On GPAC; If AMS projected 149 events, why is the City of Greensboro saying 180 with 100% sold premium parking at every show?



If $10 million is projected to be raised through premium parking fees, and the fees are based on all 250 spaces to be paid at 180 events per year, what if the 250 cars per event don't show up because there is plenty of low cost parking nearby?

What if only 100 spaces per event get sold, because most can park across the street for $3?

How many free on street parking spaces are within 1/4 mile of the site?
To suggest raising parking prices for fewer shows and still sell out premium parking every time, is economically irrational;

"In economics, the marginal rate of substitution is the rate at which a consumer is ready to give up one good in exchange for another good while maintaining the same level of utility."


Anonymous said...

Not to mention that is a gross calculation. A net evaluation would subtract the lost tax income from the private property taken off the tax rolls and the loss of income from the existing city-owned public parking spaced already on the site.

sal leone said...

There is one thing to remember that nobody can predict. How many people will visit, no survey or research can ever say for sure. The number can be bigger than stated or smaller.
The fact is that the City has to be prepared to take the hit if need be. I am not being negative but reality is that the GPAC is built not on brick and steel but hope. The GPAC can be the best thing in Greensboro or go belly up. The city staff and council stated that they did their research and all is good, so we have someone to blame and someone to thank depending on how it all goes.

W.E. Heasley said...

Some random thoughts on GPAC:

Normative [predictive] economics is deployed to create the parking estimate [as well as all estimates of GPAC]. If one desires a particular outcome, say GPAC, then normative economics employed and deployed, by those desiring GPAC, is subject to conformation bias. Hence the estimate is created to support the subject at hand [GPAC] not an estimate of real economic outcomes.

Not only are the parking spaces subject to a marginal rate of substitution, the parking and ticket price combination is subject to the indifference principle: consumers are indifferent to the basket of goods obtained when the basket of differing goods give the same combined satisfaction [utility]. Hence a 65 dollar “average” ticket price and a 15 dollar parking space creates a basket of goods with a price of $80. Many other combinations of goods are available to residents of the Triad for price $80. Given an individual’s particular time and circumstance, the $80 price is in competition with a gazillion combinations of baskets. “Unless you are unusual in some way, nothing can ever make you happier than the next best alternative.” - Steve Landsburg

Since an “average” ticket price is denoted by GPAC, and considering the $80 figure above, how many residents of Guilford county and surrounding areas have the personal disposable income to consistently be one of the 293,100 annual attendees? How many residents of Guilford county and surrounding areas have an interest in performing arts? Is the income and tastes of residents of Guilford county and surrounding areas more akin to something other than performing arts? -Or- are the aggregate residents of Greensboro, NC merely subsidizing the tastes of a few that have an interest in performing arts?

If one is uninformed enough to believe in “the public interest” or “the public good”, and further assuming such fallacious phenomena exists (which they do not), then wouldn’t any collective action be for the greater good? How does GPAC deliver a good for all? -Or- does GPAC deliver a good for the few?

No private for-profit firm, for-profit meaning efficiency is paramount through competition where success means a profit, and if unsuccessful, failure (distinguished from non-profits where efficiency is not a goal) means private capital formation has ever detected a demand for a performing arts center and hence no performing arts center supply exists. Then why is it wise to deploy collective action to create a supply for a non-existent demand? If the profit seeker sees no reason to proceed, then is collective action merely the loss seeker?

Finally, one encounters “the quality of life” argument. “The quality of life” is one of those fuzzy little political bumper sticker size talking points that has no definition. The implicit and explicit assumption is that somehow and in some way politicos and there associated intelligentsia are going to raise “the quality of life” for all. Hence, GPAC somehow adds to the no-definition talking point of “quality of life” and all gain. It is an argument with no arguments. Quality of life is an individual proposition, not a collective proposition.

Joe Wood said...

DPAC has a VIP parking lot. Don't know how many spaces are in it. When I have gone to DPAC it has been at least 75-80% full when I arrived. (Made the mistake of trying to park there once, not knowing it was VIP) and was asked to leave and directed to the closest parking garage.