Sunnyvale presentation

463 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sunnyvale presentation

  1. 1. PARKING: THE WHY, HOW, WHERE,AND WHAT OF A CONFOUNDINGPRACTICE CitiesSunnyvale Cool8, 2012 Brian Canepa November Source: roarofthefour
  2. 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. 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. 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. 5. 7
  6. 6. History of ParkingRequirements Image: Google Maps
  7. 7. History of ParkingRequirements
  8. 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. 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. 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. 11. Where is the Parking Problem?Streets = $1.00/hr. Garages = $1.50/hr. Building more spaces cannot solve the on-street shortage
  12. 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. 13. Driving Competes with Other Modes
  14. 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. 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. 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. 17. Institute of Transportation EngineersParking Generation Manual  The parking generation rate is the peak parking occupancy observed at a site.
  18. 18. Standard Parking Generation Rates Are Derived From Isolated, Single-Use Developments
  19. 19. Actual Data Points
  20. 20. Source: Google Maps 19 sites – 1980s 15 sites – 1990s
  21. 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. 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. 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. 24. Might not work here.Whatworkshere...
  25. 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. 26. East Bay Area TODs
  27. 27. East Bay TODs
  28. 28. Parking at TODs in SantaClara County(San Jose State Study) San Jose
  29. 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. 30. ChicoPalo Alto Monterey Santa Monica
  31. 31. Commercial Parking Demand Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet543210 Typical Code ITE (Stand Palo Alto Chico Santa Monica Monterey Req Alone)
  32. 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. 33. Apocalypse?!
  34. 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. 35. In the Bay Area Petaluma Walnut Creek Napa San Jose
  36. 36. CASE STUDY: SACRAMENTO
  37. 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. 38.  On-street parking is congested while…
  39. 39.  Off-street is largely vacant ~46,000 total spaces empty at peak hour $184M - $1.15B in unused assets
  40. 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. 41. 47
  42. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 47. Conventional Development Shop School P P P T T T TTT T T TTT T P P Work Play P
  48. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 53. Progressive In-Lieu Fee Schedule Representative Encourage Retaining of Market Value Some On-Site Parking Below Land Value to Encourage Infill
  54. 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. 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. 56. 91 Apartments - 42 Parking Spaces – 237 Residents with 20 carsExample: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA
  57. 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. 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. 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. 60. Multimodal Infrastructure Bicycle sharing programs On-site facilities Carshare spaces Scooter/Motorcycle parking Tandem/stacked parking 67
  61. 61. Parking Management & Financial Incentives Free transit passes Tax-free commuter benefit program Free carsharing membership 68
  62. 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. 63. 4. Ensure good parking design
  64. 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. 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. 66. Smart payment technology
  67. 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. 68. Brian Canepa116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 415.284.1544 bcanepa@nelsonnygaard.com NELSONNYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011

×