportation modes. The goal is to accommodate more development with the existing amounts of public parking. The only way to do this, is to ensure more people ride buses (or streetcars), bike, or walk.

[arcturus]

Where are residents of Morton House going to park?  

[GRDadof3]

City-owned parking is a public good. As such, the City needs to weigh the competing public needs, wants and impacts that the parking produces. I generally agree with the strategy the City has set-forth. The messaging could be improved.  

 

Downtown parking pricing should be structured to yield an 85% occupancy rate at peak times. If parking exceeds 85%, it is priced too low. Under this rate, then it is priced too high. The policy objective is to ensure that sufficient people are utilizing the system, but also ensuring that parking is made available for the times one needs it. To achieve this objective, parking rates should be variable based on usage at any given time. Having a parking rate system structured in this manner actually makes parking easier, as it ensures constant access to parking spaces.

 

While the City and the Rapid do not share revenue, it is a good policy goal to ensure that transit rates are lower than parking rates. Ideally, the City will reinvest a portion of parking revenue into alternative transportation modes. The goal is to accommodate more development with the existing amounts of public parking. The only way to do this, is to ensure more people ride buses (or streetcars), bike, or walk.

 

I think there's more to it than that. If the goal is to just get more revenue from the lots that are consistently full, they have to be careful with that. Surface lots run $75 - $100/month while parking ramps are $200/month+. If you raise surface lot rates by 20%, that's not enough to push them to the ramps. But if you raise them 70% to push people to ramps, that's a huge burden on the employers (and downtown workers). The key would be to lower the ramp rates and leave surface lots alone.

 

There's also the opportunity cost of the surface lots. If they're developed without tax incentives, the increased city taxes captured might be enough to offset the lost parking revenue. The sale of the land is a net to the city since they own them outright. Plus, you get the added economic stimulus from new residents and workers downtown.

 

But as I said, I would be that less than half of downtown workers live near a bus stop. Most of the people I know who work downtown are professionals and live in Rockford, Forest Hills, Byron Center, Holland, and a number of other places not served by The Rapid.

 

I guess I can see why they're paying someone $168,000 to figure all this out.

[fotoman311]

Where are residents of Morton House going to park?  

 

Seems there is plenty of parking within a block or two of Morton House.  Isn't that what this whole thread is about?  Shouldn't it be the residents' job to find the parking they want at the price point they like, perhaps with the assistance of whoever is managing the rentals to point out what the options are.

 

[arcturus]

Seems there is plenty of parking within a block or two of Morton House.  Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

 

Yes, my point being that with all the new apartments that are available, under construction, or planned for downtown it seems clear, if anything, that demand for parking will increase. 

 

Curious, what's the multiplier used in determining the # of parking spaces needed assuming 140 apartments at Morton?

[Jippy]

I think there's more to it than that. If the goal is to just get more revenue from the lots that are consistently full, they have to be careful with that. Surface lots run $75 - $100/month while parking ramps are $200/month+. If you raise surface lot rates by 20%, that's not enough to push them to the ramps. But if you raise them 70% to push people to ramps, that's a huge burden on the employers (and downtown workers). The key would be to lower the ramp rates and leave surface lots alone.

 

There's also the opportunity cost of the surface lots. If they're developed without tax incentives, the increased city taxes captured might be enough to offset the lost parking revenue. The sale of the land is a net to the city since they own them outright. Plus, you get the added economic stimulus from new residents and workers downtown.

 

But as I said, I would be that less than half of downtown workers live near a bus stop. Most of the people I know who work downtown are professionals and live in Rockford, Forest Hills, Byron Center, Holland, and a number of other places not served by The Rapid.

 

I guess I can see why they're paying someone $168,000 to figure all this out.

 

 

I am in complete agreement, esp about the opportunity cost. I gave my talking point response, not the dissertation. :-) 

[Veloise]

Yes, my point being that with all the new apartments that are available, under construction, or planned for downtown it seems clear, if anything, that demand for parking will increase. 

 

Curious, what's the multiplier used in determining the # of parking spaces needed assuming 140 apartments at Morton?

One per unit, but because it is not new construction, there are no requirements.

 

From the zoning ordinance:

 

Downtown Retail District. In accordance with the recommendations of the Framing the Future: D.D.A. 2011 Plan, parcels within the TN-CC Zone District located on Monroe Center Street and S. Division Avenue shall be subject to the land use regulations applicable to the TN-TBA Zone District.

 

The TN–TBA Zone District is designed to reinforce a pedestrian- and transit-friendly environment in a compact area characterized by a mix of uses. Small lot sizes, storefront windows, observable building entrances, structures that abut the sidewalk and on-street or hidden off-street parking all contribute towards the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented Zone District. A mix of small-scale retail, service, entertainment, civic, office and upper-level residential uses are encouraged to enhance the vitality of the areas. High quality architectural design and materials are important components of all structures to reinforce existing neighborhood character. New development on primary and secondary street frontages shall be compatible in use and scale with surrounding, existing uses and structures. The recommendations for Traditional Business Area in a Pre-World War II Neighborhood Context, Chapter 10, Section 10.4. of the Master Plan applies to these areas.

 

 

Traditional Neighborhood City Center (TN-CC) Zone District Parking Requirements.

1. Off-street parking shall not be required for any building or structure constructed prior to January 1, 1998 within the TN-CC Zone District, nor for new buildings or cumulative additions to existing buildings with a gross floor area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less.

2. Off-street parking spaces in the TN-CC Zone District shall be provided for all new buildings or structures and for additions to existing buildings or structures with a gross floor area of more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The number of spaces required for all uses shall be one (1) space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of Gross Floor Area for all non-residential buildings and hotels, and one (1) space per dwelling unit for all dwellings.

3. If an existing building in the TN-CC Zone District is changed to a new permitted use, no increase in the number of required parking spaces is required for the building.

Article 10, Section 5.10.04.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Veloise

[GRDadof3]

One per unit, but because it is not new construction, there are no requirements.

 

From the zoning ordinance:

 

Downtown Retail District. In accordance with the recommendations of the Framing the Future: D.D.A. 2011 Plan, parcels within the TN-CC Zone District located on Monroe Center Street and S. Division Avenue shall be subject to the land use regulations applicable to the TN-TBA Zone District.

 

The TN–TBA Zone District is designed to reinforce a pedestrian- and transit-friendly environment in a compact area characterized by a mix of uses. Small lot sizes, storefront windows, observable building entrances, structures that abut the sidewalk and on-street or hidden off-street parking all contribute towards the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented Zone District. A mix of small-scale retail, service, entertainment, civic, office and upper-level residential uses are encouraged to enhance the vitality of the areas. High quality architectural design and materials are important components of all structures to reinforce existing neighborhood character. New development on primary and secondary street frontages shall be compatible in use and scale with surrounding, existing uses and structures. The recommendations for Traditional Business Area in a Pre-World War II Neighborhood Context, Chapter 10, Section 10.4. of the Master Plan applies to these areas.

 

 

Traditional Neighborhood City Center (TN-CC) Zone District Parking Requirements.

1. Off-street parking shall not be required for any building or structure constructed prior to January 1, 1998 within the TN-CC Zone District, nor for new buildings or cumulative additions to existing buildings with a gross floor area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less.

2. Off-street parking spaces in the TN-CC Zone District shall be provided for all new buildings or structures and for additions to existing buildings or structures with a gross floor area of more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The number of spaces required for all uses shall be one (1) space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of Gross Floor Area for all non-residential buildings and hotels, and one (1) space per dwelling unit for all dwellings.

3. If an existing building in the TN-CC Zone District is changed to a new permitted use, no increase in the number of required parking spaces is required for the building.

Article 10, Section 5.10.04.

 

Renters are kinda thrown to the wolves when it comes to parking. Condos pretty much require at least one space per unit, if not two, to make them marketable. And covered parking is pretty much a must.

[Veloise]

Renters are kinda thrown to the wolves when it comes to parking. Condos pretty much require at least one space per unit, if not two, to make them marketable. And covered parking is pretty much a must.

Whatever the market will bear. Watch, the developer will broker a deal with some sort of nearby structure or lot for tenant use.

[arcturus]

Whatever the market will bear. Watch, the developer will broker a deal with some sort of nearby structure or lot for tenant use.

 

What the market demands as well.  The developer will have an easier time marketing this especially to females if something is brokered nearby.  

 

It's a good time to be a parking lot owner in downtown Grand Rapids.

[mpchicago]

What the market demands as well.  The developer will have an easier time marketing this especially to females if something is brokered nearby.  

 

It's a good time to be a parking lot owner in downtown Grand Rapids.

 

So basically if you are Ellis or the City of Grand Rapids.  I don't know if Ellis will ever give any of their lots up for development.

[metrogrkid]

A smart Ellis Parking will simply keep their respective parking footprints and collaborate with developers on developing the airspace ABOVE their parking with new housing, shopping, entertainment, office, hotel, etc. uses - kind of ensures built-in parkers and gets out of the way of development.

Edited April 10, 2014 by metrogrkid

[Jippy]

A smart Ellis Parking will simply keep their respective parking footprints and collaborate with developers on developing the airspace ABOVE their parking with new housing, shopping, entertainment, office, hotel, etc. uses - kind of ensures built-in parkers and gets out of the way of development.

 

...or get a free (reduced price) parking ramp in exchange for no-cost downtown developable property above. Easy way to triple one's revenue. 

[GR8scott]

http://mibiz.com/news/real-estate/item/21322-mostly-unused-

 

lol 1 paying customer since opening the $1.8 million surface lot in 2010!

[GRDadof3]

http://mibiz.com/news/real-estate/item/21322-mostly-unused-

 

lol 1 paying customer since opening the $1.8 million surface lot in 2010!

 

Unfortunately I think that one (epic) mistake by the city may have spoiled everyone's moods for city/developer partnerships for parking, which is unfortunate. They should sell it to Ellis and get it off the books. Ellis could do a shuttle service from there.