Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

TOD and Parking: Matching the Requirements to the Neighborhood by Karina Ricks

2,855 views

Published on

Parking is always a challenge for TOD projects and TOD districts. How do you explain parking requirements and results to commissions, councils and citizens? How do you move forward from the rigid standards in many city codes? Learn a systematic approach for matching parking requirements and transit to different kinds of neighborhoods. Hear how experiments in district-by-district requirements have fared. Explore ways to manage a wide range of parking in a TOD district. Issues, controversy and the consequences of changing parking policy to support TOD -- snag your spot for this lively conversation.

Moderator: Paul Roberts, AICP, Council Member, City of Everett; Board Member, Sound Transit, Everett, Washington
Karina Ricks, AICP, Principal, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Services, Washington, DC
Jason Wittenberg, AICP, Land Use, Design and Preservation Manager, Community Planning & Economic Development, City of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Meea Kang, President Domus Development, Rail~Volution Board of Directors, Irvine, California

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

TOD and Parking: Matching the Requirements to the Neighborhood by Karina Ricks

  1. 1. SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE Uniting on and off street parking policy and management for thriving places Rail~Voluton 2015 Karina Ricks, Principal @walk_left
  2. 2. 2RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 5 to 8Parking spaces for every registered vehicle in a city Source: Rich Renomeron
  3. 3. 3RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 15-40%Of urban traffic in major commercial areas are cars circling looking for parking Source: Rich Renomeron
  4. 4. 4RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 The Conundrum Private Off Street Parking !  Controlled through zoning process (planning/zoning departments) !  Often reserved for certain users !  Typically under used Public On-Street Parking !  Managed by transportation or public space departments !  Typically available to all !  Too often over subscribed
  5. 5. 5RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Supply comparison – on and off street Average
  6. 6. 6RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Supply and Utilization (Charlottesville, VA) - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 On-street Public off street Private off-street No of Spaces 58% 67% 92%
  7. 7. 7RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Parking Reform
  8. 8. 8RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 HOW DO YOU: …WELCOME NEW DEVELOPMENT …MINIMIZE PARKING OVERBUILD …INCREASE AFFORDABILITY AND MOBILITY …MAINTAIN PEACE AND HARMONY?
  9. 9. 9RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 HOW? 1. OPTIMIZE WHAT THERE IS 2. KNOW WHAT YOU (REALLY) WANT 3. MANAGE ON AND OFF STREET TOGETHER
  10. 10. 10RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Optimize what there is
  11. 11. 11RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Optimize what there is: Share OFFICE RETAIL PARK AND RIDE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
  12. 12. 12RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Optimize what there is: Decouple More Parking? More housing? OR
  13. 13. 13RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Optimize what there is: TDM $200?$200 in “Free” Parking? OR Credit: Joel Dinda
  14. 14. 14RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Optimize what there is: Make Parking Easy
  15. 15. 15RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Optimize what there is: Multimodal access •  Protected lanes: •  49% more retail sales •  58% fewer injuries •  Bicycle corral: •  12x more spending power compared to auto space •  Bus Lanes •  20% increase in bus speeds •  10% increase in ridership •  71% increase in retail sales •  Bus stop v. parking space •  Bus - 25 people every 15 minutes (100 people per hour) •  Parking - 1.2 people/15 minutes (5/hour)
  16. 16. RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 !  Identify source of parking pressure !  Clarify the most important outcomes (What do people want most?) •  Strong, diverse retail •  Equal access for all •  Protection for existing residents •  The ability to stop fishing 16 Know what you (really) want
  17. 17. RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Confirm Issues – On-street Residential !  Residential Permit Parking Restrictions •  Intended top protect residents from outside pressures •  Commonly around transit and destinations •  “Enhanced” RPP !  Curbside management •  Residents may need protection from themselves •  License to fish •  Concern (anger) over more competition
  18. 18. 18 LOCAL  AMENITY  SUPPORT   “Strong, diverse businesses districts, walkable residential communities”
  19. 19. 19RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Neighborhood Amenity Support !  PRIORITY 1: LOADING + DELIVERIES Goods delivery challenges hinder many businesses Tools: Expanded loading zones, metered loading zones, off-peak delivery incentives !  PRIORITY 2: HIGH-CAPACITY ACCESS Shared use and mass transit passenger vehicles bring more people to businesses. Tools: Expanded bus zones, additional shared vehicle spaces, district (a.k.a. public) valet !  PRIORITY 3: COMMERCIAL PATRONAGE Non-local patron access to sustain commercial quality and diversity. Tools: Performance parking, metering “commercial adjacent” blocks !  PRIORITY 4: RESIDENT-VEHICLE PARKING Residents need reasonable options for accessible parking. Tools: Resident-exempt meters, small RPP zones, escalating rate RPP fee structure 19 TRADE-OFFS ― Resident/business conflicts REPRESENTATIVE CITIES ― San Francisco, CA ― Toronto, ON
  20. 20. 20 EQUITABLE  ACCESS   “All residents have the equal and affordable opportunity for access.”
  21. 21. 21RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Equitable Access !  PRIORITY 1: DISTRICT RESIDENTS AT-LARGE As residents of the city, all should be able to enjoy amenities of the city regardless of neighborhood. Tools: Large or city-wide RPP zones, nominal fee RPP, limited areas designated as RPP !  PRIORITY 2: COMMERCIAL PATRONAGE Strong businesses are a source of jobs, services and opportunities and many rely on patrons from throughout the larger region. Tools: Time limit-based management, nominal parking rates, enforcement !  PRIORITY 3: LOADING + DELIVERIES Goods delivery is essential to business survival and strength. Tools: Managed loading zones !  PRIORITY 4: WORKERS + VISITORS Where space permits, after meeting the needs of District residents, curbside space should be managed for workers and visitors. Tools: No-fee visitor permits 21 TRADE-OFFS ― Access without availability isn’t access ― Potential circling and congestion ― Greater uncertainty REPRESENTATIVE CITIES ― New York City
  22. 22. 22 RESIDENT  PRIORITY   “Protect existing residents from both outside pressure and new parking demand.”
  23. 23. 23RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Resident Priority !  PRIORITY 1: EXISTING/BUILT RESIDENCES Newer buildings have the option to provide parking Tools: RPP protection, small RPP zones, RPP–eligibility restrictions !  PRIORITY 2: RESIDENT VISITORS + HOUSEHOLD WORKERS Visitor parking for built stock only Tools: Limited eligibility for visitor/worker parking permits !  PRIORITY 3: COMMERCIAL PATRONAGE Short term commercial patrons parking at retail amenities. Tools: Performance parking, metered parking confined to commercial streets only !  PRIORITY 4: NEW RESIDENTS/NEW DEVELOPMENT Under special conditions, new residents or new development projects (such as adaptive reuse) may be granted use of the public curbside. 23 TRADE-OFFS ― Minimal support to businesses ― Can pit neighbors against ― Creates obstacles to visitors REPRESENTATIVE CITIES ― Arlington County, VA ― Toronto, ON
  24. 24. 24 AVAILABILITY  MANAGEMENT   “Maintain desirable levels of availability for all users and demands.”
  25. 25. 25RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Availabiltiy Management !  PRIORITY AGNOSTIC Supply is managed according to demand; adequate availability for any who may need to use the curbside. Price is the primary demand-management tool utilized to value the curbside space. Tools: Performance parking districts, real time availability tracking and information, dynamic pricing, metered loading zones, escalating rate RPP, variable rate RPP (by area), small RPP zones, limited RPP designations, pay-as-y0u-go RPP permits, pay-by-phone Visitor permits 25 TRADE-OFFS ― High-demand area = high price ― No special privileges ― Apolitical process REPRESENTATIVE CITIES ― San Francisco, CA ― Seattle, WA
  26. 26. RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Tailored Approach !  Not all neighborhoods are the same •  Different amenities •  Different priorities and objectives •  Therefore, use different approaches 26
  27. 27. RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Manage on- and off-street together !  Agencies must work in concert !  Recognize integrated use 27
  28. 28. 28RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 ParkedVehicles Water Street Garage Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday TOTAL SPACES Manage On- and Off-Street Together: pricing !  Off -street parking = $2.50/hr !  On-street parking = free (2 hour limit)
  29. 29. 29RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Manage On- and Off-Street Together: Share - 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 Actual Demand Unshared Supply 30% unused capacity
  30. 30. RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Manage On- and Off-Street Together: RPP !  Residents !  Visitors !  Transient users
  31. 31. RAIL~VOLUTION 2015 Manage Together: Anticipate Change !  Building (and financing) projects that will last 40 years when technology will change in in less than 10 31
  32. 32. NELSONNYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2014 Karina Ricks Principal kricks@nelsonnygaard.com @walk_left

×