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

[wingbert]

What is preventing a third party from coming into GR and building a nice big ramp somewhere?  Is it the city not granting the proper approvals?  Is it some sort of collusion between the Ellis family and city parking duopoly to keep out competition?  Or is it simple economics that indicate that despite the appearance, the numbers just don't work at this time?  I'm really curious.  It seems from these articles that there are some individuals and businesses that are concerned about this perceived parking catastrophe on the horizon.  Is anyone going out and trying to draw the attention of some external parking vendor to bring their expertise to this market and take advantage of the opportunity?  If the situation is as bad as it appears, why isn't the free market solving for the issue?

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, wingbert said:

What is preventing a third party from coming into GR and building a nice big ramp somewhere?  Is it the city not granting the proper approvals?  Is it some sort of collusion between the Ellis family and city parking duopoly to keep out competition?  Or is it simple economics that indicate that despite the appearance, the numbers just don't work at this time?  I'm really curious.  It seems from these articles that there are some individuals and businesses that are concerned about this perceived parking catastrophe on the horizon.  Is anyone going out and trying to draw the attention of some external parking vendor to bring their expertise to this market and take advantage of the opportunity?  If the situation is as bad as it appears, why isn't the free market solving for the issue?

Shortage of land I would imagine. Where could a private party pick up an acre+ of property in downtown anymore? Who isn't already in the game? 

I don't know why Ellis doesn't build another ramp, next to the Keeler Building or that lot North of Lyon between Division and Ionia. We're approaching $35,000/space for a nice ramp, maybe it'd take too long to make a profit?  The city can do bonds to build another one I believe, and doesn't have investors to satisfy (the ramp doesn't have to make a profit). 

 

[ctpgr34]

6 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Shortage of land I would imagine. Where could a private party pick up an acre+ of property in downtown anymore? Who isn't already in the game? 

I don't know why Ellis doesn't build another ramp, next to the Keeler Building or that lot North of Lyon between Division and Ionia. We're approaching $35,000/space for a nice ramp, maybe it'd take too long to make a profit?  The city can do bonds to build another one I believe, and doesn't have investors to satisfy (the ramp doesn't have to make a profit). 

 

What about on the Library lot?  City owned could benefit Eastside of the city

[GRDadof3]

24 minutes ago, ctpgr34 said:

What about on the Library lot?  City owned could benefit Eastside of the city

People in power are reading, keep the ideas coming. 

[wingbert]

3 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

People in power are reading, keep the ideas coming. 

Well, I'm sure it's not as simple and easy as I wish but it would be nothing short of beautiful if the city could eminent domain the bejayzus out of one or two of downtown's more high-profile property squatters, tear down their eyesores and build wonderful parking accommodations for my precious car.  Make a joyful noise for the killing of three birds with one stone - reduce blight, provide parking, send a message that the city is through with playing the patsy.

[SupercityGR]

isn't the small parking garage adjacent to the hinman 42 story tower going to be expanded?

[Guest]

From the few interactions I've had with Ellis, I don't think he really cares about solving the parking problem.  He's already sitting on a gold mine (which is probably why he wears so much gold jewelry).  It's a cash cow, he doesn't need to do any expansion.  Yes, he would make more money in the long run, but it would require a lot more investment.  The city should try to expand what they have before building new, or if it's cost effective tear down an older structure to build a bigger one.

[x99]

5 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Shortage of land I would imagine. Where could a private party pick up an acre+ of property in downtown anymore? Who isn't already in the game? 

Even if you could get the land, unless you are providing parking to your own attached building this would be risky business.  Do you really want to compete with a 900 pound gorilla who has no concern for profit?  It's risky business.  Sounds crazy, but the best way take care of at least some of the problem might be to bust up the parking system and sell it off piecemeal.   The city does not own tons of office space and lease it out.  Their ownership of tons of car storage facilities is also somewhat bizarre, when you think about it, and even more so when they no longer run as a public service, but as a huge profit center.  Were it not for the duopoly, I suspect we would see more private ramps being constructed.

 

[GRDadof3]

13 minutes ago, x99 said:

Even if you could get the land, unless you are providing parking to your own attached building this would be risky business.  Do you really want to compete with a 900 pound gorilla who has no concern for profit?  It's risky business.  Sounds crazy, but the best way take care of at least some of the problem might be to bust up the parking system and sell it off piecemeal.   The city does not own tons of office space and lease it out.  Their ownership of tons of car storage facilities is also somewhat bizarre, when you think about it, and even more so when they no longer run as a public service, but as a huge profit center.  Were it not for the duopoly, I suspect we would see more private ramps being constructed.

 

Municipalities have access to attractive financing that private developers do not, including municipal bonds. That's why you'll rarely see a light rail line that's privately owned, or an airport or shipping port, or parking ramps that aren't directly attached to a project privately owned. 

So you're right, to jump into those waters as a private developer, no matter how much the demand is, is a scary investment. 

Whatever happened to the ramp plan at the MSU site? Wasn't that going to be a private-public partnership? 

31 minutes ago, Floyd_Z said:

From the few interactions I've had with Ellis, I don't think he really cares about solving the parking problem.  He's already sitting on a gold mine (which is probably why he wears so much gold jewelry).  It's a cash cow, he doesn't need to do any expansion.  Yes, he would make more money in the long run, but it would require a lot more investment.  The city should try to expand what they have before building new, or if it's cost effective tear down an older structure to build a bigger one.

I can see that. 

And you're right, what about building up? 

[GRDadof3]

The city "mobility department" is apparently doubling down on this and looking to enact a new development ordinance, relieving developers of their obligation to provide parking in their own developments. Funny that so-called progressives like Andy Guy and Josh Naramore think that "big developers" and "big businesses" will do the right thing that's good for the community. I'm beginning to wonder if there's more at play here. 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/02/two_major_changes_proposed_to.html

So the city's not going to provide parking and developers are not going to provide parking. Who thinks this is going to end well? 

 

[joeDowntown]

It's maddening. I used to get annoyed by people saying "there's no parking". The fact is, there's no parking.

i honestly feel like the continued success of downtown is going to be something that strangles itself due to very poor planning. Who the eff is running that clown car. Err, I mean clown bike. 

As I've said, the city should be helping to OVERBUILD a ramp. Don't just build a ramp to fit the needs of the development. Build it to help the whole surrounding neighborhood. Even at $33,000 per spot, chipping in to add 100 spaces to a ramp that is already being built would set the city back $3 million. I say that is money well spent since it's an instant money generator. 

Can I run the mobility department? Please?

Joe

[wingbert]

[x99]

15 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

So the city's not going to provide parking and developers are not going to provide parking. Who thinks this is going to end well? 

That's not quite so crazy, as long as there is absolutely zero ability to stuff cars into a neighborhood within reasonable walking distance.  What is crazy is that the city is also doubling-down on private parties (or even themselves, perhaps) from building any new "excess" parking.   They aren't exactly leaving everything to the market, if the reporting is accurate:

The city is moving from parking minimums to parking maximums for new developments. If developers do choose to provide parking, non-residential buildings and hotels cannot provide more than one space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Residential buildings could only provide one space per dwelling unit.

If the article is right, no one would be permitted to build a new ramp that was "too big".   In fact, 1000sf per space is so small that parking needs for an office building could never be met.  The official position seems to be that they will do nothing, will prohibit anyone else from doing a darn thing about it, and will pass ordinances to ensure the problem gets even worse.  Anyone still doubt that they are intentionally causing the traffic snarls as well?  Hipsters with an agenda have taken control.  Eventually, the backlash is going to be severe.  How much damage they can do in the interim remains to be seen.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by x99

[GRDadof3]

Colliers has put out a parking report: 

http://www.collierswestmi.com/parking_study/mobile/index.html#p=5

[EastownLeo]

28 minutes ago, x99 said:

That's not quite so crazy, as long as there is absolutely zero ability to stuff cars into a neighborhood within reasonable walking distance.  What is crazy is that the city is also doubling-down on private parties (or even themselves, perhaps) from building any new "excess" parking.   They aren't exactly leaving everything to the market, if the reporting is accurate:

The city is moving from parking minimums to parking maximums for new developments. If developers do choose to provide parking, non-residential buildings and hotels cannot provide more than one space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Residential buildings could only provide one space per dwelling unit.

If the article is right, no one would be permitted to build a new ramp that was "too big".   In fact, 1000sf per space is so small that parking needs for an office building could never be met.  The official position seems to be that they will do nothing, will prohibit anyone else from doing a darn thing about it, and will pass ordinances to ensure the problem gets even worse.  Anyone still doubt that they are intentionally causing the traffic snarls as well?  Hipsters with an agenda have taken control.  Eventually, the backlash is going to be severe.  How much damage they can do in the interim remains to be seen.

 

Do we have to mention again that Michael Ellis of Ellis Parking, sits on the Grand Rapids Parking Commission board.  There are reasons why parking is tight and spaces are limited.  Hmmm

[WMrapids]

6 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Colliers has put out a parking report: 

http://www.collierswestmi.com/parking_study/mobile/index.html#p=5

So compared to similar sized cities, we have the lowest percentage of workers using public transportation and the second lowest percentage of workers who "walk, bike, other".

Not surprised.

Fix the parking.

[Quercus]

10 minutes ago, WMrapids said:

So compared to similar sized cities, we have the lowest percentage of workers using public transportation and the second lowest percentage of workers who "walk, bike, other".

Not surprised.

Fix the parking.

Perhaps a symptom that GR needs to "fix the parking."

Although the cities they compare GR to are: Madison, Norfolk, Richmond, Salt Lake City, and St. Paul. All of which have robust multi-modal transportation systems that are meant, in part, to reduce dependency on single occupant vehicles.

So maybe it's a symptom that the City and metro area should do more to improve transportation options.

[joeDowntown]

2 hours ago, Quercus said:

Perhaps a symptom that GR needs to "fix the parking."

Although the cities they compare GR to are: Madison, Norfolk, Richmond, Salt Lake City, and St. Paul. All of which have robust multi-modal transportation systems that are meant, in part, to reduce dependency on single occupant vehicles.

So maybe it's a symptom that the City and metro area should do more to improve transportation options.

Says the Guy working for one of organizations that seems to be hell bent on thinking Grand Rapids is instantly the New, New Amsterdam just by adding bike racks.

I'm sorry, but y'all are cutting off your nose (our nose actually) to spite your face. 

Joe

[WMrapids]

3 hours ago, Quercus said:

Perhaps a symptom that GR needs to "fix the parking."

Although the cities they compare GR to are: Madison, Norfolk, Richmond, Salt Lake City, and St. Paul. All of which have robust multi-modal transportation systems that are meant, in part, to reduce dependency on single occupant vehicles.

So maybe it's a symptom that the City and metro area should do more to improve transportation options.

We have so many buses and now Silver Line running down the middle of town but we still have low usage. What's worse is that people who visit here would rather take an Uber than ride a bus (from my experience).

[MJLO]

11 hours ago, WMrapids said:

So compared to similar sized cities, we have the lowest percentage of workers using public transportation and the second lowest percentage of workers who "walk, bike, other".

Not surprised.

Fix the parking.

Those cities are NOT representative of similar sized cities to Grand Rapids.  Looking at city population numbers alone is about the worst comparison metric you can use for a study like this.  The two that might be comparable to city size and metro area are Richmond and Norfolk, and they do not really fare that much better.  

1. Madison an epic college town, they have a stronger transit/biking culture by default.  There's no distinction of how many of those transit/biking commuters are students who use those methods because they have no other means.

2. St. Paul is the secondary core city in a 3.5 million person metro area with several modes of public transportation, and one of the nations foremost biking cultures.  I'm actually surprised that it's numbers aren't higher given it's twin cities' transit heavy culture. (It's only about 11 miles between downtown MSP and St. Paul).  Either way this is NOT a peer city to GR.

3. Salt Lake City has an urban population over 1million which is a good 60% larger than Grand Rapids UA(Same with both Richmond and Norfolk for that matter).  It's the only city of it's size with light rail.  Still not a good comparison metric since its transit authority serves a much bigger market, and contains a transportation mode that automatically gives it a boost in convenience (LRT).

I would like to know why Colliers chose those seemingly random cities.  If not only to push a narrative that GR isn't performing well against its peers.  That's fine to make that point so long as you actually use peer cities to make that comparison.  In this case a peer city needs to be closer to urban population since it's more representative of the routes a regional transit authority would take.  Under that metric standing Grand Rapids next to St. Paul and saying look at how much GR under performs in comparison is either deliberately misleading, or ignorant as hell.   If someone wants to see how GR is performing against it's peer cities, stand it up next to Omaha, Des Moines, Toledo, Colorado Springs, Tucson, Rochester, even Louisville  and Jacksonville are going to be a more even comparison.  Should that happen what you'll find are numbers and a culture that is little different.  

I understand there is a public/private battle here.  It's a chicken and egg problem.  Perhaps the city should consider incentivizing those downtown workers to use public transit with some kind of tax credit, the way they do to incentivize developers to build downtown.  Maybe they should consider building a 10 story ramp on the big DASH lot next to Big boy, and call it the hub and increase the shuttle service.  There has to be innovative ways to keep the office market downtown healthy, while also getting the daytime population an acceptable means of compromise for being there.  Running around like Chicken Little because St Paul has a downtown workforce more inclined to commute via public transit is ridiculous. (Not directing that at you @WMrapids)

[GRDadof3]

12 hours ago, WMrapids said:

So compared to similar sized cities, we have the lowest percentage of workers using public transportation and the second lowest percentage of workers who "walk, bike, other".

Not surprised.

Fix the parking.

Having been to most of those cities, I would say we're probably most similar to Norfolk or Richmond. Madison is more like Ann Arbor, much smaller and more compact than Grand Rapids is. Salt Lake City has a pretty large light rail system now, and much better weather. 

Edit: what MJLO said! 

12 hours ago, Quercus said:

Perhaps a symptom that GR needs to "fix the parking."

Although the cities they compare GR to are: Madison, Norfolk, Richmond, Salt Lake City, and St. Paul. All of which have robust multi-modal transportation systems that are meant, in part, to reduce dependency on single occupant vehicles.

So maybe it's a symptom that the City and metro area should do more to improve transportation options.

Ding ding ding ding!! 

Maybe instead of building a Calder Plaza hotel or expanding the convention center, Grand Action should just go epic and start working on a light rail system (not a downtown streetcar, real light rail). Pretend like we're going to get the 2022 Olympics and need to get ready for the millions of visitors, like Salt Lake City did. Suburbanites will get out of their cars en masse to be one of the cool kids to ride light rail every day. It has been proven again and again. 

In the meantime, take care of the employers and the thousands of workers downtown who pour $Millions of income tax dollars and economic spending into the city. Quit hitting them with the stick and start giving out carrots. The tide of excitement for working downtown can quickly turn sour, as has also been proven time and time again (even in Grand Rapids). 

[discgrab21]

I don't know how relevant it is, but each of those cities, except Norfolk is also a state Capital. That has to have some Impact I would think.  The Twin Cities, aside from being a very large metro area, also has light rail.   The problem with going light rail in GR is you still have (i suspect, but do not know) most of the downtown workers commuting from the suburbs.  You still need a place for them to park their cars, even if they are then taking the train downtown, because the suburbs are not dense enough for enough people to realistically be able to walk a few blocks to a train stop for their daily commuting needs.  And this is coming from somebody who loves rail transit.

So, no matter the proposal, it is always going to start with parking.  Given that, I still think it makes the most sense to invest in expansion of the DASH idea.  Put a a huge surface lot with dedicated traffic patterns to facilitate getting in/out during the rush hours on the Butterworth landfill, and provide incentives to park there and take the shuttles to the center city. That would not add too much to the commute time for anybody using it and could free up a lot of downtown parking.

 

 

[Hoeks]

Well done video of Kansas City's new streetcar that launched recently (Although twice the size + of GR).    They've made quite the push to being known as a smart city.   Pick up at a large, free parking lot(s) for commuters to then get brought into DT by the streetcar.   

http://kcstreetcar.org/#

Edited February 16, 2017 by Hoeks

[SupercityGR]

Charlotte NC is currently building a light rail. The stations there have massive parking garages so people in the suburbs can take the train into the city. You could build a station by the airport, downtown, grandville and another suburb like B Center. At the stations have available long term parking 

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, discgrab21 said:

I don't know how relevant it is, but each of those cities, except Norfolk is also a state Capital. That has to have some Impact I would think.  The Twin Cities, aside from being a very large metro area, also has light rail.   The problem with going light rail in GR is you still have (i suspect, but do not know) most of the downtown workers commuting from the suburbs.  You still need a place for them to park their cars, even if they are then taking the train downtown, because the suburbs are not dense enough for enough people to realistically be able to walk a few blocks to a train stop for their daily commuting needs.  And this is coming from somebody who loves rail transit.

So, no matter the proposal, it is always going to start with parking.  Given that, I still think it makes the most sense to invest in expansion of the DASH idea.  Put a a huge surface lot with dedicated traffic patterns to facilitate getting in/out during the rush hours on the Butterworth landfill, and provide incentives to park there and take the shuttles to the center city. That would not add too much to the commute time for anybody using it and could free up a lot of downtown parking.

 

 

Denver has massive park-n-ride lots along its light rail lines, many of which travel alongside the major freeways. 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denver,+CO/@39.5789743,-104.8755075,3a,60y,128.57h,83.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx9fpkZ0M-pEThaVxCL_VGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x876b80aa231f17cf:0x118ef4f8278a36d6!8m2!3d39.7392358!4d-104.990251!6m1!1e1?hl=en