Parking garage talks lift possibility of on-site housing, entertainment

The six-story 350 Sherman Avenue parking structure will cost $40.4M and have 636 spaces, but it only adds 315 new spaces so the cost per ADDITIONAL space is $128,250. Wow!

Web Link

So the $72,000/space estimate in the city report is not only expensive, it's extremely misleading.

There are much better ways to add time-limited parking downtown and QUICKLY!

Let's estimate what we need and get going.

As a longtime resident of the downtown who shops locally in this same downtown multiple times a week, let me say "It's not broke--don't fix it." I always find parking close to the store or restaurant that is my destination.

Here's the thing about parking structures: they're basically ugly and inconvenient, and many people won't use them, preferring convenient street parking.
A parking structure would mean many people would have further to walk to get to their destination, which can be an issue for elderly people among others, and if they're carrying heavy items, this becomes even more of an issue.
Why would we put a movie theater on top of a parking structure when we have the Guild? Oh yes, the Save-the-Guild folks want to put an end to movies in the theater.
We seem to keep forgetting that we are a small town with a very small downtown, not a big city that needs parking structures.

Of all the suggestions in this article, the only one that seems at all reasonable to me is the idea of building a small parking structure outside of the downtown retail area, reserved for employees of downtown businesses. That would free up more parking for customers of downtown businesses.
But even at peak hours, as mentioned in this article, only 80% of our current parking spaces are filled. That means 20% are vacant during the busiest hours! Where's the pressing need to further mess up our charming downtown with the eyesore of a multi-story parking structure?
There is none!

As city council evaluates this option, I hope they will take a clear-eyed look at the actual parking data, not just the perceived scarcity. The cost projections for a garage are staggering and it strikes me that there are probably policy solutions that we could implement first to achieve the same goals (depending on what those goals are).

For example, employee parking currently takes up at least 50% of the available downtown spots (probably more like 2/3 once you factor in those who don't purchase passes). There is reason to believe that when 1300 El Camino Real is completed, there will be a non-trivial amount of extra parking available. If this is the case, we should be able to shift a majority of employee parking permits across the street, leaving more guest/customer parking available in the downtown lots.

We are also not managing our existing parking very well. Imagine what could happen if we started charging for parking using a dynamic model (more for peak times/proximity to popular destinations, less for times when there is lower demand). This has worked well in San Francisco. The city could channel revenues into infrastructure projects, a local Transportation Management Association, subsidies for bike shares, etc. Other cities are experimenting with dockless bike shares, which work really well for short trips within a .5-2 mile radius (e.g. between 500 El Camino Real offices and Cafe Borrone during lunch).

I hope the council will also set clear expectations about what a garage would do for the city (and what it would not do). For example, would a new garage enable us to repurpose some of the on-street parking spaces for better sidewalks, bike lanes, and improved visibility? This would amazing, and would fit within our longer-term city goals of complete streets, vision zero, etc.–but it would probably mean less convenient parking for those who do need to drive.

I'll take this opportunity to re-post a link to a graphic I made recently showing (in blue) all of the surface parking that is currently available in downtown Menlo Park (Web Link With this huge amount of space devoted to warehousing cars, why in the world would we want to spend millions of dollars to build an even bigger car warehouse?

How about finally coming to grips with basic economics: when you give something away for free (as in free parking), there will never be enough of it. San Francisco is currently in the process of implementing a “demand-responsive pricing” system for all of its 28,000 on-street parking meters. (See Web Link An earlier pilot program showed 1) increased business for local merchants in the trial area; 2) lower parking rates; 3) decreased parking search time; and 4) decreased daily vehicle miles traveled.

There's no reason we can't do the same thing in Menlo Park. If you want to drive your car downtown, you should pay a reasonable fee for parking. The price can be adjusted according to demand, so that there are always some free spaces available.
Whatever money is made in parking fees can be spent on improving the downtown streetscape.

Given that we are trying to make downtown Menlo Park more pleasant for pedestrians and bikers, and that we are trying to find locations for more housing near transit, why waste money and space on a car warehouse? It's the 21st century folks!

As I have mentioned previously there are about 500 spaces within a half mile of downtown that are UNUSED during weekdays.

Since the City does not know how many more spaces would make a big difference, simply lease 25 -50 spaces, move a similar number of daily parking permit holders to a satellite lot and provide a free morning and afternoon shuttle.

Either use a lottery or provide a financial incentive to determine who is assigned to the satellite lot.

25 to 50 more time-limited spaces downtown would make a huge difference, and if more become needed simply lease more.

This is NOT a hard problem.

So why make it one????

(Plus, a half-mile walk is great exercise.)

Very much in agreement with the above critical and realist perspectives on parking. The issue is driven too much by anecdotal perceptions and a lack of data. It's a great opportunity to rethink some autocentric biases for Downtown. That includes a fresh look at Specific Plan parking requirements for development. A parked car never paid for a dinner. The idea of a movie venue is great, but might be accomplished in other ways. City involvement with retail/commercial projects is risky, with future councils and residents left to deal with unknown unknowns. Problematic kiosk at new Alma project a case in point.

I find the comments about the cost of the garage very silly. Of course it will be expense, everything is expensive here. That's the effect of not preparing for the future for decades, while courting offices, offices and more offices.

The question is not how much it costs, the question is 1) will the garage pay for it's self over time? 2) will it benefit the citizens and business of MP and 3) will help consolidate some of the acreage devoted to parking so that land can be put to a more productive use.

"How about finally coming to grips with basic economics: when you give something away for free (as in free parking), there will never be enough of it."

Exactly!

Stanford instituted paid parking 40 years ago and uses the proceeds to pay for all automobile related improvements plus the free shuttle plus bike lanes.

Web Link

As a builder I can do anything you want. IF you're willing to pay whatever it costs. Guess what? Most of the peninsula and MP are NOT willing to pay "whatever it costs".

Putting the trains in a tunnel will cost a HUGE amount of money. Especially in comparison to berm or viaduct alternatives. Tunneling is a non-starter.

Menlo Park currently charges about $500/year for a daily parking permit so that is the value it assigns to one parking space. And Palo Alto charges a similar amount. So, that's a 250-year payback period ($125,000 divide by $500) for each ADDITIONAL new parking space . I am sure investors will be lining up out the door for such a great deal. This is simply a stupid idea! And what happens when one starts working on a specific solution, e.g., Menlo Park needs a parking structure, before clearly defining the problem and considering alternatives. I often wonder how this can possibly happen so often in the Valley of innovation. Call me and I will rent out a parking space for $100/month.

This really seems like a solution in search of a problem. I can't believe that our city is seriously considering spending tens of millions on a (probably hideously ugly) parking structure, in response to a *perception* that there isn't enough parking downtown. As others have said, let's see that shakes out from the Greenheart project, in terms of excess parking capacity that can be made available to downtown workers, then make a realistic assessment of our parking needs, separate from any perceptions about scarcity based on people not wanting to walk a few blocks to their destination. There are so many things that Menlo Park could spend this kind of money on; to throw it into a parking structure feels horribly shortsighted.