Post on 24-Dec-2015
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
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
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
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
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
Background: parking policy
When did California cities
first adopt minimum parking requirements, and
why?
Palo Alto, CA – parking requirements adopted in 1951
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
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.
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
$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 $49 26%
Areas with little public transportation
How do parking prices affect traffic?
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
Parking Cash Out Reduces Vehicle Trips
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Amount offered to employees who do not drive alone ($/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.
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
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
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
No Parking Requirements on Main StreetVentura’s Main Street – Requirements Removed
• 7 new restaurants opened up within months
• Allowed new 10-screen movie theater
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
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”
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
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
Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements
For more information
Patrick Siegman
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting
(415) 284-1544
www.nelsonnygaard.com
PSiegman@nelsonnygaard.com