Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Sunnyvale presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Why is parking so important?Most codes are “standardized” for suburban areas. This shows that suburban parking requirements are NOT conducive to walkable, livable, mixed use, or downtown areas.
  • Fine, if you want to create strips malls. Note – not even very good at preventing spillover since people still want to park on-street and most cities don’t manage their on-street parking very well.
  • But not if you’re trying to create places people want to live, work, and play. Many policy makers can’t understand why this can’t be achieved under current rules.
  • You can’t create community when consuming large amounts of land.
  • Economic = building something that doesn’t get used & opportunity costsSocial = less active uses is less safe & less people walk with health consequencesEnvironmental = storm water runoff
  • These were all done in suburban settings with ample free parking. Mostly garden apartment designs, 100-400 units, most 2-3 stories. They are “transit-oriented” only in their proximity to a major rail station.First Study is one I worked on, based on surveys at multi-family properties in SF Bay area and Portland. Overall, the weighted-average peak demand was 1.15 parked cars per unit and the weighted-average supply was 1.57 spaces per unit, 27% higher than demand.Another Study conducted by San Jose State in Santa Clara County: Average demand was 1.3 while on average 1.7 parking spaces per dwelling unit were provided, a 26% over supply. Due to a combination of high parking requirements, developer or financier fear of competitiveness, more parking than is needed has been built.
  • A bit more detail on each of these studies. Study I was involved in compared parking generation rates for 31 housing complexes near rail stops in the San Francisco Bay Area and Portland, Oregon, with on-site parking supplies.In Bay Area, sites were chosen near four BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) heavy-rail stations in the East BayTo degree possible, we verified that building vacancy rate was normal.Cervero article “Are Suburban TODs Overparked”. A survey of 31 multi-family housing complexes near rail stations in the San Francisco Bay Area and Portland, Oregon, show peak parking demand is 25-30 percent below supplies.
  • Here are the detailed resultsOverall weighted average was 1.2 spaces occupied per unit; 1.6 spaces built per unit, overbuilt by ~25%Second column is the peak demand per unit.Final column is the percent different from ITE.You can see there is a fair amount of variation. Although all these projects are suburban, you can see most projects near the Pleasant Hill BART station, at the top, one of the East Bay’s first “transit villages” was around 1 space per unit.Confirmed with Steve Wilson, the overall residential parking provided at Avalon Walnut Creek is 1.18 spaces per unit and they built about 1.3 spaces per unit. Numbers relatively consistent with this research.Final column, you can see the average is right on point with ITE, which I will address in a moment.
  • A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County. Show numbers/charts/ratios (built supply, demand/utilization, zoning requirements)Summary: Report: Residential Project Survey Criteria• Within ½ mile of a rail transit station• Minimum residential occupancy of 85 percent• Over one year old• Free parking• Restricted/designated parking• At least 80 units or 100 parking spacesSan Jose State critieria was Minimum residential occupancy of 85 percent
  • And finally, the San Jose ResultsDemand ranged from under 1 space per unit to about 1.5, average of 1.31So, even in these suburban still relatively auto-oriented settings, TOD residents aren’t using all the spaces we are building. We are building too much parking. Although there may be an advantage to having a bit of a buffer, having 25% of your spaces sit empty is a waste of money.
  • ITE = single use district, little transit, poor walkabilitySanta Monica, Chico, Monterey = bus only , no railHigh drive alone rates in all jurisdictions (61 – 80%)No TDM in most.
  • So one final interesting thing that these studies reveal.You have noticed that the parking rates are not actually lower than standard ITE suburban multi-family parking rates. Weighted differential for parking generation matched the ITE rate for East Bay projectsAnd another example, at a project level, one project we surveyed in my study, ArchstoneFremont Center, distinguished itself not because its peak generation is unique (at 1.45, its rate is relatively high) but because its off-peak generation is so high. That is, almost 80 percent of the cars present in the middle of the night were still there in the middle of the day. These results indicate that most residents own cars but are not driving for their daily commute. This has important implications for managing the parking at your development which is, the next part of the presentation.
  • If cities get rid of minimum parking requirements, what will happen? Will the sky fall? No.
  • And here are some locations in the Bay Area that have lower/no minimums in downtown/mixed-use districts/TOD locations. San Jose, for instance, has recently adopted lower parking requirements downtown.
  • Major purpose of Sacto plan is economic development – Note: biggest economic incentive in decades. Very similar to AB 904 – reforming minimum requirements.
  • 77% stated that at least some form of community planning is needed for economic improvement & job growth.70% listed job creation as a “high priority” – the highest rated issue
  • Stakeholders noted that parking congestion is a real problem, but it is really due to high on-street occupancy rates.
  • Many realize that off-street parking is often vacant. 38,000 of the 46,000 empty spaces in the Central City (about 83%) are off-street. This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in unused assets, and significantly reduces the amount of built space possible, thereby reducing walkability, density, sales tax receipts, and the social environment (no people, no social interaction).This happens because on-street spaces are the most visible, most convenient, and hence most desirable spots, and are often underpriced compared to less demanded off-street spaces. Fortunately, the City is augmenting its Residential Permit Parking Program to help address resident concerns.
  • Minimum parking requirements currently target upper end of parking demand range (e.g. if suburban retail ranges from 1.3 to 5.6 spaces per KSF, why set minimum to 4 per KSF?) and the result is lots of empty parking. Because requirements are often infeasible, there’s a lot of uncertainty and the time consuming hearing process increases costs and acts as a barrier to development.Sacto currently has excessive parking dimensions, particularly in terms of stall depth and maneuvering aisles. Current standards exceed needs even for SUVs. We used ULI standards (authoritative source based on collaboration with the National Parking Association). Land used that could be better utilized for other uses.
  • Adjust requirements to be context-sensitiveCBD - No minimumsUrban - .5 per unit & KSFTraditional - 1 per unit, 1.5 per KSFSuburban - Minor reductionsNote: initially requirements tied to transit use, but that was viewed as too complicated as transit frequencies change over time. Besides, other factors (density, mix of uses, walkability, etc.) play a very strong role in gauging parking demand.
  • 6,400 sf is the typical historic single-family Midtown lot size where on-site parking is very difficult. Exemption in will allow uses access to in order to promote use of these structures. The vertical mixed use exemption will apply to developments with at least 50% residential square footage to foster real mixed use development that decreases parking demand and traffic generation.Allow shared parking, by right, to avoid inefficiencies to maximize built space.
  • Currently, the Code makes it difficult to transition between uses. Simplifying parking categories allows for much easier turnover of businesses and avoids empty lots.Facilitate reuse of historic structures, promote historic preservation, and avoid decay of historic uses through exemption.
  • All of these tools that we have discussed above will help communities Getting Parking Right.
  • All of these tools that we have discussed above will help communities Getting Parking Right.
  • Bikes: APBP
  • $115 in 2001
  • Note that many residents use their garages for storage
  • Bikes: APBP
  • NOTE: Reduction in parking demand and traffic occur not only in transit accessible areas, but also in low density suburban areas without transit, where it incents employees to form carpools and/or to reduce the number of days per week they drive
  • Note that cities are looking for easily convertible metrics. Many cities don’t want to have to monitor programs (like financial incentives).
  • Why price parking? Revenue? NO – to manage demand.Cite Oakland experience. Photo source:
  • The reason we charge for parking is so that customers can quickly find a space, so it is very important that it is easy to pay for parking. Credit card, debit card, cell phone. Also makes it easier for the disabled community.
  • Another important strategy to consider, to get buy-in from merchants and residents: When charging for parking create a Parking Benefit District, which reinvests a portion of the net revenue back into the district where the parking fees and fines are collected. In some cases these might be available for improvements in the streetscape, bicycle amenities of other types of improvements of interest to the community, rather than being dedicated to more parking.Austin (shows improvements made with PBD funds); Redwood City; Pasadena; Berkeley
  • Transcript

    • 1. PARKING: THE WHY, HOW, WHERE,AND WHAT OF A CONFOUNDINGPRACTICE CitiesSunnyvale Cool8, 2012 Brian Canepa November Source: roarofthefour
    • 2. 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
    • 3. Conventional approach to parking1. Require lots of off- street parking for each land use2. Give away on-street and off-street parking for free
    • 4. 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
    • 5. 7
    • 6. History of ParkingRequirements Image: Google Maps
    • 7. History of ParkingRequirements
    • 8. Parking Consumes Large Amounts of Land If you require Retail 1.20 more than 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft, you’re Office 1.33 requiring more parking than Food Store land use 1.50 Bank 1.50 Restaurant 3.00 and Bar 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Building Sq.Ft. Parking Sq.Ft. 10
    • 9. 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
    • 10. Parking is Expensive $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 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
    • 11. Where is the Parking Problem?Streets = $1.00/hr. Garages = $1.50/hr. Building more spaces cannot solve the on-street shortage
    • 12. 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.
    • 13. Driving Competes with Other Modes
    • 14. 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.
    • 15. 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
    • 16. Which Uses Make Your City Active? Restaurant Table 5’ x 5’ = 25 ft2 Office Cubicle 8’ x 9’ = 72 ft2 Parking Space Bedroom 9’ x 11’ = 99 ft2 10’ x 20’ = 200 ft2 19
    • 17. Institute of Transportation EngineersParking Generation Manual  The parking generation rate is the peak parking occupancy observed at a site.
    • 18. Standard Parking Generation Rates Are Derived From Isolated, Single-Use Developments
    • 19. Actual Data Points
    • 20. Source: Google Maps 19 sites – 1980s 15 sites – 1990s
    • 21. 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.
    • 22. 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
    • 23. 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
    • 24. Might not work here.Whatworkshere...
    • 25. Residential Parking Demand at Suburban TODs Average Peak Supply Parking Source (spaces/unit Demand ) (cars/unit) East Bay* 1.20 1.59 Santa Clara County** 1.31 1.68 ITE Parking Generation 1.20 --* 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)
    • 26. East Bay Area TODs
    • 27. East Bay TODs
    • 28. Parking at TODs in SantaClara County(San Jose State Study) San Jose
    • 29. Parking at TODs in Santa Clara Co. Parking Demand Empt – Range: 0.8 - 1.5/unit y – Average: 1.3/unit Space Parking Supply s – Range: 1.3 -2.3 26% – Average: 1.7 Over Supply – Range: 14% - 39% – Average: 26%
    • 30. ChicoPalo Alto Monterey Santa Monica
    • 31. Commercial Parking Demand Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet543210 Typical Code ITE (Stand Palo Alto Chico Santa Monica Monterey Req Alone)
    • 32. 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
    • 33. Apocalypse?!
    • 34. The Constituencies “Stay out of my neighborhood!” Suburban Residents Anti-Growth/Development Traffic & Parking CongestionMerchants CONSTITUENCIES/ CONCERNS Community ActivistsParking Congestion Gentrification or DisplacementLoss of Customers/New Competition Social Equity “Lots of free parking “No giveaways to for everyone!” developers!”
    • 35. In the Bay Area Petaluma Walnut Creek Napa San Jose
    • 37. It’s the Economy, Stupid What will help the economy? Market forces alone Community planning Community planning & market forces Don’t knowSource – APA, Planning in America:Perceptions and Priorities, June 2012. 43
    • 38.  On-street parking is congested while…
    • 39.  Off-street is largely vacant ~46,000 total spaces empty at peak hour $184M - $1.15B in unused assets
    • 40. 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
    • 41. 47
    • 42. Key Recommendations Exempt small and vertically-mixed use retail/restaurant Permit shared parking Low, voluntary in-lieu fee Allow alternatives to on-site parking
    • 43. Key Recommendations Simplify parking requirements across categories No minimum requirement for residential or mixed use reuse of historic structures Office? Cafe? Gallery? Bookstore?
    • 44. Reforming Parking1. Reduce or eliminate unnecessary parking requirements2. Share parking3. Promote alternative modes4. Establish parking maximums in very transit-rich and walkable areas5. 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
    • 45. Reforming Parking6. Price on- and off-street parking7. Adopt an on-street parking availability target8. Manage parking to achieve the availability target using pricing or time limits9. Prevent spillover parking impacts in surrounding neighborhoods with residential permit parking zones10. Establish parking benefit districts
    • 46. 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
    • 47. Conventional Development Shop School P P P T T T TTT T T TTT T P P Work Play P
    • 48. Mixed Use, Park Once District Work Shop School PPlay T T Results: • <½ the parking • <½ the land area • ¼ the arterial trips • 1/6th the arterial turning movements • <¼ the vehicle miles traveled
    • 49. 1,400 1,000 Shared Uses: 1,200 Real Demand 800 Unshared Supply 1,0001,800 1,800 600 8001,600 1,600 400 38% Less1,400 600 1,400 Residential 200 4001,200 1,200 - 2001,000 1,000 Office - 800 800 Residential 600 600 Office 400 400 Restaurant 200 Restaurant 200 - -
    • 50. Achieving Shared Parking in Existing Areas Indemnify private lots to utilize parking during non-peak hours Establish rules regarding enforcement, managemen t, pricing Make it mutually beneficial for both the City and lot owner 57
    • 51. 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
    • 52. In-Lieu Fee Programs 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 59
    • 53. Progressive In-Lieu Fee Schedule Representative Encourage Retaining of Market Value Some On-Site Parking Below Land Value to Encourage Infill
    • 54. Unbundle Parking Costs Separates cost of parking from cost of leasing Allows for greater choice in housing and commercial space Reduces vehicle ownership
    • 55. Unbundle Parking Costs House A: House B: • 2,000 sq. ft. • 2,300 sq. ft. • 3 bedrooms • 4 bedrooms • 2-car garage • 1-car garage • $500,000 • $500,000 Source: mimbles
    • 56. 91 Apartments - 42 Parking Spaces – 237 Residents with 20 carsExample: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA
    • 57. 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
    • 58. 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
    • 59. Cashout Reduces Parking Demand and Traffic 100%% o f p re vio u s p ark in g d ema n d 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 A m o u n t o f f e r e d t o e m p lo ye e s w h o d o n o t d r ive alo n e ( $/m o n t h )
    • 60. Multimodal Infrastructure Bicycle sharing programs On-site facilities Carshare spaces Scooter/Motorcycle parking Tandem/stacked parking 67
    • 61. Parking Management & Financial Incentives Free transit passes Tax-free commuter benefit program Free carsharing membership 68
    • 62. 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
    • 63. 4. Ensure good parking design
    • 64. Price it Right: Managing Parking ThroughPricing 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
    • 65. Performance-based Parking Pricing: RedwoodCity, 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
    • 66. Smart payment technology
    • 67. 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.
    • 68. Brian Canepa116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 415.284.1544 NELSONNYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011