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

[GRDadof3]

If there was too much of it, wouldn't all of those spaces be emty?

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=713803

[twoshort]

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=713803

Where's the pictures of empty lots and ramps in the middle of the day or during an event?

[GRDadof3]

It has nothing to do with how many cars are in the parking lots, it has everything to do with how much land is consumed by them. If you look at those pictures, about 1/4 of the land has buildings on them, the rest are cars just sitting there in storage.

But sure, I'll try to get pictures of them when they are empty the other 16 - 18 hours of the day just to reinforce my point.

[Explorer55]

Once again, I recommend reading and studying the book, "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup. It should be a watershed book and bring about a wholesale reassessment about parking in America. But lots of people need to read this book and share it with others, so maybe this is where UP can help.

Please, read the book! Or at least parts of it....

[GRDadof3]

Once again, I recommend reading and studying the book, "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup. It should be a watershed book and bring about a wholesale reassessment about parking in America. But lots of people need to read this book and share it with others, so maybe this is where UP can help.

Please, read the book! Or at least parts of it....

Thanks Explorer55.

Maybe we'll all pitch in and buy one, and pass it around:

http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parki...1586&sr=8-1

Here's one that's a little less expensive:

Lots of Parking: Land use in a car culture

[GRDadof3]

Pictures from today, and what these lots look like 16 hours a day, 5 days a week, and for 48 hours on weekends:

FULL SIZE

FULL SIZE

There will most likely be another chapter of this story coming soon in RapidGrowthMedia.

[Grand Rapidian]

I am curious to know what was on these lots prior to them becoming large surface lots. If they were nice homes, then it sucks, but if it was a slummy run down homes or crime ridden condemned industrial buildings then this is an improvement in a number of ways. I imagine it is split 50/50 between good or bad origins depending on location.

[Raildudes dad]

I am curious to know what was on these lots prior to them becoming large surface lots. If they were nice homes, then it sucks, but if it was a slummy run down homes or crime ridden condemned industrial buildings then this is an improvement in a number of ways. I imagine it is split 50/50 between good or bad origins depending on location.

Top picture was the site of an A&P food warehouse and associated railroad tracks. Photos of it's demoltion are posted elsewhere on the board. It was then used by Stow Davis for warehousing when SD was located on the old Phoenix Furniturebuilding just to the east. It was vacant at the end.

Middle picture was the home of the OAK Construction Company equipment & material yard. They stored suplus materials and equipment not required on a job site at this location. As they became more a construction management company rather than a construction company the yard became emptier. I can remember when it was full of cranes and other equipment in the winter time

Bottom picture was a railroad yard until it was sold. The old building to north was the freight house (and should be the Amtrak - Central Station). Atlas Truck Rental then built a service building on the south end of the property. They housed and repaired a truck and truck / trailer rental fleet there until they were bought by Ryder. Ryder operated from there until they built a new facility on Front Street S of Leonard. Catholic Secondary Schools then rented or bought it to house and maintain their school bus fleet. They stayed there until the site was bought for a DASH lot.

Theere wasn't one home on any of the sites. OAK, Atlas and A&P / SD ran decently maintained facilities. CSS was a little run down, I'm pretty sure they were just tenants. The A&P warehouse was a little rugged at the end. Pretty crime free neighborhood as far as I remember. I wouldn't have been afraid to walk the neighborhood at night. I'm sure both property owners did well selling to GVSU and one to the city for the DASH lot. I don't recall any going to condemnation which means they were willing sellers.

[Prankster]

There were a fair amount of houses along Summer and Winter streets before they bought them up for parking lots. They were modest dwellings at best, and the only one that really raised a fuss was the guy who's house had them build the parking lots around.

[Grand Rapidian]

Top picture was the site of an A&P food warehouse and associated railroad tracks. Photos of it's demoltion are posted elsewhere on the board. It was then used by Stow Davis for warehousing when SD was located on the old Phoenix Furniturebuilding just to the east. It was vacant at the end.

Middle picture was the home of the OAK Construction Company equipment & material yard. They stored suplus materials and equipment not required on a job site at this location. As they became more a construction management company rather than a construction company the yard became emptier. I can remember when it was full of cranes and other equipment in the winter time

Bottom picture was a railroad yard until it was sold. The old building to north was the freight house (and should be the Amtrak - Central Station). Atlas Truck Rental then built a service building on the south end of the property. They housed and repaired a truck and truck / trailer rental fleet there until they were bought by Ryder. Ryder operated from there until they built a new facility on Front Street S of Leonard. Catholic Secondary Schools then rented or bought it to house and maintain their school bus fleet. They stayed there until the site was bought for a DASH lot.

Theere wasn't one home on any of the sites. OAK, Atlas and A&P / SD ran decently maintained facilities. CSS was a little run down, I'm pretty sure they were just tenants. The A&P warehouse was a little rugged at the end. Pretty crime free neighborhood as far as I remember. I wouldn't have been afraid to walk the neighborhood at night. I'm sure both property owners did well selling to GVSU and one to the city for the DASH lot. I don't recall any going to condemnation which means they were willing sellers.

There were a fair amount of houses along Summer and Winter streets before they bought them up for parking lots. They were modest dwellings at best, and the only one that really raised a fuss was the guy who's house had them build the parking lots around.

Great info, thanks guys!

[GRDadof3]

I am curious to know what was on these lots prior to them becoming large surface lots. If they were nice homes, then it sucks, but if it was a slummy run down homes or crime ridden condemned industrial buildings then this is an improvement in a number of ways. I imagine it is split 50/50 between good or bad origins depending on location.

The question shouldn't be "Are these parking lots better than what was there?", the question should be "What is the OPPORTUNITY COST of having these massive amounts of land devoted to storing cars 40 hours a week and empty the other 128 hours a week?" What is the potential that is being lost? My estimate is in the $Hundreds of Millions if not $Billions of economic development. In addition, what does having this amount of asphalt do to the environment and water runoff?

Imagine if we didn't need all these lots and they were replaced by neighborhoods, businesses, parks and schools. Imagine 20 or 30,000 more people working, living and studying on these parcels in buildings. It's not that far-fetched.

[Grand Rapidian]

The question shouldn't be "Are these parking lots better than what was there?", the question should be "What is the OPPORTUNITY COST of having these massive amounts of land devoted to storing cars 40 hours a week and empty the other 128 hours a week?" What is the potential that is being lost? My estimate is in the $Hundreds of Millions if not $Billions of economic development. In addition, what does having this amount of asphalt do to the environment and water runoff?

Imagine if we didn't need all these lots and they were replaced by neighborhoods, businesses, parks and schools. Imagine 20 or 30,000 more people working, living and studying on these parcels in buildings. It's not that far-fetched.

Alternatively, what is the opportunity gained by having these lots? An exaggerated example would be the whole GVSU dt campus and the new YMCA made possible by the parking (or whatever uses all those lots). I know the next thing that will be said is "if we had mass transit we wouldn't need the lots" but we don't and even if we did, it is unlikely that mass transit alone could support all (many) of the needs. Someone will always have to drive, and trading the existing buildings for what was put in may be a better result. What is there helps build on our downtown rather than on a suburb.

I am just saying that it is not that bad and could have gone in a suburb. Those lots support what we have down there, and what we have down there support dt and further growth. Those lots wont last long, they seem to me like staging areas for future development. Less land will be required to further expand ie less houses to buy up to expand.

idk, just sayin that this is what is required for progress given the current condition. Change the condition, have no progress, or dont worry about it being a surface lot IMO

If it were up to me I would have all the mass transit in the world and have no need for cars in entire cities, but this is no the city for it (not yet anyway) so I am pleased to see the progress at least. If we do not settle for surface lots (garages where land is more expensive) we must settle for stagnate growth, parking is a must for this city right now.

[GRDadof3]

Alternatively, what is the opportunity gained by having these lots? An exaggerated example would be the whole GVSU dt campus and the new YMCA made possible by the parking (or whatever uses all those lots). I know the next thing that will be said is "if we had mass transit we wouldn't need the lots" but we don't and even if we did, it is unlikely that mass transit alone could support all (many) of the needs. Someone will always have to drive, and trading the existing buildings for what was put in may be a better result. What is there helps build on our downtown rather than on a suburb.

I am just saying that it is not that bad and could have gone in a suburb. Those lots support what we have down there, and what we have down there support dt and further growth. Those lots wont last long, they seem to me like staging areas for future development. Less land will be required to further expand ie less houses to buy up to expand.

idk, just sayin that this is what is required for progress given the current condition. Change the condition, have no progress, or dont worry about it being a surface lot IMO

If it were up to me I would have all the mass transit in the world and have no need for cars in entire cities, but this is no the city for it (not yet anyway) so I am pleased to see the progress at least. If we do not settle for surface lots (garages where land is more expensive) we must settle for stagnate growth, parking is a must for this city right now.

Glad to see you're so optimistic. Why are we not a city for it? In fact, in looking at all this area being devoted to parking, I'd say we're desperately long overdue. Do you think we're becoming more dense as a metro area, creating a better environment for mass transit, or less dense? (hint: it's not more dense) Where will we be in 10 years, more or less dense? (hint: less dense with current growth patterns). Does that sound like we'll be better suited for mass transit then and not now?

The idea would be that as a mass transit system is implemented, many of the lots owned by the city, and even Grand Valley, would be sold off for development or greenspace, giving them much needed revenue and creating a greater tax base. Would light rail serve everyone? Of course not. In no city in the world does everyone ride mass transit. Could it easily serve a majority of downtown workers and students, yes.

If we want 10,000 more workers and students downtown, where are they going to park?

[Rizzo]

If it were up to me I would have all the mass transit in the world and have no need for cars in entire cities, but this is no the city for it (not yet anyway) so I am pleased to see the progress at least. If we do not settle for surface lots (garages where land is more expensive) we must settle for stagnate growth, parking is a must for this city right now.

But it is up to you, me, and anyone one else thinking expanded transit options is the way to go. The rest of my comments are directed to you.

Parking downtown is essential, but is it essential for people who visit for an event, job, walking tour, or retail?

Mass-transit, specifically of the rail variety seem to be coming up in a lot of conversation. In conversations outside of UP on:

• Downtown Retail
  
• Land Use
  
• Vibrant Cities
  
• New Economy Jobs
  
• Many More....
  

Edited March 18, 2007 by Rizzo

[Grand Rapidian]

Glad to see you're so optimistic. Why are we not a city for it? In fact, in looking at all this area being devoted to parking, I'd say we're desperately long overdue. Do you think we're becoming more dense as a metro area, creating a better environment for mass transit, or less dense? (hint: it's not more dense) Where will we be in 10 years, more or less dense? (hint: less dense with current growth patterns). Does that sound like we'll be better suited for mass transit then and not now?

The idea would be that as a mass transit system is implemented, many of the lots owned by the city, and even Grand Valley, would be sold off for development or greenspace, giving them much needed revenue and creating a greater tax base. Would light rail serve everyone? Of course not. In no city in the world does everyone ride mass transit. Could it easily serve a majority of downtown workers and students, yes.

If we want 10,000 more workers and students downtown, where are they going to park?

I think that by having surface lots for the arena, gvsu, and ymca are good things. The lots make it possible for them to be there. The things the lots support make dt more a better more interesting place to live. As a result the density will grow. I think it is a stage of growth. once we have enough people wanting to live dt and draw more business dt then transit will be a more popular choice. Having the surface lots help get things dt to draw more people and dense construction dt. Once dt is more densly populated and popular transit will become a favored option.

Density is important to transit, but not everything. If the public backs it, they will be willing to sacrifice for it. Example, the car. People want it and sacrifice time and lots of money to have it. If you had public support for transit the way you do for cars then no doubt would transit be able to serve all people.

But it is up to you, me, and anyone one else thinking expanded transit options is the way to go. The rest of my comments are directed to you.

Parking downtown is essential, but is it essential for people who visit for an event, job, walking tour, or retail?

Mass-transit, specifically of the rail variety seem to be coming up in a lot of conversation. In conversations outside of UP on:

• Downtown Retail
  
• Land Use
  
• Vibrant Cities
  
• New Economy Jobs
  
• Many More....
  

I agree that those points would follow from having the transit. However, as I mentioned above, we need to grow into that role. We need to have surface lots to get things downtown (as everyone drives right now). Once we get a ton of things dt then more will move in and business will expand. Then we can replace surface lots with transit. There are 1,000 steps to get there and we are on like number 200. Each step we sacrifice and gain for the long run. The GVSU campus build tons of parking tearing down a few blocks of houses as a sacrifice. We benefit by getting students and teachers dt and put up attractive buildings. Long run, it helps get more things dt and then transit. Then all of the surface lots will explode with development as soon as people dont need to drive dt (cheapest land available). Transit is in the future of our city (and many cities across the nation, we are not alone in a movement toward transit). I see density receding (with positive additions to dt like the arena and gvsu have), then hitting a low (when we get enough things to entice a steady stream of new residents dt), then begin to rise with the rise of public transit. Density follows with the explosion of development.

So, for now they are a positive and integral step towards a vibrant city gaining new economy jobs with high density land use and plenty of downtown retail.

All IMO.

[Rizzo]

You bring up a good point.

I'm at the point where I think its better now to do it then later. When the public can get used to having diverse transit modes and to grow around it. We shouldn't be waiting for this until we are at the tipping point of growth while almost suffocating itself in a container of parking space. We might get away with growing in step with parking right now, but what happens in ten years, maybe even earlier? We all here are advocates for a well to due downtown and I don't see that happening by treating transit as a business venture -- where we jump on the market when it will give us the biggest return. We should at least start a small scaled system early and grow around it.

I don't see how we can develop our downtown until the tools are in place. The general public has made it clear parking is an issue. Whether it is the perceived complication to use it, that there is too much of it, or that its not in line of sight. Parking is indeed a problem we are living with right now. Just give it ten years from now and see what public opinion says.

Of course all in my opinion too.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Rizzo

[GRDadof3]

I think that by having surface lots for the arena, gvsu, and ymca are good things. The lots make it possible for them to be there. The things the lots support make dt more a better more interesting place to live. As a result the density will grow. I think it is a stage of growth. once we have enough people wanting to live dt and draw more business dt then transit will be a more popular choice. Having the surface lots help get things dt to draw more people and dense construction dt. Once dt is more densly populated and popular transit will become a favored option.

Density is important to transit, but not everything. If the public backs it, they will be willing to sacrifice for it. Example, the car. People want it and sacrifice time and lots of money to have it. If you had public support for transit the way you do for cars then no doubt would transit be able to serve all people.

I agree that those points would follow from having the transit. However, as I mentioned above, we need to grow into that role. We need to have surface lots to get things downtown (as everyone drives right now). Once we get a ton of things dt then more will move in and business will expand. Then we can replace surface lots with transit. There are 1,000 steps to get there and we are on like number 200. Each step we sacrifice and gain for the long run. The GVSU campus build tons of parking tearing down a few blocks of houses as a sacrifice. We benefit by getting students and teachers dt and put up attractive buildings. Long run, it helps get more things dt and then transit. Then all of the surface lots will explode with development as soon as people dont need to drive dt (cheapest land available). Transit is in the future of our city (and many cities across the nation, we are not alone in a movement toward transit). I see density receding (with positive additions to dt like the arena and gvsu have), then hitting a low (when we get enough things to entice a steady stream of new residents dt), then begin to rise with the rise of public transit. Density follows with the explosion of development.

So, for now they are a positive and integral step towards a vibrant city gaining new economy jobs with high density land use and plenty of downtown retail.

All IMO.

The parking lots make downtown a LESS interesting place to live. Have you ever noticed the gaps between buildings downtown, robbing areas of any kind of synergy? Go from the Boardwalk to downtown. How bland is it because there are more parking lots than ground floor attractions. Walk down Ionia during the day. From Weston South it's building, then parking lot, building then parking lot. A cohesive mesh of buildings and spaces would be entirely different. Walk from Rosa Parks Circle to the BOB. Parking lot, building, parking lot building. It's horrible, and not the right way to grow a city.

I would agree that the DASH system of lots and the massive amounts of GVSU surface lots were important for Grand Rapids to reach the point where it is today, but we have now reached the point of diminishing returns. With each new parking space built, we are losing important opportunities. It's time to take the training wheels off and grow up a little.

If downtown Grand Rapids were to lure a company with 1000 employees, where would they find 300,000 square feet of parking spaces (about 8 acres). Parking ramps are reaching $25,000/space, so that's a $25,000,000 parking ramp probably 12 - 15 stories high. Do we want another monster like that downtown? How would the developer pay for it, because the city certainly can't afford it. It's difficult to bury $25,000,000 in a $75,000,000 project without jacking your rents up by 1/3.

But Grand Rapidian we'll go ahead and put you down as a "no" vote on transit for Grand Rapids any time soon. Fair enough.

[GR_Urbanist]

And the sad this that many of those parking gaps between buildings were perfectly good building that today would be historic structures.

We have spent the past 30 years filling in these needless gaps with new buildings that, if we had left well enough alone, could have been built further north or south. The DT area maybe could have been much larger and denser.

And the sad thing is that we haven't filled many of them yet. They still are lots after 40 years!

[NorthEnder]

In addition, what does having this amount of asphalt do to the environment and water runoff?

I thought I read somewhere that GR is about maxed out as far as sewer goes for parking lots and streets. Do you know where they stand regarding?

Hopefully we can attract some interest in pervious concrete for the water runoff issue.

[AlexPKeaton]

We don't get many new and interesting things downtown because of parking. Developers are required to provide it, but there's no room for it. Building more parking makes the downtown less interesting and vibrant. One of the attractions of downtown is that it is THE downtown. Keep building lots and it's no different than the suburbs and a lot less convenient.

We've reached the point that all the land that could be used for parking is being used for parking. Don't expect to see more west side blocks demolished for parking. Perhaps the city could build ramps on existing DASH lots, but that's expensive and is just a band-aid. Suppose we do build enough parking to sustain downtown growth for the next 50 years, what becomes of the street network? Do we have the capacity to handle that many cars? I'm not just talking about the freeways, but the downtown surface streets as well.

We need to get a transit system in place now before we start removing too many surface lots. When the lots go there must be an alternative or people will just not bother with downtown. We also need to relax the minimum parking requirements for new development to encourage development and use of a new transit system.

[Grand Rapidian]

But Grand Rapidian we'll go ahead and put you down as a "no" vote on transit for Grand Rapids any time soon. Fair enough.

Please pass on the jabs and assumptions.

I have always supported transit. I am working for transit systems company this summer. I have taken grad courses in public transit. Did you not read earlier on this thread where I said if it were up to me we would have all the transit in the world? You even sent me a message to write a thing to a guy to promote mass transit tax increase because of my interest in transit.

Rizzo replied saying it is up to you, me, and everyone? I know part of it is up to me, thats part of why I am getting a degree in civil engineering with a focus on transit systems (and further interest in development) because I feel it is the way to go for all cities and I love it. I am just saying that I think the surface lots are a part of the growth phase that we are in and we could not be here without them (unless we had effective lasting mass transportation that predate downtowns developments).

We don't get many new and interesting things downtown because of parking. Developers are required to provide it, but there's no room for it. Building more parking makes the downtown less interesting and vibrant. One of the attractions of downtown is that it is THE downtown. Keep building lots and it's no different than the suburbs and a lot less convenient.

We've reached the point that all the land that could be used for parking is being used for parking. Don't expect to see more west side blocks demolished for parking. Perhaps the city could build ramps on existing DASH lots, but that's expensive and is just a band-aid. Suppose we do build enough parking to sustain downtown growth for the next 50 years, what becomes of the street network? Do we have the capacity to handle that many cars? I'm not just talking about the freeways, but the downtown surface streets as well.

We need to get a transit system in place now before we start removing too many surface lots. When the lots go there must be an alternative or people will just not bother with downtown. We also need to relax the minimum parking requirements for new development to encourage development and use of a new transit system.

I agree that we need transit, but I think the problem will only get worse before it gets better. It will get better, and I think the problem is not that sever.

Part of my theory is that you will not have retail downtown without parking. Without retail people wont want to live or come down as much. Less desire to go downtown, less desire for transit. downtown is hurt.

Part 2 of my theory. Parking and retail is built dt. People like dt more and move down there. Tourism and convention market are helped. dt becomes a busy congested place. City builds transit. Many of the lots are built on with more attractions as we are not dependent on parking.

Its all very chicken or the egg. Someone needs to shell out big bucks to get it rolling from either direction of transit first or big expensive parking dt first.

The streets have the capacity. I only see back-ups for events. The backed-up traffic would be a good tool to use to push for transit. Maybe not enough capacity for 50 years, but by then we will have transit or we have failed and all of our theories are wrong.

I am not saying that surface lots are what make downtown but they give us the opportunity to have anything downtown until we have transit.

[Veloise]

Pictures from today, and what these lots look like 16 hours a day, 5 days a week, and for 48 hours on weekends:

...

Worth a bazillion words.

Chris Knape, please help put these images and concepts in front of more of the powers that be.

[GRDadof3]

Please pass on the jabs and assumptions.

I have always supported transit. I am working for transit systems company this summer. I have taken grad courses in public transit. Did you not read earlier on this thread where I said if it were up to me we would have all the transit in the world? You even sent me a message to write a thing to a guy to promote mass transit tax increase because of my interest in transit.

Rizzo replied saying it is up to you, me, and everyone? I know part of it is up to me, thats part of why I am getting a degree in civil engineering with a focus on transit systems (and further interest in development) because I feel it is the way to go for all cities and I love it. I am just saying that I think the surface lots are a part of the growth phase that we are in and we could not be here without them (unless we had effective lasting mass transportation that predate downtowns developments).

I agree that we need transit, but I think the problem will only get worse before it gets better. It will get better, and I think the problem is not that sever.

Part of my theory is that you will not have retail downtown without parking. Without retail people wont want to live or come down as much. Less desire to go downtown, less desire for transit. downtown is hurt.

Part 2 of my theory. Parking and retail is built dt. People like dt more and move down there. Tourism and convention market are helped. dt becomes a busy congested place. City builds transit. Many of the lots are built on with more attractions as we are not dependent on parking.

Its all very chicken or the egg. Someone needs to shell out big bucks to get it rolling from either direction of transit first or big expensive parking dt first.

The streets have the capacity. I only see back-ups for events. The backed-up traffic would be a good tool to use to push for transit. Maybe not enough capacity for 50 years, but by then we will have transit or we have failed and all of our theories are wrong.

I am not saying that surface lots are what make downtown but they give us the opportunity to have anything downtown until we have transit.

OK, perhaps we can find some common ground here:

1) Yes, I agree that GVSU, the arena, and much of the resurgence of downtown could not have happened without ample parking and the DASH system set up like they were. I would say that the last 10 years of growth have been one particular phase that is coming to a close.

2) Can the current growth model of providing one parking space per worker or student downtown continue? No way. Even the Parking Commission reported to the City Commission that this is not sustainable much longer and must change.

3) Would the city and GVSU be able to sell off all these surface lots today for development, with no plans to replace these parking spots, and with the current transit system we have in place today? Of course not. They'd have a coup on their hands and employers would leave en masse for the suburbs. Not without a suitable alternative system where these lots are placed out of downtown with a quick and efficient express service to downtown can that happen.

4) Land costs downtown are 10 - 20x more expensive than in the suburbs. Why are we using it for parking? An acre (43,560 sq ft) of DASH parking stores about 150 cars, bringing in about $30/month per car, or $4500 a month (revenue, not profit) for an acre of land. If that same acre had a building with a 40,000 sq ft footprint, and was 10 stories, you're talking about 400,000 square feet of "people space". That's a lot of people added to downtown, a lot of tax revenue, a lot of disposable income for retail, and a lot more life. Property taxes alone on a 400,000 square foot building have to be about $100,000/year? It's about 200 square feet average/worker, or 2000 people in 400,000 square feet.

We'll say conservatively 1500 people x $40,000/year average salary = $60,000,000 in payroll, at 1% income tax for the city is $600,000/year in tax revenue. Someone check my math, but that's a lot more dough than the profit on an acre of DASH surface lot. (maintenance costs of a single DASH lot is $24/month, with revenue averaging $30/month on DASH spaces).

5) Parking would most likely still need to be provided for visitors, tourists and shoppers, which the current system of ramps is more than capable of handling. The main focus is daily car "storage" downtown for workers and students, most of which are coming in from the suburbs. Why not leave their cars out in the suburbs in park-n-ride lots?

6) That's where we need to go for the next phase of downtown Grand Rapids.

7) Transit systems today don't just "happen". It takes an extreme amount of political pressure, political maneuvering, a group of transit "champions", and a passionate citizen base to make it happen. The odds are stacked against transit, and the FTA is not out scouting cities to build new transit systems. Quite the contrary, there's now a 20 year wait list for New Starts funding. I'm not waiting 20 - 30 years when I'm 50 - 60 years old to push for mass transit in GR. It starts today.

Hopefully you can agree with most of that.

Veloise, Andy Guy and I have been conversing about this subject. I believe he plans to do a follow up on it and give it more exposure.

[Rizzo]

Please pass on the jabs and assumptions.

I have always supported transit. I am working for transit systems company this summer. I have taken grad courses in public transit. Did you not read earlier on this thread where I said if it were up to me we would have all the transit in the world? You even sent me a message to write a thing to a guy to promote mass transit tax increase because of my interest in transit.

Rizzo replied saying it is up to you, me, and everyone? I know part of it is up to me, thats part of why I am getting a degree in civil engineering with a focus on transit systems (and further interest in development) because I feel it is the way to go for all cities and I love it. I am just saying that I think the surface lots are a part of the growth phase that we are in and we could not be here without them (unless we had effective lasting mass transportation that predate downtowns developments).

I agree that we need transit, but I think the problem will only get worse before it gets better. It will get better, and I think the problem is not that sever.

Part of my theory is that you will not have retail downtown without parking. Without retail people wont want to live or come down as much. Less desire to go downtown, less desire for transit. downtown is hurt.

Part 2 of my theory. Parking and retail is built dt. People like dt more and move down there. Tourism and convention market are helped. dt becomes a busy congested place. City builds transit. Many of the lots are built on with more attractions as we are not dependent on parking.

Its all very chicken or the egg. Someone needs to shell out big bucks to get it rolling from either direction of transit first or big expensive parking dt first.

The streets have the capacity. I only see back-ups for events. The backed-up traffic would be a good tool to use to push for transit. Maybe not enough capacity for 50 years, but by then we will have transit or we have failed and all of our theories are wrong.

I am not saying that surface lots are what make downtown but they give us the opportunity to have anything downtown until we have transit.

Is parking really giving downtown opportunity? If you look at the amount of parking space we have already you would say its quite enormous, but look at retail? If retail downtown is so dependent on abundant parking, where is the retail? (Not something I am asking of you, not putting you on the spot.) I think its all about accessibility. Accessibility via an attractive, clean, and new transit mode.

The topic of mass transit in this city is frustrating for folks because it hasn't really been pushed hard enough. Even when we had key people talking about the need and want -- just seems that there isn't a hammer to the nail. It goes all the way back to the early 80s where I can document the talk of light rail, passenger rail, etc. in Grand Rapids -- all this time there has been talk.

[torgo]

And also don't forget, with the GVSU-owned lots, they are largely empty for four months straight from May-August.