Smart Growth Center Webinar Richard Willson, Ph.D. FAICP Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning Cal Poly Pomona rwwillson@cpp.edu https://env.cpp.edu/urp/faculty/richard- willson https://twitter.com/rwwillson August 4, 2020
Single site, peak use parking… Walkability and land use challenges…
Fine grained livability… Roadblocks to revitalization…
Built out, small parcels… ..people density = parking anxiety
The circle of vice
Parking is policy
Issue Problem with status quo Minimum requirements drive up cost of housing, limit site feasibility; Housing supply and cost rents are higher for all to pay for the parking Need for parking requirement adjustments requires entitlement Small infill developers consultants; small infill developers do not master the system Business opportunities in legacy business districts thwarted by Small business excessive commercial parking requirements Gentrification Parking requirements encourage larger, higher end units Unmanaged on-street parking in neighborhoods leads to resistance NIMBY leverage to infill housing; parking issues used “code” for exclusion based on race or class
Putting parking requirements “in their place”
Habit, leverage, addiction, or what?
Stakeholder Reason for the Status Quo Maintain free parking privileges, receive cross-subsidy from Individuals those who do not drive Leverage to negotiate other public benefits, e.g., affordable housing. Local planners Concern about nexus for access based fees instead of parking Relationship to fees (in lieu, parking credits, etc.) Reduce the need to implement and enforce on-street Public works/police parking management Reduce perceived risk that competitor will build less parking Developers Avoid figuring out actual market demand for parking Undermine real estate development economics, limit NIMBY groups density, environmental challenges
A twelve-step reform method…
Step Method Comments Measure local utilization using Note! Existing rates may reflect past 1 – Existing counts, air photo interpretation, practice of free parking, separated utilization census data land uses Identify 20 year trends in Most trends suggest declining parking 2 – Future demographics, technology, utilization rates; COVID-19 reactions economics, culture, and responses baseline are an uncertainty to COVID-19 Shared parking reduces the risk of 3- Basis for Should requirements be based on using the average rate; using higher percentile such as 85 th percentile is average or percentile rates? the rate wasteful
Step Method Comments Adjust for special May lead to differentiated rates in 4 – Project and characteristics of the land land use categories; affordable context use and the subarea housing a prime example 5 – Pricing/un- Price elasticity studies show that Adjust for impact of pricing bundling/ parking demand is responsive to policies price cashout 6- Transit/ Affects travel mode choice for all pedestrian/ Adjust for alternative land uses; affects household access bicycle/ vehicle ownership for housing carshare
Step Method Comments Adjust for assigned versus Real-time parking information and 7 – Space use pooled spaces, circulation guidance systems reduce need for efficiency factor circulation factor Reduce on-site requirement to 8- Off-site Districts may be oversupplied with account for available off-site parking parking parking 9 – Internal For multi-use sites, reduce Land uses can be strategically shared overall rate to account for selected to maximize shared different peak use periods parking potential parking
Step Method Comments Does the prospective rate Consider transportation, urban 10 – Evaluate support community goals? form, economic development, Should minimums be sustainability, and regulatory and iterate eliminated? practicality 11 – Space Decide on minimum size, Average vehicle size is declining compact spaces, aisle width size 12- Tandem, Increase the yield of cars Potential varies by land use, valet, parked per square foot of land district context, and market or building area mechanical
Example for office uses in a suburban area
Requirement options…and developer responses
Approach Requirement Developer response Minimum > utilization Traditional Rarely build more than requirement No maximum Moderate Minimum = utilization Assess market for project, may exceed reform No maximum minimum Big city Minimum = % of utilization Market decision whether to supply Maximum = ratio or % of minimum minimum or build to maximum approach Partial No minimum Market decision whether to supply deregulation Maximum = ratio or % of minimum parking or build to maximum No minimum or maximum; Deregulation Performance measures, e.g., traffic Market decision on whether/how much impacts
Bells and whistles…
“Taming” Supply Parking Regulations • • Eliminate Driveway minimums regulations • • Maximums Prohibit • Discretionary surface • determination Ground floor • Tandem retail • • Re-use projects Height • Overlays zones restrictions • • On-street credit % of block • Performance- facades for based garage doors • • In lieu/access Discretionary fees design review • • Carsharing Shading • • Off-site parking Permeable • Pricing, pavement • unbundling, cash- Solar • out Real-time • TDM information • • Bike parking Guidance • Electric vehicle systems parking
Parking management
Approach Strategy Time limits Pricing On-street parking in Dynamic pricing commercial districts Dynamic curb use allocations Parking benefit districts Residential permit programs On-street parking in Priced residential permits residential neighborhoods Priced commercial parking in nieghborhoods Parking benefit districts/transportation wallet Access control, space allocation (based on user, duration, special uses) Off-street parking, private Pricing, dynamic pricing Shared parking arrangements Pricing, dynamic pricing Off-street parking, public Prioritize use (over on-street) through pricing differentials
Manage parking for maximum benefit Parking that is never used. Ever. Parking providing 24/7 storage for seldom-used, “extra car we really should sell but haven’t had time” Parking that serves 15 short-visit retail and service customers per day, multiple restaurant patrons, and overnight parking for a household. Same square footage, radically different value
Increase intensity of use… Rather than peak utilization, utilization-hour measurement
A cultural shift…one community at at time Small town… Big city… • • Park nearby and walk, Park on-street in front of probably off-street destination • • Parking costs $ Park free • • City facilitates private/public City makes developers provision provide • • Off-street parking is shared Off-street parking is private– hands off! • • Neighborhood parking is Neighborhood parking is exclusive to residents shared
Parking management techniques are exploding… • Technology • Privatization • Consumer preferences • Tight parking supplies
but many applications are ad hoc… • Private and public parking operators • On- and off-street parking facilities • Outmoded ways of thinking about parking • “Set it and forget it”
…and some are ridiculous…
The logic of parking management Effects? • Increase % of time occupied • Improve space search • Choices in price and convenience • Repurpose parking to better uses How does it work? • Reduce total parking demand • More efficiently use existing parking • Use a strategic planning asset management approach
Politics and participation
Approach Strategy Link reform to community Parking reform as a way of achieving urban design, economic goals and plans development, transportation, or environmental goals Costs of status quo – wasted land Educate Practice in successful, admired places City managers re: lost tax revenues Owners of existing parking and parking operators Appeal to self interest Revenue return to district or neighborhood Developers/property owners Compensate those disdavantaged by change Transit operators, infill developers, small business, historic Attract allies preservationists,
Progress Example Eliminate minimum parking Buffalo NY and a growing list of other cities (citywide, downtowns, TOD, or for specific land uses) requirements Reform minimum parking CBDs, TOD, historic districts, housing, affordable housing, etc. requirements Curb management and dynamic pricing in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington DC commercial areas Market pricing of curb Vancouver BC, Portland OR parking in residential areas Reform of environmental California CEQA reform review procedures
Recommend
More recommend
