Ann Arbor's new underground parking garage about two-thirds full after 4 months in use
Ann Arbor's new Library Lane underground parking garage welcomed 7,981 hourly patrons in October, or about 10.8 per parking space. That's up 9.2 percent from August, its first full month. There also were 559 monthly permit holders.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Officials say that's to be expected with any new garage, though, and it's also partly a result of low introductory rates being offered to monthly permit holders.
They're optimistic use will continue to climb, and they view the fact that there are some empty spaces as a good thing: It means there's capacity to welcome more businesses and jobs downtown.
"Our history in any new structure is it takes at least two years before you start seeing fairly normal levels of revenue," said Roger Hewitt, treasurer for the Downtown Development Authority. "So a structure that's only been open a few months, we don't really have high expectations."
Roger Hewitt
Systemwide, parking revenues in October totaled nearly $1.7 million, up 15.5 percent from the same month last year. That included an 18.2 percent jump in revenue from parking meters.
Five of the downtown parking garages took in six figures: Maynard ($229,588), Fourth/William ($209,587), Forest ($183,449), Ann/Ashley ($151,815), Liberty Square ($131,157).
That makes the new Library Lane garage, which opened in July, the lowest performer of all the garages from a revenue perspective.
Maynard took in $285 per space, Fourth/William took in $211 per space, Forest took in $310 per space, Ann/Ashley took in $181 per space, and Liberty Square took in $222 per space.
The Fourth/Washington garage took in $80,947. But with just 281 spaces, that amounted to $288 per space — the second-highest performer in the system.
Hourly patrons and monthly permits up
The number of hourly patrons across the city's entire 7,820-space public parking system totaled 194,215 for October. That was up about 1.8 percent from the same month last year.
The Library Lane garage welcomed 7,981 hourly patrons in October, or about 10.8 per parking space. That's up 9.2 percent from where the numbers were in August, its first full month.
But the DDA's hourly patron reports don't give the full picture since they don't tell anything about the duration of stays, nor do they include counts of the hundreds of monthly permit holders.
With the opening of the new Library Lane garage, the base of monthly permit holders in the city's parking system is expanding. According to figures from October, there were 3,155 monthly permit holders on record — 175 more than a year earlier — and more are being issued. Additionally, 56 people held overnight permits compared to 32 a year earlier.
There were 559 monthly permit holders in the Library Lane garage as of October, representing more than three-quarters of the 744 spaces, including the 33 surface spaces.
"We're finding the numbers very encouraging, and maybe a little too encouraging right now," Hewitt said.
Monthly permits in the seven parking structures range from $140 to $155 a month, though the DDA has offered a $95-per-month discount rate for some users of the Library Lane garage.
A look inside the new Library Lane underground parking garage on Thursday afternoon.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Art Low, manager for Republic Parking, the company the DDA contracts with to manage the downtown parking system, said Barracuda employees have started parking in the new garage as of mid-November.
He said the DDA's next parking report should show an increase in revenue generated at Library Lane due to the many Barracuda employees who are now monthly permit holders.
"I don't know exactly how many, but I think we were going to have close to maybe 100-122, which is a good generator. It's a self-source generator, but it's still good," he said.
Counting the Barracuda Networks employees, Low said, the garage is now about two-thirds full after just four months of operation and he considers that pretty good.
Low said the reason he doesn't say the garage is three-quarters full (based on monthly permit counts) is because not all of those monthly parkers are in the garage at any given time.
What's next for parking in Ann Arbor
Hewitt said he expects the DDA's governing board to pick up talks soon regarding parking demand management, including giving consideration to extending on-street parking meter enforcement hours past 6 p.m. and creating a tiered rate structure based on demand.
"I've requested that we get some more detailed monthly reporting on usage," he said. "That's probably the first step is getting a better understanding of the dynamics of the parking system."
Figures for the fiscal year ended June 30 show the DDA saw more than $17 million in revenue from the parking system last year, or about $2,386 per space.
Operating expenses totaled $8.6 million and bond payments totaled $2.9 million, leaving $5.6 million in net income after debt payments. That amounts to $784 per space in the system.
Two garages — Fourth/Washington and Forest Avenue — were money-losers after factoring in bond payments. Before bond payments, they generated more than $890,000 in net income.
Hewitt said he expects the DDA's governing board to pick up talks soon regarding parking demand management, including giving consideration to extending on-street parking meter enforcement hours past 6 p.m. and creating a tiered rate structure based on demand.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The DDA's Operations Committee was presented with a year-end audit report on Wednesday by a certified public accountant from the Rehmann accounting firm.
The audit shows the DDA brought in nearly $21 million in revenue last year, including $3.7 million from property taxes and more than $17 million from parking revenues. With expenses totaling nearly $20 million, the DDA saw a $964,697 positive change in net assets for the year.
The audit shows the DDA with fund balances totaling $8.6 million, putting it in better shape financially than it had been when it ran down its reserves to pay for the new garage.
"I think the auditor said it best — it was a completely clean audit," Hewitt said. "There are no recommendations for any changes. That's about as good as you can get."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
jj45678
Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.
Here's the real math. Birmingham figured out a long time ago - the first 2 hours are free. How do they make money? It encourages people to go to Birmingham because they know parking is not a hassle. The stores therefore make more money. More money to the stores is more money in taxes to the city. So the city doesn't make the money by the parking - they make it with the taxes, Now THAT's smart.
jj45678
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 5:03 a.m.
the .06 is the sales tax. That's the revenue that goes back to the city. I wasn't even calculating profit to the stores for the extra business. That's another bit of bonus.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
Also, each customer doesn't go to each of the fifty stores and spend $50 at each one. is the 0.06 the $profit/$revenue? Then that part is ok?
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.
So....you're mixing up revenue and profit...and where does the money go? How much profit does the store make off the $50 purchase? How much of THAT goes back to the city. Also, you can't double count the people for terms of parking revenue. It is what it is at that ramp and this was brought out in the article above. I actually DO applaud you taking a swipe at it though. Better than most the arm chair annalists throwing darts. A little tougher when the darts get tossed at you, yes?
jj45678
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:55 a.m.
Actually in my numbers I forgot to include the revenue from the parking structure itself so it would take 5 years to break even!
jj45678
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:54 a.m.
Ok here's some numbers. Let's say the average that a customer pays at a given store is $50 (i.e restaurants, clothing stores etc.). Let's also assume that the parking structure is cheap enough (or reduces the psychology of AA being a hassle to park in) that it attracts an extra 100 people a day - those are very conservative numbers obviously. Let's assume there are 50 stores that fit this criteria. So that's .06*50*50*100*30*12 = 5 million a year which means the parking lot pays for itself in 10 years. Not bad! And this doesn't count some of those 100 people liking the experience such that they decide to rent a place or buy a home here, or decide to go to U. Mich, or write a blog about their experience and attract more (or NOT write a blog about how the parking sucks).
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
So, the easy way to refute that is by showing actual numbers, not making generalities. So, lets see some numbers. Thanks.
rm1
Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
"It encourages people to go to Birmingham because they know parking is not a hassle. The stores therefore make more money. More money to the stores is more money in taxes to the city. So the city doesn't make the money by the parking - they make it with the taxes, Now THAT's smart." Exactly right. That's the point missed by those who look at the arithmetic alone, and then complain that it will take 20 or 53 years to pay back the investment.
Kara H
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.
A whole day has gone by, so I've probably missed most of the conversation on this story, but I did want to flag the overly simple and alarmist math of: $78k/mo*12mo/year = $936k/yr 50,000,000/936,000 = 53 years To figure out actual payback, the DDA (or we) would have to figure in time to the model. Even at the simplest level, once it's fully in use and adopted, we should figure that this parking structure will have a base revenue per parking spot in the same range as the other parking structures in the AA system. Just using the numbers provided in this article and averaging them to say that this will be an average performing structure, that would be about $250 per space. So, $250/space * 744 spaces * 12 mo/yr = $2,232,000/yr, so about 22 years for breakeven. Over time though, parking prices will rise. If we assume they rise at a rate of 2%/year (they don't actually, they stay the same for several years and rise by 8-10% all at once, but you all can do more sophisticated modeling if you want) and use the same $250/space and 744 spaces, breakeven is in about 20 years. Over time, if we also assume that Sunday parking fees will go into effect (maybe they will, maybe they won't), but let's say they do in about 5 years and an additional weekend day of paid parking accounts for an additional 10% in revenue. Using the same $250/space and 744 spaces, breakeven is in about 13.5 years. If this lot performs at the high end of the AA parking lot system and brings in $300/space, then simple breakeven is 18.6 years 2% price increase/yr breakeven is 16 years 2% price increase/yr + Sunday parking is 12 years This is still a hefty investment and a long payback period, and all of them would have been more palatable before the cost overruns in construction. But the discussion can be much more honest, and frankly interesting, when it's based on more realistic numbers and scenarios.
jj45678
Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 12:06 a.m.
I made a separate post - I meant to reply here. Here's the real math. Birmingham figured out a long time ago - the first 2 hours in the pkng structure are FREE. How do they make money? If you do simple math like those here did, it would not work out. The answer, is it encourages people to go to Birmingham because they know parking is not a hassle (even free). The stores therefore make MORE money. More money to the stores is more money in TAXES to the city. So the city doesn't make the money by the parking - they make it with the taxes, Now THAT's smart.
1bit
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 1:47 a.m.
Kara - I give you credit for trying the math. But even in the rosiest scenarios the payback will be closer to 20 years. Factoring in 2% price increases is a convenient trick but you are ignoring inflation, interest (as has been noted) and the simple fact that an above-ground structure would have been less expensive.
say it plain
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.
And I hear you too @Kara H, especially on the issue of those numbers not including interest payback, yikes, *that* is a way bigger rabbithole than expenses, no doubt! I just see the new towers downtown and their relative lack of parking for the beds they purport to be housing. And I see the retail becoming so much about coming in from other places to eat out. And I see the parking as about helping a core of restauranteurs and RE developers and feeling frustrated about it, like, hmm, Ann Arbor is not really for the people who are committed to living here anymore. The DDA adds to that feeling of there being frustrating alliances that leave out the people who pay taxes in the city, because they are not even elected officials.
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
First of all Kara - as I said to a *different* person (and you seemed to ignore), there is a difference between math and assumptions. My math is perfect. You don't like my assumptions. Regarding the interest, if you are so up on this, why did you misrepresent the payback. Per your own words, the biggest problem is interest on the loan, yet you chose to ignore it and roll out some 22yr number. Just a little misleading, don't 'ya think? Just break up your posts into multiples if you like. Don't worry about the word limit. Have at it. Sounds like you have a lot to say.
Kara H
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
@eyeheart you asked to hear the flaws in your math & there's a word limit on annarbor.com posts. I only addressed your main argument since everything else you put forth falls apart from there. Honestly, the real flaw in the quick modeling I did isn't operating costs, but the interest on the loans. You should try to avoid going down the wrong rabbit holes.
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 12:07 a.m.
So, you are saying that our payback is 22 years, yet you only count revenue. Then you say that the OLDER structures will allow the shifting of funds from maintenance of THOSE structures to the new one? ...and this new structure will in essence have no costs associated with it? - like people to run it? supervise? give out tickets? plow snow? patrol for crime. clean out the urine from the elevator? paint over the graffiti? One assumption that could be made is that you ignore all the overly optimistic projections on revenue and say it offsets the operating expenses - but really, that is overly optimistic too. After seeing that load you put forth, I'm shocked that you would have the gall to call out anything as overly simplistic. I guess if you are drinking the koolaid, it all sounds good huh?
Kara H
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 11:55 p.m.
I hear you @say it plain, & that's still a discussion worth having. Just not with 78! 12! 53! Hike! at the core
Kara H
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.
You know I didn't as I was very clear about the assumptions & was only addressing an initial poor argument being put forward. You're right that there are other expenses for operation & maintenance, but that's a different calculation & honesty we have no data with which to make it. Since this property is part of a system of parking structures, realistically operating expenses would have to be drawn from other structures or lots that are further down their breakeven curves. This is surprising?
say it plain
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 11:01 p.m.
Thanks for those numbers @KaraH...to me it really *is* still a very speculative investment for the city to make. I don't think we voted on this service from the city, which is the point of the 'issues' people have with the DDA in the first place!
EyeHeartA2
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.
Speaking of overly simplistic math. Did you bother to include ANY expenses in your rosy projections and assumptions.
Kara H
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
Absolutely agree. Infrastructure is built with multiple purposes in mind, which generally aren't about direct profitability but benefit to the community. Wich unfortunately is hard to measure & therefore agree on. Still, it's a better discussion if we realize that infrastructure like this isn't actually a money pit, but does, in fact, have a long but reasonable payback period.
rm1
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.
Yes, you have missed much of the discussion. A similar display of arithmetic drew this response: "The new garage wasn't built for a near-term profit to pay for itself, any more than, say, the interstate highway system (or other infrastructure project) was built to turn a profit on its tolls. The arithmetic quoted above looks at it too narrowly. In fact, the garage was built to aid downtown businesses by easing downtown parking congestion, which almost everyone agrees is a pain and a drag on downtown businesses." When that arithmetician demanded: "Show me a "math" error", the response was: "The math error is your failure to include the most important (and principally-intended) component of the return on the investment: the benefit to the community -- downtown businesses and their patrons and employees -- that flows from lessening the parking congestion downtown. That is much harder to calculate than just totting up the revenue, etc., as you do, but your narrow, blinkered calculation just leaves out what the DDA, and I think most people, would regard as the important part." Math is important, but not everything. As you say, the math in your comment is "overly simple and alarmist." That's because it just ignores the reason the parking garage was built. The parking garage wasn't built just to make a profit on the tolls, as your arithmetic assumes, any more than the interstate highway system was built for the tolls.
drew_blows
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 3:39 a.m.
These numbers referring to increased revenue are a little skewed since the DDA and RPS got rid of the half hour rates a few months ago. Of course revenue will increase. It used to cost .65 to park in a surface lot for 20 minutes, it now costs 1.30 for the same 20 minutes.
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.
Seriously, folks, it is just an epic waste. REVENUE - not profit - was $77,591 for the month! Just assume it is full, and we add on an extra 1/3 assuming that it is at full capacity. That is about $115k in REVENUE per month, or $1.5 million per YEAR. In REVENUE. From a $53 million investment. Horrible use of public funds.
michael Limmer
Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.
So does that make all the malls and shopping centers that don't charge for parking have a horrible use of private funds? Of course not. They realise, that even with the parking lots empty or far below capacity much of the time, that to attract customers they must offer free parking and tack the cost onto the products and services that they sell. This is very similar, just with the complications of being a public entity.
Kara H
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
I voted your comment down because your conclusion is based on really bad initial assumptions. Your conclusion may still be right, but your numbers aren't.
snark12
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
I voted your comment down because the point of the garage was to provide parking, not turn a profit. Anymore than the point of the fire department is to turn a profit. So your outrage is misplaced.
LXIX
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 12:55 a.m.
Bummer. I get that all of the time. People vote me down for being longwinded or negative or missing another commenter's information or because they just don't like me. For all I know it's the same person with multiple accounts or the entire news staff just tired of my mis-spelling or wit and charm. It should not matter. If you feel that you have something to add then do it. Personally I thought your comment was interesting. But then, I rarely vote or do polls.
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
Seriously, who the heck is voting down comments like this? Do you realize this is $50 million thrown away, which could have been used for Schools or Parks. Gone. Nobody is moving to Ann Arbor because of a lovely parking garage. Perhaps the city employees are canvassing any negativity and trying to vote it down. But, then again, this is the same city that spent $80 million on a High School we don't need, so perhaps it is just me.
Linda Peck
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.
The library lot has been convenient to me personally to run downtown and park quickly and do my errands. I hope some spaces will be available for me to keep doing this.
mtlaurel
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : midnight
downtown A2 is about the least errand-y place I can imagine.Even if it were, the worst way to shop in an errand fashion would be having the car in a garage underground to "run" back to and place packages...and then go and "run" more errands.Do you have an errand "runner" transporter of packages/etc along with you as you shop . Bless you then.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
I think you will be fine for a long, long, long, long, long, long time.
ThinkingOne
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.
Apparently it is irrelevant that the lot is convenient and encourages people to run downtown and park quickly and do errands. It must make a profit! Everything must make a profit!
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
A $50 million investment. Sure hope it bumps up DDA profit from the currently less than $1 million. Lets see... 5% profit on the investment would be nice. So, how about expecting DDA to start profiting that $964,000 to $3 million with this new garage. Do not remember a 2 year plan when this was pushed onto the public. Nor that incentives to use the lot will be needed. Another bad use of money.
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 7:20 p.m.
That is really sad. I can't believe the average citizen thinks that is good.
Veracity
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
No profit is gleaned from the Library Lane parking structure. In fact, the DDA's own numbers show that it had revenue of $77,591 in October which, if consistent month-to-month, will generate yearly revenue of $931,092. In contrast, bond servicing will cost $2.9 million. Even without considering additional operational and maintenance costs, the Library Lane parking structure will generate an annual DEFICIT of about $2 million.
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
Perhaps, but if that was the mantra, then I'd think every year it would be ZERO and they would publicly state it as a policy. I'd think the DDA would be there to help reduce the tax burden on the citizens and infuse the general fund budget. Instead, it is a very convoluted organization that I'd expect to find in Detroit as a means for city management to provide jobs to friends. I really don't understand the concept and feel the whole organization is unnecessary. The U of M will be here with or without it.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.
I think the DDA looks more to take that profit and reinvest it into the city. I am not sure they are looking to have huge profit numbers that aren't spent elsewhere in the city. Could be wrong because who really knows what the DDA is about.
Veracity
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
The DDA has reported budgetary deficits for a number of years including last year which differs from the purported audit results in this article. Perhaps the audit did not include the 17% of parking revenue that the DDA owes to the City. Furthermore, at its April 14th board meeting the DDA also reported its fund balance to be $4.3 million. However, the recent audit reported in this article states that the fund has $8.3 million, quite a discrepancy. (see http://annarborchronicle.com/2012/04/15/ann-arbor-dda-updates-budget-tif-talk/)
Jojo B
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
That's funny, I walk through that structure routinely during the day and I'd be pressed to see more than a dozen cars parked in it. I guess it's 2/3 full at SOME OTHER TIME.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
2/3 in regards to monthly parkers..it says in the article that the garage is not always that full because not all of the monthly passes sold to that lot are parked at the same time.
mady
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:08 p.m.
and the Basement Boondoggle Drama continues. Yawwwwwwwwn.
rm1
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
For every AA.com article on this garage we see a version of this rather silly whine: "Lemme do some ciphering here: $78k/mo*12mo/year = $936k/yr 50,000,000/936,000 = 53 years to get our money back " But it's nonsense. The new garage wasn't built for a near-term profit to pay for itself, any more than, say, the interstate highway system (or other infrastructure project) was built to turn a profit on its tolls. The arithmetic quoted above looks at it too narrowly. In fact, the garage was built to aid downtown businesses by easing downtown parking congestion, which almost everyone agrees is a pain and a drag on downtown businesses. It does that in various ways, including as someone said today by drawing some monthly parkers from lots even more convenient to Main Street businesses.
1bit
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 1:38 a.m.
rm1 & northside: Yes, there is a value to businesses. That value must have a number. It is not just a feel good idea. What is the value of having more businesses in that area or more parking for people there? I don't know, but there is a science behind these things where that number can be estimated. Why hasn't that been provided? If I assume the DDA did their planning correctly, then they must know that number. I don't assume that however. And if they do know that number, and haven't made it public, then why not?
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
I understand perfectly. You don't have a number your are willing to propose, so instead you insult my level of understanding. I believe that is called an Ad Hominem attack. Insurance companies and juries are able to put a number on the value of a persons life. Marketing people are able to put a value on the increased sales due an advertising campaign. In fact, they are even able to put a number on the value of a beer can showing up in a movie. Evidently, it is too hard for any of the supporters in the smartest city in the country to put even an estimate on the value of those parking spots in terms of increased revenue for the downtown. Unless.....maybe that number is just an "inconvenient truth", that they would prefer not be discussed for some reason. Nah. Couldn't be.
northside
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
@ rm1: I don't think EyeHeart is capable of understanding what you're saying. The idea of a public project like this having value beyond the direct revenue it takes in escapes many conservatives today. Your repeat attempts to explain it over and over are admirable but some just don't get it.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
I'll be happy to include your number. Please show your work rather than criticize.
rm1
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.
EyeHeartA2 says: "Show me a "math" error.." The math error is your failure to include the most important (and principally-intended) component of the return on the investment: the benefit to the community -- downtown businesses and their patrons and employees -- that flows from lessening the parking congestion downtown. That is much harder to calculate than just totting up the revenue, etc., as you do, but your narrow, blinkered calculation just leaves out what the DDA, and I think most people, would regard as the important part. I suppose, if you actually wanted to be serious, you (or belboz or Brad) might argue that those societal benefits were not worth their cost, but to do that you would have to do more complex math than you seem willing to do.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
First of all, math = adding, dividing numbers. Show me a "math" error. Second, you don't like my *assumptions* yet you fail to add anything to it other than some pie in the sky wishful thinking. Third - what about operating expenses? Do I still need to move if I don't like the garage? Nobody has answered that one for me yet.
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.
And that is why we have a trillion dollar deficit. There is no concern to the financial plus / minus when it comes to pork projects.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4 p.m.
Rm didn't provide math..instead what was provided were tangible changes in parking availability that have been noticed by people in the city..... No math necessary. This garage used to be full at this time....now it is not and I can park here, woohoo sweet.
Brad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
And for everyone that criticizes that math you'll notice that they never furnish any of their own. Feel free.
David Cahill
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:33 p.m.
The Library Lane structure is turning out to be largely for monthly permit parkers, which is good. There will be more hourly parking spots available in the other structures because many of their permit parkers are going to Library Lane. Also, Library Lane's extra hourly spaces will be welcome in the holiday season!
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
...and then had no options for future growth..short sighted much?
talker
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.
Yes, but they could have saved money by not spending an extra 50 million dollars (or so) to prepare the parking structure to support a hotel and convention center.
Carolyn
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.
About a month ago I parked in this lot and almost got a ticket because I walked away from my car about 1 minute before 10 am. A little parking garage truck rushed out of nowhere and it was only because I had forgotten something and was coming back that I avoided a ticket. Truly unnecessary since at most there were about 10 cars in there at the time. Now I read this and understand. They have to generate income. Lovely.
Carolyn
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
Not being a victim. Was unaware of the "no parking before 10 a.m." rule when I drove into the structure. I did really sit there in my car (as I saw about 3 to 4 others doing) until about 30 seconds to 1 minute before leaving my car. I still maintain that with most of the lot EMPTY, there was really NO NEED to issue a ticket.
belboz
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:39 p.m.
Don't listen to the comments, Carolyn. They work for the city and need to justify wasteful enforcement. Guess they won't complain when given a ticket for going 26 mph in a 25 zone.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
We all know that 1 minute really means 10 minutes as well. Next time wait until 10 carolyn it is that easy.
Peregrine
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
I love your victim mentality -- a "little parking garage truck rushed out of nowhere." Or could it have been that parking enforcement was simply making the rounds as they should?
mstairs
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
Carolyn- Does the sign read "NO PARKING 6:00AM-10:00AM" or "NO PARKING 6:00-9:59AM" ? People who think that the rules don't apply to them crack me up. Follow simple direction and you will not be penalized with a ticket.
LXIX
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.
Excellent job - you're fired! I strongly support underground development where it is possible - it is more expensive yet the value of preserving open air sunshine space on Earth for people is immense. Thanks for that effort. However, looking at the use for each structure, those within two blocks (maximum green walk) from the kiddytstrips and vamprises are the most utilized while those downtown (West & South) are not. Find an empty structure and there will be a "young professional" vamprise nearby coming soon. Find an ugly smogscrapper and there will be a parking structure nearby coming soon. Why are Barracudas not parking in the Maynard lot? Suddenly no more room for the tech center? I thought the DDAs were city development arms for re-energizing downtowns and were never to be revenue collectors nor service providers. Seems Ann Arbor's DDA has gotten off its leash and now runs its own little self-financed business club - often at "human value" expense and minority position against voters. The Library lot convention center, the Library, new vamprise funding/discounts, AATA programs including one ugly and unnecessary station, Too much! City Council should have a parking service arm - it should not be the DDA. $8.6M cost to maintain parking? Maybe there is a breakdown sheet? The DDA mentality to pack and park and pack will divide Ann Arbor into the downtown vamps and the rest. The surrounding suburban congestion is already frustrating. Add the cost of supporting DDA-gone-wild projects and their green pedestrian perks and one by one normal families will re-evealuate their need for treetown and move. Leaving Hieftje's "nice place to visit" for up to 4 years bubbletown behind.
say it plain
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.
Oh, my. that was well-stated!
badgerboy
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
yeah, I don't park down town. The rates are outrages. Those machines that they added are awful. Waiting in line to put 25 cents in the meter so you can run into a store real fast. Screw that. I'll take my business somewhere else beside downtown.
mtlaurel
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.
do you account for more paid spots that weren't there a year ago? ....how many transient visitors accounts for"parkers in town" If all you want is revenue from parking spots you can have a toll both and extract the desired amt you want per visitor as they enter the zone. Why do you think that "parkers" in town equates to customers in businesses anyway......you don't really offer any data about businesses that have folded, and how the existing businesses are actually doing.....it perhaps is a neutral summ game. I've stopped paying 12 or 15 bucks for a mediocre dinner meal with a five buck beer, and paying to park on top of that.......and commence street parking fees into later hours, and add Sundays?? This customer with money and who pays taxes will go elsewhere.
Peregrine
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.
@badgerboy: Did you miss this? -- "The number of hourly patrons across the city's entire 7,820-space public parking system totaled 194,215 for October. That was up about 1.8 percent from the same month last year." Seems downtown businesses are getting more customers despite your outrage and boycott.
mtlaurel
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
mr annarbor summs it up-the degraded experience isn't worth the hassle. It used to be enjoyable and you didn't have to be paranoid about parking demands nippin at your wallet every place you went. Hey shopkeepers-one entrance somewhere for 10 mins ...back to the car and take off before you know what...sorry, couldn't browse,spend a little more, or try the new shop or cafe next to yours.Now I'm headin out to Westgate......it's pretty decent out there anyway.
mr_annarbor
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.
If I'm only going to be 10 minutes (25 cents worth of parking time), I look up and down the street for parking cops, and if I don't see one, run into the store and take care of business without paying for parking. If you really are going to be only ten minutes, the chance of you getting a ticket is very small.
dotdash
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
If the new garage is 2/3rds full, then the demand for it was real, which should be a relief to those of us who wondered whether it was really necessary.
steven
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
The funny thing is that demand would probably be the same even if thousands of dollars weren't wasted on European glass and other nonsense that no one cares about in a parking garage.
Brad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
The demand is always pretty good for things that other people are paying for.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
Well, that was money well spent. Lemme do some ciphering here: $78k/mo*12mo/year = $936k/yr 50,000,000/936,000 = 53 years to get our money back But WAIT, that assumes no money is spent on maintenance, staffing etc. So basically, this fiasco will never pay out. So.....Looks like hizzoner's legacy will be a nice debt for my great grand kids. Maybe we can get hizzoner job at the federal level. He seems well qualified.
1bit
Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 1:31 a.m.
EyeHeartA2: I can only vote you up once unfortunately. I did the math as you did initially (actually, I was less generous because I used $53 million for the cost of the structure). Then, I decided to be generous and posed the "what if" the new structure generated as much revenue as Maynard (i.e. the best case scenario). If that happened starting in November, it would take more than 19 years to pay off the debt. So, from a money standpoint, it will take between 19 (best case) and 35 (worst case) years to pay off the structure. But that's not including maintenance, which will add to the cost and delay achieving break even. And what is the estimated lifespan of the garage anyway? Probably in that same range. The best that can be hoped for is breaking even and some convenience of having additional parking in the area. Whether the latter is "worth it" is another question, particularly when the cost of the structure would have been significantly lower if they built it above ground. But that gets into the secret agenda of our shadow government, the DDA....
EyeHeartA2
Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 4:45 a.m.
Great, I'll stay. I'm glad to hear I no longer need to find another country. I had already called the movers. I'll cancel now.
ordmad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 11:37 p.m.
1. Your need to reduce everything to numbers misses the point and yet you persist. Perhaps we should have spent that garage money on adult education. 2. Stay or go. Your call. It's a great country.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
@ordmad; I love you libs: " I'm betting you want to cut all entitlements to the poor too." - Did I say that? No? Assumptions again. Anything else you think I might do? Skin puppies maybe? Walk in through the out door? Do tell. As far as the calculator goes - here is a flash for you. It adds numbers. Please give me the "public benefit" number (show your work) so I can add that in for you. Also give me some estimates on expenses, so I can subtract that. I love how everyone criticizing the cost/benefit of this obvious pig in a poke has no numbers that they are willing to hang out on. Also your words: "that's a democracy." So, do I still need to leave the country if I disagree with you? Is that a Democracy? PLEASE ANSWER. On the edge of my seat waiting for the spin on that one. Carry on.
ordmad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
Your calculator doesn't include a public benefit button does it? You keep ignoring that and the idea that every government enterprise isn't a simple "is it profitable or not by the numbers." I'm betting you want to cut all entitlements to the poor too. This country is, in many ways, a collective and always has been. That's not socialism (anticipating your next move) that's a democracy.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
Your rosy assumptions have no detail and no discussion on costs. Carry on. psst: Math doesn't understand anything. I checked my math on a calculator and it is fine.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
Your math also has no way of understanding city growth. Considering all of the high rises that are being built I imagine there will be more people with cars living downtown in the next 10 years then there are currently.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.
JohnnyA2; Lovey how you resort to hand waving and pie in the sky arguments, while insulting my facts that you don't agree with. Please put some numbers to your drivel. Love you guys. Keep up the 'good' work. Do I still have to agree you or move? Just wondering.
Brad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
Yeah. Even if the numbers make no financial sense whatsoever, SO WHAT. And you talk about bad math? I guess that's better than no math.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.
I'm sorry, you didn't read the part of my comment that said I IGNORED EXPENSES. But, if you redo the math assuming 2/3 occupancy, you get 35 years - again ASSUMING NO EXPENSES. " you're going with the Fox News approach." " If you don't like it you need to find a different country." Classic "Liberal" "open mindedness" found here in Oz. 'You disagree with me, I insult you and tell you to move away. ' You did it better than I could have hoped. Thanks for proving yet again what AA "open minded liberals" are all about.
Robert Granville
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
Don't get me wrong... I didn't pay much attention to library lane except to avoid the area when it was under construction... but isn't the point of building a parking garage to provide parking so that the surrounding businesses can welcome more customers? I wouldn't expect a garage to rake in the dough.
ordmad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:41 p.m.
I'm sorry: didn't you read the piece of the article that speaks to the fact that city garages take about two years to reach normal levels of revenue? Shouldn't that be the number you should be waiting for before doing your math? Or does that not suit your point of view and you're going with the Fox News approach. And, in the end, who says a City effort like this has to be revenue neutral or turn a profit. How much does the fire department bring in? The police? The parks maintenance crew? Right: nothing. There's a public benefit to all those endeavors (just like this garage) and that's why governments spend money on it. If you don't like it you need to find a different country.
Brad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.
You people are downvoting arithmetic today? Sorry, but it's known as the "Garage Mahal" for a reason.
Brad
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
Yep. Anybody from the DDA want to comment on what a great deal we're getting here?
northside
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
Maybe the third of the garage that is usually unused can be made into a 400-seat auditorium for the library? :-)
Bubba43
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.
So, this is news & your point is?
Barzoom
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 11:53 a.m.
Abolish the DDA. We don't need an unelected shadow government.
Townspeak
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 11:17 a.m.
Also, this somewhat new dda policy policy of holding prime spots in parking lots for temp morning shopper results in loss of money and is misguided. Best spaces are kept open from 6 to 10 am, resulting in daily lost revenues. Very bad policy and seeks to pu ish those who live and work downtown.
StopCrying
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
Your logic is fail. Even if the garages will filling up before 10 am they would simply be forced to go park at another city owned lot nearby. The only other options would be to pay for a monthly pass from one of the few non city owned lots or park on a street that is far away with no meters.
Peregrine
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
Many people who work downtown and who arrive to work in the earliest hours would take all the spaces on the lower levels and keep them for the entire work day, making the in-and-out traffic for the rest of the day have to drive up and then down extra levels. That just wastes people's time and fuel. So it's a good policy. If, as you say, the "early birds" avoid the structures because of this policy, what about the birds of a different feather who arrive at other points in the day? Would those many more people avoid the structures as well? @Townspeak: Please try to see things from perspectives beyond your own, ideally from a larger sampling of people.
mstairs
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.
Where are these other non-city owned lots downtown? I can think of none.
Townspeak
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
Go Navy, the parking decks hold the first several floors vacant, i.e. don't allow parking, until 10:00 am, to try and save for "out of town" shoppers, or to prevent the everyday users from filling up the lot. What happens is we don't park there until 10:00, go to other, non city owned lots..etc. Go to any lot between 8 and 10 am and you will see floors of prime spots vacant until 10:00 am. It is ridiculous and punishes the early bird. Hope that helps answer your question
GoNavy
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
I don't follow how these spaces are resulting in "lost revenues." Could you explain a little better?
Townspeak
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 11:12 a.m.
Can you say sunday parking? Don't get me wrong, I like free parking, but if we are trying to raise revenue for the city it does not make sense we don't have to pay on sunday. Maybe a reduced rate on sundays and after hours on all days or just extend to midnight. It makes no sense that lots you have to pay until all hours (except sun) but better street parking is free after 6 pm, especially so since meters are now auto check. I still believe dda needs to go or cough up more of revenues to city.
ligrasp
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
I thought the Sunday parking thing was like a Random Act of Kindness to A2 residents and visitors, i.e., a nice "surprise" that you don't have to pay.....
johnnya2
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.
The rationale behind free Sunday parking in most cities is from an era when most retail shops were closed on Sundays. I don;t think parking on Sundays is an issue because there are just not as many people downtown on a Sunday. Most large employers that have a Monday through Friday work schedule do not need to use parking,.
Bryan Lareau
Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
I'm not sure what the actual reasoning is for free Sunday parking. I always thought it might have been put in place to encourage people to leave their cars downtown and take a cab if they've had too much to drink.