Parking Realities
When pressed about why the Artworks building is so underutilized, the more thoughtful among the defenders of the status quo point to the lack of parking on the site as one of the key problems. However, in the same breath, they will hint that a solution to the problem may be around the corner, and suggest development of the Artworks building should be postponed until the parking issues are resolved.
It's a plausible sounding argument, and one that reasonable people can accept. Until you understand the economics. At which point, I believe, reasonable people will conclude that the current Artworks parking problem is unsolvable, unless you're ready to grant even larger subsidies from the City to the organization.
Right now, there's plenty of parking for Artworks in the evening and weekends. The problem is that limiting operations to these hours alone perpetuates the inefficient use of the space we see now, and results in unacceptably high costs (e.g. $467 per MCCC student in the Spring Term).
To improve the situation, Artworks needs dedicated parking spaces during the weekday hours. Since this use competes with all of the other demands in the area for parking, one way or another, someone is going to have to pay for it.
Let’s start with a simple question. How many parking spaces does Artworks need? To fully utilize the 8,800 square foot facility, you’d probably want around 100 spaces (e.g. 9 classrooms x 10 students + 1 teacher).
The going rate for indoor parking garages in the City of Trenton is $120/month. Is Artworks going to come up with $12,000/month for parking?
Of course, Artworks could say they don’t want that many spots. They could argue for 50, or 25. But now they’re accepting maximum utilization of 50% or 25% during the day. Since they’re not going to use the facility even that much most of the time, they’re now starting to slip down that same slope (underutilization) that we were trying to avoid in the first place. And they’re still out $6,000/month, or $3,000, neither of which they have.
Again, where will Artworks get the money?
Why not have the garage operator subsidize the Artworks parking spaces out of his profits on the other spaces, as a requirement for operating the lot?
Sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, at $120/month, there are no profits.
A high-density parking structure cost costs a minimum of $15,000 per space to construct. A 30-year mortgage payment on $15,000 at 7% is over $100/month/per space all by itself. Add in operating costs including insurance, property taxes, security, electricity, administration, and the cost of collecting revenues. At $120 per month you’re losing money even if every space is occupied (which they won’t be). Raise your prices above $120, and more spaces will go empty as drivers park elsewhere or carpool, or potential tentants decide to locate their offices elsewhere.
The fact is that the City of Trenton is already subsidizing every parking garage being built in the city, even when every space is being leased at $120/month. Put an additional burden of supporting the Artworks parking requirement, and it will simply increase the subsidy requirement.
In other words, the City pays. Have a familiar ring?
The other way the Artworks board could be dealing with this problem would be to recognize that the current facility simply isn’t cost effective for the use Artworks intends, and is never going to be. Then it would make sense to focus the stakeholders, the community of artists, as well as local residents, on finding alternative spaces that would allow the programs to continue at an affordable cost.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home