Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

needed. A University of Iowa study found that parking supply exceeded peak-period demand by 16 to 63 percent at various commercial centers. Parking surveys in 26 Seattle neighborhoods found that most had onlY40 to .70 percent peak-period occupancy. In Minnesota, peak- period parking supply at several St. Paul-area shopping centers exceeded occupancy by an average of 31 percent; planners recommended reducing municipal parking requirements to about half of conventional standards. These survey results are particularly dramatic because many of these sites have less parking than current stan- dards require; none have parking management programs, which can typically reduce parking requirements by 20 to 40 percent. There are better ways to determine parking supply. Efficiency-based standards size facilities for optimal use-which means thatthe parking spaces. are frequent- Iyfull, provided that users have information on travel and parking options and that overflow parking is avail- able nearby. Efficiency-based standards take into ac- count geographic, demographic, and economic factors that affect parking demand. Where possible, parking is priced based on economic efficiency criteria. Table 1 summarizes parking demand adjust- ment factors. Optimal parking supply is typically 20 to 50 percent lower than what conventional standards require, and even more over the long term if more effi- cient parking practices lead to additional diverse trans- port systems and more accessible land-use patterns. . Because it is impossible to predict future demand precisely, efficiency-based standards apply contingency- based planning, which means that planners identify solutions that can be deployed ifneeded in the future. For example, if a building is predicted to need 60 to 100 parking spaces, the conventional approach is to sup- ply either a middle (80 spaces) or maximum value (100 spaces). With contingency-based planning, the lower- . bound value (60 spaces) is initially supplied, with a plan that identifies solutions to be implemented if needed. This gives decision makers confidence that any future problems will be solved. TABLE 1. PARKING DEMAND ADJUSTMENT FACTORS (This table summarizes various [actors that affect parking demand and parking requirements) Factor Description Typical Adjustments GeographiC Vehicle ownership and use Adjust parking requirements to reflect variations Location rates in an area identified in census and travel survey data. ........................................................................................R~.d.~~e..;;;qui'i;;;;;;;~ts.;.oi~.f~.;.e.~.c.Ji..;esfde~t"..... Residential Number of residents or housing per acre: Reduce requirements 150/0 where Density units per acre/hectare there are 15 residents per acre, and 30% if ........................................................................................~~.':.~~..~.~~.?~.:.':.:!.~.~.~.~~.~~:..~.::.::........................... Employment Reduce requirements 10-150/0 in areas with ....~=~s.~~............. ..~~~.~~r.~:. .~~:..:~~~~~..~.~: .~~:~.......~.o..~.:. ~~:.~..~.~.~~~y.~~~.~~:.~:.~.:.:.~::.'::................. Land-use Mix Range of land uses located within convenient walking distance Reduce requirements 5-10% in mixed use developments and more with shared parking. Reduce requirements 10% for housing and Transit Nearby transit service frequency employment within 0.25 mile offrequent bus Accessibility and quality service and 20% for housing and employ- ....._..................................................................................~~~~.~~~~.i.~..~:~?.~!!:.~!..~..~~~~.~:~~~~~..:~.~.~~~~:.... Reduce residential requirements 5-10% if a car-sharing service is located nearby, or reduce 4-8 parking spaces for each car- share vehicle in a residential building. Car-sharing Whether a car-sharing service is located nearby Reduce requirements 5-15%in walkable Walkability Walking environment quality communities, and more if walk ability allows ........................................................................................~~:.':.~~.~:.~?~~~..?!.f:~~~~.~~:.~i.~.~:....................... Housing Whether housing is owned or Reduce requirements 20-40% for rental Tenure rented versus owner occupied housing. ................................n..................................................................................................................................... Reduce requirements 10-30% for cost- Pricing Parking that is priced, recovery pricing (i.e., parking priced to pay ..............................~~~.~.~.~.~~~:.~:..~~~.~.~.~..~~:...............~~~.f~!.I..:~~~.~F.?.~.~~i.~~.~~~~!~~!.7.:!:......................... Unbundling Parking sold or rented Unbundling parking typically reduce~ vehicle ....:.~:.~!.~.~........... ..:.~.~_~:~~.':.IX.~~~ .~~!.l.~.i.~~.~.~ ~ ~.~..... ..~.::'.~.~.:~. ~~~. ~ ~.~..~~ :~~~~..~.':.~. ~~~ .~~:-:.~.?~:~........... Parking and Mobility Management Parking and mobility management programs are implemented at a site Reduce requirements 10-40% at worksites with effective parking and mobility management programs. Contingency Use lower bound requirements Plan if a contingency plan exists Reduce requirements 10-30%, and more if a comprehensive parking management program is implemented. Source: From Donald-Shoup b99S), "Ail Opporttin.ityto Reduce Minimum Parkins Requirements," Journa/oftheAmericon Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1., Winter199S. PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Table 2 summarizes potential parking man- agement strategies and their typical range of effectiveness at reducing the parking supply needed in a particular situation. Not every strategy is appropriafe in every situation: Actual impacts vary depending on geographic and demographic factors, how'a strategy is implemented, and other factors. Below are some general guidelines. . Impacts are higher where there are more parking and travel options. For example, park- ZONINGPRACTlCE 6.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage3 67