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

[GRDadof3]

Also, the People Mover had 2.3 Million riders last year, or about 6500 riders/day average, and equal to 1/4 of the total Grand Rapids bus ridership for the whole metro area. As much as I pick on it, it's hardly a cash-draining albatross.

[Rizzo]

Not to mention a commuter rail system isn't a circular people mover.

[Veloise]

...

Can't wait to have coffee. ...

on March 31 at 10 am?

[wingbert]

To encourage fewer cars and more pedestrians downtown, we should close off Monroe Center at both ends and make it a pedestrial mall. Business would thrive along this mall as people walked up and down without the hassle of dodging traffic.

[tamias6]

Hold It! Stop! Cease! Desist! A long time ago, Munroe Center was made into a pedestrian mall, a serious mistake that ended in failure which is why the city opened it back up to traffic in the 90's. So making Monroe Center Pedestrian Only gets a big fat N-O from me.

To encourage fewer cars and more pedestrians downtown, we should close off Monroe Center at both ends and make it a pedestrial mall. Business would thrive along this mall as people walked up and down without the hassle of dodging traffic.

[snoogit]

Hold It! Stop! Cease! Desist! A long time ago, Munroe Center was made into a pedestrian mall, a serious mistake that ended in failure which is why the city opened it back up to traffic in the 90's. So making Monroe Center Pedestrian Only gets a big fat N-O from me.

I think he realizes that.

[Coleco]

Also, the People Mover had 2.3 Million riders last year, or about 6500 riders/day average, and equal to 1/4 of the total Grand Rapids bus ridership for the whole metro area. As much as I pick on it, it's hardly a cash-draining albatross.

It still drained money and has a very limited range.

Last year also was boosted by the Super Bowl and an exceptional year for the Tigers. Look at the ridership figures from the previous 20 years. It has never come close to paying for itself.

Face it, the DPM has been losing money for years, provides a very limited form of light rail around downtown and is incredibly expensive to maintain and add on to (which is why it hasn't been added to in any significant way). There's a reason no one has built a similar system. It just doesn't make economic sense (plus it interferes with the architecture of some wonderful old buildings. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad ridership is up and now that it's there, Detroit should maintain and promote it. But "Coleman's Train" is nothing to hold up as an example of an urban transit system done right.

From the freep last year [http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/578223/trains_in_transit_people_mover_rides_high_detroits_short_rail/index.html]: "The system was paid for in fiscal 2005 with $8.74 million a year from the city and $2.95 million from the state. Fares that year brought in $443,669."

[GRDadof3]

It still drained money and has a very limited range.

Last year also was boosted by the Super Bowl and an exceptional year for the Tigers. Look at the ridership figures from the previous 20 years. It has never come close to paying for itself.

Face it, the DPM has been losing money for years, provides a very limited form of light rail around downtown and is incredibly expensive to maintain and add on to (which is why it hasn't been added to in any significant way). There's a reason no one has built a similar system. It just doesn't make economic sense (plus it interferes with the architecture of some wonderful old buildings. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad ridership is up and now that it's there, Detroit should maintain and promote it. But "Coleman's Train" is nothing to hold up as an example of an urban transit system done right.

From the freep last year [http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/578223/trains_in_transit_people_mover_rides_high_detroits_short_rail/index.html]: "The system was paid for in fiscal 2005 with $8.74 million a year from the city and $2.95 million from the state. Fares that year brought in $443,669."

Let me start by saying I'm not a fan of the People Mover and agree it is very limited, but with that said...

Maintenance of highway infrastructure for the state of Michigan last year: $109 Million

"Fares" from individual users: $0

I'd say that qualifies for "highly subsidized" and "not paying for itself". Guess highways don't make economic sense.

I kid, of course. But just like the streetcars proposed for GR, downtown people movers are pretty narrow reaching in and of themselves. However, the People Mover was planned to be a downtown link for a network of mass transit, light rail, subway and commuter rail lines leading into downtown Detroit, all meeting the People Mover at intermediate stations. So it can not be criticized for what it is, but possibly for never fulfilling its planned system use.

Would I build an elevated people mover like Detroit's that just shuttles people around downtown? Of course not. Would I build a "people mover" that takes people around downtown GR from intermediate stations on the outskirts of downtown linked to light rail commuter lines leading out the suburbs? Absolutely.

BTW: People Mover ridership:

# 2000: 1,485,900

# 2001: 2,370,000

# 2002: 2,186,600

# 2003: 1,267,900

# 2004: 953,753

# 2005: 1,792,924

# 2006: 2,368,361

2002 - 2004 it was not circuitous because of GM's HQ remodel.

[tamias6]

.....Would I build a "people mover" that takes people around downtown GR from intermediate stations on the outskirts of downtown linked to light rail commuter lines leading out the suburbs? Absolutely.....

And so we find a perfect roll for the proposed streetcar.

[Rizzo]

In my opinion you can't compare Detroit's People Mover and GR's proposed streetcar -- no way. The concepts they share are the transportation of people and utilization of rail. The maintenance, design, construction, costs, etc. are so ranging that they just can't be fairly put side to side.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Rizzo

[Grand Rapidian]

I don't think there are any transportation systems that truly make economic sense.

Anyone know of any that don't cost more than they take in? Most of their benefits come from things other than direct dollar figures such as reduced traffic, encouraged economic growth ect. Tax pays for it, just like highways. Highways promote economic growth and get people around. Those are the benefits that we get from the tax. The only reason there is a fare box (and the highway does not- except toll roads) is because the public will not support fully funding the system. Having the fare box is quasi requirement to get funding.

[GRDadof3]

I don't think there are any transportation systems that truly make economic sense.

Anyone know of any that don't cost more than they take in? Most of their benefits come from things other than direct dollar figures such as reduced traffic, encouraged economic growth ect. Tax pays for it, just like highways. Highways promote economic growth and get people around. Those are the benefits that we get from the tax. The only reason there is a fare box (and the highway does not- except toll roads) is because the public will not support fully funding the system. Having the fare box is quasi requirement to get funding.

I could agree with that. I also think the fare box "adds value" to a transit system like light rail. Actually having it "cost money" makes people think it holds value, whereas if it were free, people would psychologically think it's a "joy ride".

But it still in interesting how people expect transit to at least break even, if not make a profit. It's because they see it as some kind of luxury, not as an important transportation tool. I think that's slowly changing though, as just about every city Grand Rapids' size and bigger has an expanded mass transit plan in the works.

[wingbert]

In fact I do remember the "Monroe Mall" fiasco and I have enjoyed witnessing the slow but positive return to life of that stretch of street. I was just being facetious in my suggestion to bring the mall back. My point being that what can seem like a great idea on the surface can actually backfire spectacularly when implemented. Not that I think light rail and streetcars are a bad idea, but simply reducing the available parking downtown and telling people to ride a train into the city could end up having the opposite effect and could drive people away from downtown instead.

I, for one, am in favor of anything that can break the Ellis family hegemony on downtown parking. Of course, the city in its infinite wisdom will probably have Ellis provide the outlying lots where you park to catch the train into town.

I think he realizes that.

[GRDadof3]

In fact I do remember the "Monroe Mall" fiasco and I have enjoyed witnessing the slow but positive return to life of that stretch of street. I was just being facetious in my suggestion to bring the mall back. My point being that what can seem like a great idea on the surface can actually backfire spectacularly when implemented. Not that I think light rail and streetcars are a bad idea, but simply reducing the available parking downtown and telling people to ride a train into the city could end up having the opposite effect and could drive people away from downtown instead.

I, for one, am in favor of anything that can break the Ellis family hegemony on downtown parking. Of course, the city in its infinite wisdom will probably have Ellis provide the outlying lots where you park to catch the train into town.

You'd have to have buy-in from the a majority of the downtown employers before you implemented a large-scale downsizing of city-owned parking downtown, or you're right that they would be pretty unhappy and possibly move out to the suburbs.

For one thing, the city couldn't decide tomorrow to put all the DASH lots on the market and expect them to be developed, because there's only so much market out there for new development. However, on issues like the Area 4/5 scenario, instead of asking a developer to replace all the DASH lots plus provide parking for shoppers and movie-goers, they'd only have to worry about providing parking for their own patrons (and you could reduce that requirement as well). Taking 400 parking spaces ($10,000,000 in ramp construction) out of their pro-forma may make it more economical. Using this as an illustration BTW. That same formula could be replicated for each DASH lot.

Secondly, the city earns a profit on the DASH system, albeit not very much, and nowhere near what they could make on income tax and property tax putting this land back into the private sector. They'd have to forego their profits a little at a time and make it up in resulting development, much like the sacrifice/investment they make in Renaissance Zones. The ramps aren't going anywhere, so they would stay in the system and provide a lot of visitor parking.

With parking rates in the city's system ranging between $22 - $66/month for DASH spots, to $120 - $132/month for ramp spaces, I think a $30 - $40/month transit pass would be well received (parking included).

No one's going to tell Ellis to get out of the parking business, but the 9 DASH lots alone could be be phased out over several years, in direct correlation to ridership estimates per corridor of light rail added. Plus, I don't know that Ellis would want to control the park-n-ride lots, since they will not produce any revenue. Parking at the park-n-rides would be free and included with your monthly transit pass (similar to how all light-rail park-n-rides operate).

There are also ways to get downtown employers excited about transit, perhaps by giving them bulk-pricing for employees or other incentives. It has to be a well orchestrated operation to make it a sure success. (No keeping it a secret campaigns)

But to me comparing shutting down Monroe Mall and a metro-wide transit system is a stretch. I don't know of any downtown pedestrian malls that were/are successful, but there are plenty of successful transit systems to point to. In fact, I can only think of a few that could be deemed "unsuccessful". We need to move beyond the phase of "wouldn't that be nice" to "this is a necessity" to our continued growth.

First we have to create a plan that city, county and metro-wide officials and business owners can get excited about, that is low cost and gets us started off on the right foot. We're working on that full-speed ahead right now.

[walker]

.... Plus, I don't know that Ellis would want to control the park-n-ride lots, since they will not produce any revenue. Parking at the park-n-rides would be free and included with your monthly transit pass (similar to how all light-rail park-n-rides operate).

This is a stupid nit that shows that I don't have much to do today but I can remember paying a lot to park at the Alewife park-n-ride station in Boston. I think that's true in a lot of places particularly when the park-n-ride lot is a big expensive to build ramp. Of course if you named a station Alewife around here nobody would use it even if it was free.

[GRDadof3]

This is a stupid nit that shows that I don't have much to do today but I can remember paying a lot to park at the Alewife park-n-ride station in Boston. I think that's true in a lot of places particularly when the park-n-ride lot is a big expensive to build ramp. Of course if you named a station Alewife around here nobody would use it even if it was free.

Thanks for the clarification walker. I should refrain from using the term "all". But I was thinking more along the lines of Portland's MAX, Salt Lake City's TRAX and Denver's RTD where park-n-ride facilities are included with your fare. Even Chicago's South Shore Line has free parking. I'm not familiar with Boston's system.

I don't see us needing to build any parking ramps at the park-n-rides any time soon, but that would be great if the demand were there at some point in the future. Who knows, there may be an argument for "privatizing" the lots and leasing them back.

[Raildudes dad]

Maintenance of highway infrastructure for the state of Michigan last year: $109 Million

"Fares" from individual users: $0

I'd say that qualifies for "highly subsidized" and "not paying for itself". Guess highways don't make economic sense.

I kid, of course.

I'm glad you kidding: Lest anyone get the wrong idea, everyone donates $0.19 per gallon state gas tax dedicated to highways the state (90% maintenance and 10% new construction) and then there's $0.184 per gallon federal gas tax dedicated to be used for federal funds to the states for highway purposes.

[Raildudes dad]

First we have to create a plan that city, county and metro-wide officials and business owners can get excited about, that is low cost and gets us started off on the right foot. We're working on that full-speed ahead right now.

I'm afraid the biggest hurdle will be convincing the powers to be that rail transit is better than their BRT .

Stations, platforms, parking, trainsets - just details

And..... I wish I could work on this full time

Ok GRD3, how'd I post this twice?

Edited March 23, 2007 by Raildudes dad

[wingbert]

If I could catch a train into downtown rather than dodge the road rage-aholics on 196, count me in!

Let's add more to the skywalk system too. Connect Bridgewater, Pill Hill, GRCC, the Police Station, the new Art Museum, Tall House, etc. Make a complete loop and then provide golf carts like they have at major airports with the beeper and flashing light. Sort of a GR-sized version of the Loop in Chicago.

[tamias6]

Ha! Put me in one of those golf carts and I'd have a blast rippin' though the skywalk network a 30 miles per hour.

If I could catch a train into downtown rather than dodge the road rage-aholics on 196, count me in!

Let's add more to the skywalk system too. Connect Bridgewater, Pill Hill, GRCC, the Police Station, the new Art Museum, Tall House, etc. Make a complete loop and then provide golf carts like they have at major airports with the beeper and flashing light. Sort of a GR-sized version of the Loop in Chicago.

[Rizzo]

Now you have to find all the places to put golf carts.

[GRDadof3]

Now you have to find all the places to put golf carts.

Oyyy

wingbert, many of us are big anti-skywalk people. I think there's a 20 page rant about it here somewhere back last year or so.

[wingbert]

wingbert, many of us are big anti-skywalk people. I think there's a 20 page rant about it here somewhere back last year or so.

You only hate it because it isn't a complete loop and you don't have a golf cart. Sorry to have brought it up. I know it's a devisive topic.

[tamias6]

I remember catching the tail end of that thread's life cycle when I first joined up. That told me right there to never design buildings with sky walks on them unless I want a severe tongue lashing and from fellow Planeteeers. Poor Sky walks. they got such a bad rap

Oyyy

wingbert, many of us are big anti-skywalk people. I think there's a 20 page rant about it here somewhere back last year or so.

[localtalent]

I had to post this in the parking topic....

The Sierra Room is closing and blaming it on parking.

http://www.mlive.com/business/grpress/inde....xml&coll=6