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

[Quercus]

48 minutes ago, temporary.name said:

Your original comment was not clear at all about what you think constitutes a 'system.' I, using the correct definition, assumed you meant a complete, operational, functioning, taking passengers and making money 'streetcar system.'  If you're counting, for example, a streetcar system that goes around a block (fully operational, mind you) as 30% of some future / planned / dreamed for end goal, than it is STILL a streetcar system.

I apologize that your inability to cognitively grasp my point caused you to hurt yourself. 

Transportation systems are planned and often fail when partially implemented. Building one functioning line or 30% of the planned system is not equal to the end state and should not be judged as the final product. To stick with your hole example, let's say the plan for my backyard fence calls for 10 inch post holes. But I've been tearing into All Days for a few hours so I get lazy and only dig the holes 3 inches. I pour some Quikrete in the holes and call it good. A few weeks later a strong gust blows the fence down while I'm sunbathing in the nude. Do I curse the fencing materials or the plan I was working off of? Maybe if I had dug down to 7 or 8 inches the fence would have held up and my neighbors wouldn't be staring at me and shrieking. It's okay though because I have a couple of extra All Days and I'm happy to share.

The point is you can't build 30% of a transportation system and then critique it as if it represents the final product. I feel that's true of BRT, streetcars, and yes, bicycle infrastructure. Detroit's People Mover is often lambasted because it's short, one-way, and elevated. What a lot of people don't know is that it was planned to be the hub in a much larger rail system that never materialized. The key to making any form of transportation look crummy is to build as little of the planned system as possible.

[mgreven]

I just wonder how far away from self driving cars we really are. 20 years from now, everything changes as far as city planning and parking? That would transform the way we build our cities...20 years is a LONG time in technology years. 

[GRDadof3]

13 minutes ago, Quercus said:

Transportation systems are planned and often fail when partially implemented. Building one functioning line or 30% of the planned system is not equal to the end state and should not be judged as the final product. To stick with your hole example, let's say the plan for my backyard fence calls for 10 inch post holes. But I've been tearing into All Days for a few hours so I get lazy and only dig the holes 3 inches. I pour some Quikrete in the holes and call it good. A few weeks later a strong gust blows the fence down while I'm sunbathing in the nude. Do I curse the fencing materials or the plan I was working off of? Maybe if I had dug down to 7 or 8 inches the fence would have held up and my neighbors wouldn't be staring at me and shrieking. It's okay though because I have a couple of extra All Days and I'm happy to share.

The point is you can't build 30% of a transportation system and then critique it as if it represents the final product. I feel that's true of BRT, streetcars, and yes, bicycle infrastructure. Detroit's People Mover is often lambasted because it's short, one-way, and elevated. What a lot of people don't know is that it was planned to be the hub in a much larger rail system that never materialized. The key to making any form of transportation look crummy is to build as little of the planned system as possible.

That's a really poor example Quercus. Using your post hole digging metaphor, a streetcar system built to 30% using your methodology would be the rails and not the train cars. That's not what we're talking about. There are real, actual bike lanes in the city that work for cyclists. Using your example, every bicyclist in the city would be only allowed to have one wheel on their bike. 

Try again. 

 

[Quercus]

53 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

What do YOU suggest the solution is, Quercus? Or are you of the belief that no problem exists?

I hear much anecdotal evidence. I trust some of these accounts are valid and that pockets of greater downtown GR are tight on parking. But I also see a great deal of available parking associated with newer developments. So I think downtown GR is probably experiencing a natural stratification of sorts where tenants and residents might move around to suit their needs. I think some of the hype is caused by developers who see City owned parking ramps as another subsidy to chase after.

I don't think there will be a sudden mass migration of all commercial tenants from downtown but the City should definitely pay attention to the complaints as they come in. I don't envy them as it's a fine line to walk. GR's growth shows they are clearly doing a lot of things right. Like I said before it is a good issue to be facing.

As far as solutions go, I'd say they should try to nail down if, where, and when parking shortages exist. Don't hire an expensive, out-of-state consultant who is working a dozen other projects at the same time. Hire a couple of planning students, buy some vehicle counters, and beef up lot and ramp traffic counting technology. Conduct a 6- or 12-month count of public, private, on-street, and off-street parking facilities and see where things really stand. Examine how accessible parking is. Look at DASH usage. Take the results and build a parking improvement plan. The City has an office for this sort of thing now don't they?

[Quercus]

4 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

That's a really poor example Quercus. Using your post hole digging metaphor, a streetcar system built to 30% using your methodology would be the rails and not the train cars. That's not what we're talking about. There are real, actual bike lanes in the city that work for cyclists. Using your example, every bicyclist in the city would be only allowed to have one wheel on their bike. 

Try again. 

 

What I mean is that if you have a streetcar system with 5 proposed lines and you only build 1.5 lines. Instead of multiple lines in and out of the center city you only have one. And the line that was supposed to go to the airport only made it half way. Would you be willing to judge the system as a success or failure at that point?

How about this: I'm building my fence around my backyard, which has three sides. My house represents the fourth side of my rectangular parcel. I only build the fence along one side because I'm an idiot and I mixed up the width and height of the planks. Well, sure, I've got a fence in my backyard. But my neighbor's dogs are still managing to get in and dig up my garden. I guess my fence system is a failure.

Your turn. Provide some examples of incomplete transportation systems (less than 30% complete) that are fully functioning and achieving everything that they set out to accomplish. If a city has one "real, actual bike lane that works for cyclists" does that mean the bicycle system is a success and they should stop?

[GRDadof3]

13 minutes ago, Quercus said:

What I mean is that if you have a streetcar system with 5 proposed lines and you only build 1.5 lines. Instead of multiple lines in and out of the center city you only have one. And the line that was supposed to go to the airport only made it half way. Would you be willing to judge the system as a success or failure at that point?

How about this: I'm building my fence around my backyard, which has three sides. My house represents the fourth side of my rectangular parcel. I only build the fence along one side because I'm an idiot and I mixed up the width and height of the planks. Well, sure, I've got a fence in my backyard. But my neighbor's dogs are still managing to get in and dig up my garden. I guess my fence system is a failure.

Your turn. Provide some examples of incomplete transportation systems (less than 30% complete) that are fully functioning and achieving everything that they set out to accomplish. If a city has one "real, actual bike lane that works for cyclists" does that mean the bicycle system is a success and they should stop?

Who says that a streetcar line all the way to the airport is a good transportation system? Just because that's what some people want doesn't make it so. 

"Everything they set out to accomplish." You realize that measuring transportation systems is a moving target, correct? City planners at every city in America probably wish they could build just ONE MORE LINK of light rail or subway. New York probably had gradiose plans to build a subway system twice the size they have now. Guess NYC has a failed transportation system. 

Grand Rapids now has almost 80 miles of bike infrastructure. If adding 10 more miles will mean that 20% of commuters ride their bikes to work vs the current 1.5%, I'll buy you dinner at the Chop House. 

If you need a fence to keep your neighbors' dogs out of your backyard, you're not doing it right. 

[GRDadof3]

Fox 17:

http://fox17online.com/2017/02/08/downtown-parking-concerns-as-gr-prepares-for-theater-development/

At least Josh Naramore at the city mentions a shuttle bus system. 

[WMrapids]

http://fox17online.com/2017/02/08/downtown-parking-concerns-as-gr-prepares-for-theater-development/

Suburban people have an "entitlement". Ok, I'll explain. I once rode a bus with someone from Rivertown to the East Side and it took over an hour after having to transfer at the central station. So for someone who has to wake up a few hours earlier just to ride a bus into town, that's a deterrent enough. "Take an Uber". Why would I take an Uber when I have a car of my own that's cheaper. Is my job or the city going to pay for Uber or a taxi? That's a loss of money for a company or tax payer dollars.

Look, in a perfect world we would have our self-driving cars on 100% renewable energy drive us from our toilet to work, but most people in the suburban areas currently don't have a benefit from waiting nearly an hour to be bussed downtown or pay $20-30 round trip on Uber daily.

Also, why make it difficult for suburban families to come downtown when their money can be brought into the city? Downtown businesses are paying for suburban stores, rents and amenities. You can't attract people to the city if you don't invite them to do there work and feel comfortable there. I think Grand Rapids shouldn't prevent people from riding their bicycles or using any method of transportation that they like, but I've never met someone in the suburbs who would do something other than driving their own car downtown since it is way more convenient. Even close friends of mine who moved in from out of the country said that in Grand Rapids, you have to rely on a vehicle to go anywhere since everything is so spread out. They've stayed in places across the country and Grand Rapids was by far the most difficult to traverse through without a car.

So, before we just say "take it or leave it suburbia", just think, we're putting money in their pockets and calling them "entitled". Not the right way to go...

[Quercus]

26 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

You realize that measuring transportation systems is a moving target, correct? ...New York probably had gradiose plans to build a subway system twice the size they have now. Guess NYC has a failed transportation system. 

If you need a fence to keep your neighbors' dogs out of your backyard, you're not doing it right. 

Yes, I realize measuring transportation is a moving target. But you seem to be dancing around my point about judging a transportation system prematurely. Show me NYC has only constructed 50% of their planned system(s) over the years. I bet it's much higher. I'm not asking for anyone to wait for 100% of GR's proposed bicycle infrastructure to be in place. But calling it quits at 30%? Give me a break.

If you have recommendations regarding backyard canine control I'm all ears.

[GRDadof3]

9 hours ago, Quercus said:

Yes, I realize measuring transportation is a moving target. But you seem to be dancing around my point about judging a transportation system prematurely. Show me NYC has only constructed 50% of their planned system(s) over the years. I bet it's much higher. I'm not asking for anyone to wait for 100% of GR's proposed bicycle infrastructure to be in place. But calling it quits at 30%? Give me a break.

If you have recommendations regarding backyard canine control I'm all ears.

"Excuse me neighbor, keep your friggin dogs out of my backyard. I shouldn't have to spend $2000 for a fence to do your job. Thanks. Have a beer."

I think we need to go ALLLL the way back a couple of pages to where you jumped in on this discussion. You seem to be a fan of data. Part of data is customer satisfaction surveys. Apparently the downtown employer "customers" are speaking loudly that something is wrong, enough so that the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce and several of the most active commercial real estate firms downtown (CWD, Colliers, X Ventures) are speaking on behalf of their clients that there's an issue. This issue is mostly due to very poor planning over the last 3 - 4 years, based on penalizing people for driving using a system that's heavily weighted in favor of driving.

Ride a bike? What's the data from other cities for a reasonable number of people to do this?

Ride transit? What's the data from peer cities for a reasonable number of people to do this?

Buy a home closer to downtown so you can walk? There really aren't any available, didn't know if you checked lately. 

Build another parking ramp? This is apparently working very well, and profitable. 

Build a shuttle or commuter bus system? Works in cities throughout the country, big and small. Hell, it works here, called the DASH. Expand the boundaries.

So show me the data that says that taking the 78 miles of bike infrastructure to 150 miles or whatever number you think it should be will help facilitate the $Billions in commerce transacted every day downtown, in any responsible manner.

 

 

 

 

[organsnyder]

12 hours ago, Quercus said:

I would love to see Wood TV dig a little deeper. It's interesting to hear that "about 95% of downtown parking is at capacity during the workday." Is that public parking? Private? Are the spaces actually filled, or is that the number of passes that have been sold?

You're hitting the nail on the head. Based on my vantage point (my office window has a direct view of the lots south of the arena, and I need to hunt for a space a few times per month), the lots are FAR from 95% capacity, at least if you count actual usage. That tells me that the low-hanging fruit to increase downtown mobility involves better utilization of existing infrastructure—providing incentives for people to trade in their monthly dedicated spaces for a more on-demand model.

I'm not necessarily opposed to building another ramp, but I'd much rather we tackle utilization first—wouldn't we want to be able to build a ramp that can be 90%+ utilized (counting number of actual cars in actual spots), rather than the much lower utilization we have today?

Let's start with something simple: Give monthly permit holders a way to "release" their spot for a day at a time, rewarding them with a small credit (even as low as $1) for doing so. Say you're on vacation, at home with a sick kid, etc.—your parking spot is going to be unused, anyways. So, you open up the GR Parking app, release your spot, and get your reward. The city can then sell that spot at the much higher daily rate, and one more downtown visitor now has a place to park. This is a win-win-win—the only downside is the initial cost to implement such a system (certainly one of the city parking department's existing vendors must have something like this?).

[GRDadof3]

16 minutes ago, organsnyder said:

You're hitting the nail on the head. Based on my vantage point (my office window has a direct view of the lots south of the arena, and I need to hunt for a space a few times per month), the lots are FAR from 95% capacity, at least if you count actual usage. That tells me that the low-hanging fruit to increase downtown mobility involves better utilization of existing infrastructure—providing incentives for people to trade in their monthly dedicated spaces for a more on-demand model.

I'm not necessarily opposed to building another ramp, but I'd much rather we tackle utilization first—wouldn't we want to be able to build a ramp that can be 90%+ utilized (counting number of actual cars in actual spots), rather than the much lower utilization we have today?

Let's start with something simple: Give monthly permit holders a way to "release" their spot for a day at a time, rewarding them with a small credit (even as low as $1) for doing so. Say you're on vacation, at home with a sick kid, etc.—your parking spot is going to be unused, anyways. So, you open up the GR Parking app, release your spot, and get your reward. The city can then sell that spot at the much higher daily rate, and one more downtown visitor now has a place to park. This is a win-win-win—the only downside is the initial cost to implement such a system (certainly one of the city parking department's existing vendors must have something like this?).

I don't actually believe the problem is visitor parking. There are a certain number/percentage of each ramp and lot dedicated to monthly parking permits. That's where the 95% occupancy is coming from. If you re-allocated the spaces to more monthly permits, that stands a chance of crimping visitors not being able to find spots. So the city is stuck between retailers and museums/sites downtown and employers downtown. 

What gets me is that the Government Center and Devos Place ramps have plenty of visitor spaces available, yet what did the mobility department do? At the suggestion of the parking consultant? They RAISED the rates in there. Speaking of smacking yourself on the forehead. Are architects and planners not required to take econ and finance classes?

The other thing that gets me is that more and more people are parking on the periphery of downtown and walking into downtown, something that seems like everyone would agree is a good thing. What does the city do? Erect parking meters on those peripheral lots. Now a lot of them sit empty, pushing people even further out into the neighborhoods (or to different jobs). WinTAF are these idiots thinking??? Can someone please explain the customer and user experience philosophy behind that? 

The other thing you're battling with is that there's always at least some turnover at downtown employers, and some are growing and hiring. If you're making a job offer of over $100,000, do you think that should include some kind of accommodation for parking? Or at least a PLAN for that prospective employee, other than "fend for yourself ya maggot." 

 

[mpchicago]

That vacant land that Spectrum Industries owns across from the market will be built by the city, with lease payments going to Spectrum Industries.  The city is also talking about building a lot off of Michigan.  Maybe on some of the vacant Press property next to the MSU research center?  They are calling these lots "temporary."

https://mibiz.com/item/24498-city-of-grand-rapids-plans-new-surface-parking-near-downtown-market

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by mpchicago

[organsnyder]

18 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I don't actually believe the problem is visitor parking. There are a certain number/percentage of each ramp and lot dedicated to monthly parking permits. That's where the 95% occupancy is coming from. If you re-allocated the spaces to more monthly permits, that stands a chance of crimping visitors not being able to find spots. So the city is stuck between retailers and museums/sites downtown and employers downtown. 

True—lack of parking for visitors isn't really the problem. Perhaps, in addition to adding the ability for monthly parkers to release their spots, we could also add functionality for non-monthly parkers to reserve spots in advance. I'd love the ability to reserve a spot for a day (with in-and-out privileges), rather than the current pay-per-entry model. Scheduling errands is a PITA for non-car commuters for this reason.

Regardless of the specifics, I still firmly believe that our best return on investment will come from focusing on customer service and flexibility. I wouldn't mind seeing dynamic pricing, either—that could go a long way toward increasing utilization.

[GRDadof3]

6 minutes ago, organsnyder said:

True—lack of parking for visitors isn't really the problem. Perhaps, in addition to adding the ability for monthly parkers to release their spots, we could also add functionality for non-monthly parkers to reserve spots in advance. I'd love the ability to reserve a spot for a day (with in-and-out privileges), rather than the current pay-per-entry model. Scheduling errands is a PITA for non-car commuters for this reason.

Regardless of the specifics, I still firmly believe that our best return on investment will come from focusing on customer service and flexibility. I wouldn't mind seeing dynamic pricing, either—that could go a long way toward increasing utilization.

Agreed. You should definitely join the parking commission. I agree that keeping as many cars as possible out of the core will make for a better quality of life for everyone who works, plays and lives downtown. And I don't really want to see one of the surface parking lots within the Fulton, Division, the river and Michigan Street become yet another parking ramp. 

 

[wingbert]

It's basic economics that will do the harm in the long run.  The idea that people have choices doesn't seem to have entered into the city's consideration.  Sure, development downtown is going strong right now but so is development throughout the suburbs from Knapp Corners, Rivertown Parkway, and the M6 and Kalamazoo area to things like the redesign of downtown Ada. And do these places also offer?  Seas of free parking.  The perception that the city will cravenly and opportunistically wring every dollar it can from the public's need to find a parking place is what leads to the anger and frustration.  This cavalier "take the bus," "ride a bike," "use the shuttle" dismissal of legitimate concerns smacks of an obtuse callousness on par with "let them eat cake".

Besides, say everyone starting riding their bikes downtown.  Where the hell are you going to conveniently park all those bikes?

[arcturus]

FWIW I'm usually a 'halfer.'  Drive to Midtown, East Hills, Eastown .. find a parking spot not far from a bus stop, then take the bus down the rest of the way.  Curious if residents there (or Creston) are seeing this. Seems to me the parking issue would have upstream effects. 

[GR_Urbanist]

3 hours ago, mpchicago said:

 They are calling these lots "temporary."

Sadly, as I've said, there are no such thing in DT GR.

Once that asphalt goes down, it is there for a minimum of 20 years.

I figured that out by looking at as many surface lots DT as I could spot and measuring as to how long they've been there either mentally or through old photos. I could not find one that went in and came out in under 20 years. A few of them have been there for 55 years and more.

That whole article just was full of so much delusion, it should have been entitled simply "FACEPALM".

 

As to if the city can find some way to really encourage workers DT to park in shuttle lots? Maybe they need to create a series of lines that are paid for via monthly "subscriptions" by individuals and businesses, that are not there to be general public buses, and are direct lines from strategic lots? Maybe even something that a private outfit can put together?

 

 

 

If I lived in the burbs, and worked an office job DT, I would ditch the car for this!

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by GR_Urbanist

[Quercus]

4 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

So show me the data that says that taking the 78 miles of bike infrastructure to 150 miles or whatever number you think it should be will help facilitate the $Billions in commerce transacted every day downtown, in any responsible manner.

You might be confusing me with someone else. I never claimed the City's proposed bike infrastructure will result in billions of dollars in downtown commerce.

My reply to temporary.name on the previous page was in response to him or her feeling that the bicycle infrastructure is a failure and the remaining 70% of the planned infrastructure should be scrapped.

Maybe part of the challenge for the City here is that some of their constituents (and non constituents) assume they are up to something diabolical and like to jump to conclusions.

Gather the data. Create a plan. Release press statements. Engage the public.

[GRDadof3]

LA Commuter Express:

 

Baltimore:

 

Prince William County Omni Ride:

 

San Joaquin Valley

Rochester MN:

 

That was in a quick 5 minute google search. 

[GRDadof3]

9 minutes ago, Quercus said:

You might be confusing me with someone else. I never claimed the City's proposed bike infrastructure will result in billions of dollars in downtown commerce.

My reply to temporary.name on the previous page was in response to him or her feeling that the bicycle infrastructure is a failure and the remaining 70% of the planned infrastructure should be scrapped.

Maybe part of the challenge for the City here is that some of their constituents (and non constituents) assume they are up to something diabolical and like to jump to conclusions.

Gather the data. Create a plan. Release press statements. Engage the public.

I didn't say that bike infrastructure would result in $billions in downtown commerce. I'm saying that there already is $billions in commerce and that "some" at the city want to hitch that wagon to bike infrastructure. 

Maybe it should be scrapped, maybe not. Show me the data that it should be continued. Isn't that usually how these expenditures work? 

Everyone who works downtown or in the city, or employs people downtown or in the city, is a constituent. If you pay city income taxes, you are a constituent. Otherwise give me back my income tax.  

I never said anyone was being diabolical, but I do have to laugh because a couple of years ago, several downtown stakeholders over beers told me that they felt like downtown had been taken over by a "cabal" of European-style progressives hell bent on turning in into the Netherlands. I thought they were crazy. I laughed of course. Haha, ha, haa....

[walker]

On 2/9/2017 at 9:13 AM, mpchicago said:

That vacant land that Spectrum Industries owns across from the market will be built by the city, with lease payments going to Spectrum Industries.  The city is also talking about building a lot off of Michigan.  Maybe on some of the vacant Press property next to the MSU research center?  They are calling these lots "temporary."

https://mibiz.com/item/24498-city-of-grand-rapids-plans-new-surface-parking-near-downtown-market

 

Follow-up article in Mlive gives a little more information on the lease deal:

SPECTRUM INDUSTRIES LOT

"The city plans to keep the lots open until it recoups the cost of their construction - which officials believe will take three to five years.

At that point, Spectrum Industries could sell or develop the property.

However, if Spectrum Industries wants to develop the property before the city's investment is paid off, then Spectrum has to pay the city the balance."

So I was curious what Spectrum Industries is going to do for parking.  I've never noticed many cars in that lot so maybe they've never fully utilized it anyway.  I found this article from last fall that they've leased a building out in Kentwood for "expansion," so maybe they may not stay downtown long term anyway:

finishing-company-leases-half-of-industrial-building

Edited February 11, 2017 by walker

[MJLO]

That would be awesome if Spectrum Industries moved to Kentwood and those properties opened up.  All very speculative of course, but it would be a HUGE shot in the arm to the walkability and overall appeal of that area if something were renovate and or replace those buildings. 

[Prankster]

City can’t fix the parking problem it created

 

http://www.mmsend55.com/link.cfm?r=Jc8Yn41Qk3qdH3o4C4clSw~~&pe=TjGMiDh42WTyNqAWEAuNBGYpnYNlXN5v_FioMdRt5qg0dHwffvmfMtSUJZoC8z-YPD3sHeLQQVikVJ9PvRGa0g~~

 

Wow, the grbj really rips into the city about this one. 

[GRDadof3]

6 hours ago, Prankster said:

City can’t fix the parking problem it created

 

http://www.mmsend55.com/link.cfm?r=Jc8Yn41Qk3qdH3o4C4clSw~~&pe=TjGMiDh42WTyNqAWEAuNBGYpnYNlXN5v_FioMdRt5qg0dHwffvmfMtSUJZoC8z-YPD3sHeLQQVikVJ9PvRGa0g~~

 

Wow, the grbj really rips into the city about this one. 

Whoa, the situation is actually worse than I thought.