Demand for parking in downtown Ann Arbor continues to grow, report shows
Demand for parking in downtown Ann Arbor continues to grow, according to recently released figures from the Downtown Development Authority.
Parking revenue increased by 4.2 percent in fiscal year 2010-11 — going up to $15.2 million from $14.6 million, according to a year-end report.
While the rise in revenue is partly because of increased parking rates, the figures suggest growing demand also played a role.
Parking demand is strong in Ann Arbor, including here at the 592-space Liberty Square parking garage, where revenues went up to $1.42 million from $1.3 million this past year.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
That figure comes from 11 DDA parking facilities, including First and Washington, Maynard, Fourth and Washington, Forest, Fourth and William, Liberty Square, Ann and Ashley, Library Lot, Kline Lot, Huron/Ashley/First, 415 W. Washington and Fifth and William.
The increases would have been greater if the Library Lot hadn't been closed the entire past year for construction of a new underground parking garage.
For fiscal year 2009-10, the Library Lot welcomed 56,873 hourly patrons and $128,750 in revenue in the few months it was open before DDA officials broke ground on the project.
One of the biggest increases was at the 592-space Liberty Square parking garage, where revenues went up from $1.3 million to $1.42 million, while hourly patrons went from 63,334 to 81,263 — an increase of nearly $118,000 and nearly 18,000 hourly patrons.
The 281-space Fourth and Washington structure saw revenues go up from $723,912 to $841,120, while hourly patrons rose from 248,028 to 272,304 — an increase of more than $117,000 and more than 24,000 hourly patrons.
The 994-space Fourth and William structure saw revenues go up from $2.13 million to $2.3 million, while hourly patrons grew from 264,798 to 284,810 — an increase of more than $162,000 and more than 20,000 hourly patrons.
Losses were experienced at nine locations, including the 64 spaces at First and Washington, where revenue was down 4.1 percent and hourly patrons were down 11.1 percent.
The 134-space Fifth and William lot across from the downtown library, known as the Y Lot, saw a 12 percent decrease in revenue and a 15.5 percent drop in hourly patrons.
Revenue from parking meters increased about 3.2 percent to $2.77 million from $2.68 million. The standard meter rate in Ann Arbor was $1.20 last year, but it's now up to $1.40. DDA officials are considering a plan that could make it $1.80 in prime spots starting Jan. 1, while other areas with lesser demand could see rates as low as $1.
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 e-mail newsletters.
Comments
snapshot
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 5:44 a.m.
Much of the increase, if not all is probably due to "double billing" for parking time. With old meters you could see how much time was left on an available parking space, now you can't so there's a lot of double billing happening. What what you expect from the DDA who has refused to properly account for and distribute "captured" property taxes. What a crock this unaccountable agency has become. How can we even "trust" such an untrustworthy organization.
snapshot
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 12:24 a.m.
The DDA needs to go away. Hiefjie needs to resign his conflicting position as a DDA Board menber. What a scam they have going. Citizens need to start screaming "conflict of interest'.
Mike
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
There's a sucker born every minute. Plenty of communities exist that don't charge you to go spend your hard earned money of their goods and services.
swcornell
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.
Yes, I prefer to go to Brighton. Lots of privately owned shops and plenty of FREE parking!
Urban Sombrero
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.
"Demand for parking in downtown Ann Arbor continues to grow, according to recently released figures from the Downtown Development Authority." OF COURSE the DDA would report this. That's pretty much their raison d'etre, isn't it? (Sorry, don't know how to do the fancy accent marks.) Can we get some un-biased data, please?
Jon Saalberg
Sun, Oct 9, 2011 : 3:44 a.m.
@demistify: I think you are missing the point of most comments to this story - 1) The "report" is produced by the very body that is attempting to justify the construction of more parking capacity - this seems like letting the wolves explain how they are good stewards of the hen house. 2) There is nothing in this story that details whether parking garages and lots are experiencing regular instances in which those locations are full - in fact, it details decreases in parking use. 3) Where is the study that details the overwhelming reasons for the current Ann Arbor "Big Dig", the library lot? I think people are not "against" more parking; they are against building more parking when the garages we have are rarely full. That would seem to be the logical reason to build more parking garages - that does not seem to be the reason for building the gargantuan structure next to the library.
demistify
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 4:36 p.m.
I find it remarkable that the uniform focus of the comments is on finding some reason, any reason, to justify the unshakable belief of the posters that parking is evil and should be curbed, with the corollary that the posters are in denial that there is indeed an increasing demand for downtown parking, even in a weak economy.
Tom Wieder
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
The headline and the conclusion of this story are not supported by the report that they rely upon. A single year-to-year increase of 1.58% does not establish or confirm a "continuing" growth in demand for parking. For all we know, from this snapshot report, usage could have fallen 4% from 2009 to 2010, and the 1.58% increase to 2011 left usage for that year below 2009 levels. A single year-to-year change, especially this small, tells us nothing. So many factors could produce a change this small in a given year – weather, the calendar (number of business days, when holidays fell in the week), cyclical economic activity, etc. Why is this important? The decision of the DDA to build the expensive underground parking structure on the library lot remains hugely controversial. Many people argue that it is either not needed, was primarily designed to support a conference center which, at least for now, is not happening, or will be shunned by parkers who don't like underground facilities. There is some support for building additional structures. This story, by its faulty characterization of inadequate data ends up supporting the argument for more parking supply.
say it plain
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
Can the DDA divert some of their money to fixing the roads leading to downtown!? That would be a much more reasonable use of their money than worrying about more parking! Or just fully abandon some of the worst-condition streets, like Dexter and Miller and Huron for instance, and just run trolley tracks over them and make people park at Vet's Park or something to get into downtown?! It would save us all the wear and tear on our cars and, frankly, on our teeth, as we try to negotiate the disasters that are those roads!
Michael Christie
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
I would like to see the report: - breakdown by hour & by day for increased revenues. This would give an idea of how long those spots are occupied as I'm sure some of the data would show that during 6pm - 10pm on Friday and Saturdays require more spots, especially during home games. IMO - we shouldn't go create more spots just for that to happen. I certainly hope this report isn't for more DDA parking structures to fill ensure everyone has a spot in Ann Arbor.
G. Orwell
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
Although the report might have some bias, it is positive considering the very poor economy. Also, the meter rate increase has been in effect for less than a year. Therefore, rate increase has a smaller effect on the overall increase in revenue compared to the number of people utilizing the parking spaces (I can't remember when the rate increase took effect). I think next fiscal year might give a better indication.
say it plain
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
What terrible reporting! The headline, *at most*, should say "..., DDA claims" *not* "..., report shows"! Because the report indicates that the demand (as opposed to revenue, which increased *less* than the increase in rates overall?! that looks like a *decrease* in demand, if I understand arithmetic properly!) for metered parking did NOT increase. And it looks like the "demand" can be accounted for by other factors, arguably *totally* due to factors like the *closing* of the library lot lol! Other factors affecting use patterns might have been the nasty construction near to some lots, increasing 'demand' at other ones. Also there was the sort of significant scene regarding Border's closing?! I never ventured downtown by car (because I don't drive downtown anymore, the construction is so unpleasant and the roads so terrible to get there!) to visit the flagship store and get a souvenir before they shuttered up for good, but I'd guess a lot of people did, and used some of the nearby lots, no?! I've not looked at the report yet, but this headline and story implies that these data somehow show the need for more downtown parking. That's a ridiculous conclusion!
Bob Bethune
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.
The shift is tiny. But be happy we still have the kind of downtown that people want to go to. There are places right here in Michigan, such as the city I grew up in, where almost nobody goes downtown for any reason, ever.
Veracity
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.
Ryan: Can you provide comparative parking space usage for a few years prior to 2010 in order to show whether the 1.58% increased usage is unusual or explained by expected fluctuation? Can you provide a figure for the average over-all usage of parking spaces for the last four or five years? If I recall correctly all parking spaces (about 7100) downtown were utilized for only 50% of chargeable time. I know that lots are occasionally full but this happens infrequently.
hut hut
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:17 p.m.
I'd be happier with an independent study that didn't come with the financially self serving assumption by the DDA that more parking is needed.
Veracity
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.
Examining the raw data shows that parking space usage rose only 1.58% from 2010 to 2011 and an increase of 0.65% was due to 2 extra business days in 2011. Obviously, the 4.22% increase in revenue reflects mostly an increase in rates for use of the parking spaces. The small increase in usage could represent year-to-year variation and comparative date from four or five previous years will reveal if this change is anything more than usual fluctuations. The DDA should not use this data to justify increasing parking rates or next year's figures may show a decline in usage and, thus, similar or lower revenue. Any decline in parking space usage will reflect fewer patron visits to downtown stores and restaurants which I know is not the intention of the DDA.
MyOpinion
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
So what will the DDA parking report look like when the new underground lot is completed? Will they just report on spaces used or percentage of space used? This current report doesn't scream out - OMG we need more spaces. It looks like most of the structures could drop their rates to .75 an hour (and probably .25 for the bottom floor of the hole on 5th Ave.
Chip Reed
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
This seems to be rather self-serving on the part of the DDA. Perhaps a better headline would be "DDA revenue continues to grow as rates increase".
A2comments
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 10:57 a.m.
Without downloading the report, some things seem clear: Meter usage went down as the percentage increase in rate was much higher than the total dollar increase. So higher rates caused less usage. Almost all lots saw a decrease in usage. The increase was driven by only a few lots. Something seems off. 11 lots, details on 3, 9 others saw losses? It seems that the higher rates drove people away.
say it plain
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
I forgot to mention in my post above that indeed, revenue increased, but not even by the same percentage as the increase in per-hour rates, so that seems to indicate an effective *decrease* in actual usage! The exact opposite of the conclusion you were led to by this report....
say it plain
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
@Heisman, there is an important difference in meaning between "revenue" and "usage"...one that should be understood by journalists for sure, and it's discouraging that AA.com seems to support misunderstandings like they've done here! Revenue means money taken in. Now, the rates went up. So, if they maintain the same number of users/meter-feeding-events, but the money required for each hour of parking is increased, then revenue increases. At least as I understand the meaning of the word 'revenue'. Usage should be a measure of time that the meter is in 'use' , as it were. I don't know what their options are for reporting that...time 'purchased' , perhaps? Another thing about these meters that I have discovered, after my first ticket for expired meter at one of these machines with the automated parking thingies instead of actual old-fashioned 'meters', is that the 10 minute (or whatever it was) grace period no longer applies, d'oh! So, I put in more money than I used to (and use a credit card, and it's far easier psychologically to push the little button to add 20 more cents over and over then it is to dig and add more change lol, it feels less like 'real' money you're giving to the DDA that way ;-) ), because I am less willing to risk being a little late getting back to the meter! Just *that* would also account for an increase in parking revenue it seems to me!