3. Parking is usually planned like …
Can you guess what’s coming?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
4. Parking is usually planned like …
Restrooms
Every development expected to
provide enough on-site to meet its
own demand
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
5. But is parking really like restrooms?
Do people do it in the streets without embarrassment?
Does off-street provision easily prevent a mess in the street?
Does everyone need it, or only motorists?
Do some users occupy it for hours on end?
Can we predict long-term demand, even if the use changes?
How much space and cost does it take to have enough?
Does oversupply encourage excessive use?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
6. Parking is also often planned like …
Transit As a public service/infrastructure that serves an area
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
7. Parking supply can ALSO be determined like …
Restaurants
A real-estate service serving
an area and provided by a
competitive market at market-
responsive prices
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Photo: Matthew Roth
10. like restrooms in car-oriented suburbs
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Parking is usually planned …
11. like restrooms
like transit
in car-oriented suburbs
in many urban districts
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Parking is usually planned …
12. like restrooms
like transit
like restaurants
in car-oriented suburbs
in many urban districts
in some downtowns
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Parking is usually planned …
13. Can we EXPAND the
zones in which parking
supply is determined like
transit or like restaurants?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
14. And can we shrink the
area in which it is
planned like restrooms?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Blackwood,
South Australia
15. Which of these
yields most value
from urban space?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Urban
success
Like
restrooms?
Like
restaurants?
Like local
streets?
Which is most
responsive to
change?
Which is most
adaptable to local
context?
16. Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Donald Shoup’s most prominent three
proposals for municipal parking policy
i. Price on-street parking for 85%
occupancy
ii. Use revenue as desired by local
stakeholders
iii. Abolish minimum parking
requirements
17. Adaptive
Parking
Towards municipal
parking policy that
delivers:
- success without
excess
- responsiveness to
local conditions and
to change
- more value from
urban space
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
20. Fiscally healthy development
Fargo (as highlighted by
Strong Towns)
Renaissance zone: zero parking
minimums
Enormous increase in assessed
value of the area
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Image via https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/23/
robust-growth-and-development-without-mandating-parking
21. “Future proof” the parking ecosystem
Adaptive Parking thrusts
aim to increase market-
responsiveness in local
parking
Photo by Grendelkhan CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikipedia
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
24. Enough yet? Urban success?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Photo: Paul Barter
Noarlunga, South Australia (via Google Maps)
25. Stop boosting supply
So long as on-street parking is very well managed
Photo by Flickr user gregwake
Photo by Mariordo - CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Sao Paulo in Brazil
completely abolished
parking minimums in
2014
Paul Barter
26. Abolishingparkingminimumsis notradical:
exampleLondon
No non-residential minimums since 1974
(maximums instead)
Similarly for residential minimums since
2004
Average 40% fewer spaces with new
residential buildings (steepest drops in
transit-rich areas) (Zhan Guo)
London PTAL (public transport accessiility
level) scores
Photo by Rept0n1x CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Beaufort Park Apartments, Colindale, London
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
27. Abolishingparkingminimumsis notradical:
exampleBerlin
0.25 € / per 15 min
0.50 € / per 15 min
0.75 € / per 15 min
Off-street parking deregulation was complemented
by improved on-street management
(Image source: Dr Friedemann Kunst)
In the 1990s: Berlin abolished ALL parking minimums
No maximums
Result: less parking in transit-oriented locations
but little change elsewhere
(according to Dr Kunst, former head of transport for the Berlin Senate)
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
29. At least make parking minimums less harmful: Japan
Simple land-use categories (only 2 main
ones) for parking minimums
Zero parking minimums for small and
medium-sized buildings <1500 m2
Low minimums generally (applying in full only for
buildings with 6,000 m2 or more):
Office: 0.3 spaces per 100 m2
Retail: 0.4 spaces per 100 m2
Residential: 0.2 to 0.3 spaces per 100 m2
(Gradually rises to these levels between 1500 and 6000 m2)
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
30. Fix more than just the minimums
Tax and zoning anomalies
Parking usually doesn’t count as
floor area in zoning codes
Dubious evaluation practices for
city parking investments
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
31. SHARE!
“Walkable Parking”
Towards more widespread park-once-and-walk
districts where most parking is open to the public
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
32. Each site required to provide enough on-
site parking for its own peak parking
demand
Visitors to a site expected to park on site
Graphic by Patrick Siegman of Nelson/Nygaard
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
33. Graphics by Patrick Siegman of Nelson/Nygaard
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
35. Park-once-and-walkdistricts
Encourage parking to be open to the public
Stop requiring on-site parking
Focus on design quality not quantity
Manage on-street parking well
Parking guidance
Walkability
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
36. Avoid permit-
holder ONLY
zones
Prefer permit
zones that give
priority to permit
holders
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.orgImage by DeFacto [CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons
42. GOAL: new arrivals find a space
PRICE-SETTING PRACTICE: occupancy targets
For city-owned parking
BOTH on-street AND
off-street
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Image source: Donald Shoup, ‘Cruising for Parking’, Access Magazine, Spring 2007.
http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/spring-2007/cruising-parking/
47. COULD THIS WORK FOR YOU?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
48. Benefits from even
small steps on each
Adaptive Parking
thrust?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Image via Google Maps
49. Benefits from even
small steps on each
Adaptive Parking
thrust?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Blackwood,
South Australia
Part of central Detroit Image via Google Maps
50. Benefits from even small
steps on each Adaptive
Parking thrust?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Blackwood,
South Australia
Image via Google Maps
51. Benefits from even small
steps on each Adaptive
Parking thrust?
Paul Barter www.reinventingparking.org
Blackwood,
South Australia
Image via Google Maps
Keynote #2: Wednesday 8.30-9.30 so 60 minutes. Aim to speak for 45 to allow for Q and A.
I will be making a case FOR ADAPTIVE PARKING, with on-street PM as its foundation.
This is Shoup extended. And Walkable Parking idea highlights how this takes Shoup a bit further.
Can you guess what is coming?
Reasoning behind both cases is similar.
And the municipal regulations for both look very similar …
Certain number per 100 square metres or 1000 square feet or such like.
Here is a series of questions for which the answers for parking and restrooms are DIFFERENT
Like transit … something that is for the whole area.
With fees often.
But often also with public subsidy.
And public planning based on meeting policy goals.
Or meeting rooms …
With demand and supply mediated by market price signals
Low demand signals low prices and prompts lower investment
Oversupply similarly
High demand/low supply prompts high prices and new investment (either in parking or in subsitutes)
Regulation to allocate space and avoid too much conflict with other street purposes
And make sure they don’t have unfair advantage over bricks-and-mortar stores
Both of the bottom ones are more compatible with “urban” styles of development
Value for locals, owners, and for society generally …
Not to mention parking owners, operators, vendors
This points towards treating parking like restaurants… as a market-responsive good.
Parking Success: Does defuse parking problems (such as spillover and parking conflict)
Inspirations: Donald Shoup and other Shoupistas, Todd Litman, ITDP, people at Nelson/Nygaard especially Jeffrey Tumlin, and the parking policies of Japanese cities.
RELAX is a slightly wider version of Shoup’s abolish minimums. ENGAGE is wider version of Shoup’s ‘spend surplus locally’
PRICE is wider version of Shoup’s price for 85% occupancy. ALSO NEW ONES: two essential and one an optional extra
The benefits in this section should come even without the last, optional, thrust.
The aim is to foster a market-responsive parking ecosystem.
And to gradually ease away from artificially protecting parking from market discipline.
But it doesn’t happen naturally because of on-street parking
The assessed value in the Renaissance Zone (which encompasses a portion of the downtown) was $190 million in 2003; it recently topped $600 million thanks to improvements and new development. UNFORTUNATELY, North Dakota has a state-wide ban on on-street parking fees!!So some public parking investments have been made … but Walkable Parking is better than on-site private parking
A huge opportunity if your downtown still has minimums. Hands up if you know anything about the parking requirements in your downtown? Keep up if the parking standards are still minumums there!
Adaptive Parking aims to help the parking ecosystem become more able to adapt to change and respond to shocks in a smooth market-responsive way
This is just one of many possible changes which affect parking demand in any particular area.
Less sexy but also important:
New transportation investments, such as a new transit station.
Unexpected closures of bridges, viaducts or transit systems
ups and downs in local economic fortunes.
New buildings or building closures
Etc.
Often have whole slide images with only brief tweetable text
ASK: Is there any debate about lowering or abolishing parking minimums in YOUR municipality? Hand up!
Share is an essential addition to Shoup’s package.
This is a little too neat and tidy! But the point is, you need less parking to meet demand if there is sharing … or ideally parking open to the public.
Notice that even if Adaptive Parking means somewhat less plentiful parking (gradually), it also means much more parking that is actively managed and priced … good for the industry AND for urban success at the same time!
Can you think of any area in your city/town that could become more of a park-once-and-walk area (with a little help)
This was a key theme in my talk on Monday morning.
This Adaptive Parking thrust emphasises that effective control of on-street parking is a key foundation!
Easy with modern digital pricing. And with new data collection tactics
For on-street. AND for city-owned off-street.
Private sector ALREADY usually avoids full facilities by various means, including pricing.
But some retailers allow queues. If private-sector off-street public parking is allowing queuing into the street on a regular basis, maybe city should impose penalties? Would encourage this kind of pricing.
Tiny zones like SFPark, LA’s Express Park or Washington DC’s new trial?
Image of Washington DC case or LAExpress
Calgary: Relatively simple, like Seattle
Annual rates reviews using ParkPlus occupancy data
Time of day pricing (Weekdays: 09:00 – 11:00, Weekdays: 11:00 – 13:30; Weekdays: 13:30– 15:30; Weekdays 15:30 – 18:00; and Saturdays 9:00 – 18:00)
Key stakeholders are highly local: especially local residents and local businesses
Acknowledge reality that locals feel some claim or some sense of ownership over parking in “their” streets. Both residents and businesses to some extent.
Ways this might work in several different contexts … and why it is not as scary as it may sound. Everything is incremental. Eg abolishing parking mins does NOT mean no on-site parking built
An old area seeing development and economic activity.
Engage obviously crucial.
Resident permit zones near a street like this should not be permit-user only (at least not before bed time).
Manage the non-resident street parking in those streets to ensure vacancies so residents can return.