Jump to content

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


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Be careful what you wish for I guess (those of us wishing for more downtown development).

The Business Journal is reporting today that the Parking Commission is in talks with developers (more in the past month than in years) that are informing the city that they are in need of 1800 parking spaces in the next five years. The city only has enough funding set aside to add 1200 in that time period. "Where is all this parking going to go?" is my question. One of the new planned lots is a 500 space DASH surface lot (where?)

http://www.grbj.com/GRBJ/ArticleArchive/20...nough+Money.htm

My guess is that they want the city to build the lots for spaces that can be leased back, because it's too expensive for them (developers) to purchase the land and cover financing costs (much like the Moch hotel parking plan).

For those of you who didn't believe that things had reached "crisis" level, I hate to say "I told you so". Even faster than I thought they would. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought of shopping for the parking lots or ramps by piece meal? If I remember, recently the city expressed interest in selling not at once, but on a case by case basis. You really shouldn't have to hold back -- just write you what you want.

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have considered an alternate offer. But the truth is that the idea gets a lot of play in other municipalities and sadly it may be too hard to do business here. Heck, today we even had the GR Press take a swipe at us in their editorial suggesting we somehow sought an "end-run." The difference between our offer and the Indian Trails fiasco is as stark as the the difference between the GR Press and the National Enquirer...

Anyway, back to parking...methinks that the parking dept speaks with a forked tongue. First they say they exist to support development then the very same day they say no to leasing parking for a new development. They say that parking is a profitable enterprise for the city with an annual surplus and $8.5 million in the bank. Then they say "oh yeah and we can't afford to do more parking to support developers." They suggested that we could not afford the lots (despite the fact that we offered financing letters from multi-billion dollar investment firms) and then said that we offered too little.

As I have said, I believe that the City, the Parking Commission, and the DDA should not invest $1 in parking lots...lets have the private sector do that. Instead, they should use the funds to start a mass transit system or to enhance the parks, or other some other quality of life issues.

Whew...I feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have considered an alternate offer. But the truth is that the idea gets a lot of play in other municipalities and sadly it may be too hard to do business here. Heck, today we even had the GR Press take a swipe at us in their editorial suggesting we somehow sought an "end-run." The difference between our offer and the Indian Trails fiasco is as stark as the the difference between the GR Press and the National Enquirer...

Anyway, back to parking...methinks that the parking dept speaks with a forked tongue. First they say they exist to support development then the very same day they say no to leasing parking for a new development. They say that parking is a profitable enterprise for the city with an annual surplus and $8.5 million in the bank. Then they say "oh yeah and we can't afford to do more parking to support developers." They suggested that we could not afford the lots (despite the fact that we offered financing letters from multi-billion dollar investment firms) and then said that we offered too little.

As I have said, I believe that the City, the Parking Commission, and the DDA should not invest $1 in parking lots...lets have the private sector do that. Instead, they should use the funds to start a mass transit system or to enhance the parks, or other some other quality of life issues.

Whew...I feel better.

I agree that they city shouldn't be hoarding a bunch of land downtown for parking, but isn't there some legitimacy to the argument that the city already owns a lot of land downtown and that they can get better financing than the private sector, thereby allowing parking to be more economical for them to take on? Or is that not always the case? As I hypothesized in the beginning of this thread, parking issues may very well grind downtown development to a halt, if something isn't done to change the way people are getting into downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said, I believe that the City, the Parking Commission, and the DDA should not invest $1 in parking lots...lets have the private sector do that. Instead, they should use the funds to start a mass transit system or to enhance the parks, or other some other quality of life issues.

Whew...I feel better.

I tend to agree with you...but I see one problem: As soon as the city starts working on mass transit, a bunch of private firms that specialize in "railway management" are going to show up and say "ohmigosh! the city shouldn't spend $1 on mass transit....lets have the private sector do that. Instead they should use the funds to take are of this parking problem, or to enhance the parks, or some other quality of life issues."

To me the issue is the forked tongue thing you pointed out. If it's a surplus item for the city, then let them have at it! They've got enough deficit items to grind city services to a halt and require philanthropically-funded pools (the requirement is a tragedy, the philanthropists are heroes) so if they've got a "profitable" department, more power to them. THing is, as you point out, they're operating it like it's not profitable at all. To me that's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have considered an alternate offer. But the truth is that the idea gets a lot of play in other municipalities and sadly it may be too hard to do business here. Heck, today we even had the GR Press take a swipe at us in their editorial suggesting we somehow sought an "end-run." The difference between our offer and the Indian Trails fiasco is as stark as the the difference between the GR Press and the National Enquirer...

Anyway, back to parking...methinks that the parking dept speaks with a forked tongue. First they say they exist to support development then the very same day they say no to leasing parking for a new development. They say that parking is a profitable enterprise for the city with an annual surplus and $8.5 million in the bank. Then they say "oh yeah and we can't afford to do more parking to support developers." They suggested that we could not afford the lots (despite the fact that we offered financing letters from multi-billion dollar investment firms) and then said that we offered too little.

As I have said, I believe that the City, the Parking Commission, and the DDA should not invest $1 in parking lots...lets have the private sector do that. Instead, they should use the funds to start a mass transit system or to enhance the parks, or other some other quality of life issues.

Whew...I feel better.

I agree that they city shouldn't be hoarding a bunch of land downtown for parking, but isn't there some legitimacy to the argument that the city already owns a lot of land downtown and that they can get better financing than the private sector, thereby allowing parking to be more economical for them to take on? Or is that not always the case? As I hypothesized in the beginning of this thread, parking issues may very well grind downtown development to a halt, if something isn't done to change the way people are getting into downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I hypothesized in the beginning of this thread, parking issues may very well grind downtown development to a halt, if something isn't done to change the way people are getting into downtown.

I agree 100%. As much as people want to make GR a densely populated, urban city, it will never have the mass (or at least I doubt it will in my lifetime) to be a Chicago or NYC where a billion dollar mass transit system eases cars off the streets, and thus parking becomes less and less of an issue. Sorry to say, but most (not all, but I'd say well above 90%) of all people that want to or currently live downtown want to have at least one vehicle per household. This won't change due to the dynamics of the way the metro area is set up...an example is it just isn't practical hauling bags of groceries from the 'burbs to a dwelling unit downtown via the bus system. Also, if you want to see a movie, buy clothes, go to the beach, hit up a Best Buy or Home Depot or etc.etc.etc., you have to get in your car to do it.

Downtown land is expensive and getting even moreso, so any private developer that wants to build, and needs parking, will have to greatly increase selling / rent / lease rates to pay for either wasted surface area for a parking lot or expensive parking structure designs and builds below ground / the first few levels above ground. I agree with GRDad in that the City can more easily (and more cheaply) leverage debt to pay for parking structures; however, I don't want to walk through a downtown where every other building is an enclosed parking lot. Why doesn't the parking commission / DDA / City look at buying up much cheaper land (compared to downtown) between Michigan and I-196 near either the East Beltline or Fuller exits? There is a lot of industrial land in this area, as well as fairly worn out residential), that is out of site of most of the more heavily traveled areas. Built a couple of "super-structures" that can house many thousands of cars, ensure very timely Rapid bus service to these structures for the three mile trip to downtown, and charge a lot less for monthly rates to downtown employees / businesses. I'm not sure what going rates are for some of the core downtown parking structures, but if you would charge a person or business $25 or less a month (including both parking and bus ride downtown) than current downtown rates, I think you'd find some huge success. ($300 a year savings a year for an average downtown employee would be very appealing, especially for companies that have dozens or hundreds of employees)

Perhaps an over-simplified concept and the economics would be all wrong, but this might be something even a private developer could cash in on...

EDIT: People seem stuck on eliminating people commuting via cars...sorry to say, it won't happen. Instead, perhaps embracing the fact that people will continue to commute, and designing an efficient system around this fact, will help ease some of the issues being faced.

Edited by CK1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100%. As much as people want to make GR a densely populated, urban city, it will never have the mass (or at least I doubt it will in my lifetime) to be a Chicago or NYC where a billion dollar mass transit system eases cars off the streets, and thus parking becomes less and less of an issue. Sorry to say, but most (not all, but I'd say well above 90%) of all people that want to or currently live downtown want to have at least one vehicle per household. This won't change due to the dynamics of the way the metro area is set up...an example is it just isn't practical hauling bags of groceries from the 'burbs to a dwelling unit downtown via the bus system. Also, if you want to see a movie, buy clothes, go to the beach, hit up a Best Buy or Home Depot or etc.etc.etc., you have to get in your car to do it.

Downtown land is expensive and getting even moreso, so any private developer that wants to build, and needs parking, will have to greatly increase selling / rent / lease rates to pay for either wasted surface area for a parking lot or expensive parking structure designs and builds below ground / the first few levels above ground. I agree with GRDad in that the City can more easily (and more cheaply) leverage debt to pay for parking structures; however, I don't want to walk through a downtown where every other building is an enclosed parking lot. Why doesn't the parking commission / DDA / City look at buying up much cheaper land (compared to downtown) between Michigan and I-196 near either the East Beltline or Fuller exits? There is a lot of industrial land in this area, as well as fairly worn out residential), that is out of site of most of the more heavily traveled areas. Built a couple of "super-structures" that can house many thousands of cars, ensure very timely Rapid bus service to these structures for the three mile trip to downtown, and charge a lot less for monthly rates to downtown employees / businesses. I'm not sure what going rates are for some of the core downtown parking structures, but if you would charge a person or business $25 or less a month (including both parking and bus ride downtown) than current downtown rates, I think you'd find some huge success. ($300 a year savings a year for an average downtown employee would be very appealing, especially for companies that have dozens or hundreds of employees)

Perhaps an over-simplified concept and the economics would be all wrong, but this might be something even a private developer could cash in on...

Exactly right CK1. I know I've been pretty bull-headed that we need commuter or light rail to downtown, bu we may be to the point that something quicker and less expensive needs to be instituted sooner. You can find vacant industrial and retail land near just about every major exit ramp in the metro area. Look at the big trailer park that was demolished near Wilson and I-196 that still sits vacant (I think Wal-Mart was going to build there and didn't). You can see it on the South side of the freeway as you are heading toward downtown near that lake and the concrete plant. Park-n-ride with express bus service to downtown anyone? That costs 1/2 as much maybe? Wireless? Coffee? Read the paper?

Or what about all the vacant commercial land near the NW corner of I-196/Beltline/96? It's right near that building that has a certain "prairie house" flair too it and used to be an MCI HQ or something? Or what about vacant land near West River Dr. and 131? Any of these sites are way less expensive per acre than downtown land.

As you mentioned, what's stopping a private developer/manager from starting up an operation like that and compete with downtown parking? Or the city buying the land and contract out the management of it?

People living downtown are not going to go without cars (most), but commuters and business owners might find it to be a very attractive alternative. And the city of GR might not have a choice soon (which is good that downtown is so highly coveted now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or what about all the vacant commercial land near the NW corner of I-196/Beltline/96? It's right near that building that has a certain "prairie house" flair too it and used to be an MCI HQ or something?

I believe that land is owned by none other than Mr. Azzar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the going rate (per space) for a parking structure? Is it really the appx. $25k per space as the cost of the new airport structure calculates out to be? Could a company "prefab" a lot of a structure and assemble is at a lower cost per space? Also, what is the payback timeframe on constructing a structure? At $25k a spot, divided by $70 a month, I come out to about 30 years, and that doesn't cover any operating costs, maintenance costs, etc., assumes full capacity, and wouldn't provide any money for bussing services. Either construction costs would have to come down, or parking structures truly would be a municipal project (vs. private developer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the going rate (per space) for a parking structure? Is it really the appx. $25k per space as the cost of the new airport structure calculates out to be? Could a company "prefab" a lot of a structure and assemble is at a lower cost per space? Also, what is the payback timeframe on constructing a structure? At $25k a spot, divided by $70 a month, I come out to about 30 years, and that doesn't cover any operating costs, maintenance costs, etc., assumes full capacity, and wouldn't provide any money for bussing services. Either construction costs would have to come down, or parking structures truly would be a municipal project (vs. private developer).

I think you could build a ramp on these vacant lots a lot cheaper than downtown. For one thing, as you said, it could be prefab and not be nearly as ornate or complex as downtown. Plus, the land might be flatter for lower construction costs (it's hard to find a flat spot downtown). Plus, land is closer to $100K to $200K per acre instead of $2 - $3 Million/acre. There's probably 10% of your cost cut right there. I bet it would be closer to $15,000/space. You could even start with large 400 - 500 car surface lots to begin with at a fraction of the cost, and build ramps as demand increased. :dontknow:

I'd like to hear back from DJL on this idea. I know it's been bantered about on here before, but I've never gotten any feedback on it. I'm going to guess that on an operational level, it will just barely break even or even lose money, but perhaps money could be made up elsewhere (from then selling the city-owned lots?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100%. As much as people want to make GR a densely populated, urban city, it will never have the mass (or at least I doubt it will in my lifetime) to be a Chicago or NYC where a billion dollar mass transit system eases cars off the streets, and thus parking becomes less and less of an issue.

While I agree with almost everything you said, mass & density does not necessarily have to be on the same level as NYC or Chicago for Mass Transit to be successful. This may be comparing applies to oranges, but Zurich, Switzerland has a metro not too much larger than ours (~1.08mil) but they have an INCREDIBLY complex transit system and operates incredibly well and is always used. I know I know... Zurish is in Europe and is Switzerland's biggest city, so you can't really compare them I guess... But I just wanted to through that out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if at all possible ITP should route some of the highways. They aren't congested and are often really express options for motorists anyways. Like what was mentioned you could have park and ride options. The problem is you have 25,000-30,000 people doing business downtown and who knows if they are all coming from concentrated areas. It's likely spread out thin over the entire metro region. This could explain why ITP hasn't moved on a commuting service and is just looking seriously into providing a commuting service down Division.

At the very least a commuter route, I think, will do is introduce transit to those who don't normally view it as an option.

EDIT: I hope people realize the potential opportunity Kent County is facing. With news that the transit subcommittee may return with its verdict of county wide transit (next month possibly) -- people should be speaking up for the downtown commuter.... Downtown has been noting transit for a long time and if it wants to continue to draw people in from the farthest reaches of the metropolitan area the county and everyone else is going to have to step in.

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this thread!

Let me hit a couple of issues:

1) The financing issue is not really correct. I was in NYC yesterday meeting with investment banks about this exact issue. The whole idea that the City can finance it for less is simply not true. The initial interest rate of tax free vs taxable is lower but there are so many other factors that go into the financing cost (like the tax rate, amortization period, the spread of taxable to non-taxable, tax deductions, depreciation, leverage factors etc). When taken in total we can finance as low if not lower. I don't want to get into a graduate level finance course but suffice it to say to say that our offer came with a complete plan to pay for it. We had (have) banks, investment banks, etc lined up. The interest rate thing is simple one for people to understand but there is a lot of important stuff that sits deeper in the numbers.

2) If we can find anyone who wants to operate a "for profit" mass transit system that is not subsidized, I say we do it. Unlike parking, there are natural monopoly cost conditions that essentially require that we have a mass transit asset as a public good. Those conditions are not the same in parking. The evidence of that is that in Grand Rapids we already have a number of private parking operators but we have no private mass transit operators (please don't argue about Spectrum's parking buses because those are supported by other revenues). Like the park system, mass transit is a public good and gets financed by millages etc.

3) As for the outlying parking lots that you suggested before GRDad, It is an interesting exercise but this market is not ready for it. As much as we complain about parking, we all want our cars near us. If someone is going to bother driving in from Ada or Rockford, it is probably not worth $25-$50 bucks a month to park at Michigan and Leffingwell vs downtown. Put a light rail that goes the whole distance and you are likely to be more successful.

4) The problem with the current system is it is set up as a subsidy but the rules are not clearly stated and it reeks of "good old boy" behavior. Without taking shots, recent decisions on where to build lots smacked of cronyism (at least to a guy with no skin in the game). There is no parking shortage downtown...only a shortage of subsidized parking. That is why developers are talking to Pam Ritsema. They want her to give them subsidized parking (What a coup if you can get it). The way it appears now is that the decision is not obviously based on economics or best interests of the city. I wonder how the city is going to decide where to build those additional lots. I think the people around those lots will get a benefit that the rest of the city won't enjoy and because it creates winners and losers, the development community is lobbying and the city is picking and choosing. If it were left up to the private market it would be based on economics. With 2 or more players in the market and no illegal collusion the market would be fairly efficient.

5) Parking decks are not as costly as we are hearing. I cannot figure out how they justified that new lot on Commerce. It is very costly. I think the huge lot by GVSU was about $16,000 per spot. I can understand some scale benefits but $51,000 for Commerce seems very high. And at $125 per month, how can one justify the cost?

6) We are not NYC or Chicago. But I think we are similar to Strausburg, France and they seem to have a very nice light rail system.

All for now

DJL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5) Parking decks are not as costly as we are hearing. I cannot figure out how they justified that new lot on Commerce. It is very costly. I think the huge lot by GVSU was about $16,000 per spot. I can understand some scale benefits but $51,000 for Commerce seems very high. And at $125 per month, how can one justify the cost?

Are you saying pay $125 per month for a space?

If so, yes. I thinks it can be justified. If one were to take the bus, BRT, LRT, Street Car or (any other form for that matter) it will cost about $2 or more each way. at $4 per day, 30 days a week equals $120 (I know that people don't go to work on weekends so any cost over run can be covered by time saved and freedoms gained). Neglecting fuel costs (and other associated vehicle costs) as that is not part of this debate as if you are being serviced by transit you are not far from the core of Grand Rapids. The pass comes with no time limits, use as often as you want. Transit in GR often will not save much time on your commute either.

My boss parks in dt SF and pays $300 a month. That is harder to justify. He says for the time it saves him riding transit to his house in the city it is worth it. Idk, I would take the bus for that cost no doubt. Whatever floats ones boat.

It all depends, but if I were not transit oriented $125 per month would not be to bad to have all the freedoms it offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if at all possible ITP should route some of the highways. They aren't congested and are often really express options for motorists anyways. Like what was mentioned you could have park and ride options. The problem is you have 25,000-30,000 people doing business downtown and who knows if they are all coming from concentrated areas. It's likely spread out thin over the entire metro region. This could explain why ITP hasn't moved on a commuting service and is just looking seriously into providing a commuting service down Division.

At the very least a commuter route, I think, will do is introduce transit to those who don't normally view it as an option.

EDIT: I hope people realize the potential opportunity Kent County is facing. With news that the transit subcommittee may return with its verdict of county wide transit (next month possibly) -- people should be speaking up for the downtown commuter.... Downtown has been noting transit for a long time and if it wants to continue to draw people in from the farthest reaches of the metropolitan area the county and everyone else is going to have to step in.

I agree, there is a great opportunity for the county. The economy is slow, but if get one together now it might be done by the time the economy is in full swing again. It is just proving ridership and getting funding that is a challenge for new systems. Even BRT costs around $1-2 million per mile to implement depending on infrastructure included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying pay $125 per month for a space?

If so, yes. I thinks it can be justified...

I guess I was not clear. For a user I totally understand the value. But at $125 per space in revenue to the City it is hard to justify spending $51,000 to build it. Assuming $25 per month in operating costs (which is way lower than reality), it would take the city 42.5 years to get the lot paid back without interest. Because ramps tend to have a 25 year useful life there is no justfication (financially) for this lot. Honestly, I am not even sure how they will ever repay the bonds and by law if they cannot repay them from parking revenues, the shortfall comes out of the City's general fund. Last time I checked there did not seem to be a surplus there either.

Some might argue that this is exactly why we need the City to own the downtown parking. I suggest that this is poor stewadship of our limited government resources and thus exactly why they should not be in the parking business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.