Detroit News had an article back in April. [link]

I would also love one from Ann Arbor Chronicle… call me old fashioned… but I like my news presented by unbiased qualified journalists. Which is probably why I love this site.

I’d love for the Chronicle to do an article on this issue. It seems that many people have strong feelings about it, and it’s not clear (to me, at least) what’s behind the feelings. I think the subsequent discussion would be valuable.

In a perfect fantasy world 400 years into the future with(of course) unlimited funding and support, one solution which would allow expansion of maximum density would be to create parking structures and rental lots at the S.Main and State/I-94 exits. Inexpensive high speed light rail would shuttle visitors to downtown at all hours every ten minutes, and students would have reliable access to rental cars.
This would turn a portion of automotive congestion into pedestrian.
Some other alternatives might be to build elevated traffic routes, make vehicles signifigantly smaller/narrower, or just keep building structures higher with commuters adjusting to spending a portion of their day sitting in traffic(ala LA).

For now, Michigan is losing population.

That’s the intended (and proven) policy, not a flaw or failing. The parking system is managed in a way that it pays for itself as a whole. Individual lots and structures aren’t managed to pay for only themselves. If they were, the rates in the older structures would be considerably lower than those in the newer ones.

#57: “It’s a vicious problem.”

It’s been said before: full parking spaces downtown is not a problem.

Of course, that statement and this entire discussion only consider (with very minor exceptions) the economic aspects of this issue. If we look at it more broadly in terms of sustainability, we might find that our thinking on it shifts. When environmental quality and social equity are factored in along with economic vitality, what alternative perspectives arise? How do the current proposals look in that new light? What other policy options seem feasible that didn’t previously?

In terms of collection methods, I’d ask which method is more consumer-friendly in these two senarios:
1). $3 added on to the price of a meal via a small local sales tax?
Credit processors already charge 2-8% on point-of-sale purchases, but nobody bats an eye about that or sales taxes.

2) $3 charged at the meter or structure?
The customers have just had a nice meal and want to go home, but now have to wait in line, get out the wallet or dig for quarters. What a pain. “Parking is free over at briarwood, let’s go there next time” or “$50 for ten minutes over, no way I’m coming back here”.

Never mind the actual cost or time, what is more important is the experience.
Michigan is going through a recession, and Ann Arbor is not a huge metropolis where the only alternatives are hours away. To stay competative, we need to keep this town a “fun” to visit.

To clarify…

My pricing was based on an 8am -> 8pm hourly rate average in Chicago (loop section) and Ann Arbor. The daily specials are even cheaper.

I also disagree with Ann Arbor’s pricing. Nothing says we don’t want you here like increasing the hourly fee of parking 18% after 3 hours.

In a large city deman, which shapes the rate structure, shifts all over the city depending on the time, day of the week, proximity to certain areas.

In Philadelphia for instance the CDB of MArket Street and Broad street is priced that during the week and day it is exteremely expensive- $30. The you could park at the smae gargae at night for $5, the reason? There is no night life. On the flip side you can park in Old City during the day for $5 and then at night it is $30. So in large cities demand floats around and the prices reflect that. So you can park for cheap but you wont be neer the demand for that time off day. And the cost of time walking or a cab will quickly make up the difference.

Now a city like Ann Arbor is not large enough to have this occur. The finicial district, nightlife, and shopping ditrict is all one place. Therefore the demand may ebb and flow during the day but it never leaves one part of town and completely shifts to another. You probably see a peak demand at 10am, 2pm, 6pm and 10pm. Therefore the pricing does not really change. The argument that parking can be found cheaper in Chicago and NYC looks like a solid case, but I think the rationale that I just discussed explains why the we are not looking at apples to apples.

I do disagree with the pricing structure currenty in place becasue it is not condicive to acheieving proper space utilization. Without looking at proximity to demand generators I would question why the surface lots are more expensive for an hourly customer then the garages, but for a monthly customer the lots are cheaper then the garage. Where is the logic in that? If the lot is in a prime location that deserves a premium hourly rate then the same premium should be applied to the mobnthly customers.

The 30 cents an hour difference between the garages and the on street meters is two low. I would look for $2 an hour for onstreet and 90 cents for the garage to start moving cars off the street and into the garages.

Happy Holidays

Parking Guy

That’s the beauty of the free market. If you choose one of the garages that can charge very high rates, you get to pay them. If you look around, you’ll do better. And if you’re willing to take a bus / train, you’ll do even better. Chicago is a huge city… you can lookup garage pricing online and make the informed decision by the time you get there.

Same thing in NYC, and most other cities. And of course, those are the two of the most expensive cities for parking in the US. If you shop around, you can still park in a garage for less than Ann Arbor.