Should we be subsidizing more automobile transportation? How do we balance that with encouraging alternatives such as light rail and a downtown that requires less automobiles? These are tough questions to ask in a state that manufactures autos. The University is planning more parking structures around the hospital. I am afraid that just adding more and more parking structures could eventually lead to people dying in ambulances, while stuck in traffic jams on their way to emergency. Change won’t happen overnight, but we need to find a better balance with looking towards alternative transportation, than what we have today in many of our plans for the future.
Kent Burkhart wrote to me recently on this topic:
I think more consideration needs to, perhaps , be given to underground parking in A2…specifically located under the streets and alleys.I think, but am not sure, that the current high cost estimates are based on 1)parking structures being built on private land , 2) multi-stories below ground., and with no private contributions.I am wondering how much less it might be to build theparking below PUBLIC STREETS. and only ONE LEVEL down? Has anyone looked at this possbility?This comes up with the news of late concerning the proposal to buy A2 News land behind City Hall and build a parking structure.What it? We just “dug up Huron Street in front of City Hall ? … How about a one level parking lot under the street with a porous metal cover - something like the Mackinaw bridge covering -that would let the rain fall directly to the floor of the parking structure?I can see many, many potential benefits?1) Private land would not be taken off the tax rolls2) The various public utilities , all claiming aging infrastructure, could replace their aging infrastructure at the same time the parking structure is constructed and, logically, find it worthwhile to contribute to the construction costs.3) Any such structure could be easily expanded…. Some examples… Google/McKinley might want to dig out Division over to Liberty for parking and, too, might find a contribution win-win… The City might want to dig out down to Main and, maybe even up and down Main for parking… … Heck …I could see the possibility of a parking structure with entrances at Main and Summitt in the North, Madison and Main in the South and Ashley to the West… I could see adjacent building owners along this new street/ parking structure hooking on to the sides of this new structure to build garages in their building basements to house resdential tenants on the upper floors…They, too, may find it win-win to pay a hook-up fee … just some thoughts..This might even bring another benefit:4) The current ugly above ground structures could be demolished and put back on the tax rolls , used for parks , etc.Have I communicated anything worthwhile?Love & Light,Kent
7 users commented in " Parking Questions: More? Underground? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackPart 2 –
For any city buildings with many occupants, part of the permit or city “tax” process might be to require that they support rush-hour shuttles to parking lots on the town boundaries at the four points of the compass. (Now, for example, some people might poach on the Green road or Briarwood lots to catch a ride downtown.) The boundary locations could also be light rail stations in the future.
Part 1 -
Any building in the downtown area should provide one spot for each of the projected tenants (residential or office workers). Some of the parking should be underground at the structure (maybe paid parking with a percentage going to the city), and some on the perimeter of town with incentives for people to use that perimeter spot (free or some kick-back like discounts on stuff). For the latter, we need reliable, frequent public transportation so that the inconvenience is minimized.
The DDA has gathered a lot of information on parking and published two recent reports. The reports are published on the DDA website.
http://www.a2dda.org/index.php?page=datareports
A good start is for the city to stop subsidizing employee parking.. 200 police employees get free parking in the closest structure to city hall under their union contract. There are another 87 downtown city employees who park in the structures. The city pays 55% of the cost. On August 20, council took another step toward building a structure to the east of Larcom. It costs more to build there than other sites, because land needs to be purchased and it’s not a desirable location for the public because it’s on the wrong side of Huron. But it is convenient for city employees.
Before the city spends close to 20 million to build another parking structure, I think we need to look at other alternatives. For example, I’ve been told that AATA park and ride lots are full.
How about incentive parking? Provide parking free of charge with bus transport into town for those employees who park at a distant lot –like at one of the high schools and charge others varying parking fees depending on proximity to State and Main Streets.
This would be a system similar to that used by UMhospital for its staff. Why should city staff park for free? Why are there constant staff reductions to save money. Better to keep the employee and save money on the parking.This would also reliably reduce the number of cars downtown.
Nancy Kaplan
After the city and Quinn Evans cancelled the meeting about the city hall expansion which was scheduled for Wednesday, September 12, 2007, supposedly because they failed to consider that it was Rosh Hashanah, they went ahead and had the meeting nevertheless! Of course many citizens had no idea that it was taking place since we had been cancelled for the religious observance. This is duplicitous and subversive to the public process.
The city council is determined to ram through the highly questionable
above-ground parking structure on the east side of the city hall despite the fact that this is in conflict with the recent parking study by Nelson Nygard and is in conflict with the upcoming Design Review Guidelines which go before council on October 8.
The proposed parking structure will loom over the Old Fourth Ward residential neighborhood and has not be subjected to any public process or scrutiny. In fact, citizen input coming from the recent A2D2 parking report is being COMPLETELY ignored. TheNelson Nygard report calls for NO MORE ABOVE GROUND PARKING STRUCTURES!
Some council members were finally forced to admit that this ABOVE GROUND PARKING STRUCTURE is being built on the edge of a residential area to serve more-or-less the needs of the State Street Area and specifically their ambitions for Google.
Should any residental neightborhood be forced to accept such a negative impact, with no public process, and in conflict with city plans because city oligarchs have decided to shove it through?
The city has already paid thousands of dollars for the A2D2 studies and plans. They includes endless hours of citizen participation and input. Why are they wasting this money on studies and reports, no to mention the volunteer time of citizens, if they have not intention of listening. Why are they then ignoring the parking study and trying to impose this exhorbitantly expensive and highly questionable project on this community without even the input, much less the approval of the Ann Arbor community. Who is running the show here? Is city council working on behalf of the citizens who elected them and pay them?
This parking structure must be stopped. The whole city hall project has to be subjected to carefull analysis and scrutiny.
This entire issue is being rammed through without citizens input and despite the fact that fiscal realities are not being addressed. City Council is trying to push this through before Sabra Briere and Mike Anglin take there seats on the council.
Speak out on this issue. The citizens of this community have made it very clear through their endless participation in the A2D2 process that this is not what they want. And we certainly don’t need our residential neighborhoods eroded by turning them into parking venues for the commercial interests of State Street.
Christine you are so right about the lack of open and adequate process on this issue.
This proposed $20 million City Hall parking structure is ill-considerd. It is a violation of existing city plans. It will provide free and subsidized parking for google and for City Hall employees at great taxpayer expense and contrary to stated City goals to promote use of transportation alternatives.
If the parking is indeed needed it can be had at a much smaller cost to taxpayers by adding on-street parking to Division and Fifth Ave and/or by adding floors to the Ann-Ashley structure or Liberty Square structure.
A fellow downtown small businessperson called me today very upset about this proposal. Apparently city staffer Tom Crawford had called him (the owner of Tio’s) saying the structure was a “done deal” and asking how much did he want for his leasehold interest in the property.
“What?” I said. It is not a done deal and the City has a very long way to go to take by eminent domain this property from unwilling sellers.
Who is running the city now?! It is certainly time to throw out the councilpeople trying to strongarm and fleece the taxpayers. And maybe to show the door to Roger Fraser, our City Administrator who doesn’t even live in the City and pay taxes here. Ron I am glad to have you on council. I only ask you to inquire of your colleagues who supports this bad idea and post their emails here so voters can let them know how we feel.
Leave A Reply