Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
PARKING: THE WHY, HOW, WHERE, AND WHAT OF A CONFOUNDING PRACTICESunnyvale Cool Cities Brian Canepa November 8, 2012
Source: roarofthefour
Agenda
Why is parking the way it is? How do you determine the “right” amount of
parking? Where has reform been successful? What strategies are available to communities?
2
Why is Parking the Way it Is?
Conventional approach to parking
1. Require lots of off-street parking for each land use
2. Give away on-street and off-street parking for free
Minimum Parking Requirements
Purpose Napa: “to reduce street
congestion and traffic hazards”?
Santa Monica: “to reduce traffic congestion”?
In reality, minimum parking requirements prevent spill-over parking problems
7
History of Parking Requirements
Image: Google Maps
History of Parking Requirements
Parking Consumes Large Amounts of Land
10
If you require more than 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft, you’re requiring more parking than land use
Restaurant and Bar
Bank
Food Store
Office
Retail
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
3.00
1.50
1.50
1.33
1.20
Building Sq.Ft. Parking Sq.Ft.
How much do “free” parking and highways cost?
Off-street parking subsidy (2002) - $127 to $374 billion– Equal to 1.2% - 3.6% of
total national income– Medicare = $231
billion– National defense =
$349 billion Highway spending =
$193 billion (2007)– 51 % generated
through user fees
$30,000$30,000
$30,000
$30,000$30,000
$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000
$30,000$30,000
$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000 $30,000$30,000$20,000
$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000
$30,000
Parking is Expensive
Garages = $1.50/hr.Streets = $1.00/hr.
Building more spaces cannot solve the on-street shortage
Where is the Parking Problem?
Parking Produces Traffic Congestion
Every parking space is a magnet for cars. Why provide more parking than you have traffic capacity to access that parking?
Poorly managed parking results in motorists circling for a parking space, from 8 to 74% of traffic in many downtowns.
Eliminating just 10% of vehicles from any congested location makes traffic free flowing.
Source: “Cruising for Parking,” Don Shoup, 2006.
Driving Competes with Other Modes
Parking Worsens Housing Affordability
For each parking space required in a residential unit: Price of unit increases 15-30% Number of units that can be
built on typical parcel decreases 15-25%
No accommodation for car-free households: Getting rid of a car = extra $100,000 in mortgage
At >300 sq ft, each parking space consumes more space than an efficiency apartment Sources: “A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and
Transportation Burdens of Working Families,” Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2006. “The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice,” Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2008. Sedway Cook studies of parking and housing costs in San Francisco and Oakland.
Parking Requirements & Housing Affordability
1961: Oakland’s first parking requirement
One space per unit for apartments
Construction cost increases 18% per unit
Units per acre decreases by 30%
Land value falls 33%
18
Which Uses Make Your City Active?
19
Parking Space10’ x 20’ = 200 ft2Bedroom 9’ x 11’ = 99 ft2
Office Cubicle8’ x 9’ = 72 ft2
Restaurant Table5’ x 5’ = 25 ft2
How do you Determine the
“Right” Amount of Parking?
Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual
The parking generation rate is the peak parking occupancy observed at a site.
Standard Parking Generation Rates Are Derived From Isolated, Single-Use
Developments
Actual Data Points
19 sites – 1980s 15 sites – 1990s
Source: Google Maps
Conclusion
• Parking occupancy is unrelated to floor area in this sample.
• The parking generation rate of 9.98 spaces per 1,000 square feet looks accurate because it is so precise, but the precision is misleading.
Result
• Minimum requirements often set equal to or above peak• Peak hour – most businesses have
empty spaces
• Empty spaces represent a massive economic, social, and environmental burden
No Single “Right” Number
Parking demand varies with geographic factors:– Density– Transit Access – Income– Household size
– Pricing Cities can tailor
parking requirements to meet demand, based on these factors
Supply ≠ Availability
What works here...
Might not work here.
Residential Parking Demand at Suburban TODs
* 16 multi-family rental projects in East Bay within 2/3 mile of transit station (Cervero/Sullivan 2010)
** 12 TOD projects within ½ mile of rail transit stations in Santa Clara County (San Jose State University, 2010)
Source
Average Peak Parking Demand
(cars/unit)
Supply (spaces/uni
t)
East Bay* 1.20 1.59
Santa Clara County** 1.31 1.68
ITE Parking Generation 1.20 --
East Bay Area TODs
East Bay TODs
Parking at TODs in Santa Clara County
(San Jose State Study)
San Jose
Parking at TODs in Santa Clara Co.
Parking Demand – Range: 0.8 - 1.5/unit– Average: 1.3/unit
Parking Supply– Range: 1.3 -2.3– Average: 1.7
Over Supply– Range: 14% - 39%– Average: 26%
Empty Spaces
26%
Chico
Palo Alto
Monterey
Santa Monica
Commercial Parking Demand
0
1
2
3
4
5
Typical CodeReq
ITE (StandAlone)
Palo Alto Chico Santa Monica Monterey
Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet
Conclusions
Residential parking demand– Comparable to ITE
• Average: 1 - 1.3 cars/unit• ITE rate: 1.2 cars/unit
– Case Study: Archstone Fremont Center• 80% of cars are still present in the middle of the day
Commercial parking demand– Below ITE
• Average: 1.5 per 1,000 sf• “Suburban” ITE rate: 2.9 per 1,000 sf
Where have Reforms been Successful?
Apocalypse?!
The Constituencies
MerchantsParking CongestionLoss of Customers/New Competition
Community ActivistsGentrification or Displacement
Social Equity
CONSTITUENCIES/CONCERNS
“Lots of free parking for everyone!”
“No giveaways to developers!”
“Stay out of my neighborhood!”
Suburban ResidentsAnti-Growth/DevelopmentTraffic & Parking Congestion
In the Bay Area
Walnut Creek
Petaluma
San JoseNapa
CASE STUDY: SACRAMENTO
It’s the Economy, Stupid
Source – APA, Planning in America: Perceptions and Priorities, June 2012. 43
What will help the economy?
Market forces alone
Community planning
Community planning & market forces
Don’t know
On-street parking is congested while…
Off-street is largely vacant
~46,000 total spaces empty at peak hour
$184M - $1.15B in unused assets
Key Findings
More off-street parking will not relieve on-street parking congestion
Infill/reuse is currently difficult to develop
Parking entitlement process creates uncertainty, and is costly in time and resources
47
Key Recommendations
Exempt small and vertically-mixed use retail/restaurant
Permit shared parking Low, voluntary in-lieu fee Allow alternatives to on-site parking
Key Recommendations
Simplify parking requirements across categories
No minimum requirement for residential or mixed use reuse of historic structures
Grab and RunAttorneys
Office? Cafe? Gallery? Bookstore?
Morning Brew
Splatter!! Good Reads
What Strategies are Available to
Communities?
Reforming Parking
1. Reduce or eliminate unnecessary parking requirements
2. Share parking3. Promote alternative modes4. Establish parking maximums
in very transit-rich and walkable areas
5. Adopt additional strategies for parking management– Unbundling the cost of
parking– Parking cash-out – Discount transit passes– Carsharing and peer-2-peer– Robust bike parking
requirements
Reforming Parking
6. Price on- and off-street parking
7. Adopt an on-street parking availability target
8. Manage parking to achieve the availability target using pricing or time limits
9. Prevent spillover parking impacts in surrounding neighborhoods with residential permit parking zones
10. Establish parking benefit districts
Reduce or Eliminate Unnecessary Parking Requirements
Cities can tailor parking requirements to meet demand– Blended
requirements– Small business
exemptions Streamline costly
entitlement process Maximums informed
by local market
School
Shop
PlayWork
PP
P
PPP
T TTTTT
TT
TTT
T
Conventional Development
Mixed Use, Park Once District
School
Work
Play
Shop
P
TT
Results:
• <½ the parking
• <½ the land area
• ¼ the arterial trips
• 1/6th the arterial turning movements
• <¼ the vehicle miles traveled
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Shared Uses: Real Demand
38% Less
Office
Restaurant
Residential
Restaurant
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Residential
Unshared Supply
Office
Achieving Shared Parking in Existing Areas
Indemnify private lots to utilize parking during non-peak hours
Establish rules regarding enforcement, management, pricing
Make it mutually beneficial for both the City and lot owner
57
Promote Alternative Modes
Enhance bicycle parking requirements
Allow alternatives to on-site parking that reduce or manage parking demand– Transit pass subsidies– Guaranteed Ride Home
program– Rideshare/vanpool
services
In-Lieu Fee Programs
59
Pasadena Reqs prevented changes
of use in Old Pasadena Pawnshop: 2.5
spaces/1,000 sf Restaurant: 20
spaces/1,000 sf
Solution Parking requirements
reduced by 25% “Parking Credit
Program”: Low annual fee
Cost to meet parking requirement is now only 2.5% of previous cost
Below Land Value to
Encourage Infill
Representative of Market Value
Encourage Retaining Some On-Site Parking
Progressive In-Lieu Fee Schedule
Unbundle Parking Costs
Separates cost of parking from cost of leasing
Allows for greater choice in housing and commercial space
Reduces vehicle ownership
Unbundle Parking Costs
House A:• 2,000 sq. ft.• 3 bedrooms• 2-car garage• $500,000
House B:• 2,300 sq. ft.• 4 bedrooms• 1-car garage• $500,000
Source: mimbles
Example: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA
91 Apartments - 42 Parking Spaces – 237 Residents with 20 cars
Who’s Unbundling for Sale?
San Francisco• Four Seasons: $150/month for self-
park; $250/month for valet parking (2004)
• 300 3rd Street: All parking owned by 3rd party, residents lease parking at market rate
Seattle (moda)• All parking spaces leased month-to-
month• 251 units sold out in one week
St. Louis, MO (Ballpark Lofts)• 25% of buyers opted for no parking
space
Parking Cash-Out
Equally subsidize all modes of transportation
Currently required by state law for all employers with 50+ employees, who lease parking
City of Santa Monica, CA requires compliance; considering local requirement for all employers
Cashout Reduces Parking Demand and Traffic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Amount offered to employees who do not drive alone ($/month)
% o
f p
revi
ou
s p
arki
ng
dem
and
Multimodal Infrastructure
Bicycle sharing programs
On-site facilities Carshare spaces Scooter/Motorcycle
parking Tandem/stacked
parking
67
Parking Management & Financial Incentives
Free transit passes
Tax-free commuter benefit program
Free carsharing membership
68
Vehicle Trip Consolidation, Promotion & Scheduling
Rideshare Matching Services
Shuttle Services Subsidized Vanpools Guaranteed Ride
Home Program Marketing/Outreach On-site Coordinator Telecommute Compressed work
week Staggered shifts
69
4. Ensure good parking design
Price it Right: Managing Parking Through Pricing
Goals – Set price to meet
demand (not too high, not too low)
– Ensure that 1-2 parking spaces are available on each block & address potential spillover impacts
How?– Adopt policy to achieve
15% vacancy– Monitor occupancy,
adjust meter rates, permit prices, and/or parking supply to achieve vacancy goal 73
Performance-based Parking Pricing: Redwood City, CA
Ordinance sets target of 85% occupancy for downtown parking
Prices are higher in central on-street areas, lower in outer areas and off street facilities
Time limits eliminated Multi-space meters installed Parking fund supports extra
police presence in Downtown
Results: Turnover increased; Peak hour availability increased from 0% to 18% on Broadway
75
Smart payment technology
Manage Spillover
Residential Parking Permit Districts– Critical for addressing
spillover Parking Benefit Districts
– Limited number of visitor permits
– Residents decide how to spend revenue
– Ex: Santa Cruz, West Hollywood, Boulder, CO, Austin, TX
Site-specific traffic plans– Schools, supermarkets, etc.
NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011
Brian Canepa116 New Montgomery Street,
Suite 500San Francisco, CA 94105
