SJSU/VTA Collaborative Research Project

A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County

SJSU/VTA Collaborative Research Project

San José State UniversityDepartment of Urban & Regional PlanningOne Washington Square San José, CA 95192-0185

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Planning & Congestion Management

3331 N. First Street, Building B-2San José, CA, 95134-1927

Volume I: Technical ReportNovember 2010

November 18, 2010 Mr. Chris Augenstein, AICP Deputy Director, Planning Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Bldg. B San José, CA 95134 RE: SJSU/VTA Collaborative Research Project – A Parking Utilization

Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County

Dear Mr. Augenstein: With much pleasure, I would like to transmit to your office the final Technical Report (Volume I) for the above referenced project, which has been prepared by the graduate students of URBP 256: Transportation Planning – Local Issues (Spring 2010), under the leadership of Mr. Eduardo C. Serafin, PE, AICP. The report details the findings of the parking utilization surveys of transit-oriented development (TOD) residential properties in Santa Clara County, providing empirical evidence that these types of development are “over-parked.” We would like to express our gratitude to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority—particularly Mr. Robert W. Swierk, AICP and Ms. Ying C. Smith, AICP—for collaboratively working with our graduate students on this project, giving them the opportunity to gain real-world experience that could help shape future land development in the South Bay. We believe this report will be useful in your efforts in informing local decision-makers regarding the benefits of reducing local parking requirements for TOD residential properties in Santa Clara County. We would also like to thank you very much for acknowledging our students’ contribution with individual commendations letters. We consider this collaborative research project between SJSU and VTA an unqualified success for all parties involved. Sincerely,

Prof. Dayana Salazar Professor and Chair Department of Urban and Regional Planning

SJSU/VTA Collaborative Research Project A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties In Santa Clara County VOLUME I: TECHNICAL REPORT November2010San José State University (SJSU) DepartmentofUrbanandRegionalPlanning(DURP)URBP256:TransportationPlanning–LocalIssues(Spring2010)OneWashingtonSquareSanJosé,CA95192‐0185MainOffice:WSQ216APhone:408.924.5882Email:[email protected]/urbanplanningSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) TransportationPlanning&CongestionManagement3331N.FirstStreet,BuildingB‐2SanJosé,CA,95134‐1927Phone:408.321.2300www.vta.org/projects/studies.htmlPRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

EduardoC.Serafin,PE,AICPAdjunctLecturer,SJSUDURPRobertW.Swierk,AICPSeniorTransportationPlanner,VTAYingC.Smith,AICPTransportationPlanningManager,VTAGraduate Research Assistant

JustinM.Meek,MURPUrbanandTransportationPlanner,SJSUDURP


A Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report ii

GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH TEAM

Survey Logistics and Implementation Team

TeamLeader: RossNakasoneAikoCuencoNileF.EckhoffKevinO.GnustiVionaE.HioeYuNagaiGeorgeD.SchroederNicholasJ.Votaw

Mapping and Data Analysis Team

TeamLeader: JustinM.MeekSomaChatterjeeMinghuaCuiChristopherL.HacklerCandaceO.LouieAmeliaL.NaranjoMarkSolomon

Technical Report Preparation Team

TeamLeader: SueEllenK.AtkinsonKennethR.FlackVinayS.MurthyAdamL.SmithLaraL.Tran

Thefollowingstudentsparticipatedintheearlyphaseofthisproject:

CatharineA.DeLucaPaulN.HierlingRyanC.Niblock


iii Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVESUMMARY 1

CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 ProjectObjective 71.2 NeedfortheResearchProject 71.3 OverallResearchApproach 81.4 ProjectArea 91.5 ProjectTasks 9

1.5.1 Pre‐SurveyTasks 91.5.2 SurveyTasks 141.5.3 Post‐SurveyTasks 14

CHAPTER2.CURRENTANDBESTPRACTICESINESTIMATINGPARKINGDEMANDFORTODRESIDENTIALPROPERTIESINTHEU.S. 15

2.1 ITEParkingGeneration 152.1.1 CurrentMethodologyforEstimatingParkingDemand 152.1.2 EstimatingParkingDemandforTODProperties 15

2.2 APAFlexibleParkingRequirements 162.3 UrbanLandInstituteSharedParking 16

2.3.1 CurrentMethodologyforEstimatingParkingDemand 162.4 EnoFoundation 172.5 MethodologiesinAdvancedResearch 17

CHAPTER3. LOCALPARKINGREQUIREMENTSFORTODRESIDENTIALPROPERTIESINSANTACLARACOUNTY 21

3.1 Introduction 213.2 AnalysisofCurrentParkingRequirements 21

3.2.1 CurrentResidentialParkingRequirements 213.2.2 GuestParking 22

3.3 ParkingRequirementReductionAllowancesforTODsites 233.4 ParkingRequirementsSummary 25

CHAPTER4.METHODOLOGYFORPARKINGDEMANDUSERSURVEYFORTODRESIDENTIALPROPERTIES 27

CHAPTER5.METHODOLOGYFORPARKINGUTILIZATIONSURVEYFORTODRESIDENTIALPROPERTIES 29

5.1 OverviewofTasks 295.2 ScopeofWork 29

5.2.1 InitialTODSiteSelectionandGeneralDataCollection 295.2.2 InitialContactwithEligibleTODResidentialSites 315.2.3 ParkingSupplyDataCollectionandParkingUtilizationPre‐SurveyWork 345.2.4 PeakParkingUtilizationDataCollection 45


A Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report iv

CHAPTER6.PARKINGSURVEYDATASUMMARIESANDANALYSIS 47

6.1 ParkingClassifications 476.1.1 Off‐StreetParking 476.1.2On‐StreetParking 486.1.3MotorcycleParking 486.1.4OpenParkingLots 48

6.2 ParkingUtilizationv.ParkingDemand 486.3 SurveyDataCollection 496.4 DataAnalysis 49

6.4.1SurveyDataSummary 506.4.2 ParkingUtilizationRatesforSurveyedSitesComparedtoLocalZoningRequirements 526.4.3 ParkingUtilizationRatiosforSurveyedSites 536.4.4 ComparisonofParkingSupplyandUtilizationforSurveyedSites 546.4.5 ComparisonofParkingSupplyandDemandRatesforSurveyedSites 546.4.6RelationshipbetweenOccupiedDwellingUnitsandPeakParkingUtilizationCounts 556.4.7 PeakParkingUtilizationCountsasaFunctionofTotalParkingSupply 576.4.8 ParkingDemandRatesasaFunctionofParkingSupplyRates 58

CHAPTER7.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONSANDPOLICYIMPLICATIONS 59

7.1 ResearchConclusions 597.2.1 “Over‐Parked”orUnderutilizedParkingSupply 597.2.2 ReduceResidentialParkingRequirementsnearTransit 59

7.2 PolicyImplications 607.2.1 ReduceCostsofUnusedParking 607.2.2 SimplifyLocalParkingRequirements 617.2.3 FutureTransitExpansion 627.2.4BetterLandUseandUrbanForm 62

7.3 AreasofFurtherResearch 63

REFERENCES 67

ABOUTTHERESEARCHSPONSORS 71


v Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report

List of Tables

TABLE3.1 GuestParkingRequirements 23

TABLE3.2 ParkingReductionsAllowed 24

TABLE3.3 ParkingReductionProcess 25

TABLE5.1 SurveySites 32

TABLE6.1 SurveyData 51

List of Figures

FIGURE1.1 ProjectArea 10

FIGURE1.2 SurveyStudyArea 11

FIGURE3.1 ResidentialParkingRequirementRangesforMulti‐FamilyHousing 22

FIGURE5.1 SurveySitesNearMountainViewStation** 35

FIGURE5.2 SurveySitesNearSantaClaraCaltrainStation* 36

FIGURE5.3 SurveySitesNearFairOaksStation 37

FIGURE5.4 SurveySitesNearTasmanStation 38

FIGURE5.5 SurveySitesNearRiverOaksRailStation 39

FIGURE5.6 SurveySitesNearSantaClaraandSanAntonioStations 40

FIGURE5.7 SurveySitesNearTamienStation** 41

FIGURE5.8 SurveySitesNearOhlone‐ChynowethStation 42

FIGURE5.9 SurveySitesNearAlmadenStation 43

FIGURE5.10SurveySitesNearRaceStation 44

FIGURE6.1 TotalParkingUtilization 50

FIGURE6.2 ParkingUtilizationRatesforSurveyedSitesComparedtoLocalZoningRequirements 52

FIGURE6.3 ParkingUtilizationRatiosforSurveyedSites 53

FIGURE6.4 ComparisonofParkingSupplyandUtilizationforSurveyedSites 54


A Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report vi

FIGURE6.5 ComparisonofParkingSupplyandDemandRatesforSurveyedSites 55

FIGURE6.6 ScatterplotandBest‐FittingRegressionLineofPeakParkingUtilizationCountsasaFunctionofNumberofOccupiedDwellingUnits 56

FIGURE6.7 ScatterplotandBest‐FittingRegressionLineofPeakParkingUtilizationCountsasaFunctionofTotalParkingSupply 57

FIGURE6.8 ScatterplotandBest‐FittingRegressionLineofParkingDemandRateasaFunctionofParkingSupplyRate 58

FIGURE7.1 FutureTransitinSantaClaraCounty 65

Note: MostfiguresinChapter5showVTALightRailstations.*FigureshowsonlyaCaltrainstation.**FigureshowsbothVTALightRailandCaltrainstations.


vii Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report

List of Appendices (Volume II)*

AppendixACurrentandBestPracticesinEstimatingParkingDemandforTODResidentialPropertiesintheU.S.

AppendixBLocalParkingRequirementsforTODResidentialPropertiesinSantaClaraCounty

AppendixCMethodologyforParkingDemandUserSurveyforTODResidentialProperties

AppendixDMasterTODList

AppendixETODPreliminaryContactChecklist

AppendixFTODPropertyChecklist

AppendixGPermissiontoConductaParkingSupplyandUtilizationSurvey

AppendixHPre‐SurveyOn‐SiteReconnaissanceChecklist

AppendixIPeakParkingUtilizationFieldSurveyInstructions

AppendixJVTAOn‐SiteParkingSurvey

*VolumeIIisinaseparatedocumentfromVolumeI


A Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report viii

[Thispageisintentionallyblank.]


1 Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report

Executive Summary

Thistechnicalreportistheoutcomeofacollaborativeresearcheffortbetweenatransportation

agency,theSantaClaraValleyTransportationAuthority(VTA),andagraduatestudentresearch

teamatSanJoséStateUniversity’s(SJSU)DepartmentofUrbanandRegionalPlanning(DURP).The

focusofthisresearchprojectisonparkingutilizationattransit‐orienteddevelopment(TOD)

residentialprojectsinthesouthernportionoftheSanFranciscoBayArea.Theintentofthis

researchistodetermineactualparkingutilizationforresidentsof12housingdevelopmentsnear

VTAlightrailandCaltrainstations,andtocompareusagetoparkingsupplyandlocalrequirements

attheselocations.Theprojecthasyieldedinformationusefultoplanningpractitionersand

academiaalike.ThestudyfollowsrecentresearchwithintheBayAreathatdemonstratesmany

TODresidentialpropertiesare“over‐parked”(Cervero2009).Locally,thestudyprovidesevidence

toVTAtohelpinformdecision‐makersandthepublicthatlessparkingcanandoughttobe

requiredforcertainkindsofdevelopmentprojects.WhilethisstudyfocusesonSantaClaraCounty,

itisexpectedtoproviderelevantinformationforsimilardevelopmentprojectsthroughoutthe

UnitedStatesthatarepromotingTODresidentialprojectsinthefaceofincreasinglyscareland

resources.

PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY

Theintentofthisresearchprojectistocorroboratethefindingsofotherresearchonthetopicand

provideevidencethatreducedparkingrequirementsmaybepermissibleinSantaClaraCounty.If

thesurveydemonstratesloweractualparkingutilizationthancurrentparkingsupply,itwould

indicatethatlocaljurisdictionswithland‐usecontrolsurroundingfixed‐railtransitstationscould

reducetheirparkingrequirementstandards.Thisreductioninparkingrequirementscouldhave

theeffectofreducingTODconstructioncostsandreducingthefootprintofTODdevelopment

projectstomakelandavailableforotherandbetteruses.

Aninitialliteraturereviewwasconductedtocollateexistingresearchrelatedtoparkingutilization

anddemand.Theresultsfromtheliteraturereviewwereusedtodeterminebestpracticesin

estimatingparkingdemand,identifylocalparkingrequirementsinthestudyarea,anddevelopa

parkingsurveyworkplan.Afteranon‐sitesurveywasselectedasthepreferredmethodology,the

researchteamconductedpre‐surveyfieldvisitsandthenon‐sitesurveys,collectingarangeof

parking‐relateddata.TheanalysisofthedataisincludedinChapters6and7.


A Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report 2

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS

Thekeyfindingofthisstudyisthatall12TODresidentialpropertiessurveyedoffermoreparking

thanresidentsneedandactuallyuse.Eachofthesurveysiteshassignificantunusedparking(see

Figure6.4).AsshowninFigure6.1,about26percentofavailableparkingspacesforthe12survey

siteswereunusedatthetimeoftheon‐the‐groundsurveys.Thefactthattheparkingsupplyrateis

foundhigherthantheparkingdemandrateforall12sites(22percenthigheronaverage)indicates

thatmoreparkingisprovidedthanisactuallyneeded(seeTable6.1andFigure6.5).Thisresearch

projectprovidesevidencethatTODresidentialprojectsinSantaClaraCountymaybe“over‐

parked.”

Sinceparkingrequirementsforresidentialdevelopmentsaresetbylocalzoningrequirements,local

parkingrequirementshaveclearlyledtothelargeamountofparkingsuppliedattheresidential

developmentsitessurveyed.The2,496unusedparkingspacesin12residentialsitesleadthe

ResearchTeamtoconcludethatparkingfacilitiesatTODresidentialprojectsinSantaClaraCounty

maybeunderutilized.ThisfindingsuggeststhatlocalparkingcoderequirementsforTOD

residentialpropertiesinSantaClaraCounty,andothersimilarlocations,couldbereducedbyas

muchas26percent.

Basedontheobservedpeakparkingutilization,theparkingdemandratesforthe12TODsurvey

sitesarenearthebottomoftherangeofrequiredparkingsupplylevelsformunicipalitiesacross

SantaClaraCounty(seeFigure6.2),whichinsomecasesmayexceed2.5parkingspaceperdwelling

unitundercurrentlocalzoningrequirements.Thisresearchprojectshowsthatparkingdemandat

residenceswithinone‐halfmileofamajortransitstationislessthanwhatcurrentzoningcodes

require.Assuch,manySantaClaraCountymunicipalitiescouldreducetheirresidentialparking

requirementssignificantlywithouttheriskof“underparking”aTODresidentialsite.

Figure6.6andTable6.1showthatonaverageonlyabout1.3spacesareneededperdwellingunitin

aTODresidentialsiteinSantaClaraCountythatmeetsthecriteriasetinSection5.2.1ofthisreport.

ThisresultforSantaClaraCountyTODsitesiscomparabletotheaverageparkingdemandrateof

1.2spaceperdwellingunitforotherSanFranciscoBayAreaTODsitesstudiedbyCerveroin2009

(seeTable2.1).



POLICY IMPLICATION: REDUCE COSTS OF UNUSED PARKING

Sinceunusedparkingsupplyconsumeland,money,andotherresourcesintheirconstructionand

maintenance,reductioninparkingrequirementsforTODresidentialprojectscouldbenefitboth

localmunicipalitiesanddevelopersalike.Constructingparkingfacilitiesincreasescostsfor

developersandprovesinefficientforthemunicipalitywhenalargeproportionisunused.There

arepotentialcostsavingsthatcouldbegarneredifparkingrequirementsarereducedtolevels

suggestedbytheutilizationdatapresentedinthisstudy.Thesecostsavingscanthenbeusedto

supportothercriticaldevelopmentobjectivesofthelocalmunicipality.

Thecostofconstructingparkingfacilitiesisestimatedtobeonaveragebetween$10,000and

$30,000perspaceingaragefacilitiesandabout$5,000perspaceforsurfaceparkinglots(Boroski

2002,1).IntheUnitedStates,buildingparkingcostsanaverageof$15,000perspace,or$44per

squarefoot(VTPI2010,5.4‐2).Thecostofparkingfacilitiesdoesvaryaccordingtotheindividual

site,butanacross‐the‐boardaveragewillbeusedinthiscase.Usingthenationalaveragecost,the

2,496unusedparkingspacescountedinthisstudyforthe12TODresidentialsitesrepresentabout

$37.4millioninopportunitycost.Thisestimateisonlyapartialestimatetothetotalpotential

opportunitycostforthewholecounty.

Constructingparkingfacilitiesisestimatedtorepresentabout10percentoftotaldevelopment

costsforabuilding(VTPI2010,5.4‐12).Thiscostrepresentsalargeexpenditurefordevelopers,

andanyprovisiontoreduceparkingrequirementstoreducethisamountcouldrepresenta

significantreductioninoveralldevelopmentcosts.Thecostsavingsindevelopmentcostscould

thenbeusedtosupportotherenhancementstotheproject,whichmaybedesiredbythelocal

agencyanditscommunities.Maintenanceandoperationforaparkingfacilitycanalsocost

propertyownersanaverageof$800peryearforeachresidentialoff‐streetparkingspace1(VTPI

2010,5.4‐10).Thismaintenancecostrepresentsabout$2.0millionperyearforthe12TOD

residentialsitesinannualopportunitycost,whichcouldbeusedforotherpurposestomaintainthe

residentialproperty.Againthisannualopportunitycostisonlyapartialestimatetothetotal

annualopportunitycostforthewholecounty.

POLICY IMPLICATION: SIMPLIFY LOCAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS

EachmunicipalityinSantaClaraCountyhasitsownuniquewayofgrantingsuchareduction.Inthe

majorityofcases,theprocessrequirescase‐by‐casedecisionmaking(suchasconditionaluse 1Note:costscanvarybetween$670‐5,000peryear



permits)orapreviouslycompletedlegislativeeffort(suchasaSpecificPlan).Inseveral

jurisdictions,reductionscanonlybegrantedthroughissuanceofavarianceorinconjunctionwith

thesitedeveloper’sparticipationinandpromotionoftransportationdemandmanagement(TDM)

programs.

ProvidingreducedparkingrequirementsforTODresidentialsitesdirectlyintothezoningcode

couldsavemunicipalitiesthemanpowerandresourcesrequiredforadditionalpermittingefforts.

Additionally,thisformofregulationwouldlikelybeseenasbeneficialinthedevelopment

community,asitwouldallowforagreatermeasureofpredictabilityandsimplicityindetermining

thecostsassociatedwithdevelopingaresidentialsite.Suchabenefitmayevenresultinan

increasednumberofTODresidentialprojectsinmunicipalitiesthatsimplifytheparking

requirementsinsuchamanner.

POLICY IMPLICATION: FUTURE TRANSIT EXPANSION

SeveralnewtransitprojectsareplannedforSantaClaraCountyinthecomingyears,notablythe

twoBusRapidTransit(BRT)linesandtheBARTextensiontoSanJosé(seeFigure7.1).Thenew

transitlineswillprovidebettertransitservicetomanyareasthroughoutSantaClaraCounty,

includingimportantdestinationssuchascentralbusinessdistricts(CBDs),henceenablingresidents

theoptiontoaccesstheseareaswithoutdriving.AsmoreareasinSantaClaraCountyare

connectedbytransit,therewillbenewopportunitiesforresidentstotakeadvantageofthe

accessibilityandconveniencethatTODresidentialprojectsoffer.

ThisresearchhasshownthatTODresidentialsites,whichmeetthecriteriainSection5.2.1andare

nearrailstationsinSantaClaraCounty,areover‐parked.Thisreasoningcouldbefurtherexpanded

tosuggestthatTODresidentialprojectsnearneworenhancedtransitstationsforBRTservice,

whichmaybecomparabletorailservice,couldalsohavesimilarlyreducedparkingdemand.Ifthe

qualityoftransitserviceintermsofconvenienceandcomfortcanachievedcomparabletorail

service,thenthepotentialforreducedparkingdemandforTODresidentialsitesnearBRTstations

maybepossible,ifnotlikely.

POLICY IMPLICATION: BETTER LAND USE AND URBAN FORM

MunicipalitiescouldexpectpositiveimpactsfromdecreasingparkingratiosforTODresidential

projects.Landwouldbemoreefficientlyusedbymakingitavailableforadditionalhousingor

enhancedcommunityamenities.Decreasingparkingratiosfrom2.2to1.1—whileholdingother



factorsconstant—increasesthepotentialforbuildingmoreunitsby20to33percent(Arrington&

Cervero2008).Reducingparkingratiosshouldresultinlowerconstructioncosts,greaterhousing

units,highertransitridership,andimprovedoverallphysicalformandperformanceofresidential

developments(Arrington&Cervero2008,48‐51).

Anotherimplicationofloweredparkingratiosrelatestourbanform.Byreducingtheamountof

parking(especiallysurfaceparking)requiredatasite,theoverallphysicalformonresidential

propertiescanbeimprovedtomakethemmoreinvitingandpedestrianfriendly,andthusmore

“livable”.Puttinglotsofsurfaceparkingbetweenhousingunitsandtheadjacentroadsandwalking

pathstypicallybecomebarrierstowalkability.

AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH

Mixed‐useandTODprojectspresentanexcellentopportunityforshared‐parkingsituations,which

couldincreasetheefficiencyofparkingfacilitiesthatservethesetypesofdevelopments.

Dependingonthetimeofday,sharedparkingbetweenresidentsandcommercialbusinesspatrons

enablestheuseofspacesthatmightotherwisebeunused.Ifamixed‐usedevelopmentislocated

withinone‐halfmileofatransitstation,thenoverallparkingcouldbereducedandsharedacrossall

landuses.Byintegratingcommercialandresidentialparking,theoverallparkingsupplywillbe

moreefficientlyused(Boroski2002,9).FutureresearchonsharedparkinginTODprojectsin

SantaClarawouldbeusefulinplanningandpermittingTODprojects.

TODresidentialpropertieswithreducedparkingratiosshouldresultinhightransitridership.

Municipalitiescouldthenofferanincentivetoprivatedevelopersintheformofreducedtraffic‐

relatedimpactfees.TherationalewouldbethatsincetheseTODresidentialprojectsgenerateless

vehicletrips,theirassociatedfair‐sharecontributiontoroadwaytrafficimpactscouldbelowered.

FutureresearchstudiescouldverifythatpeopleinSantaClaraCountywhochoosetoliveinTOD

residentialpropertiesdrivelessoftenandhavefewercars,therebyreducingtheirdemandfor

parking.

TheResearchTeamdevelopedaresearchworkplanforestimatingparkingdemandusingstated‐

preferenceusersurveys.Forreferenceinfutureresearch,amethodologyforconductingauser

surveyisincludedinAppendixCforVTAstaffand/orotherinterestedpartieswhomaywishto

estimatethetotalresidentialparkingdemandatTODsites,particularlyforthoseTODresidential

projectsthatexhibitveryhighparkingutilization.






Chapter 1. Introduction

Acollaborativeresearcheffortbetweenatransportationagencyandauniversity,thisstudywas

conductedtodetermineparkingutilizationattransit‐oriented‐developmentresidentialprojectsin

thesouthernportionoftheSanFranciscoBayArea.TheSanJoséStateUniversityDepartmentof

Urban&RegionalPlanning,togetherwiththeSantaClaraValleyTransportationAuthority,studied

parkingutilizationatTODresidentialpropertiesinSantaClaraCountyinthespringof2010.This

researchwasconductedtodetermineactualparkingutilizationforresidentsofhousing

developmentprojectsnearVTAlightrailstationsandCaltrainstations,andtocompareusageto

parkingsupplyandlocalrequirementsattheselocations.Thisstudyfollowsrecentresearchthat

hasdemonstratedthatmanyTODresidentialprojectsareover‐parked.Thecurrentstudyfocuses

onSantaClaraCountyinCalifornia,butcouldbeusedtoproviderelevantparkingutilization

informationforsimilarlocationsthroughouttheUnitedStates.

ThroughapartnershipwithVTA,theSJSUURBP256classwasselectedtoconductthisproject.

URBP256isagraduatelevelclassintheDepartmentofUrbanandRegionalPlanningthatfocuses

ontransportationplanningissuesaddressedattheneighborhoodandmunicipallevel.The

researchteamiscomprisedofgraduatestudentsfromthisclasswhochosetoundertakethe

researchprojectasoneofthemaincourseworkforthesemester.Theteamwasdirectedbythe

instructorwithtechnicalguidancefromVTAstaff.

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

TheprimaryobjectiveforthisresearchstudyistoassessparkingutilizationratesatexistingTOD

residentialpropertiesinSantaClaraCounty.Theparkingutilizationratesatthesurveysitesare

anticipatedtoserveasanestimationofthetotalparkingdemandatthesesites.Thisinformation

couldthenbeusedtodeterminewhetherTODresidentialprojectsneartransitinthecountyexhibit

anoversupplyorunder‐utilizationofexistingparkingfacilities.

1.2 NEED FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT

AlthoughresearchexistsontheestimationofparkingdemandandutilizationforTODresidential

projects(includingseveralfocusingonCaliforniaandtheSanFranciscoBayArea),noformal

extensiveresearchhasbeenconductedforsitesinSantaClaraCounty(seeSection2.5).TheVTA

believeshavinglocal,empiricalevidenceofactualparkingdemandorutilizationforTODresidential



projectsinSantaClaraCountywouldbeofgreatvalueintheireffortstoinformlocalcitystaff,

decision‐makers,andthepublicaboutthebenefitsofTODresidentialprojects.

Infact,thisissuecomesupfrequentlyduringtheplanningprocesswhenadeveloperproposesa

projectnearatransitstation.Oftenthedeveloperiswillingtobuildwithreducedparkingratios,

butbecauseoflocalzoningordinances,publicobjections,and/orcitycouncilconcerns,the

developerisrequiredto“over‐supply”parking.VTAbelievesthatthisstudywillhelpensurea

closermatchbetweenparkingsupplyanddemandatfutureTODresidentialprojects.

1.3 OVERALL RESEARCH APPROACH

Inthefallof2009,VTAstaffandSJSUfacultydiscussedthepotentialofconductingparkingsurveys

ofTODresidentialprojectsinSantaClaraCounty.Twomainparkingsurveyconceptsemerged

fromthisdiscussion:

1. ResidentialusersurveysofTODresidentialpropertiesintheCountytoestablishactual

parkingbehaviorofresidentsinthesedevelopmentprojectsandthenestimateparking

demandratesreflectingconditionsintheCounty.

2. On‐the‐groundparkingsupplyandutilizationsurveyofTODresidentialpropertiesinthe

County,andthenusetheresultingdatatoapproximateparkingdemandratesforconditions

intheCounty.

ThecomprehensiveliteraturereviewcompletedbytheResearchTeamrevealedthatthetwomain

parkingsurveyconceptsabovewerepotentiallybothrelevanttotheprojectobjectivetomeet

VTA’sneedformoreconcreteevidenceonparkingratesforTODresidentialprojectsinSantaClara

County.Thechoiceforthesurveymethodwasdrivenbythetechnicalapproachmostrelevantto

thekeyresearchquestion,aswellastimeandlogisticalconstraintsofcompletingthesurveyina

singlesemesterclass.

Fromatechnicalperspective,iftheobservedparkingutilizationratesatTODresidentialproperties

intheCountywerefoundtobesignificantlylowerthan85percent,thentheparkingdemandfor

TODresidentialprojectsintheCountycouldbeestimatedfromtheobservedparkingutilization

rateswithoutadditionalsurveys.However,iftheobservedparkingutilizationratesatTOD

residentialpropertiesintheCountywerefoundtobesignificantlyhigherthan85percent,then

additionalandmoreextensivesurveyswouldbeneededtoestimatethetotalparkingdemand



becauseparkingoverflowislikely.Ineithercase,theuseofparkingutilizationsurveysofTOD

residentialpropertieswouldanswerthekeyresearchquestionofwhetherTODresidentialprojects

inSantaClaraCountyexhibitanover‐supplyand/orunder‐utilizationofparkingfacilities.

Therefore,theResearchTeamproceededwithanon‐the‐groundparkingutilizationsurveyofTOD

residentialpropertiesintheCountyforthisresearchproject.

1.4 PROJECT AREA

TheprojectareaislocatedinSantaClaraCounty,CaliforniainthesouthernportionoftheSan

FranciscoBayArea(seeFigure1.1).Figure1.2showsthestudyareaingreaterdetail.Thisfigure

depictsthetransitstationsthatwereinvestigatedandwerefoundtohaveeligibleTODsurveysites

nearthem.Thegreycirclesrepresentahalf‐mileradiusaroundarailstation,andtheyellow

outlinesindicateoneormoresurveysiteiswithinthishalf‐mileradialarea.Forreference,

highwaysandcitynamesareshown,alongwithVTAandCaltraintransitalignments.

1.5 PROJECT TASKS

1.5.1 Pre-Survey Tasks

Attheonsetoftheproject,theResearchTeamconductedacomprehensiveliteraturereviewtofind

existingmaterialrelatedtoTODparkinggenerationanddemandthatwasrelevanttotheresearch

question.Initially,abroadsurveywasconductedforthefollowingtopics:

• ParkingdemandestimationstudiesforTODsitesortransitvillages

• ParkingdemandsurveysforTODsitesortransitvillages

• ParkinggenerationratesforTODsitesortransitvillages

• MethodologiesforestimatingparkingdemandforTODsitesortransitvillages

• TransitmodeshareforTODsitesortransitvillages

• AutoownershipforTODsitesortransitvillages

• ParkingdatasurveysforTODsitesortransitvillages

• Parkingdatacollectionmethodologies

Stanislaus

San Joaquin

Marin

Alameda

Contra Costa

San Mateo

Santa Cruz

San Benito

Monterey

Santa ClaraSanta Clara

San Francisco

Palo Alto

San Jose

GilroySanta Cruz

Walnut Creek

San Rafael

Oakland

1

1

17 101

680

880

280

580

101

80

580

205

Pacific Ocean

Project Area

Sources: California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL) & US Census Bureau, Incorporated Places.

Figure 1.1 Project Area

County line

Highway

Urbanized area0 4020 Kilometers

0 2010 MilesN

Justin

Typewritten Text

10

Tamien

Palo Alto

Santa Clara

San Antonio

Mountain View

California Ave

Race

Gish

Bascom

Cottle

Tasman

Diridon

Curtner

Almaden

Whisman

Campbell

Fruitdale

Fair Oaks

Great Mall

River Oaks

Santa ClaraSaint James

Japantown-Ayer

Ohlone-Chynoweth

Paseo de San Antonio

Milpitas

Saratoga

Palo Alto

Cupertino

Los Altos

Sunnyvale

Menlo Park

Santa Clara

Los Altos Hills

17

85

101

101

880 680

280

87

237

0 2 41 Miles

Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and San Jose State University, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, URBP 256

VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

VTA priority site

Caltrain priority site

Light Rail

Caltrain

Highway

County line

Urbanized area

Survey site nearby

Study area

Figure 1.2 Study Area

N

Map p

repa

red b

y Jus

tin M

eek (

2010

)

Diridon

Santa Clara

Saint James

Japantown-Ayer


Mountain View

Whisman

Downtown San Jose

Downtown Mountain View

0 0.5 10.25 Mile

Justin

Typewritten Text

11

Justin

Typewritten Text



Followingtheinitialliteraturereview,theinformationwascollatedintofourdiscreteareasfor

furtherstudy:

• Currentandbestpracticesinestimatingparkingdemand

• LocalparkingcoderequirementsformunicipalitiesinSantaClaraCounty

• Methodologyforconductingusersurveystoestimateparkingdemand

• Methodologyforconductingon‐siteparkingutilizationsurveys

First,currentandbestpracticesinestimatingparkingdemandforTODresidentialpropertiesinthe

USwerereviewed.ThisreviewwasorganizedbytheResearchTeamaccordingtothefollowing

mainreferences:

• InstituteofTransportationEngineers(ITE)ParkingGeneration

• UrbanLandInstitute(ULI)SharedParking

• AmericanPlanningAssociation(APA)FlexibleParkingRequirements

• EnoFoundationParking

Additionally,recentTODparkingresearchfromlocalandnationalresourceswasreviewed,andthe

methodologiesthatwereutilizedinthosestudiesweresummarized.TODparkingdemandrates

werecompiledfromresearchstudyresultsaccordingtolocation.ThelocationsincludedTOD

residentialprojectsoutsideofCalifornia,TODresidentialprojectswithinCaliforniabutoutsideof

theSanFranciscoBayArea,andTODresidentialprojectsintheBayAreaoutsideofSantaClara

County.ThisfirstareaofresearchisincludedinChapter2ofthisreport.

TheResearchTeamnextanalyzedcurrentparkingrequirementsbylocalzoningcodeforTOD

residentialpropertiesinSantaClaraCounty.AlllocaljurisdictionsinSantaClaraCountywith

CaltrainandVTAstationswithexistingorproposedTODresidentialprojectswerestudied,and

parkingrequirementswerecompiledonaper‐housing‐unitbasisforthefollowingcategories:

• Attachedhomes/townhomes/condos(owner‐occupied)

• Multi‐familyhousing/apartments(rental)

• Parkingrequirementreductionformixedusedand/orTODresidentialprojects

ThisportionoftheliteraturereviewiscompiledinChapter3.



TheResearchTeamnextoutlinedthetwopotentialparkingsurveyoptionsthatwereconsidered

forthisproject.Scopesofworkweredevelopedfrominformationfoundintheliteraturereviewfor

aresidentialusersurveyandanon‐the‐groundparkingsupplyandutilizationsurveyforTOD

residentialpropertiesaroundVTAandCaltrainstations.Thesetwosurveymethodologiesare

describedinChapters4and5,respectively.

TheResearchTeamdeterminedtheorganizationandschedulingofthesurveyfieldcrews

(comprisedofthreestudents)andpreparedaSurveyLogisticsandImplementationPlan.The

ResearchTeamcontactedthepropertymanagersoftheTODresidentialpropertiestoget

permissionfortheon‐siteparkingsurveyandtogatherkeyinformationonthesites.TheResearch

Teampreparedalltheformsneededtocarryoutthesurveyanddistributethemtothefieldcrews.

Alldocumentsutilizedinthestudyareincludedasappendicestothisreport.

1.5.2 Survey Tasks

Duringtheweekofthesurvey,allsurveyorscompletedtheon‐the‐groundsurveysaccordingtothe

SurveyLogisticsandImplementationPlan.Fieldcrewsconductedtheon‐the‐groundsurveyatthe

prioritizedTODresidentialpropertiesassignedtothemaccordingtothePlan.TheResearchTeam

collectedallcompletedparkingsurveysfromthefieldcrews,reviewedthemforqualitycontrol,

beforemovingintothedataanalysistask.

1.5.3 Post-Survey Tasks

TheResearchTeamthenprocessedthecompletedfieldsurveysandgenerateddatasummariesin

tabularandgraphicalformsforinclusioninthisreport.Thedatawasanalyzedwithrespecttothe

mainresearchquestionandtoexplorepotentialpatternsrelatedtoparkingutilization.



Chapter 2. Current and Best Practices in Estimating Parking

Demand for TOD Residential Properties in the U.S.

BasedontheliteraturereviewcompletedbytheResearchTeam,thischaptersummarizescurrent

andbestpracticesforestimatingparkingdemand.SourcesincludetheInstituteofTraffic

Engineers(ITE),AmericanPlanningAssociation(APA),UrbanLandInstitute(ULI),andEno

Foundation.Theintenthereistoidentifystandardtechniquesandmethodologiessuccessfully

usedinplanningstudies.Bestpracticesfromrecent,relevantresearchstudiesarealsobriefly

summarized.Amoredetailedexaminationofbestpracticesfromrelevantresearchisavailablein

AppendixA.Moreover,AppendixAandthischapterincludeknownparkingdemandratesforTOD

residentialprojectsfromvariouspartsoftheUnitedStates.

2.1 ITE PARKING GENERATION

TheITEhasparkingdemandguidelinesfor91differentlandusesbasedonsurveysconductedin

mostlysuburbanareasthroughouttheUnitedStates.Giventhissuburbanpremise,ITEwarns

userstobecarefulwhenusingtheresultsinmoreurbansettings,becausethefindingsmaynotbe

universallyapplicable.TheITEParkingGenerationmanualismeantsolelyasaguidelineand

shouldnotbeconstruedasastandard(ITE2003).

2.1.1 Current Methodology for Estimating Parking Demand

Toestimateparkingdemandcorrectly,researchanddatacollectionneedstobeproperlyconducted

(ITE2006,C3).ITErecommendsthefollowingfourdata‐collectionstepstodetermineparking

demand:

1. Selectanappropriatesite

2. Determineanindependentvariable

3. Collectbackgrounddata

4. Conductparkingdemandobservation

2.1.2 Estimating Parking Demand for TOD Properties

WhiletheITEParkingGenerationmanualreliesmainlyonsurveysconductedintypicalsuburban

areasanddoesnotincludeland‐usecategoriesforTOD‐relatedproperties,ITEacceptsnewparking

datacollectedforemergingordifferentlanduses.Themethodologypresentedinthemanual



providesastandardwayforresearchers,planners,anddesignerstoestimateparkinggeneration

demandfordifferentlandusesnotincludedinthecurrenteditionoftheITEParkingGeneration.

2.2 APA FLEXIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS

ThebestpracticeforreviewingparkingstandardsaccordingtotheAPAFlexibleParking

Requirementsmanualisasimplebutcomprehensivesix‐stepprocess,aslistedbelow(Smith1983,

22‐24):

1. Determinegenericbuildingcharacteristics

2. Reviewsimilarparkingstandards

3. Surveyparkingdemandandproblemsatexistingdevelopments

4. Establishparkingpolicy

5. Determinezoningrequirements

6. Monitorparkingstandards

2.3 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE SHARED PARKING

TheULIsharedparkingmethodologyprovidesasystematicwaytoapplyappropriateadjustments

toparkingratiosforeachlanduseinamixed‐usedevelopmentordistrict.Ratherthanrelyingon

pre‐determinedparkingratiostodeterminethenumberofparkingspacesneeded,theULIShared

Parkingmanualusesadjustmentsbasedonseveralothercriteriatominimizeparkingwhenshared

betweendifferentuses(Smith2005).Theprinciplebeingappliedhereisbasedonthenotionthat

differentlanduseshavecomplementaryparkingpatternsandneeds.Assuch,overallparkingmay

bereducedwhentheneedforitisshared.

2.3.1 Current Methodology for Estimating Parking Demand

Themanualusesanine‐stepmethodologythatisfairlycomplexanddata‐intensive.The

methodologyestablishesabaseparkingratioandthenusesadjustmentstoreducetheparkingratio

tomeetprojecteddemandfromthemultiplelandusesthatwillshareparkingspaces.

1. Gatherandreviewprojectdata

2. Selectparkingratios

3. Selectfactorsandanalyzedifferencesinactivitypatterns

4. Developscenariosforcriticalparkingneedperiods

5. Adjustratiosformodalsplitandpersonspercar



!" #$$%&'()(*+,$-./0',1234-50(-4'

6" 7,%+3%,-0'8093.801'$,8:.(;'4$,+04'<)8'0,+='4+0(,8.)'

>" ?0-085.(0'@=0-=08'4+0(,8.)4'80<%0+-',%%'+8.-.+,%'$,8:.(;'(0014'

A" B0+)550(1','$,8:.(;'$%,('

2.4 ENO FOUNDATION

C=0'D()'E)3(1,-.)('<)8'C8,(4$)8-,-.)('$8)13+01','80<080(+0'0(-.-%01'!"#$%&''FG0,(-'HAAIJK'@=.+='

=,4'L0+)50',('.5$)8-,(-'80<080(+0')('-=0'43L20+-"''C=0'D()'E)3(1,-.)('43;;04-4'-=,-'$0,:'$,8:.(;'

80$8040(-4'>M'$08+0(-')<'-=0'105,(1'/,%304"''N(',/08,;0K'-=0(K'$,8:.(;'105,(1'0O+0014'$,8:.(;'

43$$%&')(%&'HM'$08+0(-')<'-=0'-.50"'

C=0';0(08,%',$$8),+='-)'04-.5,-.(;'$,8:.(;'4$,+0'105,(1'<)8',(&';./0(',+-./.-&'L0;.(4'L&'

10-085.(.(;'-=0'$)$3%,-.)(')8'$084)(*,++353%,-.)('<)8'4,.1',+-./.-&"''C=.4'<.(1.(;'.4'-=0('+)(/08-01'

.(-)'-=0',++353%,-.)(')<'$,8:01'/0=.+%04'L&'+)(4.108.(;'5)10'4$%.-',(1'/0=.+%0')++3$,(+&'<)8'

/,8.)34'3408';8)3$4'@.-='1.<<08.(;'$,8:.(;'+=,8,+-08.4-.+4'F0";"K'05$%)&00K'/.4.-)8K'4-310(-K'0-+"J"''

P$0+.<.+'4-0$4'.('-=0')/08,%%'$8)+044'.(+%310'-=0'<)%%)@.(;Q'

H" D4-.5,-0'$084)(*104-.(,-.)(4'<)8'-=0';0(08,-)8'<)8'+8.-.+,%'-.50'$08.)14'F343,%%&'@=0('$0,:*

$,8:.(;',++353%,-.)('()85,%%&')++384J'

R" 7)(/08-'$084)(*104-.(,-.)(4'.(-)'04-.5,-04')<'$0,:*$084)(',++353%,-.)('

S" D4-.5,-0'(35L08')<'18./084'<)8'0,+='3408'$)$3%,-.)(';8)3$'-=,-'@.%%'8093.80'$,8:.(;'<)8'-=0'

;./0(',+-./.-&'

T" E)8'53%-.*340'10/0%)$50(-K'04-.5,-0'-=0'$0,:*$,8:.(;'105,(14'<)8'0,+=',+-./.-&'L&',11.(;'

-=0'$,8:.(;';0(08,-01'L&'1.<<080(-',+-./.-.04')++388.(;'138.(;'-=0'4,50'-.50'

2.5 METHODOLOGIES IN ADVANCED RESEARCH

U,/.(;'+)%%0+-01'-=0'L04-'$8,+-.+04'.('04-.5,-.(;'$,8:.(;'105,(1',(1'50,438.(;'$,8:.(;'3-.%.V,-.)('

<8)5'-=0'<)38',<)8050(-.)(01'4-,(1,81'80<080(+04K'-=0'(0O-'4-0$'.4'-)'+)(4.108'(0@K'80%0/,(-'

8040,8+='4-31.04')('-=0'43L20+-"''C=0'B040,8+='C0,5W4'%.-08,-380'80/.0@'<)3(1'$08-.(0(-'

.(<)85,-.)('.('4-31.04'+)(13+-01'L&'B)L08-'708/08)K'X)=('Y)8)4:.K'U)%%.0'Z3(1K',(1'[,-VK'N:.-43'\'

#44)+.,-04"''](','4-31&'L&'708/08)',(1')-=084'F708/08)'RIIAK'C,L%0'H',(1'E.;380'RJK'H!'Y,&'#80,'

CN?'804.10(-.,%'$8)20+-4'@080'4=)@('-)'$8)/.10',$$8)O.5,-0%&'H"!'$,8:.(;'4$,+0'$08'1@0%%.(;'3(.-K'

@=.%0')(%&'H"R'4$,+04'$08'3(.-'@080'(00101"''#5)(;'-=)40'H!'4.-04K'$,8:.(;'105,(1'8,-04'<)8'-=0'

Y,&'#80,'8,(;01'<8)5'I"6T'-)'H"!A'F400'C,L%0'R"HJ"''708/08)',(1')-=084',%4)'<)3(1'-=,-'CN?'4.-04'.('



^)8-%,(1K'N80;)(K'=,1','4.5.%,8K'L3-'4%.;=-%&'%)@08K'8,(;0')<'I"MS'-)'H"S6"''](','80$)8-'<)8'-=0'7.-&')<'

P,('?.0;)K'HT'804.10(-.,%'$8)$08-.04'@.-=.(')(0*93,8-08'5.%0')<'-8,(4.-'0O=.L.-01'$,8:.(;'105,(1'

8,-04'<8)5'I"!I'-)'H"66'F[,-VK'C,L%0'!J"''C=040'4-31.04',80'<38-=08'80/.0@01',(1'104+8.L01'.('

#$$0(1.O'#"'''

TABLE 2.1 Parking Demand Rates for TOD Residential Sites

!"#$%&"'( )$*+&',(-./$'0(1$%.( 1.2.*.'#.(

("&)*#"&+%,+-)."/)0#1") ) )

' E805)(-'Y#BC' H"TR' 708/08)'RIIAK'E.;380'R'

' 023-#"4") 5678) '

' 0#+9,:-&1) 56;<) '

' =%,,%-&)!1"$,) 56><) '

' !"#$)?%,:")0@:,6) 56;A) '

' !#1,%4%-) 56B>) '

' (C&)!-%&:1)?%22"'1) 56;D) '

' E":1#F"#$)!2"+1) 56BD) '

' ^%0,4,(-'U.%%'Y#BC' I"A6' '

' 0#+9,:-&1)E"2&C:)G#11$) H68B) '

' 0#+9,:-&1)E"2&C:)G#11$)(:":%-&) 56H8) '

' I%"32-)J"$,) H6D;) '

' K#-&)L-#,1)!"#$) H6AH) '

' !"#$)M1'1&+/) 56H7) '

' ?%22")=-&:"&"#-) 56B>) '

' P,('Z0,(18)'FY,&<,.8'Y#BCJ' H"I6' '

' _(.)('7.-&'Y#BC' H"HR' '

' !"#$,%41) 565>) '

' ?1#"&4",) 5655) '

' 344(56(7$8(3*.$(9:-(;&%.;( 5<=>( '

M1,:)-N)G"2%N-#&%") ) )

'' P,('?.0;)'' ' [,-VK'C,L%0'!'

' ."/)?%,:")=1:9-4%,:)L1%'9:,) H67H) '

' G"&/-&)M%4'1) 56BH) '

' G-#-&"4-)O1##"+1) 56B<) '

' L"P:9-#&)5)0@:,6) H68B) '

' Q-9&)04"F,)="&-#) H67A) '

' J:"/)?%22",) 56H7) '

' !%&1:#11) H6D8) '

' !C2%:R1#)!2"+1) 565H) '

' ?%,:")?1#41)0@:,6) 56DD) '

M1,:)-N):91)S&%:14)(:":1,) ) )

'' ^)8-%,(1' H"I6' 708/08)'RIIAK'E.;380'R'

' G1&:1#)!-%&:1)T.1"U1#:-&)G#11$)(:&6V) 56B>) '

' W2F-&%+")G-C#:)TW2F-&%+")(:":%-&V) H68H) '



!"#$%&"'( )$*+&',(-./$'0(1$%.( 1.2.*.'#.(

' G"F3#%4'1)G#-,,%&')TW2F-&%+")(:&6V) 56H;) '

' E/&49"U1&)TE%22-P)G#11$)(:&6V) H68H) '

' .#%"#+#11$)0@:,6)TXC"&:"F")(:&6V) 565B) '

' XC":"F")G#-,,%&')TXC"&:"F")(:&6V) 56>B) '

' XC":"F")?%22"'1)TXC"&:"F")(:&6V) 56>D) '

' Y":1P"/)O1##"+1)TY":1P"/)(:":%-&V) H6<>) '

' Y":1P"/)!"#$)TY":1P"/)(:":%-&V) H6A>) '

' M"+912)0&&1)TW6)5;A:9)0U16)(:":%-&V) H6AA) '

' I"2:-&)!"#$)TW6)5;A:9)0U16)(:":%-&V) 565D) '

' =-#'"&)!2"+1)TW6)57B&4)0U16)(:&6V) H67<) '

' (1ZC-%")(ZC"#1)TW6)57B&4)0U16)(:&6V) H6D8) '

'' Y#1,9"F)G1&:#"2)T(:&6V) 56HH) '

(-C#+1,[)))

• 708/08)K'B)L08-K'#8%.0'#1:.(4K',(1'7,-=%00('P3%%./,("''RIIA")0#1)OJI),%:1,)JU1#\!"#$14])_7C7'B040,8+='

^,$08'`)"'>>R"'Y08:0%0&K'7#Q'_(./084.-&')<'7,%.<)8(.,'C8,(4$)8-,-.)('70(-08"''

• [,-VK'N:.-43'\'#44)+.,-04"'=C2:%\*"F%2/)M1,%41&:%"2)!"#$%&')(:C4/6))("&)I%1'-^)G0[))O91)("&)I%1'-)L-C,%&')

G-FF%,,%-&)_)G%:/)JN)("&)I%1'-)!2"&&%&')I1@"#:F1&:"'7.-&')<'P,('?.0;)"''

'






Chapter 3. Local Parking Requirements for TOD Residential

Properties in Santa Clara County

3.1 INTRODUCTION

ManycommunitiesinSantaClaraCountyaremovingtowardspromotingTODresidentialprojects

thatmakeeffectiveuseofurbaninfrastructureandtransportationservices.Whilerecentstudies

havefoundthatresidentsinTODprojectshaveahighertendencytoridetransit(aswellasbikeand

walk),standardparkingrequirementsremainunchangedformanyofthesedevelopments.Most

currentparkingpoliciesassumethesameorsimilarparkingdemandatTODprojectsasinother

residentialdevelopments,despitethecloseproximitytotransitservicesandlessrelianceonthe

automobile.

ToevaluatewhetherlocalTODresidentialprojectsprovidemoreparkingthanisutilized,the

amountofparkingcurrentlyrequiredbylocaljurisdictionsneedstobeinvestigated.Thischapter

containsareviewandanalysisofexistingparkingrequirementsforthefollowingcitiesinSanta

ClaraCounty:Campbell,Gilroy,Milpitas,MorganHill,MountainView,PaloAlto,SanJosé,Santa

Clara,andSunnyvale.

Thischapterbeginswithanoverviewofresidentialparkingrequirements,includingguestparking.

Inthefinalsection,parkingreductionallowancesthatcouldbeavailabletoTODresidentialprojects

areexplored.2

3.2 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Current Residential Parking Requirements

ExistingparkingrequirementsfornineSantaClaraCountycitiesaresummarizedinthissection.

Therangeofparkingspacesrequiredbyeachcityisoutlinedbelow.Rangesaregivenforall

multiple‐unithousingdevelopments,fromstudioapartments(representingthelowest

requirements)tohigh‐densitymultiple‐familyhousingdevelopments(representingthehighest

parkingrequirements).Otherhousingunitsincludedare1,2,and3+bedroomapartments,

duplexes,townhouses,andcondominiums.Single‐familydetachedhomesarenotincluded,because

thetypicalfocusofTODresidentialprojectsisonhigherdensity.

2Note:Throughoutthissection,zoningordinancesareregularlyreferenced.Ratherthancitingeachinstance,wehaveincludedalistofallzoningordinancesinthebibliographyofthereport.



Figure3.1showstheresidentialparkingrequirementrangesformulti‐familyhousingandsimilar

usesintheninecities.ItillustratesthatnearlyallmunicipalitiesacrossSantaClaraCountyrequire

atleastoneparkingspaceperdwellingunit;theexceptionisMilpitas,whichrequiresonly0.8space

forstudioapartmentslocatedintheMilpitasTransitAreaSpecificPlanarea.Atthehighend,as

manyas2to3.5parkingspacesarerequiredforhigh‐densityandmulti‐familydevelopments.The

CityofCampbellhasthehighestminimumrequirement,at3.5spacesfortownhousesor

condominiumswithmorethantwobedrooms.3

FIGURE 3.1 Residential Parking Requirement Ranges for Multi-Family Housing

1.ThecityofCampbellzoningcodeiscurrentlybeingrevised;theminimumparkingrequirementsmaybereducedfrom3.5to2.5forcondominiumsandtownhouses(CityofCampbell2010).

2.ThecitiesofSanJoséandSunnyvaleallowanadditional0.15spacesforeveryunitwithmorethanthreebedrooms.Note:thisfigurereflectszoningrequirementsatthetimeoftheresearchprojectinSpring2010.Rangesaregivenformultiple‐unithousingdevelopments;single‐familyhomesarenotincluded.

Thebroadrangeofvaluesforparkingrequirementsformulti‐familyhousingtypessuggeststhat

thereisroomtoreduceparkingcoderequirementinsomemunicipalities.

3.2.2 Guest Parking

ManyofthenineSantaClaraCountycitiesrequireadditionalparkingspacesforguests.Asshown

inTable3.1,somecitiessimplyaddaspecificamountofguestparkingperunit,whileothers 3PleasenoteCampbelliscurrentlyinvestigatingreducingthisrequirementto2.5spaces.



requireanadditionalspacepernumberofunits.Inaddition,somerequireacertainpercentageof

guestparkingbasedontheoverallamountofparkingrequired.

Theseguestparkingrequirementsineffectincreaseoverallparkingrequirements.Forexample,a

townhouseinMountainViewisrequiredtoprovide2spacesforresidentsandanadditional0.6ofa

spaceforguests.Increasingtherequiredspacesfrom2to2.6representsa30percentincreasein

parking,aconsiderableincreaseonaper‐unitbasis.

TABLE 3.1 Guest Parking Requirements

City LandUse NumberofGuestSpaces

Apartments 1forevery5unitsCampbellDuplex/Townhouse/Condo NoneMultifamily 1forevery4unitsDowntownSpecificPlan 1forevery4‐6units,dependingonsquarefootage

Gilroy

Duplex NoneMilpitasTransitAreaSpecificPlan 15%ofrequiredtotalMilpitasAllothermultifamily None

MorganHill Multifamily 1foreverythreeunitsMultifamily 15%ofrequiredtotalTownhouse Additional0.6foreachunit

MountainView

Rowhouse Additional0.3foreachunitPaloAlto Duplex,Multifamily NoneSanJosé Multifamily,MixedUse NoneSantaClara Multifamily,Duplex,MixedUse None

Multifamily Additional0.25‐0.5perunitif2mainspacesareinagarageSunnyvaleMixeduse None

3.3 PARKING REQUIREMENT REDUCTION ALLOWANCES FOR TOD SITES

Inthecitiesexaminedforthisproject,fewhavespecificTODland‐usecategories.Themain

exceptionisSanJosé,whichhasidentifiedareasasTODCorridorsandBARTStationAreaNodes

andincludesinitsgeneralplanaTransitCorridorResidentialland‐usedesignation.Thisland‐use

categoryisintendedtoexpandthepotentialforresidentialdevelopmentinproximitytomajor

publictransit,particularlyalongtheCity'sTODCorridorsandStationAreaNodes(SanJosé2008,

162).TheCityofSanJoséalsohastwomoretransit‐relatedland‐usecategoriesinitscurrent

generalplan:TransitEmployment/ResidentialandTransitCorridorCommercial.Milpitasalso

featuresaTODOverlayDistrictthatappliestoanyzoningdistrictonlandswithin2,000feetofarail

station.Nevertheless,manycitieshavelanguagerelatedtoparkingreductionsforresidential

projectslocatedneartransit.Foreachoftheninecities,parkingrequirementsandallowable

parkingreductionsinrelationtoTODlandusesaredescribedinmoredetailinAppendixB.



Somecitiesofferparkingreductionsorsetspecificstandardsintheirlocalzoningordinance.Other

citieshaveallowancesforsharedparkingthroughtheentitlementprocess,whichineffectreduces

theoverallparkingrequirementforanyoneindividuallanduse.Stillothershavelowerparking

requirementsforcertainareasneartransitasestablishedinSpecificPlansorPrecisePlans.Most

reductionsareapprovedonacase‐by‐casebasis.Table3.2summarizesthevarioustypesof

parkingreductionsavailableineachcity.Table3.3highlightstheprocessesrequiredforthe

approvalofparkingreductions.

TABLE 3.2 Parking Reductions Allowed

City TransitOrientedResidential MixedUse

Campbell ParkingAdjustmentpossible(nosetreduction)

ParkingAdjustmentpossible(nosetreduction)

Gilroy N/A Tandemandsharedparkingcanbeallowedindowntowndistrict;respectivecommercial&residentialparkingrequirementscombined.

Milpitas 20%reductionofresidentialparkingrequirement.

Sharedparkingcanbeallowedthroughthedevelopmentprocess.

MorganHill

N/A Parkingmaybeuncovered,butstandardrequirementsapply.

MountainView

SeveralPrecisePlanscoveringareasneartransitstationsincludelowerparkingrequirementsthanthecitywideratios.PlanningDirectormaygrantareductionthroughtheConditionalUsePermitprocess.

Zoningcoderequiresmixed‐usestoprovidetotalaggregatenumberofparkingspaces.

PaloAlto 20%reductionforpropertiesneartransit.Additionreductionspossiblesubjectto30%maximumreduction.

20%reductionforpropertieswithsharedparkingfacilities.Additionalreductionpossiblesubjectto30%maximumreduction.

SanJosé(downtown)

Lowerbaseparkingrequirements(1spaceperunit)plusa15%reductionpossiblewithDevelopmentPermit.

Lowerbaseparkingrequirementsplusuptoa50%reductionpossiblewithaTDMprogram;atthediscretionoftheDirector.

SanJosé(elsewhere)

10%reductionpossiblewithDevelopmentPermit.

Respectivecommercialandresidentialparkingrequirementscombined(1spaceper200to250sq.ft.ofretailarea;seeTable20‐210formulti‐familydwellingunitparkingrequirements).

SantaClara

Possiblethroughavarianceandcannotexceed25%ofparkingrequirement.

Reductionof0.5to1spaceperunitandcannotexceed25%ofparkingrequirement.

Sunnyvale Sharedparkingcanbepermittedformixed‐useprojectswithinthemixed‐usecombiningdistrict

Sharedparkingcanbepermittedformixed‐useprojectswithinthemixed‐usecombiningdistrict

Source:TabletakenfromExhibit5ofCampbellPlanningDivision’sJanuary26,2010Agenda(CityofCampbell2010);someinformationhasbeenaddedtotheoriginaltablefromtheCitiesofGilroy,SanJosé,andPaloAlto(referencesavailableinthebibliography).



TABLE 3.3 Parking Reduction Process

ProcessTypes Campbell Gilroy Milpitas MorganHill

MountainView

PaloAlto

SanJosé

SantaClara

Sunnyvale

ConditionalUsePermit

ElementofDevelopmentProcess

Variance(nootherspecificprocess)

Source:TabletakenfromExhibit5ofCampbellPlanningDivision’sJanuary26,2010Agenda(CityofCampbell2010);Gilroy,PaloAlto,andSanJoséwereadded(sourcesavailableinbibliography).

3.4 PARKING REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Allninecitiesexaminedrequireasetnumberofparkingspacesformultiple‐unitresidential

developments.Theserequirementsrangefrom0.8spacesperunitto3.5spacesperunit,

dependingonthecityandtheunitsize.WhilemostofthecitiesdonothaveaTODland‐use

categoryintheirgeneralplanorzoningcode,somehavezoningoverlaydistrictsorspecific/special

plansthatreducetheparkingrequirements.Manycitiesalsohaveprovisionsthatallowfor

reducedparkingorsharedparkingarrangements.






Chapter 4. Methodology for Parking Demand User Survey for

TOD Residential Properties

TheResearchTeamselectedtheon‐the‐groundsurveytechniquetodetermineparkingutilization

ratesforeligibleTODresidentialprojectsinSantaClaraCounty(seeChapter5).Priortomaking

thisselection,theResearchTeamalsodevelopedaworkplanforestimatingparkingdemandusing

stated‐preferenceusersurveys.Becausethisapproachinvolvessignificanttime,budget,and

resourcecommitmentsbeyondwhatisavailableforasinglesemesterclass,itwasnotchosentobe

implemented.Nonethelessforfuturereference,amethodologyforconductingausersurveyis

includedinAppendixCforVTAstaffand/orotherinterestedpartieswhomaywishtoestimatethe

totalresidentialparkingdemandatTODsites,particularlyforthoseTODresidentialprojectsthat

exhibitveryhighparkingutilization.






Chapter 5. Methodology for Parking Utilization Survey for TOD

Residential Properties

Thissectiondescribesthestep‐by‐stepprocessusedbytheResearchTeamtoconductasurveyof

parkingsupplyandutilizationforselectedTODresidentialpropertiesinSantaClaraCountyto

determinewhethertheamountofparkingprovidedisgreaterthanwhat'sbeingused,hence

providingrealinformationwhetherlarge‐scalehousingdevelopmentsinSantaClaraCountynear

railtransitstationsare“over‐parked.”

5.1 OVERVIEW OF TASKS

Theparkingsupplyandutilizationsurveywasdividedintofourgeneraltasks:

1. InitialTODsiteselectionandgeneraldatacollection.TheResearchTeamidentified

eligibleTODresidentialsitesusingbasiccriteria,suchaslocationofthesiterelativetothe

nearesttransitstation,ageofdevelopmentproject,andsizeofsite.

2. InitialcontactwitheligibleTODpropertysite.Throughtelephonecontact,theResearch

Teamidentifiedthepropertymanagerorotherproperauthoritytosecurepermissionto

conductdatacollectionattheTODresidentialsite,confirmdatagathered,andobtain

additionaldatapotentiallyusefulfortheon‐the‐groundsurvey.

3. Parkingsupplydatacollectionandparkingutilizationpresurveywork.In

preparationforthepeakparkingutilizationsurveys,theResearchTeamconductedan

initialdaytimereconnaissancetriptositeswhereverbalpermissionhasbeenobtainedto

collectdataoneachselectedTODresidentialsite’sparkingsupply.

4. Peakparkingutilizationdatacollection.TheResearchTeamestablishedspecificcriteria

andmethodologyforconductingthepeakparkingutilizationfieldsurveys.

5.2 SCOPE OF WORK

5.2.1 Initial TOD Site Selection and General Data Collection

VTAprovidedtheResearchTeamaninitiallistof“prioritystations”withtransit‐oriented

developmentnearby.BasedonVTAstaff’sknowledgeoftheVTAlightrailandCaltrainsystems,the

listincludes34TODresidentialprojectsthatwerethoughttomeettheproject’scriteria,suchas

havingdedicatedparkingforresidentslivingattheproperty.ThroughInternet‐andGIS‐based

research,theResearchTeamidentified23eligibleTODresidentialsurveysitesfromthisinitiallist.



ThecriteriausedbytheResearchTeamtoverifywhetheraTODresidentialsiteonVTA’slistmet

thecriteriaaredescribedbelow.AppendixDprovidesVTA'slistofeligiblesites,alongwith

informationgatheredaboutthem.

EligibleTODresidentialprojectshadtomeetthefollowingcriteriainordertobeincludedinthe

parkingsurvey.Tobeselectedforthesurvey,eligibleTODresidentialsiteswererequiredtobe:

• Closetotransit.Withinone‐halfmileofaVTAlightrailorCaltrainstation.4

• Fewvacancies.Siteswithaminimumresidentialoccupancyof85percent(ITE2004,C3).

• Overoneyearold.Sitesolderthanoneyearavoid“honeymoon”popularityeffects(ITE

2004,C4)andhelpassurethattheresidentialpropertyisaTODandnotjustaTAD(transit‐

adjacentdevelopment).

• Freeparking.Sitesthatdonotrequireachargeorfeeforparking(ITE2004,C6).This

guaranteesconsistency,asmostTODresidentialprojectsdonotchargeforparking.

• Restricted/designatedparking.Siteswithparkingfortheexclusiveuseofresidentsand

theirguests.5Sitescannothavesharedparkingwithotherdevelopments,organizationsor

individuals.Sharedparkingandmixed‐useareasresultinreducedparkingdemand(Litman

2006,30).

• Atleast80units.Siteswithmorethan80unitsoratleast100parkingspaces.Studiesof

smallerdevelopmentshaveshownerroneousresults,sincethesmallnumberofunits

allowstheactionsofafewtoskewtheparkingsupplyanddemanddisproportionately

(Cervero,Adkins,andSullivan2009,12).Inonestudy,a39‐unitsiteshowedextreme

demand(Katz,Okitsu&Associates,19).Byestablishingan80‐unitminimumforeligible

surveysites,approximately20percentofpotentialsurveysitesfromVTA’sinitiallistof

residentialTODsiteswereeliminated.Hence,thesurveywouldbemorelikelytoavoid

outlieranderroneousdataresultingfromtoosmallofaparkingsupply.

Theabovecriteriaarebasedonbest‐practicesresearchprocedures.Inaddition,theResearch

TeamincludedthefollowingtwocriteriafordeterminingeligibleTODsitesfortheparkingsurvey:

4The edge of the TOD parcel and the edge of the transit station platform was used to measure the straight-line distance between the TOD site and the station.5Exclusive parking must be dedicated for the use of only the TOD site’s residents and their guests. Parking for retail and/or commercial properties was not included.



• Siteshaveeitherexclusivelyresidentialorresidentialwithattachedcommercial

component,butwithseparateon‐siteparking.6

• Siteshaveon‐site,dedicatedparking(surfaceorunderground)thatisreadilyaccessiblefor

visualinspection(i.e.,noindividualgarages).

SitesfoundtobeineligiblewereprimarilyTODresidentialsiteswithfewunitsorinaccessible

parkingfacilities,suchasindividualunitgarages.Ifanyoftheinformationrequiredabovecould

notbedeterminedbyInternet‐orGIS‐basedresearch,theinformationwasobtainedinthe

subsequenttaskdescribedbelow.TheinformationgatheredwascompiledinaTODProperty

ChecklistasshowninAppendixF.

5.2.2 Initial Contact with Eligible TOD Residential Sites

Foreachoftheeligiblesites,theResearchTeamgatheredadditionalinformationand,most

importantly,permissionfromthepropertyowner(orotherappropriatepropertyauthority)to

conducttheparkingsurveyon‐site.Foreacheligiblesite,theResearchTeam:

• Identifiedtheappropriatepropertyauthority,suchasthepropertyowner,property

managerorhomeownersassociationrepresentativewhocanprovideinformationabout

theTODandgrantpermissiontoconductasurveyontheirproperty

• Contacted(byphone,email,orin‐personmeeting)theappropriatepropertyauthority,

describedtheresearchproject,andaskedquestionsthatconfirmedorbuiltupon

informationlearnedintheabovetask(seeAppendixEfortheprescribescriptand

checklist)

• Securedwrittenpermissiontoconducttheparkingsupplyandutilizationsurveyontheir

property(seeAppendixGfortheagreementform)

TheResearchTeamalsoconsideredwhetherthesiteshadparkingfacilitiesthatcanbeeasily

observed—suchassurface,tuck‐under,orcoveredparking.Thiscriterionensuredthatthe

ResearchTeamhadeasyaccesstoallparkingfacilities(Cervero,Adkins,andSullivan2009,9).

Becausearrangingtohaveamanageropenthesiteforlate‐nightsurveyswasinfeasible,the

ResearchTeammemberstriedtoacquiregateaccesscodesaheadoftime.

6ThisrequirementwasrelaxedfortheresidentialpropertyatSurveySiteNo.5,asthisdevelopmentincludesamixofresidentialandoneretailuse.Pleasenotethatthepropertyispredominantlyresidential,andtheretailcomponentconsistsofasinglecoffeeshop.



Followingthistask,thelistofeligiblesiteswasreducedtothosethatgrantedpermissiontoconduct

theon‐siteparkingsurveyandmetthekeyrequiredeligibilitycriteria.Thisinformationis

availableinAppendixF(TODPropertyChecklist).

Asitemapwascreatedforeachsitethatwassurveyed(seeTable5.1).Eachmapshowstwohalf‐

mileboundarylines:onerepresentingthestraight‐lineradialdistancefromthenearesttransit

station,andtheothershowswalkingdistances.Thehalf‐milewalkingdistancecalculationswere

createdusingNetworkAnalystinArcGIS.Theinputfileswereroadwayandtransitstation

shapefiles.Aftercreatinga“streetnetwork,”a“servicearea”wascreatedforeachofthestations,

whichwerespecifiedasthefacilitiestobeanalyzed.ThisenabledNetworkAnalysttocreateahalf‐

milewalkingdistanceawayfromthestationsalongexistingstreets.Insomecases,wherewalking

pathswerenotavailable,thewalkingdistanceboundarylinewasadjustedtoreflectthebuilt

and/ornaturalenvironment.

TABLE 5.1 Survey Sites

FigureNo. Title SurveySites NearestRailStation

5.1 SurveySitesNearMountainViewStation 1 MountainView

5.2 SurveySitesNearSantaClaraCaltrainStation 2 SantaClara(Caltrain)5.3 SurveySitesNearFairOaksStation 6 FairOaks

5.4 SurveySitesNearTasmanStation 5 Tasman5.5 SurveySitesNearRiverOaksStation 4,5 RiverOaks

5.6 SurveySitesNearSantaClara&SanAntonioStations 11,13,14 St.James,SantaClara&SanAntonio5.7 SurveySitesNearTamienStation 16 Tamien

5.8 SurveySitesNearOhlone‐ChynowethStation 18 Ohlone‐Chynoweth5.9 SurveySitesNearAlmadenStation 20 Almaden

5.10 SurveySitesNearRaceStation 21 Race

Certainsiteswithdefiningcharacteristicsaredescribedbelow.

AsseeninFigure5.2,morethanahalfofthehalf‐mileradialareafromtheCaltrainstationisnot

walkable,sinceitisnotaccessiblefromthenorthsideoftherailroadtracks.ToensureNetwork

Analystlimitedthewalkabilityofthearea,theResearchTeamplacedbarriersatafewselect

locationsalongthenorthsideofthetrackswithinGIStorepresentthereal,physicalbarriersthat

exist.NotealsothatbecausenotallofthepathwayswithinSantaClaraUniversity(justwestand

northofSurveySiteNo.2)areincludedinthestreetshapefileusedbyNetworkAnalyst,thehalf‐

milewalkabledistanceistruncatedattheUniversity’sborders.



Figure5.4showsahowapoorlyinterconnectedstreetnetworkcanimpedethe“walkability”ofan

area.Longblocksandfewstreetconnectionsleadtodiminishedwalkingoptions.Thisis

particularlyevidentintheneighborhoodjustnorthoftheTasmanstation.Incontrast,peoplewho

liveinresidentialpropertyatSurveySiteNo.5haveashorterdistancetowalktothestation,even

thoughtheyarenotphysicallyclosertothestation.

Figure5.5showsthatmuchofSurveySiteNo.5iswithinahalfmilewalkingdistancefromthe

RiverOaksstation,whileNo.4isnot.Thisis,infact,onlyhalftrue.Amajorityofbothsitesare

withinahalfmileofthestation.ApedestrianbridgespanstheriverdividingSurveySiteNo.4from

developmenttotheeast.However,becausetheroadwayfilesusedbyNetworkAnalystdidnot

includethispathway,itincorrectlydeterminedthisareatobefurtherawayfromthestationthanit

actuallyis;thismapexemplifiestheimportanceofverifyingtheanalysisperformedinGISmakes

sensegiventheavailabledataathand.(Tohighlightthispoint,thewalkableboundarylinewasnot

manuallyadjustedtoextendintothearearepresentingSurveySiteNo.4.)

Figure5.6demonstratestheeaseofwalkinginadowntownenvironment.Agridironstreetpattern

lendsitselftowalkinginalldirectionsandfewencumbrances.Afterall,downtownSanJoséandits

surroundingneighborhoodswerelaidoutbeforetheageoftheautomobile(Karlinskky2010,12).

Highways85and87acttodividemuchofthesiteareashowninFigure5.8.However,the

roadwaysusedbyNetworkAnalystincludeHighways85and87incalculatingthewalkable

distancefromtheOhlone‐Chynowethstation.Anyinferencethatthereexistsawalkingpathalong

themismisleading.Also,walkingunderneaththesehighways,suchasalongSantaTeresa,while

possible,wouldnotbeanenjoyablewalkingexperience.Nevertheless,pleasenotethatsurveysite

No.18isnotseparatedfromthestationbyahighwayandiseasilyaccessiblebyfoot.

Finally,asdemonstratedbyFigure5.9,thereareinstanceswherethenaturalenvironmentalso

providesbarrierstowalking,asseenbythewalkingpatharoundthelakenearAlmadenStation.

Note,however,thatwhenNetworkAnalystcalculatedthewalkabledistancefromtheAlmaden

Station,itindicatedthatsomeofthereservoirwatertobewalkable,notknowingthatdrylanddid

notexistthere.Assuch,thewalkableboundarylinewasmanuallyadjustedoutsideofthisarea,and

nowproperlybordersthewater’sedge.



5.2.3 Parking Supply Data Collection and Parking Utilization Pre-Survey Work

Foreachoftheselectedpropertysitesthatgrantedverbaland/orwrittenpermission,theResearch

Teamconductedaninitialdaytimereconnaissancetrip.AppendixHprovidestheinitialdaytime

reconnaissancetripchecklistdetailingwhatinformationwasgatheredandtheissuesthatwere

identified.Theinitialdaytimereconnaissancetripincludedthefollowing:

• Identifyingallofasite’sparkingfacilities—includingthetotalnumberofparkingspaces.

Thebesttechniquewastodoon‐sitecountsduringtheinitialdaytimereconnaissancetrip.

Thiswasasimpleconfirmationofwhatwasreportedbythepropertymanagerduringthe

telephonecontactintheprevioustask,confirmationofwhatwasreportedfromInternet‐

basedresearch,oraskingthepropertymanager(orappropriatepropertyauthority)while

on‐site.

• UsingmapsoftheparkingfacilitiestodesignateproposedroutesfortheSurveyFieldCrews

toconducttheparkingutilizationsurveyefficientlyandaccuratelywithminimalimpacton

residents.TheResearchTeamhadpreviouslygeneratedmapsoftheparkingfacilitiestobe

surveyed.

• ObservingTODlandusesandtransitavailability(ITE2004,C9‐10).

• Becomingfamiliarwiththepropertysiteareaandnotinganyspecialon‐siteandoff‐site

featuresthatmayinfluenceparkingsupplyordemand(Cervero,Adkins,andSullivan2009,

10;ArringtonandCervero2008,31).

Followingthispre‐surveyvisit,theResearchTeamwasabletoconfirmthetotalparkingsupplyand

latergeneratedmapsandproposedroutesfortheSurveyFieldCrewstofollowforthepeakparking

utilizationsurvey.

CAST

RO

SHOREL

INEMOFFETTST

IERL

IN

HWY 85

CALIFORNIA

MIDDLEFIELD

CALD

ERON

DANA

Mountain View

Survey No. 1

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line

1/2 mile radial distance from rail station

1/2 mile walking distance from rail station

Figure 5.1 Survey Sites Near Mountain View Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

35

COLEMAN

EL CAMINO REAL

BENTON

LAFAYETTE FRANKLIN

HOMESTEAD

MARKET

FREMONT

HARRISON

THE ALAMEDA

Survey No. 2

Santa Clara

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.2 Survey Sites Near Santa Clara Caltrain Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

36

HWY 101

HWY 237

TASMAN

FAIR

OAK

S

Survey No. 6

Fair Oaks

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.3 Survey Sites Near Fair Oaks Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

37

N 1ST

RIO ROBLES

RIVER OAKS

ZANKER

TASMAN

Tasman

River Oaks

Survey No. 5

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.4 Survey Sites Near Tasman Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

38

MONTAGUE

RIVER OAKS

ZANKER

RIO ROBLES

N 1ST

Tasman

River Oaks

Survey No. 5

Survey No. 4

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.5 Survey Sites Near River Oaks Station

N

Because this pedestrian bridge was not a part of the street network used by Network Analyst, it did not correctly calculate the walkable distance to Survey Site No. 4.

Justin

Typewritten Text

39

1ST

4TH

3RD2ND

5TH

6TH

7TH

8TH

JULIAN MARKET

9TH

PARK

SANTA CLARA

SAINT JAMES

SAN FERNANDO

SAINT JOHN

ALMADEN

SAN PEDRO

SAN CARLOS

HWY 87

10TH

DELMAS

WILLIAM

SAN SALVADOR

COLEMAN

SAINT JOHN

Santa Clara

Saint James


Survey No. 14

Survey No. 13

Survey No. 11

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.6 Survey Sites Near Santa Clara & San Antonio Stations

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

40

WILLOW

ALMA

VINELICK

BIRD

ALMADEN

LELONG

ALMADEN

MINNESOTA

HWY 87

Survey No. 16

Tamien

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.7 Survey Sites Near Tamien Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

41

CHYNOWETH

WIN

FIEL

D

HWY 85

PEARL

HWY

87SA

NTA

TERE

SA

Survey No. 18Ohlone-Chynoweth

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.8 Survey Sites Near Ohlone-Chynoweth Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

42

WIN

FIEL

D

BLOSSOM HILL

ALMADEN

COLEMAN

Almaden

Survey No. 20

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.9 Survey Sites Near Almaden Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

43

MERI

DIAN

SAN CARLOS

LINCO

LN

PARKMOOR

FRUITDALE

HWY 280

COLL

EGE

SOUTHWEST

KINGMAN

RACE

Race

Fruitdale

Survey No. 21

0 0.5 1 Mile


VTA LRT stop

Caltrain stop

Light Rail line

Caltrain line



Figure 5.10 Survey Sites Near Race Station

N

Justin

Typewritten Text

44



5.2.4 Peak Parking Utilization Data Collection

Basedonbestpracticesforconductingparkingutilizationsurveys,thepeakparkingutilization

surveyswereconductedmid‐weekbetweenthehoursof12:00a.m.and4:00a.m.7Whiletheideal

methodologycouldincludepre‐peak,peak,andpost‐peakparkingutilizationcounts,current

literatureregardsthepeakperiodsurveyasadequateforparkingdemandestimation,sincemost

peoplearesleeping,andnotdriving,duringthesehours.

SurveyswereconductedbySurveyFieldCrewsoftwoorthreemembers.Therecommended

approachwastohaveoneteammemberdrive,whiletheotheroneortwocount.Thisassignment

alloweddatacollectorstofocusondatacollection,whiledriversfocusedonmaneuveringthrough

thesite(Cervero,Adkins,andSullivan2009,10).Datacollectionteamsdroveorwalked.Generally,

thesurveyteamleaderwastheteammemberwhomadeinitialcontactwiththeTODresidential

site'sproperauthorities,securedpermission,andconductedtheinitialdaytimereconnaissanceof

theTODpropertysite.

Initially,therewere34TODresidentialsitesinitiallyincludedintheVTAprioritylist(seeAppendix

D.Afterapplyingeligibilitycriteriaoutlinedpreviously,thisnumberwasreducedto23potential

sites.Ultimately,theResearchTeamwasabletosecurepermissionfrom12sitesforon‐the‐ground

parkingsurveys.

Asign‐uplisttodeterminetimeavailabilitywasdistributedtotheResearchTeam.TheSurvey

FieldCrewswereorganizedaccordingtomembers’availabilityandgeographicareas.

AppendixIprovidesadditionaldetailsregardingtheexecutionoftheparkingutilizationsurvey.

7Pleasenotethatdateswerechosentonotcorrespondwithholidaysandspringbreakperiods.






Chapter 6. Parking Survey Data Summaries and Analysis

Aftercompletingthepre‐surveytasks,theResearchTeamconductedtheon‐siteparkingsurveys.

Thischaptersummarizesfactorsthatwereconsideredduringtheon‐sitesurveys,background

informationontheuseofparkingutilizationasameasureofparkingdemand,datathatwas

collected,andfinallythedataanalysisandconclusionsfromthestudy.

6.1 PARKING CLASSIFICATIONS

Whileconductingtheon‐sitesurveys,SurveyFieldCrewsobservedanumberofdifferenttypesof

parkingsituations(seeAppendixJforOn‐SiteParkingSurveyform).Inordertomaintainan

accuratecount,thetypesofparkingspacessurveyedwereclassifiedinthefollowingways:

• Off‐streetparking

• On‐streetparking

• Motorcycleparking

• Openpublicaccessparkinglots

ThissectiondescribeseachparkingclassificationindetailandoutlinehowSurveyFieldCrews

approachedthemduringtheon‐the‐groundsurvey.

6.1.1 Off-Street Parking

Off‐streetparkingisdefinedasparkingavailabletoTODresidentslocatedentirelyonprivate

propertyandnotaccessibletothegeneralpublic.Onlydedicatedprivateparkingspaceswere

countedinthesurvey.

Loadingzoneswerenotincludedintheparkingsupplysurvey,unlessaparkingviolationexisted.

Incaseofaviolation,theparkedvehiclewasnotedasitcouldindicateashortageofparking.

Forvehiclesotherthanautomobiles(motorcycles,ATVs,golfcarts,etc.),ifanyoneofthemwere

parkedinaspaceintendedforanautomobile,thespacewascountedasoccupied.Whilethe

parkingspacesaremeantforautomobileuse,anyothertypeofvehicleparkedinthemwas

consideredtocontributetoparkingutilization.



6.1.2 On-Street Parking

!"#$%&''%()*&+,"-(."(!"#$%&($%&''%$(/*$(".%(,"0123'3(,"(%4'()*&+,"-($2&5'67(8'0*2$'(%4'$'()*&+,"-(

$)*0'$(*&'(*5*,1*81'(%.(%4'(-'"'&*1()281,0(*"3(*&'(".%(3'3,0*%'3(%.(%4'('9012$,5'(2$'(.:(&'$,3'"%$;((

<.&'.5'&7(."#$%&''%()*&+,"-(,$(&'-21*%'3(86(0,%,'$(,"(*(3,::'&'"%(/*6(%4*"(.::#$%&''%()*&+,"-7(*"3(,$(

-'"'&*116(".%(3,&'0%16(*$$.0,*%'3(/,%4(*"6($)'0,:,0(3'5'1.)='"%;(

>.='()*&+,"-($)*0'$(*5*,1*81'(."(!'%()*+($%&''%$(/'&'(,"0123'3(,"(0'&%*,"()*&+,"-($2&5'6$;((?4'$'(

$)*0'$(/'&'(,"0123'3(."16(,:(%4'6(/'&'(=*&+'3(*$(&'$%&,0%'3()*&+,"-(:.&(&'$,3'"%$(.:(%4'()&.)'&%6(

$,%'(,"(@2'$%,."7(*"3(,"0123'3($,-"$(/*&","-(2"*2%4.&,A'3(5'4,01'$(/.213(8'(%./'3;((?4'$'($)*0'$(

/'&'(%4'"(0."$,3'&'3(%.(8'()*&+,"-($2))1,'3(:.&(&'$,3'"%$(.:(%4'(?!B($2&5'6($,%';(

6.1.3 Motorcycle Parking

C'&6(:'/(.:(%4'(?!B(&'$,3'"%,*1()&.)'&%,'$(4*5'()*&+,"-($)*0'$(3'$,-"*%'3(:.&(=.%.&0601'$;((D'&(

C?EF$(&'@2'$%7(%4'$'($)*0'$(/'&'(0.2"%'3($')*&*%'16(,"(%4'()*&+,"-($2&5'6;((G./'5'&7(%4'$'($)*0'$(

/'&'(".%(,"0123'3(,"(%4'(3*%*(*"*16$,$(:.&(5'4,01'()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,.";(

6.1.4 Open Parking Lots

?!B(&'$,3'"%,*1($,%'$(%4*%(,"0123'3()281,0#*00'$$(.)'"()*&+,"-(1.%$(/'&'(".%(,"0123'37(8'0*2$'(

)*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(:&.=(&'$,3'"%$(.:(%4'(?!B($,%'(0.213(".%(8'(3'%'&=,"'3(:&.=(*(5,$2*1(,"$)'0%,.";((

G./'5'&7(*()*&+,"-(1.%(/*$(*"*16A'3(,:(,%(/*$(1.0*%'3('"%,&'16(/,%4,"()&,5*%'()&.)'&%67(,%(/*$(

*5*,1*81'(."16(%.(&'$,3'"%$(.:(%4'(?!B()&.)'&%6($,%'7(*"3(%4'&'(/*$($,-"*-'(".%,"-(%4*%()*&+,"-(/*$(

&'$%&,0%'3(%.(&'$,3'"%$(.&(-2'$%$(.:(%4'()&.)'&%6(H,;';7()&.4,8,%'3(5'4,01'$(/'&'($28I'0%(%.(%./,"-J;(

6.2 PARKING UTILIZATION V. PARKING DEMAND

E$($%*%'3(,"('*&1,'&($'0%,."$(.:(%4,$(&').&%7(%4'(K'$'*&04(?'*=F$(='%4.3.1.-6(:.&(3'%'&=,","-(

)*&+,"-(3'=*"3(/*$(%.(='*$2&'()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(*%($'1'0%'3(?!B(&'$,3'"%,*1()&.)'&%,'$(32&,"-(

%4'()'*+(3'=*"3()'&,.3;((?4'(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.(:.&('*04($,%'(/*$(0*1021*%'3(*$(%4'()&.).&%,."(.:(

)*&+,"-($)*0'$(*5*,1*81'(%.(&'$,3'"%$(%4*%(/'&'(.002),'3(86(*(5'4,01';((E()&.)'&%6F$()*&+,"-(:*0,1,%6(

/*$(0."$,3'&'3(:2116(.002),'3(,:(%4'(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.(/*$(LM()'&0'"%(.&(4,-4'&7(*"3(2"3'&2%,1,A'3(,:(

,%(/*$(1'$$(%4*"(%4,$(%4&'$4.13;((?4'(K'$'*&04(?'*=(0."$,3'&'3(%4'(LM#)'&0'"%(:,-2&'(*$(%4'(0&,%,0*1(

%4&'$4.137(*$(,%(,$(&'0.-",A'3(,"(-'"'&*1()&.:'$$,."*1()&*0%,0'(*$(%4'().,"%(/4'"(*().%'"%,*1()*&+'&(

/.213()'&0',5'(*()*&+,"-(:*0,1,%6(,$(:211(*"3(=.5'(."(%.(.%4'&(:*0,1,%,'$(%.()*&+(HN*&%'&(O(P2&-'$$(

QRRS7(TUJ;(



?4,$(='%4.3.1.-6(/,11(."16($'&5'(*$(*"(*))&.)&,*%'(='*$2&'(.:()*&+,"-(3'=*"3(/4'"(%4'(*=.2"%(

.:()*&+,"-(2%,1,A'3(,$(1'$$(%4*"(%4'(*=.2"%(.:()*&+,"-($2))1,'3(H,;';7(/4'"()*&+,"-(*%(*($,%'(,$(

2"3'&2%,1,A'3J;((V4'"()*&+,"-(:*0,1,%6(,$(:2116(2%,1,A'37(%4'(%.%*1()*&+,"-(3'=*"3(=*6($%,11(8'(

2"+"./"7(*$($.='().%'"%,*1()*&+'&$(=*6(04..$'(.%4'&('*$,'&(1.0*%,."$(%.()*&+(%4',&(0*&$(HN*&%'&(O(

P2&-'$$(QRRS7(TWJ;((>%,11(%4'().%'"%,*116(4,-4(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%'(/.213(,"3,0*%'(%4*%(%4'()*&+,"-($2))16(

,$(".%(.5'&#)*&+'3;((E$($2047(',%4'&(&'$21%(/.213(1'*3(%.(*(&'1'5*"%(0."012$,."(%.(.2&(&'$'*&04(

@2'$%,."(."(/4'%4'&(?!B(&'$,3'"%,*1($,%'$(,"(>*"%*(N1*&*(N.2"%6(*&'(.5'&#)*&+'3;(

6.3 SURVEY DATA COLLECTION

?4'(K'$'*&04(?'*=(0."320%'3(."#$,%'()*&+,"-($2&5'6$(:.&(TQ(?!B(&'$,3'"%,*1($,%'$;((?4'()&,=*&6(

$2&5'6(.8I'0%,5'(/*$(%.(0.11'0%(3*%*(%.(3'%'&=,"'(%4'()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.(.:('*04(?!B($,%';((

E33,%,."*1(3*%*(0.11'0%'3(32&,"-(."#$,%'($2&5'6$(,"0123'3(%4'($2&5'6F$(%,='(*"3(3*%'7L("2=8'&(.:(

0*&$()*&+'3(.2%$,3'(.:(3'$,-"*%'3()*&+,"-($)*0'$7(*"3("2=8'&(.:(=.%.&0601'$()*&+'3;(

?.(3'%'&=,"'(%4'()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.(.:('*04(?!B($,%'7(%4'(K'$'*&04(?'*=(0.11'0%'3(%/.(),'0'$(

.:(3*%*X(TJ(*(0.2"%(.:(%.%*1()*&+,"-($)*0'$($2))1,'37(*"3(QJ(*(0.2"%(.:(%.%*1(.002),'3()*&+,"-($)*0'$;((

E11()*&+,"-($)*0'$(."(%4'()&'=,$'$(.:(%4'(?!B(&'$,3'"%,*1($,%'(/'&'(0.2"%'3(&'-*&31'$$(.:(/4'%4'&(

%4'6(/'&'(:.&(5,$,%.&$7(&'$,3'"%$7($%*::7(.&(.%4'&(0*%'-.&6;((E11($)*0'$(%4*%(/'&'(.002),'3(86(*"6(+,"3(

.:(=.%.&,A'3(5'4,01'(/'&'(0.2"%'3(*$(2%,1,A'3;(((

E:%'&(0.11'0%,"-(%4'(%.%*1($2))16(.:()*&+,"-($)*0'$(*"3(%.%*1(2%,1,A'3()*&+,"-($)*0'$7(%4'(&'$'*&04(

%'*=(0*1021*%'3(%4'()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.(.:('*04(?!B($,%';((

6.4 DATA ANALYSIS

?4'(K'$'*&04(?'*=()'&:.&='3(5*&,.2$(*"*16$'$(%.(3'%'&=,"'()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.$7(%.('$%,=*%'(

)*&+,"-(3'=*"3(&*%'$(H,:().$$,81'J7(*"3(%.(*"$/'&(%4'($%236F$(&'$'*&04(@2'$%,.";((>,=)1'(8*&(04*&%$(

/'&'(3'5'1.)'3(%.($4./(,",%,*1(&'1*%,."$4,)$(8'%/''"()*&+,"-(2%,1,A*%,."(*"3(1.0*1(A.","-(

&'@2,&'='"%$(*"3(%4'(%4&'$4.13(2%,1,A*%,."(&*%,.7(*"3(%.(3'=."$%&*%'(%4'(3'-&''(%.(/4,04($,%'$(=*6(

8'(.5'&#)*&+'3;((>0*%%'&)1.%$(*"3(&'-&'$$,."(*"*16$,$(/'&'(*1$.(2$'3(%.(*"*16A'().%'"%,*1(

0.&&'1*%,."$(8'%/''"(5*&,*81'$(*"3(%.(3&*/(*))&.)&,*%'(0."012$,."$;(

L(P6(&'0.&3,"-(%4'(3*%'(*"3(%,='(.:('*04($2&5'67(%4'(&'$'*&04(%'*=(=*3'($2&'(%4*%()*&+,"-(0.2"%$(/'&'(&'0.&3'3(32&,"-(

)'*+(2%,1,A*%,."(4.2&$(HTQXRR(%.(SXRR(*;=;J;(



6.4.1 Survey Data Summary

Datacollectedduringtheon‐the‐groundsurveysareshowninTable6.1.Amongthe12survey

sites,theywereallobservedtohavesignificantunusedparkingspacesduringthepeakparking

demand,rangingbetween17and39percentoftheavailableparkingspacesobservedasunused.

AsshowninFigure6.1,outofthetotalparkingspaces(9,751supplied)about26percentofthe

parkingsuppliedwasnotutilized(2,496unused).

Sincetheparkingutilizationratioforallsurveysiteswaslowerthantheparkingcriticalthreshold

of85percent,theymaybedescribedasnotfullyutilized.Thesurveysshowedthattheparking

supplyishigherthantheparkingutilizationforall12surveysites.Atthislevelofparking

utilizationratio,theparkingutilizationratemaybeconsideredastheparkingdemandrate.

Lookingatthetotalnumberofutilizedparkingspaces(7,255utilized),whichcorrespondtothe

totalnumberofoccupiedhousingunits(5,522),theaverageutilizedparkingspacesperoccupied

dwellingunitisapproximately1.3(i.e.,theestimatedaverageparkingdemandrate).Thisaverage

parkingdemandratecanbecomparedtotheaverageparkingsupplyrateofabout1.7forthe

surveyedsites(calculatedfrom9,751totalsuppliedspacesfor5,801totaldwellingunits).On

average,parkingsupplyratesare22percentgreaterthanparkingdemandrates.

FIGURE 6.1 Total Parking Utilization

Unu`lizedParkingSpaces

26%

U`lizedParkingSpaces

74%



TABLE 6.1 Survey Data

Site Housing Parking Parking

Utilization Ratio

Parking Demand

Rate

Parking Supply Rate

Over Supply (%)

Distance to Nearest Station

Total Units

Occupied Units

Total Spaces

Utilized Spaces

Unused Spaces

(Utilized Spaces / Total Spaces)

(Utilized Spaces / Occupied Units)

(Total Spaces / Total Units)

(Supply - Demand) / Supply

(Feet)

1 294 288 438 365 73 0.83 1.27 1.49 15 2,500 2 306 294 568 439 129 0.77 1.49 1.86 19 3,060

4+ 924 832 1,654 1,282 372 0.78 1.54 1.79 14 5,560 5 2,760 2,622 4,605 3,409 1,196 0.74 1.30 1.67 22 2,400 6 186 182 317 262 55 0.83 1.44 1.70 16 1,040

11* 93 93 122 99 23 0.81 1.06 1.31 19 1,060 13 210 200 373 271 102 0.73 1.36 1.78 24 1,330 14 104 100 240 148 92 0.62 1.48 2.31 36 1,500 16 115 113 186 132 54 0.71 1.17 1.62 28 130 18 176 174 338 241 97 0.71 1.38 1.92 28 690 20 250 242 387 287 100 0.74 1.19 1.55 23 730 21 383 383 523 320 203 0.61 0.84 1.37 39 3,930 Total 5,801 5,522 9,751 7,255 2,496

Average 483 460 813 605 208 0.74 1.31 1.68 22

Std. Dev. 751 709 1,258 936 324 0.07

Notes * Site 11 has an occupancy rate of 75% (it was the only survey site with an occupancy rate less than 90%). The total number of housing units and parking spaces were adjusted for Site 11 to reflect an occupancy rate of 100%. Total dwelling units: Calculation: 124 total units x 0.75 = 93 Total parking spaces: Calculation: 163 total parking spaces x 0.75 = 122 + The actual distance is shorter than the 5,560 feet shown here. See Section 5.5.2 and Figure 5.5 for more detail.



6.4.2 Parking Utilization Rates for Surveyed Sites Compared to Local Zoning

Requirements

Theparkingsupplyforanydevelopmentsiteisdeterminedduringthelocalplanningapproval

process,whichisdoneinaccordancewithlocalzoningrequirements.Hence,theover‐supplyof

parkingatTODresidentialsitesinSantaClaraCountymaybeafunctionoflocalzoning

requirements,whichappeartoprovidemoreparkingthanisneeded.

Figure6.2illustratesthispoint.Itshowstherangeoflocalzoningrequirements(intermsof

parkingspacesrequiredperdwellingunit)andtheobservedutilizedparkingforthestudy’ssurvey

sites.Allofthesitessurveyedhadutilizationratesthatfallintothelowerendoftherangeofzoning

requirements,withsomeevenbelowthelowendoftherange.Thisobservedparkingutilization

patternforthesurveyedsitessuggeststhatlocalparkingrequirementscouldbereducedforTOD

residentialprojectswithoutcreatingparkingoverflowproblemsfornearbyresidentsand

businesses.

FIGURE 6.2 Parking Utilization Rates for Surveyed Sites Compared to Local Zoning

Requirements

1.27

1.49 1.54

1.301.44

1.06

1.361.48

1.17

1.38

1.19

0.84

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

ParkingU*lza*

onRate

LocalParkingRequirementsRange



6.4.3 Parking Utilization Ratios for Surveyed Sites

Figure6.3showstheparkingutilizationratiosforallsurveyedsiteswithrespecttothecritical

parkingutilizationthresholdof85percent,anindustry‐basedstandard.Thelowestutilizationratio

wasobservedat61percent,whilethehighestutilizationratioat83percent.Sinceallsiteshave

parkingutilizationratiobelowthecriticalthreshold,theobservedparkingutilizationmaybe

consideredtorepresentthetotalparkingdemandfortheTODresidentialsitessurveyed.

FIGURE 6.3 Parking Utilization Ratios for Surveyed Sites

83%

77% 78%74%

83%81%

71%

62%

71% 71%74%

61%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

ParkingU*liza*

on

85%CriAcalUAlizaAonThreshold



6.4.4 Comparison of Parking Supply and Utilization for Surveyed Sites

Themagnitudeoftheparkingutilization(orunder‐utilization)forthesurveyedsitesisshownin

Figure6.4.Theunder‐utilizationoftheparkingsuppliedattheTODresidentialsitesisshownas

redbarsinthisfigure.Ofthe2,496unusedparkingspaces,1,196wereatSite5.

FIGURE 6.4 Comparison of Parking Supply and Utilization for Surveyed Sites

6.4.5 Comparison of Parking Supply and Demand Rates for Surveyed Sites

Figure6.5illustratesthatthedemandforparkingattheTODresidentialpropertiesissignificantly

lessthanthesupply.AsshowninTable6.1,therangeintheparkingsupplyanddemandrates

differfromoneanotherbyaslittleas14percentandasmuchas39percent.Averagedtogether,

theparkingsupplyrateexceedstheparkingdemandrateby22percent.

‐

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

ParkingSpaces

Unused

UAlized



FIGURE 6.5 Comparison of Parking Supply and Demand Rates for Surveyed Sites

6.4.6 Relationship between Occupied Dwelling Units and Peak Parking Utilization

Counts

Thepeakparkingutilizationcountswereplottedagainstnumberofoccupieddwellingunitsforthe

surveyedsites.Aregressionlinewasthenfittedtotheobserveddata.AsshowninFigure6.6,a

strongrelationshipexistsbetweenpeakparkingutilizationcountsandthenumberofoccupied

dwellingunitsgiventhehighR2value.9Theslopeofthisbest‐fittingregressionlinecanbeusedto

estimatetheaveragenumberofparkingspacesusedperdwellingunit.Onaverage,thesurveyed

TODresidentialsitesuseabout1.3parkingspacesperoccupieddwellingunitduringthepeak

parkingperiod.Thisaverageparkingutilizationrateisintheverylowendoftheparkingsupply

rangetypicallyrequiredbymunicipalities’zoningrequirements(seeFigure6.2).

9AnR2valuenearzeroindicatesaweekcorrelation,whileavaluenear1indicatesastrongcorrelation.

‐

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50 ParkingDemandRate

ParkingSupplyRate



FIGURE 6.6 Scatterplot and Best-Fitting Regression Line of Peak Parking Utilization Counts

as a Function of Number of Occupied Dwelling Units

y=1.31x‐0.26R²=0.99

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

‐ 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Y=No.ofU

*lized

ParkingSpa

ces

X=No.ofOccupiedDwellingUnits



6.4.7 Peak Parking Utilization Counts as a Function of Total Parking Supply

Figure6.7showstherelationshipbetweentotalparkingsupplyandtotalutilizedparkingspaces.

Again,ahighR2value(0.99)indicatesastrongcorrelationbetweenthesefactors.

Analyzingthesefactorstogetherhelpstodeterminewhetherparkingutilizationisagood

determinantofparkingdemand,astheslopeoftheregressionlineisequaltotheaverageparking

utilizationratio.Givenautilizationratioof85percentorabove,asitewouldbeconsideredfully

utilized,andtheparkingdemandcouldnotbeestimated.AsshowninFigure6.7,theslopeis0.74,

whichrepresentsanaverageutilizationof74percent.Sincethisislessthanthethresholdnumber

of85percent,parkingutilizationcanthenbeusedasanestimationofparkingdemand.

FIGURE 6.7 Scatterplot and Best-Fitting Regression Line of Peak Parking Utilization Counts

as a Function of Total Parking Supply

y=0.74x+0.43R²=0.99

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

‐ 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Y=No.ofU

*lized

ParkingSpa

ces

X=No.ofParkingSpaces



6.4.8 Parking Demand Rates as a Function of Parking Supply Rates

AsshowninFigure6.8,thetotalnumberofparkingspaceperdwellingunitandthepeakparking

peroccupieddwellingunitarerelatedtooneanother(R2=0.60).Thepatternindicatesthat

residentsateachsiteareusingtheirallocatedparkingspaces,butnottotheextentprovided.

FIGURE 6.8 Scatterplot and Best-Fitting Regression Line of Parking Demand Rate as a

Function of Parking Supply Rate

y=0.59x+0.29R²=0.60

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Y=ParkingDem

andRa

te(u

*lized

spa

ces/occupied

units)

X=ParkingSupplyRate(totalspaces/totalunits)



Chapter 7. Research Conclusions and Policy Implications

Inadditiontoasummaryoftheproject’sresearchconclusions,Chapter7identifiespotentialpolicy

implicationsforfutureparkingsupplyrequirementsforTODresidentialsites,aswellas

suggestionsforVTAandmunicipalitiesinSantaClaraCountyforfuturepotentialimplementation.

7.1 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

7.2.1 “Over-Parked” or Underutilized Parking Supply

Thisresearchshowsthatanexcessofparkingissuppliedateachofthe12TODsurveysites.Each

ofthesurveysiteshassignificantunusedparking(seeFigure6.4).AsshowninFigure6.1,about26

percentofavailableparkingspacesforthe12surveysiteswereunusedatthetimeoftheon‐the‐

groundsurveys.Thefactthattheparkingsupplyrateishigherthantheparkingdemandrateforall

12sites(22percenthigheronaverage)indicatesthatmoreparkingisprovidedthanisactually

needed(seeTable6.1andFigure6.5).ThisresearchprojectprovidesevidencethatTOD

residentialprojectsinSantaClaraCountymaybe“over‐parked.”

Sinceparkingrequirementsforresidentialdevelopmentsaresetbylocalzoningrequirements,local

parkingrequirementshaveclearlyledtothelargeamountofparkingsuppliedattheresidential

developmentssurveyed.The2,496unusedparkingspacesin12residentialsitesleadtheResearch

TeamtoconcludethatparkingfacilitiesatTODresidentialprojectsinSantaClaraCountymaybe

underutilized.

7.2.2 Reduce Residential Parking Requirements near Transit

Basedontheobservedpeakparkingutilization,theparkingdemandratesforthe12TODsurvey

sitesarenearthebottomoftherangeofrequiredparkingsupplylevelsformunicipalitiesacross

SantaClaraCounty(seeFigure6.2),whichinsomecasesmayexceed2.5parkingspaceperdwelling

unitundercurrentlocalzoningrequirements.Thisresearchprojectshowsthatparkingdemandat

residenceswithinone‐halfmileofamajortransitstationislessthanwhatcurrentzoningcodes

require.Assuch,manySantaClaraCountymunicipalitiescouldreducetheirresidentialparking

requirementssignificantlywithouttheriskof“underparking”aTODresidentialsite.Figure6.6and

Table6.1showthatonaverageonlyabout1.3spacesareneededperdwellingunitinaTOD

residentialsiteinSantaClaraCountythatmeetsthecriteriasetinSection5.2.1ofthisreport.This

resultforSantaClaraCountyTODsitesiscomparabletotheaverageparkingdemandrateof1.2



spaceperdwellingunitforotherSanFranciscoBayAreaTODsitesstudiedbyCerveroin2009(see

Table2.1).

7.2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

7.2.1 Reduce Costs of Unused Parking

Datagatheredforthisstudyindicatetherewere2,496unusedparkingspacesobservedduringthe

on‐the‐groundsurvey,whichconstitutesapproximately26percentoftotalparkingsupply(9,751).

Thisisalargeproportionofunutilizedparkingspaces,anditrepresentsasubstantialopportunity

fordeveloperstoinvestinelementsofTODresidentialprojectsotherthanparking.

Sinceunusedparkingsupplyconsumeland,money,andotherresourcesintheirconstructionand

maintenance,reductioninparkingrequirementsforTODresidentialprojectscouldbenefitboth

localmunicipalitiesanddevelopersalike.Constructingparkingfacilitiesincreasescostsfor

developersandprovesinefficientforthemunicipalitywhenalargeproportionisunused.There

arepotentialcostsavingsthatcouldbegarneredifparkingrequirementsarereducedtolevels

suggestedbytheutilizationdatapresentedinthisstudy.Thesecostsavingscanthenbeusedto

supportothercriticaldevelopmentobjectivesofthelocalmunicipality.

Thecostofconstructingparkingfacilitiesisestimatedtobeonaveragebetween$10,000and

$30,000perspaceingaragefacilitiesandabout$5,000perspaceforsurfaceparkinglots(Boroski

2002,1).IntheUnitedStates,buildingparkingcostsanaverageof$15,000perspace,or$44per

squarefoot(VTPI2010,5.4‐2).Thecostofparkingfacilitiesdoesvaryaccordingtotheindividual

site,butanacross‐the‐boardaveragewillbeusedinthiscase.Usingthenationalaveragecost,the

2,496unusedparkingspacescountedinthisstudyforthe12TODresidentialsitesrepresentabout

$37.4millioninopportunitycost.Thisestimateisonlyapartialestimatetothetotalpotential

opportunitycostforthewholecounty.

Here’sanotherwayofestimatingtheopportunitycostforunusedparkingsupply.Asingleparking

spaceistypically8‐10feetwideby18‐20feetdeep,foratotalof144to200squarefeetper

space,withanadditionalamountrequiredforaisles,circulation,andotherelements.Onaverage,

between100and150parkingspacescouldpotentiallybeconstructedononeacreofland.The

averagecostofbuildingoneacreofparkingcouldthereforepotentiallyreach$1.5to$2.25million

(VTPI2010,5.4‐2).Assumingmid‐pointyield,the2,496parkingspacescountedinthisstudyis

estimatedtocoverabout20acres.Usingthemid‐pointoftheaveragecostofbuildingparkingper



acre,theparkingoversupplyobservedinthisstudyisestimatedtorepresentabout$37.4millionin

opportunitycost.

Constructingparkingfacilitiesisestimatedtorepresentabout10percentoftotaldevelopment

costsforabuilding(VTPI2010,5.4‐12).Thiscostrepresentsalargeexpenditurefordevelopers,

andanyprovisiontoreduceparkingrequirementstoreducethisamountcouldrepresenta

significantreductioninoveralldevelopmentcosts.Thecostsavingsindevelopmentcostscould

thenbeusedtosupportotherenhancementstotheproject,whichmaybedesiredbythelocal

agencyanditscommunities.Maintenanceandoperationforaparkingfacilitycanalsocost

propertyownersanaverageof$800peryearforeachresidentialoff‐streetparkingspace10(VTPI

2010,5.4‐10).Thismaintenancecostrepresentsabout$2.0millionperyearforthe12TOD

residentialsitesinannualopportunitycost,whichcouldbeusedforotherpurposestomaintainthe

residentialproperty.Againthisannualopportunitycostisonlyapartialestimatetothetotal

annualopportunitycostforthewholecounty.

Havingahighproportionofparkingfacilitiessittingunusedisnotonlyaninefficientuseofland,it

alsocostsdevelopersandpropertyownersagreatdealofmoneytoconstructandmaintainspaces

thatwouldultimatelybeunderutilized.Reducingtheamountofmoneythatmunicipalregulations

requiredeveloperstospendonconstructingparkingfacilitiescouldfreeupconsiderablecapitalfor

higher‐quality,moreeconomicallyefficientTODresidentialprojectswithlowerannual

maintenancecosts.

7.2.2 Simplify Local Parking Requirements

TheResearchTeamdocumentedinSection3.3theprocessavailableforgrantingreducedparking

requirementsforresidencesneartransitstations.Asdescribedinthatsection,eachmunicipalityin

SantaClaraCountyhasitsownuniquewayofgrantingsuchareduction.Inthemajorityofcases,

theprocessrequirescase‐by‐casedecisionmaking(suchasconditionalusepermits)orapreviously

completedlegislativeeffort(suchasaSpecificPlan).Inseveraljurisdictions,reductionscanonlybe

grantedthroughissuanceofavarianceorinconjunctionwiththesitedeveloper’sparticipationin

andpromotionoftransportationdemandmanagement(TDM)programs.

ProvidingreducedparkingrequirementsforTODresidentialsitesdirectlyintothezoningcode

wouldsavemunicipalitiesthemanpowerandresourcesrequiredforadditionalpermittingefforts.

10Note:costscanvarybetween$670‐5,000peryear



Additionally,thisformofregulationwouldlikelybeseenasbeneficialinthedevelopment

community,asitwouldallowforagreatermeasureofpredictabilityandsimplicityindetermining

thecostsassociatedwithdevelopingaresidentialsite.Suchabenefitmayevenresultinan

increasednumberofTODresidentialprojectsinmunicipalitiesthatsimplifytheparking

requirementsinsuchamanner.

7.2.3 Future Transit Expansion

SeveralnewtransitprojectsareplannedforSantaClaraCountyinthecomingyears,notablythe

twoBusRapidTransit(BRT)linesandtheBARTextensiontoSanJosé.Figure7.1showsamapof

plannedandexistingtransitlinesinSantaClaraCounty.Thenewtransitlineswillprovidebetter

transitservicetomanyareasthroughoutSantaClaraCounty,includingimportantdestinationssuch

ascentralbusinessdistricts(CBDs),henceenablingresidentstheoptiontoaccesstheseareas

withoutdriving.AsmoreareasinSantaClaraCountyareconnectedbytransit,therewillbenew

opportunitiesforresidentstotakeadvantageoftheaccessibilityandconveniencethatTOD

residentialprojectsoffer.

ThisresearchhasshownthatTODresidentialsites,whichmeetthecriteriainSection5.2.1andare

nearrailstationsinSantaClaraCounty,areover‐parked.Thisreasoningcanbefurtherexpanded

tosuggestthatTODresidentialprojectsnearneworenhancedtransitstationsforBRTservice,

whichmaybecomparabletorailservice,couldalsohavesimilarlyreducedparkingdemand.Ifthe

qualityoftransitserviceintermsofconvenienceandcomfortcanachievedcomparabletorail

service,thenthepotentialforreducedparkingdemandforTODresidentialsitesnearBRTstations

maybepossible,ifnotlikely.

7.2.4 Better Land Use and Urban Form

MunicipalitiescouldexpectpositiveimpactsfromdecreasingparkingratiosforTODresidential

projects.Landwouldbemoreefficientlyusedbymakingitavailableforadditionalhousingor

enhancedcommunityamenities.InastudybyArringtonandCervero(2008),decreasingparking

ratiosfrom2.2to1.1—whileholdingotherfactorsconstant—increasesthepotentialforbuilding

moreunitsby20to33percent.Reducingparkingratiosshouldresultinlowerconstructioncosts,

greaterhousingunits,highertransitridership,andimprovedoverallphysicalformand

performanceofresidentialdevelopments(Arrington&Cervero2008,48‐51).



Anotherimplicationofloweredparkingratiosrelatestourbanform.Byreducingtheamountof

parking(especiallysurfaceparking)requiredatasite,theoverallphysicalformonresidential

propertiescouldbeimprovedtomakethemmoreinvitingandpedestrianfriendly,andthusmore

“livable”.Puttinglotsofsurfaceparkingbetweenhousingunitsandtheadjacentroadsandwalking

pathstypicallybecomebarrierstowalkability.

7.3 AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH

Mixed‐useandTODprojectspresentanexcellentopportunityforshared‐parkingsituations,which

couldincreasetheefficiencyofparkingfacilitiesthatservethesetypesofdevelopments.

Dependingonthetimeofday,sharedparkingbetweenresidentsandcommercialbusinesspatrons

enablestheuseofspacesthatmightotherwisebeunused.Ifamixed‐usedevelopmentislocated

withinone‐halfmileofatransitstation,thenoverallparkingcouldbereducedandsharedacrossall

landuses.Byintegratingcommercialandresidentialparking,theoverallparkingsupplywillbe

moreefficientlyused(Boroski2002,9).Futureresearchonsharedparkinginmixed‐use/TOD

projectsinSantaClarawouldbeusefulinplanningandpermittingTODprojects.

TODresidentialpropertieswithreducedparkingratiosshouldresultinhightransitridership.

Municipalitiescouldthenofferanincentivetoprivatedevelopersintheformofreducedtraffic‐

relatedimpactfees.TherationalewouldbethatsincetheseTODresidentialprojectsgenerateless

vehicletrips,theirassociatedfair‐sharecontributiontoroadwaytrafficimpactscouldbelowered.

FutureresearchstudiescouldverifythatpeopleinSantaClaraCountywhochoosetoliveinTOD

residentialpropertiesdrivelessoftenandhavefewercars,therebyreducingtheirdemandfor

parking.

TheResearchTeamdevelopedaresearchworkplanforestimatingparkingdemandusingstated‐

preferenceusersurveys.Forreferenceinfutureresearch,amethodologyforconductingauser

surveyisincludedinAppendixCforVTAstaffand/orotherinterestedpartieswhomaywishto

estimatethetotalresidentialparkingdemandatTODsites,particularlyforthoseTODresidential

projectsthatexhibitveryhighparkingutilization.




Justin

Typewritten Text

65


Parking Utilization Survey of TOD Residential Properties in Santa Clara County • Technical Report 67

References

!""#$%&'$()*+),+)-$.)/'01"&)21"31"'+))4556!""#$$%&'(")$"*+,")-".)/(0-12"34560-12"4-7"*548%9!""

7-89#$%&'$():+2+;)<"-$8='"&-&#'$)/181-">9),'-".+))

,'"'8?#()@'9$()<'=-A)B-CD?$1"()*+,+)!""#$%&'$()E&C-"&)F'"#()<1""G)H-"?1"()-$.):-$#1D)F-G1"+))4554+))

:'4'%;07%"*54-(0'<+50%-'%7",%8%9)=>%-'"?*+,@":'/7AB"C4&')5("$)5":/&&%(("0-"D490$)5-04!""34560-1"

4-7"*+,B"DE499%-1%("4-7"+==)5'/-0'0%("?:=%&049"F%=)5'@!)2-D#I'"$#-):1=-"&J1$&)'I)

<"-$8='"&-&#'$+)))

2-"&1")K),C"%188+)455L+)34560-1",%>4-7":'/7A"$)5",);-');-":4-"G-')-0)!"E-$)!$&'$#'()<M;)2#&G)'I)

E-$)!$&'$#'+)

21"31"'()/'01"&()!"D#1)!.?#$8()-$.)2-&9D11$)ECDD#3-$+))455N+))G5%"*+,"(0'%("+8%5<3456%7H"O2<2)

/181-">9)H-=1")P'+)664+),1"?1D1G()2!;)O$#31"8#&G)'I)2-D#I'"$#-)<"-$8='"&-&#'$)21$&1"+))

21"31"'()/'01"&()-$.)*+),+)!""#$%&'$+))4556+))Q19#>D1)<"#=)/1.C>&#'$)RJ=->&8)'I)<"-$8#&ST"#1$&1.)

U'C8#$%!)I)/5-49")$"3/J90&"*54-(=)5'4'0)-"VV()$'+)W;)VSVX)

2#&G)'I)2-J=01DD+)K/-0&0=49"D)7%+)!.'=&1.)T>&'01")45()455N+)9&&=;YYD#0"-"G4+)

JC$#>'.1+>'JY.1I-CD&S$'ZY9'J1+9&J[#$I'0-81\V]4L4K.'>^->&#'$\)Z9-&8$1Z+)

2#&G)'I)2-J=01DD()HD-$$#$%):#3#8#'$+)45V5+)!%1$.-)I'")F11&#$%)]()E&C.G)E188#'$)'I)H-"?#$%)-$.)

_'-.#$%)T".#$-$>1+)@-$C-"G)4]+)9&&=;YYZZZ+>#+>-J=01DD+)

>-+C8Y!%1$.-8F#$C&18Y45V5Y=-5V4]45V5YEE`45/1='"&+=.I+)

2#&G)'I)*#D"'G+)L)-0-1"+570-4-&%+)9&&=;YYZZZ+>#+%#D"'G+>-+C8Y>#&G'I%#D"'GY>#&G)

^9-DDY>'JJC$#&G^.131D'=J1$&Y=D-$$#$%YA'$#$%^'".#$-$>1Y.1I-CD&+-8=a+)

2#&G)'I)F#D=#&-8+)K/-0&0=49"D)7%+)!.'=&1.):1>1J01")V()455N+)9&&=;YYD#0"-"G+)

JC$#>'.1+>'JYU<F_YV]LNVYD131D4Y<MR^2V5+9&JD+)

2#&G)'I)F'"%-$)U#DD+)L)-0-1"+570-4-&%+)9&&=;YY>-SJ'"%-$9#DD+>#3#>=DC8+>'J)Y#$.1a+-8=a[PR:\X]+)

2#&G)'I)F'C$&-#$)Q#1Z+)D)7%")$"+570-4-&%(+)b$->&1.)!="#D)VL+)455N+)

9&&=;YYZZZ+J'C$&-#$3#1Z+%'3Y>#&G^9-DDY>'JJC$#&G^.131D'=J1$&Y=D-$$#$%Y=D-$8^"1%CD-&#'$

8^-$.^%C#.1D#$18YA'$#$%^'".#$-$>1+-8=+)

2#&G)'I)F'C$&-#$)Q#1Z+)#8%9A-"G8%-/%"D)5507)5"35%&0(%"394-+)!.'=&1.):1>1J01")VW()VNNL()D-8&)

-J1$.1.)'$)@C$1)VN()455X+))

9&&=;YYZZZ+>#+J&$3#1Z+>-+C8Y>#3#>-YI#D10-$?Y0D'0.D'-.+-8=[,D'0R:\4X]X)



CityofPaloAlto.ZoningRegulationsoftheCityofPaloAlto.EffectiveOctober11,2007.

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/planning_forms.asp#Zoning%20Code.

CityofSanJosé.2008.SanJose2020GeneralPlan.EffectiveMay20,2008.

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/gp/2020_text/Pdf_version/2009/GPChp5_2009‐12‐

01.pdf.

CityofSanJosé.SanJoseZoningOrdinance.EffectiveJuly3,2009.

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/pdf/zoning_code.pdf.

CityofSantaClara.SantaClaraZoningOrdinance.AdoptedDecember8,2009.

http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santaclara/pdf/santaclara18.pdf.

CityofSeattle,StrategicPlanningOffice.2000.SeattleComprehensiveNeighborhoodParkingStudy

FinalReport.Seattle,WA:CityofSeattle.

CityofSunnyvale.UniformPlanningandZoningCodeoftheCityofSunnyvale.

http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/Community+Development/Planning+Division/Zoning+

Code.

InstituteofTransportationEngineers.2004.ParkingGeneration,3rdEdition.Washington,D.C.:ITE.

Karlinsky,Sarah,andDanielMurphy.2010.Retrofittingsuburbia—SanJosestyle.Urbanist,no.495:

12‐17.http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/retrofitting_suburbia_san_jose_style

Katz,Okitsu&Associates.MultiFamilyResidentialParkingStudy.SanDiego,CA:TheSanDiego

HousingCommission&CityOfSanDiegoPlanningDepartment.CityofSanDiego.

Litman,Todd.2006.ParkingManagementBestPractices.Washington,D.C.:AmericanPlanning

Association.

Lund,Hollie,RobertCervero,andRichardWillson.2004.TravelCharacteristicsofTransitOriented

DevelopmentinCalifornia.Pomona,CA:CalPolyPomona.

Smith,Mary.2005.SharedParking,2nded.Washington,D.C.:UrbanLandInstituteandthe

InternationalCouncilofShoppingCenters.

Smith,ThomasP.1983.FlexibleParkingRequirements.Chicago,IL:AmericanPlanning

Association.



Springfield‐SangamonCountyRegionalPlanningCommission.2009.2009ParkingSurvey:

SpringfieldAreaTransportationStudy.Springfield,IL:Springfield‐SangamonCountyRegional

PlanningCommission.

VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.2010.TransportationCostandBenefitAnalysis:Techniques,

EstimatesandImplications,Seconded.http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf

Weant,RobertA.,andHerbertS.Levinson.1990.Parking.Westport,Conn.:EnoFoundation.

Willson,Richard.2005.ParkingPolicyforTransit‐OrientedDevelopment:LessonsforCities,Transit

Agencies,andDevelopers.JournalofPublicTransportation8,no.5:79‐94.






About the Research Sponsors

SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

AtSanJoséStateUniversity,theDepartmentofUrbanandRegionalPlanningoffersgraduatestudyleadingtothedegreeofMasterofUrbanPlanning.Thisprogram,accreditedbythePlanningAccreditationBoard,isdesignedtoprepareskilledprofessionalswhoarewellgroundedinthetheories,methods,andtechniquesofplanninginlocal,regional,andstategovernmentforthepurposeofimprovingthequalityofurbanregions.Inaddition,itprovidesstudentswithanopportunityfordevelopingasignificantbackgroundinaparticularareaofspecialization,whichincludes:

• CommunityDesignandDevelopment• EnvironmentalPlanning• TransportationandLandUsePlanning• ApplicationsofTechnologyinPlanning

Aspecialmissionofthedepartmentistopromoteplanningeducationopportunitiesforadiversestudentpopulation,includingworkingstudentswhoprefertoattendtheprogramonapart‐timebasis.

Thedepartmentengagesfacultyandstudentsinpublicserviceprojectsdesignedtoassistlocalcommunitiesinaddressingtopicalplanningissues,whilecomplementingtheacademiccurriculumwithreal‐worldprofessionalexperiences.

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

TheSantaClaraValleyTransportationAuthority(VTA)beganasaCountydepartmentcreatedbytheSantaClaraCountyBoardofSupervisorsonJune6,1972tooverseetheregion’stransportationsystem.Until1995,VTA'sprimaryresponsibilitywasthedevelopment,operationandmaintenanceofthebusandlightrailsystemwithinthecounty.VTAseparatedfromtheCountyofSantaClaraandmergedwiththeregion’sCongestionManagementAgencyinJanuary1995,thusundertakinganotherresponsibility:managingthecounty'sblueprinttoreducecongestionandimproveairquality.

Workingunderthedirectionofa12‐memberBoardofDirectors,VTAhasa$363millionannualoperatingbudget(FY'08).VTA'slow‐floorbusfleetservesa326squaremileurbanizedarea.The42.2milelightrailsystemisoperatedwithafleetof100low‐floorlightrailvehicles.

AsthemultimodaltransportationagencyforSantaClaraCounty,VTAhasastronginterestinseeingtransit‐supportivelanduseandtransportationpoliciesimplementedbylocalagenciesinthecounty.

Documents

SJSU/VTA Collaborative Research Project