wow $25K for a parking space, huh?

by JessMan on Oct 11, 2011 9:04 am • link • report

A small measure of justice for Natasha Pettigrew, finally.

by Crickey7 on Oct 11, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

GGW confuses opportunity cost with incremental cost to build on a regular basis on this issue. And forgets to mention that that opportunity cost is recouped in the way of parking fees and increased ridership.

by Lance on Oct 11, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

I wish there was a better story you could link to for Natasha Pettigrew. The linked story is frustratingly incomplete.

by Jazzy on Oct 11, 2011 9:28 am • link • report

RE: DCist article on uses for Nats' Park in the winter - we already discussed this here last year: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/7278/breakfast-links-wide-shoulders/comp/7268/

by Shipsa01 on Oct 11, 2011 9:42 am • link • report

@RFK

Has there been any progress on the land swap deal for the new DC United Stadium?

by Nicoli on Oct 11, 2011 9:50 am • link • report

RFK - The stadium and parking lots are reportedly NPS property. My dream is that they'll turn in into Robert F. Kennedy National Recreation Area (or Kennedy Brother NRA or Kennedy Family NRA, I'm open to ideas). This would include:

1. Lowering East Cap and putting a deck over it through the area before rising back up to the bridge.

2. Rerouting roads to make more space.

3. A new soccer stadium - if MLS pays for it.

4. Acres of new athletic fields, trails, playgrounds, a velodrome?, a canoe dock, etc...

5. A small monument to whoever the NRA is named for

6. When we finally decouple the Metro lines: Burying the Metro line all the way to the other side of the river adding a new stop at Oklahoma Ave.

7. Mixed use development along the north side, that includes restaurants and such near the river.

It isn't a cheap dream.

by David C on Oct 11, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

Metro and VRE parking lots often fill up early, but new spaces cost $25,000 each to build.

There is a nice cognitive dissonance here. When anti-transit people argue that transit is never profitable, urbanists argue that there are externalities. Why don't those apply to parking spots near transit places? I find it funny that somehow metro can not be required to be profitable, but its parking lots should be.

by Jasper on Oct 11, 2011 10:09 am • link • report

Exactly where does that $25,000 figure come from?

The only quote that I see it is coming from the Prince of Parking (misinformation) Donald Shoup -- not from WMATA?

I have a feeling that if WMATA sold off their parking garages, the first thing the new owners would do is raise rates and build more spots.

by charlie on Oct 11, 2011 10:10 am • link • report

The Steve Jobs link doesn't work. Also: that's a strange thing to ask.

by OctaviusIII on Oct 11, 2011 10:21 am • link • report

@charlie

How much could private owners really raise rates, considering that once you go higher the cost of parking+RT Metro begins to be much more than the cost of parking in the most expensive areas downtown?

Parking downtown is around $14/day if you have a monthly pass. The fare+parking from Vienna to Farragut West is already more than that. You could probably raise it some though because people will pay to avoid the hassle of driving.

by MLD on Oct 11, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

@MLD ; bingo!

Probably a dollar or two; the larger point is small increases and different investment decisions would equal larger garages in outer suburbs.

Also, remember a large percentage of people paying that much are federal workers -- especially in the far off stations. So they aren't paying for the transit part.

I had an argumetn once with Perkins about the cost of parking spaces; I don't remember the exact numbers. There are differences between underground and above ground space, land acuiations costs, and the marginal costs of adding another two decks of parking at some locations.

Fascinaitng the Shoup has given on on meters of on street parking, and now wants "non-resident parking" stickers.

by charlie on Oct 11, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

I'd like to see RFK and it's parking lot turned into a new DC United stadium, but not with public financing or significant backing of loans for it.

by Fitz on Oct 11, 2011 11:18 am • link • report

"When anti-transit people argue that transit is never profitable, urbanists argue that there are externalities. Why don't those apply to parking spots near transit places? I find it funny that somehow metro can not be required to be profitable, but its parking lots should be."

I dont think that metro parking lots NECESSARILY have to be profitable, but I don't think its unreasonable to look at them in local context. What are the alternatives to adding more spots, and how much parking subsidy is justified ON TOP of the subsidy to the line itself? Its going to depend on shapes of demand curves among other things.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 11, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

$25K for a parking space is typically only counting the actual construction cost of a structured parking garage. Shoup cites numerous examples from actual construction projects, and there are other actual construction projects that support this figure for how much a space costs.

Parking fees for structured parking would need to be evaluated against the construction and the O&M costs if you want to make sure drivers are paying the costs of the garage.

In general, if you're not paying about $150 a month for a parking space, then you're not paying for the full cost of the space. Since Metro charges about $5 a day ($100 per month), I would consider Metro parking mildly subsidized.

Any opportunity costs are generally in the value of the land the garage sits on (as opposed to opportunity costs of the concrete, asphalt, engineering effort, and labor, which are included in the price of construction). When the government owns the land, the opportunity costs are generally ignored until the government decides to look into selling the land for some other use.

Externality costs in the form of pollution and congestion are dispersed amount the local community.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 11, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

Perkins nails it with mentioning that the biggest opp cost of parking I
s not using the land for something more productive.

Transit is actually often a profitable investment if you include the tax revenue generatef by the TOD that results from transit. By building parking instead of developing mixed use structures, you lose a lot of the benefit of transit. The mixed use development has the added benefit of increasing ridership in addition to creating tax revenue and jobs.

by Falls Church on Oct 11, 2011 4:14 pm • link • report

I finally got around to reading the Post story about RFK and was wondering about the validity of this point by Chip Akridge:

"Replacing the stadium with another use, he said, would also be difficult because the legislation governing the site requires that a stadium occupy it. “If that use ceases, the lease terminates,” he said."

And I guess the other question I have is "so what?" Would it be difficult to execute another lease?

by Shipsa01 on Oct 11, 2011 4:20 pm • link • report

@MichaelPerkins; again, with your math, a rate of 7.50 a day would make metro parking garages profitable -- or at least break even. Given WMTA lower cost of land acquisition -- in other words it was done long ago -- I suspect the number is below that.

And the issue of cost is not how much a "average" space cost -- but how much it would cost WMATA to build more space.

Parking is a backwater at WMATA. They could have easily gone to the BWI stystem of displaying avaiable spaces. Or, perhaps as Montreal did, get into the bikesharing business.

by charlie on Oct 11, 2011 4:23 pm • link • report

I applaud Andy Shallal's protest against Montgomery County, but it's a little ironic considering his location in Arlington. Northern Virginia is a haven for defense contractors, so much so that McDonnell is now courting Boeing after they became upset with MoCo's potential condemnation.

by OX4 on Oct 14, 2011 9:38 pm • link • report