734-272-0909

that’s

734-ARB-0909

Operators are standing by, call now. (Calls may be recorded for quality purposes. Not intended for use while driving. No warranty of merchantability or fitness of purpose.)

I’ve also seen this as a “peaking” problem, one that could be addressed by various alternatives. Unfortunately, the city council directed the DDA board to develop a plan for an underground structure at that particular site. It’s analogous, in energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and sustainability terms, to commissioning a large coal plant with scrubbers, or maybe a big natural gas plant to generate peak-time electricity, as opposed to a combination of improved efficiency, wind turbines, and other solar sources.

The Maynard structure is a good one to look at since it seems to be the one referenced as being “full” during the day, all week long. No study has been done to project the expected impact of the new structure on that structure or any other component of the parking system, that I’m aware of. My guess is that it will continue to have the same usage pattern even after the new structure is in place, except for the impact of other factors, such as increased bus ridership and higher gas prices.

1. Most of the lower levels are prohibited for parking until 10 a.m. – this is to keep workers and students from all-day parking there.
2. They do indeed have a number of long-term permits, so the figures should be calculated from the 618 figure for the purpose here.

http://xca2.com/asset/a2dda-parking.csv

That there is ample parking available on surface lots or structures or county lots after hours or anything else a few blocks away isn’t really relevant, if the FULL sign stares at you out the window.

Unscientific – I am confident that when I drive downtown (I live three miles from State and Liberty) I can park relatively quickly in one of the structures. On street, not so sure. I generally feel that I will have to stress at least some to find a space – I hardly ever just cruise into an empty lot. If it were a lot more difficult to find a space, I might decide against the trip. I probably would not consider taking the bus as it does not run often enough. My kids will take the bus downtown when pressed.

I like the idea of underground parking and would pay a higher price for it. Surface lots and structures are terrible land uses in downtown areas, and if we can’t get rid of them, build them underground.

At some point you should take a look at the DDA’s balance sheet. New construction parking structures are hardly a cash cow; I think the DDA only makes money off of a few of them. (Tally Hall was the biggest net positive structure last I kept track, because its age means most of the construction costs have been amortized, and the lack of human attendant means lower operating costs.) The on-street and surface parking lots are traditionally the more profitable parts of the parking system.

If the DDA were only looking to parking revenues and nothing else, they’d probably prefer an all-surface-lot-meters strategy. Structures are closer to “necessary evil” status – they’re not there because the DDA makes mad bank from them, but because an all-surface-parking strategy would consume too much land.

I’d certainly support Rob’s assertion that “how much is enough” is not something the DDA has (or can) determine in a completely neutral and “scientific” manner. But if we’re assuming that x off-street parking spaces is the right number, I personally would far rather see them in parking structures than in surface lots – if we have to take up land for parking, we may as well use as little of it as possible by going vertical.