Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

plans will be working in a very fluid environ- ment in which a variety of AV and non -AV vehicles, operated both individually and by coordinated systems with different mobility patterns, are being introduced over a long period of time. And all this will be occurring while distributors, wholesalers, and retail- ers introduce AV over -the -road trucks, AV delivery trucks, and drone deliveries. The good news is that most of these changes will happen over the zo- to 3o-year planning horizons of most comprehensive plans. All of the potential impacts of AVs will not show up at once, which allows us to focus on those impacts that are likely to occur sooner rather than later. HOW WILL ZONING NEED TO ADAPT TO AVS? Most land -use control systems are organized to address each of the following major top- ics, although the order and the priority they give to those topics varies a lot: 1. Parking and Access 2. Streetscape and the Public Realm 3. Permitted Building Forms and Dimensions Permitted Land Uses 4• The potential impacts of AVs on each of these zoning topics is discussed below, with particular emphasis on which impacts are likely to appear in the short run. Let's start with parking, since much of what follows relates back to that topic. Parking and Access One estimate is that the U.S. currently has two billion parking spaces. That's almost six spaces for every man, woman, and child in the country. Or almost 10 spaces for every licensed driver. Think about that the next time you cannot find a parking space; there are so of them out there just waiting for you. Up to 75 or 8o percent of suburban commer- cial property area is sometimes -occupied parking. In urban areas, parking can occupy between 20 and 3o percent of building envelopes. If those numbers seem high, con- sider that that the average size of a parking space (zoo square feet, not counting driving aisles and access to the space) is two-thirds the size of some micro -unit dwellings (300 square feet, not counting hallways and lob- bies and access to the unit). If AVs do result in decreased demand for on -site parking, TYPE "OFVEHICLE .IN OPERATION POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN PARKING DEMAND A AV owned and oPeratect by a mobi ity sharing system like Uber or Lyft- ! B. AV owned individually but operate by a mobility sharing system when" e individually household does no need it (think timeshare orAirBnb orcars) C AV owned and operated Individua fo"r household"use i=4 AVs that require Significant because operation of the: vehicles; is optimized; to keep them moving most ofthe,time Less than;type B, because the AV is;parkei wheneverthe hoysehold does not needit that could require major changes in zoning requirements for parking. Whether AVs result in reduced demands for parking turns on the fleet ownership mix and the longtime frame over which they will be introduced (see the table above). The fleet mix will probably'move from type)) to C, and perhaps from types C to B and B to A overtime as AV mobility systems improve, but fora long period, reductions in parking demand will occur gradually because of the mix of vehicles in use. If you work in a community that has no minimum park- ing requirements, rest easy, because there is every reason to believe the market will adjust the supply of parking as demand for parking changes. But most medium and large cities and counties still have minimum park- ing requirements (and are hesitant to repeal them altogether), so what does this mean for planners in those communities? It means that cities and counties should • continue to monitor parking usage to see how fast this transition is occurring, and reduce any minimum parking requirements to reflect those trends; • think about potential reuse of surface parking areas (e.g., for vertical develop- ment, stormwater infiltration areas, or additional open or recreational space) as demand for those spaces falls; and • consider whether reductions in parking demand should result in increased lot coverage ratios. In addition, planners should be think- ing about the need for "staging areas" for AVs—particularly those operated by shared mobility systems —when those vehicles are not in use. No matter how efficient the sys- tem, the supply and demand for AVs will not always align. Despite our amazing abilities to work from home, telecommute, and work over the Internet, most large communities still experience rush hours when commuters want to get to and from work. It is unlikely that AVs will change that. Yes, some of those AVs will be used for nonwork trips between rush hours, but there are not as many of those trips to be made (otherwise we would not have rush hours since all the nonworkers would be making non -rush-hour trips and traffic volumes would not vary through the day). Yes, mobility systems will try to influence travel behavior by discount- ing rates at low demand times and raising them at other times, but I predict that we will still have variations in traffic levels throughout the day. So where will the AVs hang out while waiting for their next optimized ride? In the short run, it is likely that they will use cur- rent parking tots as staging areas. And as parking demands fall, it will be rational for parking lot and garage operators to make space available to shared mobility systems and have parts of their lots or garages avail- able for AV staging (for a price). When that does not happen, the AV system operators may need to construct lots or garages in optimized locations. But since it is hard to optimize locations when ride demand can come from anywhere (think of demands for Lyft and Ubertoday), it is more likely that the demand will be met by leasing or buying parts of current parking facilities in dis- persed locations. This means that reduced demand for parking space to park cars will be partially ZONINGPRACTICE 12.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 4