Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

of ground-floor retail. Conventional standards would normally require 130 to 190 parking spaces for such a building, but it was constructed with only 85 spaces because of its proximity to high- quality public transit services, two car-share park- ing spaces in the building, and the fact that the building provides affordable housing fortenants who are unlikely to own a car. The reduced parking supply freed up space for a child care center and more ground-level retail stores. Avoiding the need ,to provide just 17 fewer parking spaces allows the projeCt to generate $132,000 in additional annual revenues 800 square feet per space at $25.80 per square foot in rent}, making hous- ing more affordable. The two car-share vehicles give residents access to a car without the costs of ownership-a particularly important benefit, for low-income households. Aspen, Colorado. Aspen experienced growing parking problems because of its suc- cess as an international resort. in 1991, the city built a 340-space underground parking struc- ture in the city center. Despite its convenient location and low price, it remained half empty most days while motorists fought over on-street parking sp'aces nearby. Most spaces were occu- pied by locals and downtown commuters who performed the "90-Minute Shuffle"-moving their cars every 90 minutes to avoid a parking ti cket. In 1995, the city began charging for on- street parking using multispace meters. Park- ing fees are highest in the center and decline with distance from the core. Parking is priced on nearby residential streets, but residents are allowed a limited number of passes. The city's marketing campaign let motorists know about the meters and each resident received one free $20 prepaid parking meter card. Motorists were allowed one free parking vio- lation, and parking control officers allow an hour of free parking to drivers who are con- fused by the meters. Although some downtown workers initial- Iyprotested (opponents organized a "Honk if you hate paid parking" campaign the day pric- ing began), pricing proved effective at reducing the city's parking problems, and six months later the program was supported 3-1 in the' municipal election. Most downtown business owners now support parking pricing to ensure convenient parking for customers and to raise funds for city programs. Austin Parking Bene{itDistrict Parking spillover can make it difficult for resi'dents and visitors to find parking. Some residents are con- 70 cerned that public service vehicles cannot pass two lanes of parked vehicles on the street, and also feel that street parking reduces a neighbor- , hood's attractiveness. .Austin, Texas, .addresses these problems by allowing neighborhoods to establish a park- ing benefit district (PBD). A PBD is created by metering on-street parking (with pay stations on the periphery of the neighborhood or with the traditional parking meters) and dedicating the net revenue (less costs for maintenance and enforcement) toward neighborhood im- provements such as sidewalks, curb ramps, aridbicyclelanes. The PMD may be used iIi conjunction with a residential permit parking program to ensure that parking is available for residents and their visitors. ever, many of these costs can be minimized with. good planning and new te~hnologies, such as electronic parking payment systems that accom- modate various types of payment (coins,bills, debit and credit cards, telephone, and online) and variable price structures. They do not require motorists to predict how long they will park and Only charge forthe number of minutes a space is actually used. With careful planning, significant parking supply reductions can be achieved in conjunctionwith improved travel options,better user information, and more convenient pricing methods. Programs costs are fully recovered, and travelers are better off overall. A major benefit of parking management is its ability to reduce various facility costs. Because parking facility costsare usually paid FIGURE 1. lYPlCALANNUALlZED PARKING COSTS $3,000 '" " .. $2,500 o 0 & M CoSts Co ell ... . Construction Costs .Ql $2,000 ll. !! Land CoSts .... .. 0 $1,500 U 't:l '" .~. $1,000 iii ::I C $500 c ~ $0 Subulban, SubuIban,2- lJfilan. Or>- Urban, Surface. Urban, 3-ele1 CSO.4l=I.e1 CSD, SuJface e.eI Structure SIlEeI Strudure Structure UndelQlOtmd Campus parking management. A survey of university campus managers indicates that many universities are converting parking lots to buildings, fewer are adding parking capacity, and thafmany are implementingvarious parking and transportation management strategies in order to devote more campus land to academic facilities rather than parking lots. Typical parking manage- ment strategies include permits, meters, a cash- out program, a prohibitive policy for freshmen, and eligibility based on residential location. Annual permit fees vary depending on the loca- tion ofthe campus and the location of a parking space within the campus. Various strategies are used to deal with spillover parking problems. COST~ AND BENEFITS Parking management costs include additional ~lanning, operation, and enforcement activities- -in addition to motorists' inconvenience. How; indirectly through rents, taxes, and as a cost component of retail goods, most people have little idea how much they actually payJor park- . ing facilities or the potential savings from im- proved management. Rgure 1 illustrates exam- ples of annualized parking facility costs. They range from about $400 per space in suburban areas with low land values to nearly $3,000 a year for underground parking with attendants. AsSuming two on-street and three off- street spaces (one residential and two commer- . ciaO per motor vehicle, with annualized costs averaging $400 per on-street, $600 per resi- . . dential off-street, and $800 per nonresidential off-street space, parking costs total about $3,000 per vehicle or about $2,500 per capita. As described earlier, current parking planning practices result in a 20 to 50 percent greater supply than what is optimal, thereby increasing direct costs by $509 to $1,250 per capita. ZONINGPRACTICE 6.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 6