Less Traffic, Better Places Rethinking Parking Policy Patrick Siegman Nelson\Nygaard

$Page 1: Less Traffic, Better Places Rethinking Parking Policy Patrick Siegman Nelson\Nygaard$
Less Traffic, Better Places

Rethinking Parking Policy

Patrick SiegmanNelson\Nygaard

Consulting Associates

Definition: Minimum parking requirements are government regulations that specify the minimum number of parking spaces that must be provided for every land use.

They are intended to ensure that cities have more parking spaces than they would if the matter was left up to the free market.

Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements


Great Britain: national parking policy reform

Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport

Enacted March 2001 New policy: “Local

authorities should….not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish…”

Previously: as in the US, local minimum parking requirements were common


British National Parking Policy

“Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development… There should be no minimum standards for development, other than parking for disabled people.”

- Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport


Background: parking policy

When did California cities

first adopt minimum parking requirements, and

why?

Palo Alto, CA – parking requirements adopted in 1951


Minimum Parking Requirements

Purpose Palo Alto: “to alleviate

traffic congestion”? San Diego: “to reduce

traffic congestion and improve air quality”

to prevent spill-over parking problems


Minimum Parking Requirements - Source

Example: Office ParksPeak Occupancy Rates, in spaces per 1000 sf of building area:

Lowest: 0.94 spaces Average: 2.52 spacesHighest: 4.25 spaces

Typical requirement:4.0 spaces/1000

sf

Unintended Consequences of Parking Requirements1. Minimum requirements set to provide excess

spaces even when parking is free, even at isolated locations with no transit.

2. Parking is then provided for free at most destinations and its costs hidden.

3. Bundling the cost of parking into higher prices for everything else skews travel choices toward driving.


$20,000$20,000

$20,000

$20,000$20,000

$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000

$20,000$20,000

$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000 $20,000$20,000$20,000

$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000

$20,000

Location Scope of Study

Financial

I ncentive

Per Month

(in 1995 $)

Decrease

in Parking

Demand

Century City District,

West Los Angeles 3500 employees surveyed at 100+ firms $81 15%

Cornell University,

I thaca NY 9000 faculty & staff $34 26%

San Fernando Valley,

Los Angeles 1 large employer (850 employees) $37 30%

Bellevue, WA 1 medium- size firm (430 employees) $54 39%

Costa Mesa, CA State Farm I nsurance employees $37 22%

Average $49 26%

Areas with little public transportation

How do parking prices affect traffic?


Parking Cash Out Reduces Vehicle Trips

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Amount offered to employees who do not drive alone ($/month)

% o

f p

revi

ou

s p

arki

ng

dem

and

Genentech’s Parking Cash-out

$5/day for each day an employee leaves his car at home

Goals: Reduce parking

demand on the South San Francisco campus

Allow business expansion

Improve employee benefits

Genentech’s Parking Cash-out - Results

From Feb 2006 to Oct 2008, reduced drive alone rate from 78% to 65%

A 17% decline in the drive alone rate

Saved $25-50 million on parking construction

Why doesn’t every employer do this?

1. Due to minimum parking requirements, employers must build enough parking to provide ample parking even when there is no parking cash-out for employees

2. Providing this much parking often costs more than $200/space/month.

3. If employers invest in providing employees with better alternatives to driving alone, the expensively built employee parking spaces will sit empty.

Conclusion: it is very expensive to build ample employee parking and then pay employees to not use it.

Conclusion:To make it financially feasible for employers to implement sustainable transportation policies, minimum

parking requirements must be removed.


Successful Precedents

Reviving neighborhoods by abolishing minimum parking requirements

• Milwaukee, WI• Olympia, WA• Portland, OR• San Francisco,

CA• Stuart, FL• Seattle, WA• Spokane, WA

• Coral Gables, FL• Eugene, OR• Fort Myers, FL• Fort Pierce, FL• Great Britain

(entire nation)• Los Angeles, CA


No Parking Requirements on Main StreetVentura’s Main Street – Requirements Removed

• 7 new restaurants opened up within months

• Allowed new 10-screen movie theater


Petaluma, CA: Smart Code Results

Key Policies1. Manage On-Street Parking2. Parking requirements

drastically reduced, then abolished

• Nov ’02: Project start• June ’03: Code adopted• July ’03: $75 million

project (theater, retail, apartments, office) approved

• Today: Theater District open

Require the “Unbundling”of Parking Costs

Unbundling parking costs from commercial leases

Example: Downtown Bellevue, WA

Requires building owners to include parking costs as a separate line item in leases

Minimum rate for long-term parking: ≥ twice the price of a bus pass

Minimum rate in 2003: $144/month

Maximum parking requirements: 2.4 spaces / 1000 sf GLA

Results: drive alone commute rate fell by 30%, from 81% driving alone to 57%

Make Housing Affordable:“Unbundle” Parking Costs from Housing

Costs

Example: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA

Parking fee: $150/month

Parking costs are “unbundled”


The Gaia Building – Parking Demand

91 apartments, theater, café & office space

42 parking spaces supplied

Result: 237 adult residents with just 20 cars

Parking: High & Low Traffic Strategies

Typical Minimum

Requirements

‘Tailored’ Minimum

Requirements

Abolish Minimum

Requirements

Set MaximumRequirements

TypicalTools

Requirement > Average Demand

Hide all parking costs

Adjust for: Density Transit Mixed Use ‘Park Once’

District On-street

spaces …etc.

Market decides

Garages funded by parking revenues

Manage on-street parking

Residential pkg permits allowed by vote

Limit parking to road capacity

Manage on-street parking

Market rate fees encouraged/ required

Traffic High Low

Housing Costs

High Low

Pollution

High Low


For more information

Patrick Siegman

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting

(415) 284-1544

www.nelsonnygaard.com

[email protected]

Documents

Less Traffic, Better Places Rethinking Parking Policy Patrick Siegman Nelson\Nygaard