Parking in the Livable Community:

Parking in the Livable Community: Applying new lessons to an age-old problem November 1, 2009 Jason Schrieber AICP, Principal

Overview 1. Parking Requirements: The Mis-Use of Zoning 2. Shared Parking: Vision and Reality 3. The Real Externality: Managing On-Street Parking 2

A brief history of parking requirements 1908 Henry Ford starts his first assembly line 1923 Columbus Ohio adopts first off-street parking requirement 1939 Fresno adopts first parking requirement for any use besides housing, adopting them for hotels and hospitals 1946 survey: only 17% of cities have parking requirements 1951, 71% of these cities have parking requirements or are adopting them. 3

TABLE 3-4 PATAPHYSICAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land use Adult entertainmen Barber shop Beauty shop Bicycle repair Bowling alley Gas station Health home Heating supply Heliport Machinery sales Mausoleum Nunnery Rectory Swimming pool Taxi stand Parking requirement 1 space per patron, plus 1 space per employee on the largest working shift 2 spaces per barber 3 spaces per beautician 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet 1 space for each employee and employer, plus 5 spaces for each lane 1.5 spaces per fuel nozzle 1 space per 3 beds and bassinettes, plus 1 space per 3 employees, plus 1 space per staff doctor 3.33 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of sales and office area, plus 2 spaces per 3 employees on the maximum shift, plus 1 space for every vehic customarily used in operation of the use or stored on the premises 1 space per 5 employees, plus 5 spaces per touchdown pad 1 space per 500 square feet of enclosed sales/rental floor area, plus 1 space per 2,500 square feet of open sales/rental display lot area, plus 2 spaces per service bay, plus 1 space per employee, but never less than 5 spaces 10 spaces per maximum number of interments in a one-hour period 1 space per 10 nuns 3 spaces per 4 clergymen 1 space per 2,500 gallons of water 1 space for each employee on the largest shift, plus 1 space per taxi, plus sufficient spaces to accommodate the largest number of visitors that may be expected at any one time Tennis Rail~Volution court 2009, 1 space Boston per player MA: Parking & The Livable Community Sources: Jason Planning Schrieber, Advisory AICP, Service Principal (1964, 1971, and 1991); Witheford and Kanaan (1972 6

Palo Alto: parking requirements adopted in 1951 7

REAL VERSUS PERCEIVED DEMAND 12

Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual The parking generation rate is the peak parking occupancy observed at a site. Data are derived from single-use suburban developments with free parking and little or no transit ridership. 13

Conclusion: Parking occupancy is unrelated to floor area in this sample. The parking generation rate of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet looks accurate because it is so precise, but the precision is misleading. 15

Minimum Parking Requirements - Source Example: Office Parks Peak Occupancy Rates, in spaces per 1000 sf of building area: Lowest: 0.94 spaces Average: 2.52 spaces Highest: 4.25 spaces Typical requirement: 4.0 spaces/1000 sf 16

Demand vs. Requirement: Downtown Palo Alto Observed peak occupancy: 1.91 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Peak occupancy w/ 10% vacancy: 2.1 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Existing Requirement: 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Would require 5,210 more spaces than observed demand to bring downtown to 4 spaces per 1,000 sf requirement At $51K/space = $298 million 17

Parking Demand in Four Main St. Districts Mode Split (Employee Commuting) City City Pop. Drove Alone 2 or More Person Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Other Means Worked at Home Occupied Parking Spaces per 1,000 sf (non-res) Chico Palo Alto 59,900 61% 12% 1% 11% 13% 1% 1% 1.7 58,600 80% 9% 4% 3% 3% 1% 0% 1.9 Santa Monica 84,100 74% 11% 11% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1.8 Kirkland, WA 45,600 77% 12% 4% 0% 2% 1% 4% 1.6 18

Typical office: 4 parking spaces per 1000 sq.ft. 1.3 sq. ft. of asphalt per sq. ft. of building area 19

Ventura CA Administrative, Business, and Professional Services Shopping Center without Dining Shopping Center with Dining 1.13 1.13 1.36 Dining Establishments Dining & Drinking < 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area Dining & Drinking > 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area, Freestanding Dining & Drinking < 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area, Mixed-Use 1.13 1.70 3.40 3.40 Day Care Centers Elementary & Middle School, no assembly 0.44 0.44 High School, no assembly 2.22 College, no assembly 3.10 Automotive Rentals 1.13 Automotive Repair, Bodies Group Care 0.68 0.67 Medical Services: Medical Care 2.51 Lodging Services: Hotels and Motels 0.38 Boating and Harbor Activities 1.13 Recreation Services: Amusement Centers 1.70 Utility or Equipment Substation 1.13 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 20 Building Sq.Ft. Parking Sq.Ft.

Brookline Off-Street Parking Requirements Land Use Building Sq Ft Parking Sq Ft Wharehouse Industrial Retail Store (other floors) - High Density Retail Store (other floors) - Medium Density Retail Store (other floors) - Low Density Retail Store (ground floor) - High Density Retail Store (ground floor) - Medium Density Retail Store (ground floor) - Low Density Office (other floors) - High Density Office (other floors) - Medium Density Office (other floors) - Low Density Office (ground floor) - High Density Office (ground floor) - Medium Density Office (ground floor) - Low Density Medical & Dental - High Density Medical & Dental - Medium Density Medical & Dental - Low Density Institution - High Density Institution - Medium Density Institution - Low Density 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.86 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.75 0.86 1.50 1.50 1.20 1.50 1.50 0.55 0.67 0.86 0 1 2 3 # Square Feet 21

Brookline Off-Street Parking Requirements Land Use Building Sq Ft Parking Sq Ft Wharehouse Industrial Retail Store (other floors) - FAR 1.0 to 2.5 Retail Store (other floors) - FAR 0.5 to 1.0 Retail Store (other floors) - FAR under 0.4 Retail Store (ground floor) - FAR 1.0 to 2.5 Retail Store (ground floor) - FAR 0.5 to 1.0 Retail Store (ground floor) - FAR under 0.4 Office (other floors) - FAR 1.0 to 2.5 Office (other floors) - FAR 0.5 to 1.0 Office (other floors) - FAR under 0.4 Office (ground floor) - FAR 1.0 to 2.5 Office (ground floor) - FAR 0.5 to 1.0 Office (ground floor) - FAR under 0.4 Medical & Dental - FAR 1.0 to 2.5 Medical & Dental - FAR 0.5 to 1.0 Medical & Dental - FAR under 0.4 Institution - FAR 1.0 to 2.5 Institution - FAR 0.5 to 1.0 Institution - FAR under 0.4 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.86 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.75 0.86 1.50 1.50 1.20 1.50 1.50 0.55 0.67 0.86 0 1 2 3 # Square Feet 22

What Land Value Are We Losing? Restaurant Table 5 x 5 = 25 ft 2 Office Cubicle 8 x 9 = 72 ft 2 Bedroom 9 x 11 = 99 ft 2 Parking Space 10 x 20 = 200 ft 2 23

PARKING MAXIMUMS 24

Parking Maximums Promotes alternatives to the private automobile Can tackle congestion if related to roadway capacity or mode shift goals Maximizes land area for other uses Appropriate in areas with strong real estate market where priority is to minimize auto dependence Examples: Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Cambridge 25

REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS 26

Where can these principles apply? Successful precedents: reviving neighborhoods by abolishing minimum parking requirements: Coral Gables, FL Eugene, OR Fort Myers, FL Fort Pierce, FL Great Britain (entire nation) Los Angeles, CA Milwaukee, WI Olympia, WA Portland, OR San Francisco, CA Stuart, FL Seattle, WA Spokane, WA Ventura, CA 27

Where can these principles apply? Pittsburgh, PA San Francisco, CA Madison, WI Phoenix, AZ Indianapolis, IN San Antonio, TX Winston-Salem, NC Greenville, SC SOV Transit 32% 45% 39% 39% 71% 5% 72% 20% 74% 6% 80% 3% 90% 8% 99% 0.5% Source: TCRP Report 95, Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 18: Parking Management & Supply 28

MARKET DEMAND AND THE BANKS 29

Developer Fallacies The Bank won t approve the project without more parking Wrong. Banks don t care about parking. They care about return on investment. Show them successful comps. The market demands 2 spaces per unit Wrong. There is no survey of residential market demand, only preferences. Reality is barely 1 per unit nationwide. 30

Under Construction: Ashmont Village, Dorchester Near Red Line Stop 116 units.80 spaces provided per dwelling unit 31

Under Construction: Dudley Village, Dorchester Near Red Line Stop 50 units 1.18 spaces provided per dwelling unit 32

Completed: Fenway Mixed-Use, Boston Near Green Line Stop 580 units.86 spaces provided per dwelling unit 33

Completed: Ten Faxon Apartments, Quincy Near Red Line stop 200 units 1.02 spaces provided per dwelling unit 34

Fees-in-Lieu of Parking If you can t abolish minimums easily Typically in CBDs A by-right payment of a one-time or annual fee $200 - $35,000 per space of required off-street parking Deposited in a parking fund for future shared parking 35

Progressive In-Lieu Fee Schedule A B C D E Number of Spaces Per Space Fee Basis Increment Total Fee Average Fee Per Space (previous B plus C) $ 2,000 $ 750 (sum of all B values) (= D/A) 1 $ 2,750 $ 750 $ 2,750 $ 2,750 2 $ 3,500 $ 750 $ 6,250 $ 3,125 3 $ 4,250 $ 750 $ 10,500 $ 3,500 4 $ 5,000 $ 750 $ 15,500 $ 3,875 5 $ 5,750 $ 750 $ 21,250 $ 4,250 6 $ 6,500 $ 750 $ 27,750 $ 4,625 7 $ 7,250 $ 750 $ 35,000 $ 5,000 8 $ 8,000 $ 750 $ 43,000 $ 5,375 9 $ 8,750 $ 750 $ 51,750 $ 5,750 10 $ 9,500 $ 750 $ 61,250 $ 6,125 36

Progressive In-Lieu Fee Schedule Representative of Market Value Encourage Retaining Some On-Site Parking Below Land Value to Encourage Infill 37

SHARED PARKING 38

Conventional Development School Shop P P P T T T T T T T T T T T T P P Play P Work 39

Mixed Use, Park Once District Shop Work School Play P T T Results: <½ the parking <½ the land area ¼ the arterial trips 1/6 th the arterial turning movements <¼ the vehicle miles traveled 40

Transit Oriented Development School Shop Work Live Play 41

3,500 3,000 Office 3300 Parking Spaces 2,500 Retail 2,000 Restaurant Hotel 1,500 Mid-Rise Apartments 1,000 500 Condos - 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM Rail~Volution 10:00 11:00 2009, 12:00 Boston 1:00 MA: 2:00 Parking 3:00& The 4:00Livable 5:00Community 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Jason AM Schrieber, AM AICP, PM Principal PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 43 AM

3,500 3200 Parking Spaces 3,000 Office 2,500 Retail 2,000 Restaurant Hotel 1,500 Mid-Rise Apartments 1,000 500 Condos - 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM Rail~Volution 10:00 11:00 2009, 12:00 Boston 1:00 MA: 2:00 Parking 3:00& The 4:00 Livable 5:00Community 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Jason AM Schrieber, AM AICP, PM Principal PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 44AM

3,500 3,000 2,500 Office 2650 Parking Spaces-- 20% 2,000 Retail 1,500 Restaurant Hotel 1,000 Mid-Rise Apartments 500 Condos - 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 45 AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM

ULI Shared Parking Model 46

Sharing Existing Spaces: Example 47

Sharing Existing Spaces?????? 48

Sharing Existing Spaces 1. Town leases parking from landowners 2. Town increases supply: Elimination of barriers allows more efficient flow: as low as 325 SF/space = 428 spaces (currently 273) Natural shared parking benefits 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RETAIL/RESTAURANT 600 400 200-6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 49

Sharing Existing Spaces 1. Town leases parking from landowners 2. Town is able to increase supply up to 50% 3. Town sells employee permits and sub-leases spaces new development 4. New Town revenues 50

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 51

Where is the Parking Problem? Main Street Off-Street Parking Building more spaces cannot solve the on-street shortage 52

DEMAND RESPONSIVE PRICING 53

Example: Redwood City, CA Plagued by traditional parking problems : 100% utilization on Broadway all day long Perception of parking unavailability BUT: Photo by BWChicago Ample unused parking around the corner from commercial strip Peak occupancy 69% in city-owned lots (ideal is 85%) 54

Example: Redwood City, CA #1: Institute Market-Rate Pricing Fee structure set to price most desirable spots the highest Maintain 85% occupancy (by ordinance) Priced differently at highestuse times (Weekdays 10AM- 6PM) than at off-peak times 55

Example: Redwood City, CA #2: Eliminate Time Limits Time limits impose an artificial restriction on usage and are inconvenient Enforcement is costly to manage Time limits not efficient at producing even 85% occupancy Allow pricing to create turnover instead 56

Example: Redwood City, CA #3: Convert to Pay-by- Space Meters Able to track occupancy rates and adjust price rates accordingly A host of other benefits: Better urban design Quicker repairs Solar power Better information Revenue control Better data collection Convenience Source: Digital Payment Technologies, 2005 57

Example: Redwood City, CA #4: Modify the Parking Permit Program To accommodate employees, crafted a parking permit program for spaces in garages with varying levels of access for purchase 58

Example: Redwood City, CA Program has been highly successful: Greater turnover and parking distributed more evenly across district Average length of stay 72 minutes (previously 1 hour limit) Monthly permit sales up 50% $1 million in added revenues for added public services such as increased police protection and cleaner sidewalks 82% occupancy on Broadway 59

60 Source: Above images from Digital Payment Technologies, 2

Source: The Wall Street Journal, 61 6/30/05

TOD Without the Rails: Boulder CO Source: Will Toor & Spenser Havlick 65

Boulder: Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled 66

Boulder: Multi-Use Path System 67

Boulder: CAGID Revenue and Expenditure, 2002 Revenue Taxation (inc. property/owner/tif tax) $775,293 Short Term Fees $925,757 Long Term Fees $1,302,507 Meter Revenue 1 $1,026,820 Meterhood and Tokens 2 $106,777 Interest $70,751 Rental Income $380,766 Mobility Center Grant $84,969 Miscellaneous $25,779 Total Revenue $4,699,419 Expenditures Parking Operations $737,928 Major Parking Maintenance $50,569 Downtown & University Hill Management $924,565 Division 3 Eco-Pass Program $257,550 Major Maintenance to Pearl Street Mall $942,158 Debt Service $1,964,028 Other Expenditure $159,560 Total Expenditure $5,036,358 68

For More Information Contact: Jason Schrieber, Principal Nelson\Nygaard Transportation Planning for Livable Communities jschrieber@nelsonnygaard.com 617-521-9403 www.nelsonnygaard.com Boston Office: 10 High Street, Suite 903 Boston, MA 02110 69