Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking

8/3/2019 Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brooklyn-residential-permit-parking 1/97



D o w n t o w n B r o o k l y n R e s i d e n t i a l P e r m i t P a r k i n g S t u d y D O W N T O W N B R O O K L Y N C O U N C I L

Page i • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

Table o f Content s

PAGE

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................3

Study Area Profile .........................................................................................................3Comparable Cities Review ............................................................................................3Existing Conditions Analysis ..........................................................................................5Policy Option Review ...................................................................................................6

CHAPTER 1. STUDY AREA PROFILE AND REVIEW OF COMPARABLES ........................................1-1

Introduction ...............................................................................................................1-1Study Area .................................................................................................................1-1Previous Studies Review: Key Parking Conditions.......................................................1-8

Comparable Cities Review .........................................................................................1-9

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY.......................................................................2-1

The Turnover Survey ..................................................................................................2-1The Windshield Survey ............................................................................................2-20Brooklyn Heights Meter Survey ................................................................................2-28License Plate Survey.................................................................................................2-30

CHAPTER 3. FEASIBLE PROGRAM OPTIONS .........................................................................3-1

Geographic Options – Implementation.......................................................................3-1Policy Options – Program Design...............................................................................3-2Programmatic Components ........................................................................................3-7

Considerations for Analysis of RPP Options ................................................................3-9

APPENDIX A: TURNOVER BY BLOCK–ALL BLOCKS

APPENDIX B: WINDSHIELD SURVEY FORM

APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION PLAN




Page ii • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

Table of F igures

PAGE

Figure ES-1 Resident and Vehicle Densities in Downtown Brooklyn.................................3Figure ES-2 Population and Vehicle Densities in Comparable Cities .................................4

Figure 1-1 Race and Income in the Study Area.............................................................1-1Figure 1-2 Study Area Population ................................................................................1-2Figure 1-3 Study Area..................................................................................................1-3Figure 1-4 Study Area Vehicular Densities ...................................................................1-5Figure 1-5 Boerum Hill Vehicle Availability.................................................................1-6Figure 1-6 Brooklyn Heights Vehicle Availability.........................................................1-7Figure 1-7 Fort Greene Vehicle Availability .................................................................1-8Figure 1-8 Study Area Vehicle Availability by Neighborhood.......................................1-8

Figure 1-9 Comparable Cities Race and Income.........................................................1-10Figure 1-10 Comparable Cities Population...................................................................1-10Figure 1-11 Comparable Cities Vehicular Densities .....................................................1-10Figure 1-12 Vehicle Availability – Boston....................................................................1-11Figure 1-13 Vehicle Availability – Washington, D.C....................................................1-14Figure 1-14 Vehicle Availability – Toronto ..................................................................1-16Figure 1-15 Review of RPP Programs – Extended List...................................................1-21

Figure 2-1 Turnover Survey-Eligible Blocks..................................................................2-3Figure 2-2 Study Area Occupancy ...............................................................................2-5Figure 2-3 Study Area Hourly Occupancy ...................................................................2-5

Figure 2-4 Overall Occupancy ....................................................................................2-7Figure 2-5 Brooklyn Heights Occupancy .....................................................................2-9Figure 2-6 Brooklyn Heights Hourly Occupancy .........................................................2-9Figure 2-7 Boerum Hill Occupancy...........................................................................2-10Figure 2-8 Boerum Hill Hourly Occupancy ...............................................................2-10Figure 2-9 Fort Greene Occupancy............................................................................2-11Figure 2-10 Fort Greene Hourly Occupancy................................................................2-11Figure 2-11 Study Area Rates of Turnover ....................................................................2-12Figure 2-12 Brooklyn Heights Rates of Turnover ..........................................................2-12Figure 2-13 Mean Parking Stay (Hours)........................................................................2-13Figure 2-14 Boerum Hill Rates of Turnover..................................................................2-15

Figure 2-15 Fort Greene Rates of Turnover ..................................................................2-15Figure 2-16 Study Area Placard Parking .......................................................................2-16Figure 2-17 Brooklyn Heights Agency-Permit Parking ..................................................2-16Figure 2-18 Vehicles Parked with Municipal Placards..................................................2-17Figure 2-19 Boerum Hill Agency-Permit Parking..........................................................2-19Figure 2-20 Fort Greene Agency-Permit Parking ..........................................................2-19Figure 2-21 Search Time .............................................................................................2-21Figure 2-22 Turnover Rates .........................................................................................2-22




Table of F igures (continued)

PAGE

Page i i i • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

Figure 2-23 On-Street Incentives .................................................................................2-23Figure 2-24 Behavior Patterns......................................................................................2-24Figure 2-25 Trip Purpose.............................................................................................2-25Figure 2-26 Proximity to Destination ...........................................................................2-26Figure 2-27 Probable Response ...................................................................................2-27Figure 2-28 Placard Occupancy at Brooklyn Heights Meters.........................................2-28Figure 2-29 Survey Times and Locations......................................................................2-30Figure 2-30 Locally Registered Vehicle Utilization.......................................................2-31Figure 2-31 Estimating Local-Registration Rate with Alternate Methodologies...............2-32Figure 2-32 Residential On-Street Demand – As Share of Overall Demand..................2-34

Figure 3-1 Brooklyn Residential Parking Policy Options...............................................3-5Figure 3-2 Revenue Projection ..................................................................................3-10Figure 3-3 Registration Distribution (New York State Only) of

Overnight On-Street Vehicles ...................................................................3-11Figure 3-4 Where Parked Cars are Registered ............................................................3-12Figure 3-5 Household Income and Vehicle Ownership..............................................3-13



D o w n t o w n B r o o k l y n R e s i d e n t i a l P e r m i t P a r k i n g S t u d y

D O W N T O W N B R O O K L Y N C O U N C I L

Page 1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

I n t roduc t i on

Residential Permit Parking (RPP) programs have proved extremely successful in manycities, helping to prioritize on-street parking spaces for residents living close to major tripgenerators, such as downtowns, schools, stadiums, and transit stations. They have beenimplemented in a wide variety of settings since ruled constitutional by the US SupremeCourt in 1977, ranging from small communities such as Loma Linda, CA (pop. 18,000) tomajor cities such as Boston and Philadelphia.1

The strong competition for limited on-street space in neighborhoods in and aroundDowntown Brooklyn has generated interest in introducing an RPP program. The area is amajor center of employment as well as a transit hub within which virtually every line of New York City’s subway system makes stops, providing quick car-less access toManhattan’s Central Business Districts.

Downtown Brooklyn, however, is a far more complex environment than most otherneighborhoods that have successfully introduced RPP programs. Most fundamentally, localresidents own more vehicles than the number of curb parking spaces. Despite low vehicleownership rates, the combination of limited residential off-street parking and highpopulation densities means that excluding commuters and visitors through RPP will, on itsown, do little to make parking readily available. There are also special considerations toensure equity for the 65 percent of residents who do not own a vehicle (who occasionallyrequire parking for visitors or rental cars), and for shoppers and other short-term visitors.

These unique circumstances warrant a careful analysis of the potential impacts of astandard RPP program as well as the development of alternative program options that take

account of Downtown Brooklyn’s special constraints. Most importantly, the DowntownBrooklyn circumstances require outreach to build community understanding of the prosand cons of an RPP, and foster consensus on a preferred option.

This report is the culmination of the Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit ParkingStudy, commissioned by the Downtown Brooklyn Council, in partnership with the NewYork City Department of Transportation and the New York City Economic DevelopmentCorporation. It brings together the findings from the following project work tasks:

A demographic profile of the Study Area and a review of programs in comparablecities (See Chapter 1);

An extensive survey of existing parking conditions (See Chapter 2), based on thedata collection plan included as an appendix; and

An analysis of feasible program options (See Chapter 3).

1See, for example, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2000), Residential Permit Parking, Informational Report.






The report concludes with a delineation of implementation options, includingprogrammatic details and strategic alternatives for a potential RPP program.Implementation of any RPP program will require the support of households within theproposed boundaries – most typically, cities require a petition signed by at least 50% of households. Were RPP implementation to proceed, the New York City Department of Transportation would also need to resolve various administrative and implementationdetails regarding permit issuance, petition verification and enforcement, since this wouldbe the first program of its nature in NYC.

This report does not provide a firm recommendation, but rather sets out the advantagesand disadvantages of the different alternatives to be presented to the Project AdvisoryCommittee (a committee representing local stakeholders, including the Brooklyn HeightsAssociation, the Boerum Hill Association, the Fort Greene Association, BrooklynCommunity Board #2, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and New York CityCouncil members Letitia James and David Yassky). This report is submitted in support of the committee’s objective to arrive at a well-informed position on this important parkingmanagement issue for the Downtown Brooklyn community.






Exec ut i ve Summ ary

St u d y A r e a Pr o f i l e

The 1.3-square mile study area consists of three residential neighborhoods immediatelyadjacent to Downtown Brooklyn: Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and Fort Greene. One of the most densely populated areas of the country, the Study Area is home to over 40,000residents, with a population density of roughly 32,000 residents per square mile. Thisdensity means that despite a very low rate of vehicle ownership among local residents, thedemand for resident parking is intense, with a very high rate of 6,063 resident-ownedvehicles per square mile.

Figure ES-1 shows a comparison of these characteristics across the Study Area and withinits neighborhoods.

Figure ES-1 Resident and Vehicle Densities in Downtown Brooklyn

Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Hts Fort Greene

Population 41,936 11,276 20,794 9,866

Total Vehicles 7,858 1,996 4,103 1,759

Vehicles per Household 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.41

Land Area (in square miles) 1.30 0.46 0.48 0.36

Residents per Square Mile 32,358 24,728 43,321 27,406

Vehicles per Square Mile 6,063.3 4,377.2 8,547.9 4,886.1

Approximate Number of RPP

Suitable Spaces 3,733 1,769 876 1,089

These unique characteristics present challenges to any management strategy for on-streetparking, with the intensity of residential demand presenting specific challenges for RPPimplementation. Existing regulation of on-street parking is fairly minimal, consisting of street cleaning restrictions and meters on commercial frontages. Any new form of on-streetmanagement will be a significant departure from the current “first-come, first-served”arrangements. Reviewing the nature and results of RPP programs in cities with comparablechallenges was therefore seen as a crucial component of the Feasibility Study.

Co m p a r a b l e C i t i e s Re v i e w

RPP programs are prevalent among U.S. cities and have proven an effective tool whenimplemented appropriately. While some challenges will be common among most cities,attention was given to the unique circumstances in Downtown Brooklyn when identifyingkey cities for comparison. Basic RPP program components among a set of 11 RPPprograms across North America were reviewed including:






Permit fees;

Implementation processes;

Number of permits offered per household;

Visitor parking accommodation;

Administrative approach; and

Enforcement authority.

With the help of the study’s Project Advisory Committee, three cities were identified asmost similar to Downtown Brooklyn, or as having innovative RPP elements, and wereexamined in depth – Boston, Washington, D.C., and Toronto.

All the programs which were reviewed require that neighborhoods petition for, and that amajority of their residents approve of, program implementation. Required majority levelsrange from 50% (Boston, MA and Portland, OR) to 80% (Chicago, IL). This factor couldpresent a serious barrier to RPP approval in Study Area neighborhoods where roughly two-thirds of all households own no vehicles and may perceive no benefit for supporting aconventional RPP program.

The successes, setbacks, and programmatic details among the three key comparable citiesprograms were examined through a series of interviews and review of agency and censusdata. Figure ES-2 presents a comparison of these cities with the Study Area.

Figure ES-2 Population and Vehicle Densities in Comparable Cities

Boston Washington, D.C. Toronto Study Area

Population 589,141 572,059 2,456,805 41,936


Residents per Square Mile 6,575.2 8,375.7 9,926.5 32,358

Vehicles per Square Mile 2,460.3 3,232.3 4,154.3 6,063.3

Each program operates where the level of residential demand, at least in someneighborhoods, is much greater than curb-space supply. Each city has set out unique goalsand approaches in response to this situation and offers three unique approaches to thischallenge that are worth examining.

The City of Boston has identified a modest goal for its RPP program of providingpreferential status for residents for the use of on-street spaces within their neighborhoods.The City charges no fee for its permits and markets the program as a public service to itsresidents. The program offers no provision of visitor or temporary permits, whichcontributes to annual citation revenue of over $7 million generated by the program.

Washington, D.C.’s program was initiated to protect on-street spaces in residentialneighborhoods from commuter demand generated by rail stations. It is the most traditional






of the three key comparable programs with modest permit fees and no explicit attempts tomanage resident demand (i.e., no limit on the number of permits distributed). As a result,parking remains difficult to find in many neighborhoods where residential densities arehigher. In response, changes are actively being sought to legislation that currently limitspermit fees and prevents restrictions on the number of permits per household.

Toronto’s program, initiated in various forms in the 1960s, is the oldest and at the sametime the least traditional program examined for this study. Its goal of ensuring on-streetavailability for permit-holders is maintained by capping the number of permits at thenumber of regulated on-street spaces. The City maintains a “wait list” to handle remainingdemand and uses a progressive pricing strategy to favor first permit availability for thosewithout off-street options. Permit fees are much higher than in U.S. cities and at $130 -$440 bring in over $5 million of revenue (excluding citations) that is directed to Cityenvironmental programs.

Ex i s t i n g Co n d i t i o n s A n a l y s i sThe existing conditions analysis was based on a review of existing studies and census data,combined with field surveys to quantify specific parking demand and supply conditions forthe Study Area. In summary, on-street parking in Downtown Brooklyn is effectively fullyoccupied day and night, which in turn causes a number of problems from congestion,pollution, and travel delays as motorists circle in search of a space, to the inconvenience of having to park far from local destinations. The field surveys provided information on:

Total supply of on-street spaces;

Occupancy and turnover rates for non-metered spaces;

Occupancy of metered spaces in Brooklyn Heights by vehicles with municipalparking permits; and

Occupancy by residents versus non-residents (shoppers, commuters, students, etc.)through vehicle registration data.

In addition to these direct surveys, printed questionnaires were distributed to on-streetparkers to solicit information on the following areas of parker behavior and attitude:

Time spent searching for an on-street space;

Purpose of the trip into the area;

Length of stay in the area;

Preferences and tendencies for choosing on-street parking over alternative options;

Proximity of parking space to eventual destination; and

Probable response to RPP program implementation.

Key findings from these efforts include:






There are approximately 3,700 on-street parking spaces in the Study Area whichwould be available for a potential RPP program;

Local residents occupy roughly half of all non-metered on-street spaces.

A significant proportion of local residents register their vehicles at alternate

locations in order to save on tax or insurance – one-third of all locally parkedvehicles are registered beyond New York City, and one-fifth are registered out of New York State;

On-street parking is almost fully occupied. Average weekday on-street parkingoccupancy for the Study Area is over 97%;

Mean length of stay for parked vehicles in the Study Area is just under 4 hours;

More than two-thirds of surveyed on-street parkers searched at least ten minutes fortheir spot, meaning that parking scarcity is a significant cause of traffic congestionon Downtown Brooklyn streets;

Cost is the primary incentive for choosing to park on-street. This is unsurprisinggiven the large price differential between on-street parking (free) and garage parking($200-$300/month);

Nearly 50 percent of respondents parked more than three blocks from their finaldestination; and

59 percent of non-residents indicated that they would seek parking on non-regulated streets if an RPP program was implemented.

Po l i c y O p t i o n Re v i e w

The findings reported above support the contention that the Study Area presents uniquefeasibility challenges for implementation of an RPP program. The study team thereforedeveloped a set of policy options for various forms of RPP programs that are tailored tothese unique opportunities and constraints. Beginning with a traditional RPP program andprogressively incorporating innovative strategies for managing residential parking demand,the benefits and drawbacks of each approach were identified and compared to thosepresented by the option of not implementing a RPP program.

A Traditional RPP Program would resemble many programs in other US cities, such asthose in Boston and Washington, D.C. It is characterized by modest permit fees, few limitson the number of permits available to each household, and some form of visitor and short-

term parking accommodation.

The strengths of such a program include:

Prioritized parking for residents;

Encouragement for local vehicle registration; and

Potential congestion benefits as search traffic is reduced.






Drawbacks for such a program include:

Lack of benefit to the non-car owning majority of local households, while makingvisitor and car rental parking more difficult for them;

Little/no net improvement in parking availability as latent demand from residentsreplaces demand from those now restricted – permits would serve as a “hunting

license” rather than as a guarantee of a space; and

No net revenue potential for a program requiring major implementation effort.

Incorporating a Wait List and Multi-Space Meters is one potential means for addressingthe high density of demand found in the Study Area. Similar to the program in Toronto, await list could be used to cap the number of permits to the number of regulated spaces.Multi-space meters could also be incorporated to allow for convenient, and more easilyenforced, temporary parking for non-permit holders.

The strengths of such an approach include:

Guaranteed availability for permit-holders;

Improved availability for non-residents;

Potential congestion benefits as search traffic is reduced;

Encouragement for local vehicle registration; and

Modest revenue benefit.

Drawbacks for such an approach include:

On-street parking option eliminated for residents on the wait list;

Little US precedent; and

May increase resident driving.

Another programmatic approach to local parking conditions would be to incorporateMarket Pricing strategies for RPP permit fees and meter rates. This would eliminate theneed for a wait list, as prices would be set to limit demand to the number of program-regulated spaces. Additionally, this option would increase revenues from non-residentparking while eliminating the problem of enforcing time restrictions by using demandresponsive pricing to manage turnover.


Guaranteed availability for permit-holders;

Improved availability for non-residents;

Potential congestion benefits as search traffic is reduced;

Encouragement for local registration; and






Significant revenue benefits (estimated at $9-$15 million annually, exclusive of citation revenue).


Those unwilling/unable to pay lose the on-street parking option;

Higher parking costs;

Little US precedent;

Undetermined legal feasibility; and

May increase resident driving rates.

The final option available is the No Action/Maintain Existing Regulations alternative andnot implementing any form of RPP. This option would maintain existing regulations –meters on commercial frontages and street cleaning restrictions only on residential streets.

This option has the advantages of simplicity of administration and enforcement, and wouldprovide equal access to public curbspace for all groups of users – including residents whoonly occasionally require parking. However, the potential benefits of the other options –such as ease in finding a space – would be foregone.


Avoids drawbacks of other options; and

Maintains free minimally regulated parking.


Search traffic continues to frustrate and cause congestion; and

Revenue potential lost.

In addition to these programmatic options the existence of three well-established andrecognized neighborhoods within the Study Area presents the option of implementing apilot program restricted to one or two neighborhoods, as well as implementing an area-wide pilot program.




Page 1-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

Chapt er 1. St udy Area Prof i le and

Review of Com parab les

I n t r o d u c t i o n

This chapter presents a profile of the Study Area while summarizing key parking conditionsidentified in previous studies. This profile serves as a basis for a review of RPP programs inseveral North American cities. Of these cities, Washington, D.C., Boston, Massachusetts,and Toronto, Ontario were determined to have similar demographic characteristics toDowntown Brooklyn (including dense neighborhoods and constraints on on-streetparking). This chapter details the specific elements of these comparable cities’ RPPprograms, with discussion of each one’s management, results, and lessons learned. Thischapter also includes a comparison of eight additional RPP programs to provide context forthe current study (see Figure 1-15).

St u d y A r e a

The study area consists of three residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent toDowntown Brooklyn: Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and Fort Greene (see Figure 1-3).The study area exemplifies the racial and ethnic diversity commonly found in urbandistricts. As shown in Figure 1-1, the area population is roughly half White and half non-White, with African-Americans making up about one-fourth of the population, representingthe largest minority population. The area’s median household income of nearly $60,000,also shown in Figure 1-1, is relatively high for an inner-city district (as will be seen later in

the comparison of other cities).

Figure 1-1 Race and Income in the Study Area

Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Study Area

Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share

All 11,276 100.0% 20,794 100.0% 9,856 100.0% 41,926 100.0%

White 5,640 50.0% 15,601 75.0% 1,988 20.2% 23,229 55.4%

Black or African American 1,898 16.8% 1,837 8.8% 5,611 56.9% 9,346 22.3%

Hispanic or Latino 2,582 22.9% 1,694 8.1% 1,458 14.8% 5,734 13.7%

Asian 514 4.6% 1,059 5.1% 372 3.8% 1,945 4.6%

Other 642 5.7% 603 2.9% 427 4.3% 1,672 4.0%

Median Household Income $57,427.75 $67,465.77 $42,533.08 $59,511.75

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

The 1.3-square mile study area is one of the most densely populated areas of the country.As shown in Figure 1-2 the area is home to more than 40,000 residents, with a populationdensity of approximately 32,000 people per square mile. This compares to under 25,000




Page 1 -2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

people per square mile in New York City and approximately 80 people per square mile inthe United States. The study area also includes nearly 8,000 vehicles, resulting in avehicle ownership rate of more than 6,000 vehicles per square mile. In comparison, thestudy area boasts an auto-ownership rate of 0.4 per household, which is one of the lowestin the country (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4).

Figure 1-2 Study Area Population

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

Study

Area

New York

City

United

States

Population 11,276 20,794 9,866 41,936 8,008,278 281,421,906

Land Area (in square miles) 0.46 0.48 0.36 1.30 321.8 3,794,083.1

Residents (per square mile) 24,728 43,321 27,406 32,358 24,886 80






Figure 1-4 Study Area Vehicular Densities

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

Study

Area

Households 4,883 10,535 4,336 19,754Land Area (in square miles) 0.46 0.48 0.36 1.30

Total Vehicles 1,996 4,103 1,759 7,858


Vehicles per Square Mile 4,377 8,548 4,886 6,063


The Neighborhoods

Boerum Hill

Bordered by Schermerhorn Street to the north and Warren Street to the south, Boerum Hilllies just south of the CBD. The neighborhood shares Court Street with Cobble Hill andBrooklyn Heights, and 4th Avenue with Park Slope. The Boerum Hill section of the studyarea includes the following census tracts and block groups (as presented in Figure 1-3):

Census Tract Census Block Groups

39 1, 2, 3, 4

41 1, 2, 3, 4

69 1, 4

71 1, 2

Since the 1970's, Boerum Hill’s historic brownstones have attracted multiple generationsof young homeowners. The section of Atlantic Avenue running through the neighborhoodis the antiques capitol of Brooklyn and boasts a concentration of Middle-Eastern foodestablishments known throughout the region.

Like the overall study area, Boerum Hill is marked by very low rates of vehicle ownership1.As shown in Figure 1-5, vehicles are available to only one-third of all households in thisneighborhood.

1For purposes of this report, vehicle ownership and vehicle availability are used interchangeably.





Figure 1-5 Boerum Hill Vehicle Availability

Number of Households Share

All Households 4,883 100%

Without Available Vehicle 3,147 64%With 1 Available Vehicle 1,565 32%

With 2 Available Vehicles 143 3%

With 3 or more Available Vehicles 28 1%

Total Available Vehicles 1,996 NA

Vehicles Per Household 0.41 NA


Brooklyn Heights

The Brooklyn Heights neighborhood is bounded by the East River, Old FultonStreet/Cadman Plaza West, Atlantic Avenue, and Court Street. It is one of the oldest andmost distinctive residential neighborhoods in New York City, with dozens of landmarked19th century brownstones lining narrow streets; these characteristics are exemplified in theBrooklyn Heights Historic District. The neighborhood gains its “Heights” distinction fromits occupation of a bluff that rises up sharply from the East River and gradually recedesinland. The Brooklyn Heights section of the study area includes the following censustracts and block groups (as presented in Figure 1-3):


1 1, 2, 3,

3.01 1, 2, 3, 55 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

7 1, 3

13 1

Brooklyn Heights is the most densely populated neighborhood in the study area, withmore than 43,000 residents living within 0.48 square miles (see Table 2). As shown inTable 5, two-thirds of neighborhood households do not have a vehicle available, and 97percent of households own less than two cars. Despite these ownership characteristics, theneighborhood’s compact setting results in a resident-owned vehicle density of well over

8,000 vehicles per square mile (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-6).





Figure 1-6 Brooklyn Heights Vehicle Availability



Without Available Vehicle 6,740 64%With 1 Available Vehicle 3,506 33%






Fort Greene

The portion of the greater Fort Greene neighborhood included in the study area iscomposed of two separate pieces of land situated around Fort Greene Park. A rectangle-shaped area just west of the park is bordered by Myrtle Ave to the north, Willoughby Streetto the south, and Flatbush Avenue to the west. The study area also includes the section of Fort Greene to the south of the park between Ashland Place and Adelphi Street, and northof Atlantic Avenue. The Fort Greene section of the study area includes the followingcensus tracts and block groups (as presented in Figure 1-3):


33 1, 2

35 1, 2

179 1, 2, 3181 1, 2, 3, 4

Fort Greene contains two city, state, and nationally registered historic districts: the FortGreene Historic District and the Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District. Theneighborhood is a center for in-migration for artists and young professionals, with newshops and restaurants appearing along its avenues. Local arts and culture institutionsinclude: the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the Mark Morris Dance Group, a new HighSchool of the Arts, a revitalized Brooklyn Music School, and the Alliance of ResidentTheatres/New York.

Like the other neighborhoods in the study area, Fort Greene is characterized by very lowvehicle ownership rates (see Figure 1-7). Fort Greene is the least densely populatedneighborhood within the study area (see Figure 1-1), and has the highest rate of households with more than one vehicle available, as shown in Figure 1-8.





Figure 1-7 Fort Greene Vehicle Availability



Without available vehicle 2,931 68%With 1 Available Vehicle 1,128 26%






Figure 1-8 Study Area Vehicle Availability by Neighborhood

Location Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Study AreaNumber Share Number Share Number Share Number Share

Households 4,883 100% 10,535 100% 4,336 100% 19,754 100%

Number of vehicles available:

0 3,147 64% 6,740 64% 2,931 68% 12,818 65%

1 1,565 32% 3,506 33% 1,128 26% 6,199 31%

2 or more 143 3% 270 3% 236 5% 649 3%

3 or more 28 1% 19 0% 41 1% 88 0%

Aggregate Vehicles 1,996 NA 4,103 NA 1,759 NA 7,858 NA

Vehicles Per

Household 0.41 NA 0.39 NA 0.41 NA 0.40 NA


Pr e v i o u s St u d i e s Re v i e w :

K e y Pa r k i n g Co n d i t i o n s

Several previous studies were reviewed to provide the context for the current RPP study,including historical trends regarding vehicle ownership and density, and variations withinthe study area. These previous studies include the Hoyt-Schermerhorn Parking Disposition

Survey (Empire State Development Corporation, 2001) and the Atlantic Avenue On-StreetPermit Parking Study (Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association, 2003).

While the three neighborhoods are dominantly residential, each is marked by a highlydiverse mixture of uses. Local residents are within easy walking distance of daily goodsand services, including virtually every line in the New York City subway system.Numerous entertainment, institutional, educational, cultural, and recreational uses are all





within easy access as well, and proximity to the Downtown Brooklyn CBD placesresidents nearby to large concentrations of employment.

These dense conditions foster a pedestrian-oriented character within the study area, andsupport the low vehicular-ownership patterns. However, the high residential densities, a

tight-knit street network, and development patterns that mostly pre-date the automobile,leave little room on local streets to accommodate the visitor and commuter parkingdemand also generated by these concentrations of non-residential uses.

Restricting the use of on-street spaces to residents therefore, may be a powerful tool forreducing the intensity of competition for these spaces, but it is not enough to eliminateshortages altogether. For this reason, the selection of peer cities RPP programs includedmunicipalities which face elevated levels of on-street demand.

Co m p a r a b l e C i t i e s Re v i e w

Similar to Downtown Brooklyn, the three comparable cites (Boston, Washington, D.C.,and Toronto) are each urban centers characterized by racially diverse populations (seeFigure 1-9). However, the median income (Figure 1-9) and population density (Figure 1-10)within the Brooklyn study area are significantly different from those in the comparablecities. These variations are attributed to the comparably narrow focus of the DowntownBrooklyn study versus the citywide demographics of the other cities. While certaincharacteristics differ between the cities, high vehicular densities, which may be the mostimportant demographic, are present in all three comparable cities (ranging fromapproximately 2,500 to 4,200 vehicles per square mile; see Figure 1-11).

Beyond the demographic similarities, the three peer cities were also selected due to thespecifics of their RPP programs and how well each city addresses its own parking shortfall.The applicability of any solution found in these cities to the study area can be assessedonce the details and the results of those solutions are examined.





Figure 1-9 Comparable Cities Race and Income

Location Boston Washington D.C. Toronto Study Area

Residents No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share

All 589,141 100.0% 572,059 100.0% 2,456,805 100.0% 41,936 100.0%White 290,972 49.4% 158,617 27.7% 1,405,680 57.2% 23,231 55.4%

Black or African American 138,902 23.6% 340,061 59.4% 204,075 8.3% 9,351 22.3%

Hispanic or Latino 85,199 14.5% 14,605 2.6% 712,515 2.2% 5,735 13.7%

Asian 44,084 7.5% 45,015 7.9% 54,350 29.0% 1,945 4.6%

Other 29,984 5.1% 13,761 2.4% 80,195 3.3% 1,672 4.0%

Median Household Income $39,629 $40,127 $49,345 $59,512

Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and Statistics Canada 2001.

Figure 1-10 Comparable Cities Population

Boston Washington D.C. Toronto Study Area

Population 589,141 572,059 2,456,805 41,936


Residents per Square Mile 6,575 8,376 9,926 32,358

Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and Statistics Canada 2001

Figure 1-11 Comparable Cities Vehicular Densities

Boston Washington D.C. Toronto Study Area

Households 239,528 248,338 943,300 19,754


Total Vehicles 220,445 220,766 1,028,197 7,858

Vehicles per Square Mile 2,460 3,232 4,154 6,063


Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; Statistics Canada 2001; and The 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey

(University of Toronto Data Management Group)





Boston, Massachusetts2

Boston, Massachusetts is the peer city that is most similar to the study area in terms of ageand style of development. Both are among the oldest urban centers in the country, withdevelopment patterns that were firmly set before the advent of the automobile and thesubsequent need for generous rights-of-way and storage capacities. It is however, the leastsimilar peer city in terms of vehicle density (see Figure 1-12) rates. Despite this fact, thenumber of permits issued under its RPP program greatly outnumbers the spaces theprogram regulates. In part, this is due to the fact that Boston’s program is the only peerprogram to neither charge for or limit the number of permits distributed. The disparitybetween residential demand and program supply, as well as the city’s acceptance of suchconstraints within its program, makes Boston a valuable program to evaluate.

Figure 1-12 Vehicle Availability – Boston

Boston Study Area

Number Percent Number Percent

Households 239,528 100% 19,754 100%

No vehicle available 83,608 35% 12,818 65%

1 vehicle available 106,269 44% 6,199 31%

2 or more vehicles 40,115 17% 649 3%

3 or more vehicles available 9,536 4% 88 0%

Aggregate Vehicles 220445 NA 7,858 NA

Vehicles Per Household 0.92 NA 0.40 NA

Vehicles Per Square Mile 2460.32 NA 6,063 NA


Background

The City of Boston has had some form of RPP Program since 1975; the program has beenin its current form since 1983. The initial goal was to provide local residents with anadvantage in obtaining on-street parking in their respective neighborhoods. The programwas initiated in reaction to elevated levels of on-street demand in residentialneighborhoods near commuter stations. The program currently operates in 16 uniqueneighborhoods throughout the city.

2Information on Boston’s program was collected directly from interviews with James Mansfield and Dan Hoffman of

the Boston Transportation Department.





Program Management

Administration

The Boston Transportation Department (BTD) administers the City’s RPP program, withfive full-time clerical staff positions. Enforcement is shared between BTD and the Boston

Police Department.

Implementation

Initiation of the RPP program within a neighborhood starts with an individual community’srequest for designation. BTD responds to this request with community meetings duringwhich the program is explained in detail. BTD also presents a plan with particularneighborhood needs and goals in mind. Following the meetings, neighborhood organizersmust circulate petitions and garner signatures in support of the program from 51 percent of the residents 18 years of age and older in the affected area.

The department also conducts a parking inventory in the proposed area, including anassessment of occupancy and non-resident occupancy rates. There are however, no fixedthresholds for these measures in making a designation decision.

Regulations

The days and times that the program’s restrictions are in effect vary from neighborhood toneighborhood, and are determined by the local residents as well as the types of usesgenerating non-resident demand.

Eligibility

All residents within program districts are eligible. There are no restrictions on the numberof permits that can be obtained by either individual or households. The Boston programdoes not provide permits for visitors. It does however offer each business one permit, theuse of which is restricted to business-registered vehicles.

Exemptions

The only exemption from permit regulations in program districts is for commercialvehicles, which are allowed three hours of parking while working within a permit-regulated area.

Fees

Boston’s permits are offered free of charge.





Financial Framework

Cost

The BTD does not keep track of program costs. The program is considered a benefit to thecitizens of Boston and is not subject to financial audit.

Revenue

In 2004, the department issued approximately 193,000 citations for RPP violations. Eachfine costs $40, resulting in $7,720,000 worth of issued fines. According to the BTD, theCity of Boston has one of the highest collection rates in the country for parking fines,estimated at roughly 90 percent. An estimated $7 million has therefore been collected andattributed to the RPP program. All revenues from these and other parking violations godirectly into the City’s General Fund.

Surplus Fund Uses

All funds go directly into a general fund.

Program Results

Successes and Setbacks

The defining characteristic guiding Boston’s RPP program is the fact that there are far morepermits than spaces. While the program has been successful in providing parkingpreferences to city residents, it has not addressed the high level of resident driven demand.

Key Strategies

According to the BTD, the two keys to the RPP program’s success are the lack of permitfees and the community involvement process included in district designation. The lack of fees helps sell the fact that these permits are not space reservations. The communityinvolvement requirements for district designation help to avoid the impression that theprogram is something the city “imposes” on its citizens.

New Strategies

The department recently revised its permit renewal process. Previously permits expiredyearly. As a cost savings measure (mailings of new permits were estimated to cost$100,000 annually), permits will now be valid for three years.

Washington, D.C.3

Washington, D.C. has a vehicle ownership rate nearly double that of the study area (seeFigure 1-13) its relatively low population density, however, brings its vehicle density level

3Information on Washington D.C.’s program was collected directly from interviews with Richard Rybeck of the

District’s Department of Transportation and Cheryl Cort of Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities.





well below that of the study area. Nonetheless, the city does have a number of program-regulated areas where residential demand alone overwhelms on-street supply.

Figure 1-13 Vehicle Availability – Washington, D.C.

Washington D.C. Study Area


Households 248,338 100% 19,754 100%



2 or more vehicles 38,395 15% 649 3%


Aggregate Vehicles 220,766 NA 7,858 NA


Vehicles Per Square Mile 3232.30 NA 6,063 NASource: 2000 U.S. Census

Background

The District of Columbia initiated its RPP program following the opening of the Metrorailsubway system (Metro) in 1976. The impetus for the program was a concern that parkingdemand generated by commuters would overwhelm residential streets surrounding Metrostations. The program has been very successful in meeting its initial goal of mitigating thiseffect. The focus of the program is currently expanding to address parking demand patternsin mixed-use neighborhoods where visitors to shopping and entertainment venues

compete with residents for on-street spaces.

Program Management

Administration

The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) designates permit zones and theDepartment of Motor Vehicles for the District (DMV) provides permits. The DistrictDepartment of Public Works (DDPW) employs “parking control aides” who enforceprogram restrictions and issue citations. The Metropolitan Police Department may alsoissue citations for RPP violations.

Implementation

New permit zones are initiated by citizen petition or by DDOT designation.

Regulations and Permits

Permits are restricted to local residents. The annual fee is currently $15, and is legislativelylimited to the cost of program administration. There is no limit on the number of permits





allowed for each household. Visitor permits can be obtained free of charge at local policestations by residents providing proof of residency.

Standard regulation hours are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., with hours in some neighborhoodsextending to 8:30 p.m. Non-permit holders are restricted to two-hours of parking during

these hours.

Program Results

Successes

According to representatives from DDOT and the Washington Regional Network forLivable Communities, the program has worked very well in shielding residential parkingsupplies from commuter demand. However, it has been suggested that this goal remainstoo narrow considering the potential for a more comprehensive street managementapproach, incorporating progressive pricing strategies for on-street permits. Such anexpanded approach would address issues including high levels of purely residentialdemand in certain neighborhoods.

Setbacks

Permit zones are drawn along the District’s relatively large Ward boundary lines, allowingpermit holders to park anywhere within the Ward in which they reside. This has led to asignificant amount of permit misuse among intra-Ward commuters who find their permitsvalid near job sites many neighborhoods away from, but within the same Ward as, theirhome.

Another setback has been a pattern of permit zoning that has left isolated patches of

residential streets, including single blocks of streets, outside of the program. Residents onthese streets are ineligible to receive permits, and therefore face severely limited localparking options.

New Strategies

Hours of residential permit regulation have been expanded into the evening in order toaddress growing parking demand from visitors to shopping and entertainment destinationsin mixed-use districts. Other suggestions have included multi-space meters, at whichpermit holders would be exempt.

Legislation is also being drafted to limit the number of permits issued per household tothree. This legislation also proposes to increase the fee for a household’s second and thirdpermits.

A special visitor’s permit program has been instituted in largely residential neighborhoodssurrounding Robert F. Kennedy Stadium in response to the recent introduction of professional baseball games at the stadium. This additional element exemplifies the RPP’s





adaptability, by responding to a new neighborhood element which alters parking patternswithout negatively impacting local residents.

An additional proposed modification currently being evaluated is to reduce the size of permit zones to remedy intra-Ward commuter parking pressure.

Toronto, Ontario4

Among the comparable cities, the City of Toronto, in Canada’s Ontario Province, has thehighest rates for both vehicle ownership and vehicles per square mile (see Figure 1-14).This intensity of residential vehicular use makes Toronto a particularly valuablecomparison city for Downtown Brooklyn.

Figure 1-14 Vehicle Availability – Toronto

Toronto Study Area


Households 943,300 100% 19,754 100%



2 or more vehicles 216,959 23% 649 3%


Aggregate Vehicles 1,028,197 NA 7,858 NA


Vehicles Per Square Mile 4154 NA 6,063 NA

Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; Statistics Canada 2001; and The 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (Universityof Toronto Data Management Group)

Background

The City of Toronto has operated an on-street RPP program, in one form or another, sincethe 1960’s. City-wide expansion of the program is currently under consideration.

The program was initiated to preserve on-street parking spaces for local residents in areaswhere residents own cars but have no access to off-street parking facilities, or in “areas of interest” where non-residential demand threatens to overwhelm on-street parking in

surrounding neighborhoods. In most cases this demand is the result of tourism, areaentertainment and services, or the proximity of transportation nodes.

4Information on Toronto’s program was collected directly from interviews with Eric Jensen and Angie Antoniou of the

City’s Transportation Services Division.





Program Management

Administration

The Permit Parking Branch of the city’s Transportation Services Division, under its Right of Way Management Section, administers the RPP program. Its restrictions, as well as all

other on-street parking regulations, are enforced by the Parking Enforcement Unit of theToronto Police Service.

Implementation

Designation of RPP districts is applied both on an area-wide basis and on a street-specificbasis, depending upon resident preference.

Implementation of the program is entirely resident driven. City law requires that a formalpoll of residents in a specific request area be undertaken. In order to establish a newdistrict or street, a favorability response rate of at least 51 percent is required. The law also

places a two-year moratorium on re-polling the same area or street after an unsuccessfulpoll.

Regulations

The RPP program is designed with flexible and adaptable operations, allowing significantdifferences in the hours of operation within each permit area. Within Toronto, there arecurrently 54 unique combinations of permit parking operating hours, which weredeveloped over time and in response to specific concerns (e.g., long-term commuterparking). These hours of operation are clearly posted at regular intervals on each streetlicensed for permit parking.

Permit regulations may be established for specific streets, instead of larger areas. In street-specific locations, residents are only granted permits for parking on their block of residence. In the larger permitted areas, residents may park on any licensed street withintheir permit area, but are not guaranteed a parking space on their specific street.

Eligibility

Permits are restricted to residents who present a valid driver’s license and local vehicleregistration with their applications. Residents are not restricted in the number of permitsthey may obtain. All citizens residing within permit regulated districts, or on permitregulated streets, are eligible. Consideration has been given to the issuance of permits tomembers of “auto share” groups and those who can demonstrate frequent rental car use.Permits for businesses or places of employment are not available.

Wait List

The total number of permits for each street or district is limited to the actual number of regulated on-street spaces available. When no spaces remain within a district or on astreet, no more permits are issued and a “wait list” is created for the remaining qualified





permit applicants. In cases where a wait list exists, residents with multiple permits may beforced to surrender a permit to those on the wait list with none. This process begins withthe person holding the highest number of permits.

ExemptionsOnly vehicles displaying a valid “Disabled Persons” parking permit are exempt frompermit program restrictions.

Fees

Permit fees vary according to a priority system based on need as reflected below:

First vehicle for residents with no access to on-site parking: $10.70/month

Second and subsequent vehicles for residents with no access to on-site parking:$26.75/month

All vehicles for residents with access to on-site parking: $37.45/month

Temporary (resident/visitor) parking permits are available for streets or districts where 90percent or less of permits have been issued. These permits allow weekly on-street parkingwithin the limits of a permit parking street or area, up to a maximum of eight consecutiveweeks, at a cost of $14.98 per week.

Financial Framework

Cost

Annual program costs, including leasing of vehicles for inspectors, office/permit supplies,staffing, and administrative overhead is roughly estimated at $550,000.00.

Revenue

Toronto’s program generates approximately $5.5 million in net revenue annually throughthe sale of permanent and temporary permits. Although specific dollar values for ticketrevenues attributable to permit parking are not available, it is estimated that an additionalseveral hundred thousand dollars are collected each year from enforcement of programrestrictions.

Surplus Fund UsesSurplus program funds are placed in general Transportation Services Department accountsthat fund the majority of the City’s “green” environmental programs and the “Clean andBeautiful City” initiative.





Program Results

Successes

The program has been highly effective in ensuring that on-street spaces are available forthose residents who need them. Enforcement is considered to be highly effective and

supportive of this objective.

Setbacks

The only notable program setback has been the integration of separate programs followingthe 1998 municipal amalgamation that incorporated seven municipalities into greaterToronto. Issues associated with this integration were not attributed to the RPP programand have since been mitigated.

Key Strategies

Toronto, like Downtown Brooklyn, is characterized by high residential densities along itsprogram streets. Permit districts regulate 73,212 on-street spaces for an approximateresidential population of 800,000. As a result, permit demand greatly outstrips controlledsupply in many neighborhoods. Strategies implemented to address this situation include:

The establishment of a wait list policy

Pricing Strategies:

– High base permit fee;

– An escalating fee structure that provides a disincentive for second andsubsequent vehicle permits, as well as to those seeking a permit despite access

to off-street parking.

Summary: Methods of AddressingElevated Residential Parking Demand

All three comparable cities face the constraint of high residential parking demand, where,at least in some program areas, resident demand is greater than available on-street supply.Each program has addressed this constraint differently, as summarized below, and eachmethod is recommended for consideration in the Brooklyn RPP.

Boston – No Fees

The BTD in Boston implemented a no fee strategy to avoid the impression that a parkingpermit was a guarantee of a parking space near one’s home. This represents an acceptanceof parking shortages in the face of resident demand. By having no fee attached to thepermit however, the department believes it is easier to sell the program as a means forgiving residents preferential parking treatment in their own neighborhoods.





Washington, D.C. – Pricing and Permit Limits

The District’s supply constraints are less systemic than the other peer cities, though it isclear that there are numerous individual neighborhoods where residential demand is muchgreater than on-street supply. So far the program has operated in these areas without

attempts to mitigate this demand. The DDOT is, however, now seeking to limit thenumber of permits allowed to individual households, and to charge a higher fee for secondand third permits issued to the same household. In doing so the department has identifiedpricing and permit restrictions as potential tools for mitigating residential permit demand inthe District.

Toronto – Aggressive Pricing Structures and Wait Lists

Toronto’s Transportation Services Division has set a base fee for permits that is nearly tentimes higher than Washington, D.C.’s. Beyond this base fee, it charges more than twice asmuch for second and subsequent permits issued to single households. For residents with

on-site options the fee is set at more than three times the base rate.

In addition to the pricing strategy’s objective of reducing permit demand, the programattempts to ensure parking availability for its permit holders by restricting the total numberof permits issued in each district to the number of parking spaces that exist. Once allpermits have been issued, a wait list is initiated. Further, residents with no on-site parkingoptions seeking initial permits are given preference. Those with multiple permits may loseall but one permit when those lacking a permit are placed on a wait list.

Toronto’s two-fold approach is by far the most aggressive in dealing with elevated levels of purely residential parking demand in its neighborhoods. It not only places an absolutelimit on the number of permits issued to match available spaces, but it has also usedpricing strategies to discourage multiple-permit applications as well as applicants withobvious on-site parking alternatives.





Chapt er 2. Ex is t ing Condi t ions Sur vey

T h e T u r n o v e r Su r v e y

An integral part of the study of on-street parking conditions in the Study Area was a surveyof parking occupancy levels and turnover rates during weekday mornings and afternoons.Occupancy refers to the number of parking spaces utilized throughout the day. Turnoverrefers to the length of time each vehicle occupies each parking space.

Thirty-nine blocks were randomly selected from among the non-metered blocks in theStudy Area (see Figure 2-1). Blocks to be surveyed were randomly selected in advance toprovide a statistically significant representation of the Study Area (see Appendix C for thecomplete data collection plan). These blocks were surveyed hourly between 10AM to5PM to document the location and identity (license plate) of each vehicle parked alongthese blocks. This data was matched with a previously established inventory of parkingspaces within the Study Area to calculate occupancy levels and turnover rates for eachblock.

Data was collected through field observation of the Study Area on Tuesday, September20th, when schools were in session, no significant holidays were being observed, andparking regulations were enforced. These efforts were undertaken to assess existingparking behavior within the Study Area during typical hours of RPP enforcement (8AM –5PM). Where alternate side of the street regulations were in effect during a count,vehicles double parked on the permitted side of the street were counted as parked legally.

Surveyors also noted the presence and type of any vehicles with municipal agency issued

parking permit placards. The location and volume of such vehicles were then calculatedfor each block.





This page intentionally left blank



Fort Greene Park

BQE

D E A N S T

H E N R Y

S T

A T L A N T I C A V

S T A T E S T

F U L T O N S T

B E R G E N S T

B Q E

C N T G

H Y

C L I N

T O N

S T

MY RT LE AV

S M

I T H S

T

C L I N T O N A V

3 A V

C O U R T

S T

P AR K AV

A D E L P H I S T

V A N D E R B I L T A V

C L E R M O N T A V

4 A V

C A R L T O N A V

F U R M A N S T

U N I O N S T

N E V I N S

S T

5 S T

S A C K E T T S T

H O Y T

S T

D E G R A W S T

2 S T

5 A V

3 S T

L I V I N G S T O N S T

1 P L

A D A M S S T

F L A T B U S H A V

K A N E S T

A S H L A N D P L

P AC I F I C S T

W A V E R L Y

A V

T ILLARY ST

B O N D

S T

L A F A Y E T T E A V

A 1

V

6 A V

FLUSHING AV

H I C K S

S T

F L A T B U S H A V E X

S C H E R M E R H O R N S T

8 S T

B A L T I C S T

W ILLOUGHBY ST

S E

C N I

R P

T

W A S H I N G T O N A V

C A D M A N P Z W

B K B R A P

M O N T A G U E S T

A M I T Y S T

W I L L O

W S T

C L A R K S T

C O N G R E S S S T

D O U G L A S S S T

M ARK ET ST

S E L L I O T T P L

F T G R E E N E P L

S P O R T L A N D A V

C O L U M B I A H T S

G R E E N E A V

C A D M A N P Z E

C U M B E R L A N D S T

R E M S E N S T

S T F E L I X S T

8 A V

CONCORD ST

B U T L E R S T

M A N H B R A P

PAULDING ST

C O L U

M B I A

S T

J A Y

S T

4 ST

W A R R E N S T

M O R R

I S A V

H A N S O N P L

C A R R O LL S T

P I E R R E P O N T S T

PROSPECT ST

W Y C K O F F S T

S T M A R K ' S P L

W ILLOUGHBY AV

P R E S I D E N T S T

N P O R T L A N D A V

S O X F O R D S T

B Q E E N N B

DE K ALB AV

SOUT H ST

7 A V

M I D D A G H S T

G O L D

S T

S E

C N E

R W A

L

T

O R A N G E S T P I N E A P P LE S T

W A S H I N G T O N P K

D O C K A V

A S S E M B L Y R D

1 4 A V

N O X F O R D

W K

L O V E L A

G R A C E C T

S ANDS ST

H U D S O N A V

T I F F A N Y

P L

S I D N E Y

P L

Y ORK ST

F L E E T

S T

T ECH PL

J O R ALE M O N S T

M O N R O E P L

B O E R U M P L

C R A N B E R R Y S T

N A V Y S T

S T R

O N G

P L

N ASS AU ST

2 P L

O L D

F U L T O

N S T

C H E E V E R

P L

P E A R L S T

G A R D E N

P L

P O P L A R S T

G A T E S A V

R O C K W E L L P L

E L M

P L

W I L L O

W P L

N

E L L I O

T T P L

P

T E E

L F

L

D U F F I E L D

S T

N O X F O R D S T

T O M P K I N S

P L

S

E G D I

R B

T

CH APEL ST

V I N E S T

A U B U R N P L

M O N U M E N T W K

U N I V E R

S I T Y

P Z

H U N T S L A

JOHNSON ST

B Q E E

T S B

C O L U M B I A

P L

P E R R Y

A V

CAT HEDR AL PL

C O U R T

S Q

W A S H I N G T O N S T

B Q E E N S B

B Q E

E T

N B

HIGH ST

METROTECH W K

S T E D W A R D ' S S T

W Y V

A N

K

BK BR ET RP

G A L L A

T I N P L

H A N O V E R

P L

O R D N A N C E A V

A L B E E

S Q

B Q E R P

C H A U N C E Y A V

W A R R

I N G T O N A V

W A R

R E N

P L

F L E E T A L

F L E E T W K

T I M E S P Z

M C D O N O

U G H A V

AC AD E M Y P K P L

PED OVPS

G R A C E C O U R T A L

P I E R R E P O N T P L

A T L A N T I C C O

M M O N S

B Q E E N N B

C H A U N C E Y A V

B U T L E R S T

B Q E C N T G

H Y

P A C I F I C S T

B Q E

W A R R E N S T

P ARK AV

B O E R U M P L

B A L T I C S T

B Q E E N

N B

W A R R E N S T

N A V Y S T P A C I F I C S T

H I C K S S T

P E R R Y A V

B Q E C N T G H Y

S O X F O R D S T

A D E L P H I S T

S D L

O G

T

D O U G L A S S S T


W A R R E N S T

S

D L E I

F F U

D

T

B Q E E

N S B

BROOKLYN, NY

Source: NYDOT, New York City Planning Dept, and ES

Brooklyn Study Area

Borough of Brooklyn

Parking Meters

Eligible Blocks

Study Area Blocks

Parks

0 0.50.25Miles

igure 2-1 Turnover Survey-Eligible Blocks

Turnover Survey-Eligible Bloc





Occupancy

Study Area

Occupancy rates were consistently high throughout the day within the overall Study Area,and individually within each of the three neighborhoods; see Figure 2-2 (The onlyexception to the high occupancy rate was midday in Fort Greene, when occupancy dropsto 57 percent.) The Study Area reached peak occupancy around 1 PM when 433 vehicleswere observed compared to a supply of 434 parking spaces (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4).

Figure 2-2 Study Area Occupancy

Occupancy

Study

Area

Brooklyn

Heights

Boerum

Hill

Fort

Greene

Total Spaces 434 137 186 111

Total Space Hours 3028 959 1302 767

Occupied Space Hours 2939 1047 1242 650Double-Parked-Vehicle Space Hours 15 7 8 0

Total Number of Vehicles Parked 703 248 262 193

Overall occupancy (%) 97.06% 109.18% 95.39% 84.75%

Overall occupancy, including Double Parking (%) 97.56% 109.91% 96.01% 84.75%

Figure 2-3 Study Area Hourly Occupancy

Occupancy by

the Hour Study Area

Brooklyn

Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene

10:00 AM 95.85% 105.84% 96.24% 82.88%11:00 AM 98.39% 109.49% 99.46% 82.88%

12:00 PM 92.86% 113.14% 99.46% 56.76%

1:00 PM 99.77% 113.14% 97.85% 86.49%

2:00 PM 98.16% 107.30% 92.47% 96.40%

3:00 PM 97.00% 108.03% 90.32% 94.59%

4:00 PM 95.16% 107.30% 91.94% 85.59%

Note: Occupancy of greater than 100% indicates vehicles parked in locations not designated for parking.





This page intentionally left blank



Fort Greene Park

BQE

D E A N S T

H E N R Y

S T

A T L A N T I C A V

S T A T E S T

F U L T O N S T

B E R G E N S T

B Q E

C N T G

H Y

C L I N

T O N

S T

MY RT LE AV

S M

I T H S

T

C L I N T O N A V

3 A V

C O U R T

S T

P AR K AV

A D E L P H I S T


C L E R M O N T A V

4 A V

C A R L T O N A V

F U R M A N S T

U N I O N S T

N E V I N S

S T

5 S T

S A C K E T T S T

H O Y T

S T

D E G R A W S T

2 S T

5 A V

3 S T


1 P L

A D A M S S T

F L A T B U S H A V

K A N E S T

A S H L A N D P L

P AC I F I C S T

W A V E R L Y

A V

T ILLARY ST

B O N D

S T


1 A V

6 A V

FLUSHING AV

H I C K S

S T



8 S T

B A L T I C S T

W ILLOUGHBY ST

P R I N C E S T


C A D M A N P Z W

B K B R A P

M O N T A G U E S T

A M I T Y S T

W I L L O

W S T

C L A R K S T

C O N G R E S S S T

D O U G L A S S S T

M ARK ET ST

S E L L I O T T P L

F T G R E E N E P L



G R E E N E A V

C A D M A N P Z E


R E M S E N S T

S T F E L I X S T

8 A V

CONCORD ST

B U T L E R S T

M A N H B R A P

PAULDING ST

C O L U

M B I A

S T

J A Y

S T

4 ST

W A R R E N S T

M O R R

I S A V

H A N S O N P L

C A R R O LL S T


PROSPECT ST

W Y C K O F F S T

S T M A R K ' S P L

W ILLOUGHBY AV



S O X F O R D S T

B Q E E N N B

DE K ALB AV

SOUT H ST

7 A V

M I D D A G H S T

G O L D

S T

L A W R E N C E S T



D O C K A V

A S S E M B L Y R D

1 4 A V

N O X F O R D

W K

L O V E L A

G R A C E C T

S ANDS ST

H U D S O N A V

T I F F A N Y

P L

S I D N E Y

P L

Y ORK ST

F L E E T

S T

T ECH PL

J O R ALE M O N S T

M O N R O E P L

B O E R U M P L


N A V Y S T

S T R

O N G

P L

N ASS AU ST

2 P L

O L D

F U L T O

N S T

C H E E V E R

P L

P E A R L S T

G A R D E N

P L

P O P L A R S T

G A T E S A V

R O C K W E L L P L

E L M

P L

W I L L O

W P L

N

E L L I O

T T P L

F L

E E T

P L

D U F F I E L D

S T

N O X F O R D S T

T O M P K I N S

P L

B R I D G E

S T

CH APEL ST

V I N E S T

A U B U R N P L

M O N U M E N T W K

U N I V E R

S I T Y

P Z

H U N T S L A

JOHNSON ST

B Q E E

T S B

C O L U M B I A

P L

P E R R Y

A V

CAT HEDR AL PL

C O U R T

S Q


B Q E E N S B

B Q E

E T

N B

HIGH ST

METROTECH W K


N A

V Y

W K

BK BR ET RP

G A L L A

T I N P L

H A N O V E R

P L

O R D N A N C E A V

A L B E E

S Q

B Q E R P

C H A U N C E Y A V

W A R R

I N G T O N A V

W A R

R E N

P L

F L E E T A L

F L E E T W K

T I M E S P Z

M C D O N O

U G H A V

AC AD E M Y P K P L

PED OVPS



A T L A N T I C C O

M M O N S

B Q E E N N B

C H A U N C E Y A V

B U T L E R S T

B Q E C N T G

H Y

P A C I F I C S T

B Q E

W A R R E N S T

P ARK AV

B O E R U M P L

B A L T I C S T

B Q E E N

N B

W A R R E N S T


H I C K S S T

P E R R Y A V

B Q E C N T G H Y

S O X F O R D S T

A D E L P H I S T

G O L D S T

D O U G L A S S S T


W A R R E N S T

D U F F I E L D

S T

B Q E E

N S B

BROOKLYN, NY


Brooklyn Study Area

Borough of Brooklyn

Parking Meters

Study Area Blocks

Parks

0 0.50.25Miles

gure 2-4 Overall Occupancy

Overall Occupancy

50 - 75 %

75 - 100 %

100 - 110 %

110 - 135 %





Brooklyn Heights

The highest occupancy levels of the survey were found in the Brooklyn Heightsneighborhood (see Figure 2-5). As presented in Figure 2-6, overall occupancy for theneighborhood was over 100 percent throughout the day, and peaked at just over 113

percent from Noon to 1 PM (155 cars compared to 137 parking spaces).

Figure 2-5 Brooklyn Heights Occupancy

Occupancy Brooklyn Heights Study Area

Total Spaces 137 434

Total Space Hours 959 3028

Occupied Space Hours 1047 2939

Double-Parked-Vehicle Space Hours 7 15

Total Number of Vehicles Parked 248 703

Overall occupancy (%) 109.18% 97.06%

Overall occupancy, including Double Parking (%) 109.91% 97.56%

Figure 2-6 Brooklyn Heights Hourly Occupancy

Occupancy by the Hour Brooklyn Heights Study Area

10:00 AM 105.84% 95.85%

11:00 AM 109.49% 98.39%

12:00 PM 113.14% 92.86%

1:00 PM 113.14% 99.77%

2:00 PM 107.30% 98.16%3:00 PM 108.03% 97.00%

4:00 PM 107.30% 95.16%

Note: Occupancy of greater than 100% indicates vehicles parked in locations not designated for parking.





Boerum Hill

Boerum Hill’s highest occupancy levels were observed in the early part of the day,remaining at 96 percent or higher from the beginning of the survey through 1 PM (seeFigure 2-7). Occupancy dropped slightly in the afternoon, but remained steady at

approximately 91% from 2 PM to the conclusion of the survey (see Figure 2-8).

Figure 2-7 Boerum Hill Occupancy

Occupancy Boerum Hill Study Area





Total Number of Vehicles Parked 262 703

Overall occupancy (%) 95.39% 97.06%Overall occupancy, including Double Parking (%) 96.01% 97.56%

Figure 2-8 Boerum Hill Hourly Occupancy

Occupancy by the Hour Boerum Hill Study Area

10:00 AM 96.24% 95.85%

11:00 AM 99.46% 98.39%

12:00 PM 99.46% 92.86%

1:00 PM 97.85% 99.77%

2:00 PM 92.47% 98.16%3:00 PM 90.32% 97.00%

4:00 PM 91.94% 95.16%





Fort Greene

Occupancy levels within Fort Greene varied much more significantly throughout the daythan in the other neighborhoods. In the morning, occupancy remained at a steady 83percent, before dropping to 57 percent during the Noon hour, and rising back up into the

mid-80’s again by 1 PM (see Figure 2-9). Occupancy then rose into the high 90’s for thenext two hours and then dropped back into the 80’s in the late afternoon (see Figure 2-10).

Figure 2-9 Fort Greene Occupancy

Occupancy Fort Greene Study Area





Total Number of Vehicles Parked 193 703Overall occupancy (%) 84.75% 97.06%

Overall occupancy, including Double Parking (%) 84.75% 97.56%

Figure 2-10 Fort Greene Hourly Occupancy1

Occupancy by the Hour Fort Greene Study Area

10:00 AM 82.88% 95.85%

11:00 AM 82.88% 98.39%

12:00 PM 56.76% 92.86%

1:00 PM 86.49% 99.77%2:00 PM 96.40% 98.16%

3:00 PM 94.59% 97.00%

4:00 PM 85.59% 95.16%

1Alternate side of the street parking regulations were in effect the date of the survey, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.





Turnover

Study Area

The average length of stay for vehicles parked within the Study Area was just under four

hours. As presented in Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-13, approximately 41 percent of vehiclesstayed less than three hours, while just over 48 percent remained parked at least fivehours.

Figure 2-11 Study Area Rates of Turnover

Turnover Study Area

Brooklyn

Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene

Mean Parking Stay (Hours) 3.94 4.22 4.74 2.75

% of Vehicles Staying Less Than 3 Hours 40.88% 44.35% 29.77% 49.58%

% of Vehicles Staying 5 or More Hours 48.26% 44.35% 59.16% 40.25%

Brooklyn Heights

Turnover in Brooklyn Heights was slightly higher than the Study Area average, withvehicles remaining parked for just over four and one quarter hours on average (see Figure2-12). Vehicles in this area were evenly split between those staying less than three hoursand those staying at least five hours.

Figure 2-12 Brooklyn Heights Rates of Turnover

TurnoverBrooklynHeights Study Area

Mean Parking Stay (Hours) 4.22 3.94

% of Vehicles Staying Less Than 3 Hours 44.35% 40.88%

% of Vehicles Staying 5 or More Hours 44.35% 48.26%



Fort Greene Park

BQE

D E A N S T

H E N R Y

S T

A T L A N T I C A V

S T A T E S T

F U L T O N S T

B E R G E N S T

B Q E

C N T G

H Y

C L I N

T O N

S T

MY RT LE AV

S M

I T H S

T

C L I N T O N A V

3 A V

C O U R T

S T

P AR K AV

A D E L P H I S T


C L E R M O N T A V

4 A V

C A R L T O N A V

F U R M A N S T

U N I O N S T

N E V I N S

S T

5 S T

S A C K E T T S T

H O Y T

S T

D E G R A W S T

2 S T

5 A V

3 S T


1 P L

A D A M S S T

F L A T B U S H A V

K A N E S T

A S H L A N D P L

P AC I F I C S T

W A V E R L Y

A V

T ILLARY ST

B O N D

S T


A 1

V

6 A V

FLUSHING AV

H I C K S

S T

F L A T

B U S H A V E X


8 S T

B A L T I C S T

W ILLOUGHBY ST

S E

C N I

R P

T


C A D M A N P Z W

B K B R A P

M O N T A G U E S T

A M I T Y S T

W I L L O

W S T

C L A R K S T

C O N G R E S S S T

D O U G L A S S S T

M ARK ET ST

S E L L I O T T P L

F T G R E E N E P L



G R E E N E A V

C A D M A N P Z E


R E M S E N S T

S T F E L I X S T

8 A V

CONCORD ST

B U T L E R S T

M A N H B R A P

PAULDING ST

C O L U

M B I A

S T

J A Y

S T

4 ST

W A R R E N S T

M O R R

I S A V

H A N S O N P L

C A R R O LL S T


PROSPECT ST

W Y C K O F F S T

S T M A R K ' S P L

W ILLOUGHBY AV



S O X F O R D S T

B Q E E N N B

DE KALB AV

SOUT H ST

7 A V

M I D D A G H S T

G O L D S T

S E

C N E

R W A

L

T



D O C K A V

A S S E M B L Y

R D

1 4 A V

N O X F O R D W

K

L O V E L A

G R A C E C T

S ANDS ST

H U D S O N A V

T I F F A N Y

P L

S I D N E Y

P L

Y ORK ST

F L E E T

S T

T ECH PL

J O R ALE M O N S T

M O N R O E P L

B O E R U M P L


N A V Y S T

S T R

O N G

P L

N ASS AU ST

2 P L

O L D

F U L T O N S T

C H E E V E R

P L

P E A R L S T

G A R D E N

P L

P O P L A R S T

G A T E S A V

R O C K W E L L P L

E L M

P L

W I L L O

W P L

N E L L I O

T T P L

P

T E E

L F

L

D U F F I E L D

S T

N O X F O R D S T

T O M P K I N S

P L

S

E G

D I R B

T

CH APEL ST

V I N E S T

A U B U R N P L

M O N U M E N T W K

U N I V E

R S I T Y

P Z

H U N T S L A

JOHNSON ST

B Q E E

T S B

C O L U M B I A

P L

P E R R Y

A V

C AT HEDR AL PL

C O U R T

S Q


B Q E E N S B

B Q E

E T

N B

HIGH ST

METROTECHW K


W Y V

A N

K

BK BR ET RP

G A L L A

T I N P L

H A N O V E R

P L

O R D N A N C E A V

A L B E E

S Q

B Q E R P

C H A U N C E Y A V

W A R R I N G

T O N A V

W A R

R E N

P L

F L E E T A L

F L E E T W K

T I M E S P Z

M C D O N O

U G H A V

AC AD E M Y P K P L

PED OVPS



A T L A N T I C C O

M M O N S

B Q E E N N B

C H A U N C E Y A V

B U T L E R S T

B Q E C N T G

H Y

P A C I F I C S T

B Q E

W A R R E N S T

P ARK AV

B O E R U M P L

B A L T I C S T

B Q E E N

N B

W A R R E N S T


H I C K S S T

P E R R Y A V

B Q E C N T G H Y

S O X F O R D S T

A D E L P H I S T

S D L

O G

T

D O U G L A S S S T


W A R R E N S T

S

D L E I

F F

U D

T

B Q E E

N S B

BROOKLYN, NY

Brooklyn Study Area

Borough of Brooklyn

Parking Meters

Study Area Blocks

Parks

Source: NYDOT, New York City Planning Dept, and ES0 0.50.25Miles

igure 2-13 Mean Parking Stay (Hours)

Mean Parking Stay (Hour

1.75 - 2.00

2.01 - 4.00

4.01 - 5.00

5.01 - 6.24

Brooklyn Study Area

Borough of Brooklyn

0 0.50.25Miles

Parking Meters

Study Area Blocks

Parks


Mean Parking Stay (Hours

1.75 - 2.00

2.01 - 4.00

4.01 - 5.00

5.01 - 6.24





Boerum Hill

Turnover patterns in this neighborhood displayed a stronger long-term utilization trendcompared to the rest of the Study Area. Lengths of stay averaged close to five hours withnearly 60 percent of vehicles staying at least five hours (see Figure 2-14).

Figure 2-14 Boerum Hill Rates of Turnover

Turnover

Boerum

Hill

Study

Area




Fort Greene

Turnover within the Fort Greene neighborhood was much more frequent compared to theStudy Area. The average length of stay was two hours and 45 minutes (see Figure 2-15).Approximately half of all parked vehicles stayed for less than three hours, with only 40percent staying as long as five hours. Note: The turnover survey in Fort Greene occurredon a day with alternative side of the street parking regulations in effect. Where thisoccurred, vehicles double parked on the permitted side of the street were counted asparked legally.

Figure 2-15 Fort Greene Rates of Turnover

TurnoverFort

GreeneStudyArea








Placard Occupancies

Study Area

Overall, vehicles displaying municipal agency parking-permits accounted for

approximately five percent of all occupied space-hours in the Study Area (138 out of 2,939; see Figure 2-16 and Figure 2-18). The New York City Police Department, the FireDepartment of New York City, and the New York City Department of Transportationaccounted for 107 of the 138 hours, with 45, 32, and 30 hours, respectively.

Vehicles with permits accounted for 25 percent or more of the occupied space hours ononly four of the 39 blocks surveyed. While vehicles with permits are perceived as utilizinga large portion of the on-street parking supply, the parking turnover survey indicates thesevehicles are a less significant factor, at least on un-metered streets. (The survey of meteredblocks in Brooklyn Heights will provide a more detailed representation of the parkingpatterns for these vehicles.)

Figure 2-16 Study Area Placard Parking

Study Area Brooklyn Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene

Occupancy by

Permit Type

Space

Hours Share

Space

Hours Share

Space

Hours Share

Space

Hours Share

No Permit 2801 95.30% 984 93.98% 1171 94.28% 646 99.38%

All Permits 138 4.70% 63 6.02% 71 5.72% 4 0.62%

NYPD 45 1.53% 13 1.24% 28 2.25% 4 0.62%

FDNY 32 1.09% 0 0.00% 32 2.58% 0 0.00%

NYCDOT 30 1.02% 23 2.20% 7 0.56% 0 0.00%

Brooklyn Heights

Vehicles with government permits accounted for six percent of the occupied space hoursin this neighborhood (see Figure 2-17).

Figure 2-17 Brooklyn Heights Agency-Permit Parking

Brooklyn Heights Study AreaOccupancy by

Permit TypeSpace

Hours Share

Space

Hours ShareNo Permit 984 93.98% 2801 95.30%

All Permits 63 6.02% 138 4.70%

NYPD 13 1.24% 45 1.53%

FDNY 0 0.00% 32 1.09%

NYCDOT 23 2.20% 30 1.02%



Fort Greene Park

BQE

D E A N S T

H E N R Y

S T

A T L A N T I C A V

S T A T E S T

F U L T O N S T

B E R G E N S T

B Q E

C N T G

H Y

C L I N

T O N

S T

MY RT LE AV

S M

I T H S

T

C L I N T O N A V

3 A V

C O U R T

S T

P AR K AV

A D E L P H I S T


C L E R M O N T A V

4 A V

C A R L T O N A V

F U R M A N S T

U N I O N S T

N E V I N S

S T

5 S T

S A C K E T T S T

H O Y T

S T

D E G R A W S T

2 S T

5 A V

3 S T


1 P L

A D A M S S T

F L A T B U S H A V

K A N E S T

A S H L A N D P L

P AC I F I C S T

W A V E R L Y

A V

T ILLARY ST

B O N D

S T


1 A V

6 A V

FLUSHING AV

H I C K S

S T



8 S T

B A L T I C S T

W ILLOUGHBY ST

P R I N C E S T


C A D M A N P Z W

B K B R A P

M O N T A G U E S T

A M I T Y S T

W I L L O

W S T

C L A R K S T

C O N G R E S S S T

D O U G L A S S S T

M ARK ET ST

S E L L I O T T P L

F T G R E E N E P L



G R E E N E A V

C A D M A N P Z E


R E M S E N S T

S T F E L I X S T

8 A V

CONCORD ST

B U T L E R S T

M A N H B R A P

PAULDING ST

C O L U

M B I A

S T

J A Y

S T

4 ST

W A R R E N S T

M O R R

I S A V

H A N S O N P L

C A R R O LL S T


PROSPECT ST

W Y C K O F F S T

S T M A R K ' S P L

W ILLOUGHBY AV



S O X F O R D S T

B Q E E N N B

DE K ALB AV

SOUT H ST

7 A V

M I D D A G H S T

G O L D

S T

L A W R E N C E S T



D O C K A V

A S S E M B L Y R D

1 4 A V

N O X F O R D

W K

L O V E L A

G R A C E C T

S ANDS ST

H U D S O N A V

T I F F A N Y

P L

S I D N E Y

P L

Y ORK ST

F L E E T

S T

T ECH PL

J O R ALE M O N S T

M O N R O E P L

B O E R U M P L


N A V Y S T

S T R

O N G

P L

N ASS AU ST

2 P L

O L D

F U L T O

N S T

C H E E V E R

P L

P E A R L S T

G A R D E N

P L

P O P L A R S T

G A T E S A V

R O C K W E L L P L

E L M

P L

W I L L O

W P L

N

E L L I O

T T P L

F L

E E T

P L

D U F F I E L D

S T

N O X F O R D S T

T O M P K I N S

P L

B R I D G E

S T

CH APEL ST

V I N E S T

A U B U R N P L

M O N U M E N T W K

U N I V E R

S I T Y

P Z

H U N T S L A

JOHNSON ST

B Q E E

T S B

C O L U M B I A

P L

P E R R Y

A V

CAT HEDR AL PL

C O U R T

S Q


B Q E E N S B

B Q E

E T

N B

HIGH ST

METROTECH W K


N A

V Y

W K

BK BR ET RP

G A L L A

T I N P L

H A N O V E R

P L

O R D N A N C E A V

A L B E E

S Q

B Q E R P

C H A U N C E Y A V

W A R R

I N G T O N A V

W A R

R E N

P L

F L E E T A L

F L E E T W K

T I M E S P Z

M C D O N O

U G H A V

AC AD E M Y P K P L

PED OVPS



A T L A N T I C C O

M M O N S

B Q E E N N B

C H A U N C E Y A V

B U T L E R S T

B Q E C N T G

H Y

P A C I F I C S T

B Q E

W A R R E N S T

P ARK AV

B O E R U M P L

B A L T I C S T

B Q E E N

N B

W A R R E N S T


H I C K S S T

P E R R Y A V

B Q E C N T G H Y

S O X F O R D S T

A D E L P H I S T

G O L D S T

D O U G L A S S S T


W A R R E N S T

D U F F I E L D

S T

B Q E E

N S B

BROOKLYN, NY


Brooklyn Study Area

Borough of Brooklyn

Parking Meters

Study Area Blocks

Parks

0 0.50.25Miles

Figure 2-18 Vehicles Parked with Municipal Placards

Vehicles Parked with

Municipal Placards

Less than 5 %

5 - 25 %

25 - 50 %

50 - 100 %





Boerum Hill

Vehicles with government permits accounted for approximately six percent of theoccupied space hours in this neighborhood (see Figure 2-19).

Figure 2-19 Boerum Hill Agency-Permit Parking

Boerum Hill Study AreaOccupancy by

Permit TypeSpace

Hours Share

Space

Hours Share

No Permit 1171 94.28% 2801 95.30%

All Permits 71 5.72% 138 4.70%

NYPD 28 2.25% 45 1.53%

FDNY 32 2.58% 32 1.09%

NYCDOT 7 0.56% 30 1.02%

Fort Greene

Vehicles with government permits were nearly non-existent in this neighborhood,accounting for a mere four occupied spaces hours all day (see Figure 2-20).

Figure 2-20 Fort Greene Agency-Permit Parking

Fort Greene Study AreaOccupancy by

Permit TypeSpace

Hours Share

Space

Hours ShareNo Permit 646 99.38% 2801 95.30%

All Permits 4 0.62% 138 4.70%

NYPD 4 0.62% 45 1.53%

FDNY 0 0.00% 32 1.09%

NYCDOT 0 0.00% 30 1.02%





T h e W i n d s h i e l d S u r v e y

On September 21st, 2005, 1,003 surveys were placed on the windshields of cars parkedon streets within the Study Area; 215 surveys were returned. Streets to be surveyed were

randomly selected in advance. Because surveys were returned by decision of the vehicleowner, the results are not considered scientifically conclusive. However, the largepercentage of survey responses does provide the study with a valuable, qualified data,which can help create a framework for decision-making.

The survey (see Appendix B) contained a brief explanation of the purpose of the survey, aseries of seven parking-related questions, and an entry form for a raffle offering a chance towin a gift certificate to Junior’s Restaurant.

The following sections present a review of the seven survey questions and the responsesreceived for each question.





Question 1 – Search Times

Responses to Question 1 indicate that on-street parking demand is generating a high levelof search traffic within the Study Area. Sixty-nine percent of overall respondents indicatedthat they spent more than 10 minutes searching for their parking space. Among individualneighborhoods, Brooklyn Heights had the highest incidence rate for searches of more than10 minutes (79 percent), while Fort Greene had the lowest (58 percent); see Figure 2-21.

Figure 2-21 Search Time

1 Approximately how much time did you spend

looking for a parking space today?

Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Found space right away 14 6 7 1

B Within 5 minutes 12 9 1 2

C 5-10 minutes 40 21 9 10

D More than 10 minutes 146 65 63 18ALL 212 101 80 31

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene

Neighborhood

Found space right away

Within 5 minutes

5-10 minutes

More than 10 minutes





Question 2 – Turnover

Responses to Question 2 indicate that long-term parking is the primary generator of on-street demand in the Study Area. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated that theyhad parked for more than four hours; this response rate was consistent among the threeStudy Area neighborhoods with each neighborhood reporting levels between 93 and 94percent (see Figure 2-22).

Figure 2-22 Turnover Rates

2 How long did you park in this

neighborhood today?

Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Less than 1 hour 3 3 0 0

B 1-4 hours 11 3 6 2

C More than 4 hours 200 96 75 29

ALL 214 102 81 31

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%


Neighborhood

Less than 1 hour

1-4 hours

More than 4 hours





Question 3 – Reason for Choosing On-Street

Responses to Question 3 indicate that cost is the primary incentive for parking on the streetrather than parking in an off-street lot or garage in the Study Area (see Figure 2-23). Costwas indicated by 71 percent of Study Area respondents as their reason for parking on thestreet. This response was fairly consistent between the neighborhoods, ranging from 67 to76 percent (see Figure 2-23). “Other” was the second-most common response in the StudyArea and for each neighborhood, with no other reason other than cost accounting for morethan nine percent of responses.

Figure 2-23 On-Street Incentives

3 Reason for parking on the street? Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Cost 164 77 65 22

B Distance to destination 14 10 2 2C Easier to get in and out 13 3 8 2

D Other 40 23 10 7

ALL 231 113 85 33

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Neighborhood

Other

Easier to get in and out

Distance to destination

Cost





Question 4 – Parking Tendencies

Responses to Question 4 indicate that those who parked on the street on the day of thesurvey, nearly always park on-street. Eighty-one percent of respondent indicated that they“always” park on-street, while just one percent indicated that a garage is a more typical

choice for them (see Figure 2-24). This was consistent among the neighborhoods, with“always park on the street” accounting for between 78 and 87 percent, and “usually parkin garage…” remaining at one percent.

Figure 2-24 Behavior Patterns

4 Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Always park on the street 178 86 65 27

B Look on the street then park in a garage 19 9 9 1

C Usually park in garage, but today found a street space 2 1 1

D Other 21 10 8 3

ALL 220 106 83 31

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort GreeneNeighborhood

Other

Usually park in garage, buttoday found a street space

Look on the street then parkin a garage

Always park on the street





Question 5 – Trip Purpose

Responses to Question 5, which asked respondents to identify their primary reason fordriving to the area, indicate a strong presence of local resident-owned vehicles on StudyArea streets. Across the area, “Residence” was indicated by 68 percent of respondents (see

Figure 2-25). This was consistent among the neighborhoods, ranging from 64 percent to 72percent. For the Study Area, and for each neighborhood, “Work or School” received aresponse rate of between 20 and 23 percent. Shopping and errands was indicated by lessthan five percent of respondents across the Study Area and within each neighborhood.

Figure 2-25 Trip Purpose

5 Primary reason you drove here? Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Work or School 50 26 17 7

B Shopping 2 1 0 1

C Errands 6 3 3 0D Residence 154 71 60 23

E Subway/Bus Connection 3 1 2 0

F Other 12 9 2 1

ALL 227 111 84 32

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Neighborhood

Other

Subway/Bus Connectio

Errands

Shopping

Work or School

Residence





Question 6 – Proximity to Destination

Responses to Question 6 support the answers given to Question 3, which indicated thatdestination proximity was not a major reason for choosing on-street parking. Across thestudy area, nearly 50 percent of respondents indicated that they had parked at least three

blocks away from their destination (see Figure 2-26). Furthermore, only one morerespondent parked adjacent to the destination than five blocks away from the destination(39 and 38, respectively). This condition is most chronic in Brooklyn Heights where two-thirds of respondents indicated that they had parked at least three blocks from theirdestination, while approximately 60% of respondents from the other neighborhoodsparked within two blocks of their destination.

Figure 2-26 Proximity to Destination

6 How close to your destination did you park? Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Directly in front of or across the street 39 22 13 4B within 2 blocks 70 42 14 14

C 3-5 blocks 68 25 34 9

D More than 5 blocks 38 14 20 4

ALL 215 103 81 31

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Neighborhood

More than 5 blocks

3-5 blocks

within 2 blocks

Directly in front of or

across the street





Question 7 – Probable Response to Program Implementation

Asked if and how their parking choices would change if an RPP program restricted theirparking space to residential use, non-residents indicated a strong inclination to continueparking on-street. Fifty-eight percent of non-residents indicated that they would “park on

another street” (see Figure 2-27). This represents only 18 percent of overall respondentshowever, and no other answer accounted for as much as five percent of those surveyed.

Figure 2-27 Probable Response

7 If parking on the street were limited to

residents, would you:

Study

Area

Boerum

Hill

Brooklyn

Heights

Fort

Greene

A Park off street 4 2 2 0

B Park on another street 41 22 14 5

C Switch to another mode of transportation 8 4 2 2

D N/A - I am a resident 151 71 58 22

E Reduce/Eliminate trips to the area 8 2 5 1

F Other 10 6 3 1

ALL 222 107 84 31

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Neighborhood

Other

Park off street

Switch to another mode

of transportationReduce/Eliminate trips to

the area

Park on another street

N/A - I am a resident





B r o o k l y n H e i g h t s M e t e r Su r v e y

A survey of metered streets in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood was conducted onThursday, September 15, 2005. The purpose of the survey was to assess the rate at which

these commercially-oriented spaces are occupied by vehicles displaying a municipal-agency parking permit.

On-street spaces are regulated by meters for several reasons. One of the most commonreasons is to ensure a consistent rate of turnover for spaces in close proximity tocommercial businesses. This is particularly important for businesses in urban areas whereland constraints restrict off-street options for customer parking. Thus a high occupancy rateby vehicles displaying a permit that, in effect, allows indefinite parking stays would reducethe effectiveness of these meters to serve local commercial interests.

Based on recommendations provided by the Project Advisory Committee, the project teamdesigned the meter-survey to collect data regarding this issue. The Brooklyn Heightsportion of the Study Area was specified for this survey because of its concentration of metered streets and commercial businesses. A survey of this neighborhood, would berepresentative of parking patterns within the study area, and thus could substitute for amore exhaustive (and expensive) survey of the entire area. In addition, a previous study of Atlantic Avenue parking conditions will provide the parking data from meters in BoerumHill.

All Brooklyn Heights blocks which are regulated by parking meters were included in thesurvey. The effort consisted of visually surveying all metered spaces during the mid-afternoon to note vehicles displaying agency permits as well as the agency identified oneach permit. The rates of occupancy were analyzed for all permits, as well as for permits

with New York City Police Department (NYPD), Fire Department of New York (FDNY),and New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) identified on them.

Figure 2-28 Placard Occupancy at Brooklyn Heights Meters

Category Occurrences Share

Total Spaces 322 100.00%

Vehicles with Placards 24 7.45%

Vehicles with NYPD Placards 11 3.42%

Vehicles with Official Business Placards 1 0.31%

Vehicles with NYCDOT Placards 12 3.73%

As shown in Figure 2-28, the occupancy rates for placarded vehicles at these spaces arequite low. Of the 322 parking spaces surveyed, only 24 were found to be occupied bypermit-displaying vehicles (7.5 percent). Permits issued to the DOT accounted for 12 of the24, while permits issued to the NYPD accounted for 11.





Review and Summary of Previous Boerum Hill Study

A similar study and survey of placard use at metered parking spaces was conducted for theBoerum Hill neighborhood in August of 2003. The Atlantic Avenue On-Street PermitParking Study was conducted by Yuko Nakanishi, an independent consultant, on behalf of

the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association. The survey documented agency-placard usealong 18 streets in the neighborhood, each of which was surveyed at least three timesduring a 3-week period.

This study found that, on average, approximately 50 percent of the 175 meters surveyedwere occupied by vehicles with agency-placards. The following is a list of blocks with thehighest observed rate of meter-use by placard-displaying vehicles.

Bond between State and Schermerhorn – 100%

Smith between Atlantic and State – 100%

Hoyt between Atlantic and State – 95%

Atlantic between Boerum and Smith – 94%

Schermerhorn between Hoyt and Bond – 80%

The survey also documented that approximately 24 percent of the placards observed atmeters were bogus. In addition, while most placard types allow only three hours of parkingat a meter, 35 percent of the placard-displaying vehicles found at meters violated this time-limit for their placard-type.

This study points to a much higher rate of metered-space utilization by placard-displayingvehicles than was found in Brooklyn Heights. While a higher rate can still be expected

under present conditions, the vacation of the Brooklyn House of Detention andenforcement actions focused on reducing permit-abuse are expected to have reduced thislevel of meter-occupancy significantly.





L i c e n s e P l a t e Su r v e y

A central component in any assessment of Residential Permit Parking Program feasibilityfor a given area is determining the level of residential parking occupancy within the area.

For this purpose, a total of 11 surveys were conducted between the 13th and 21st of September within the Downtown Brooklyn Study Area. As seen in Figure 2-29, thesesurveys consisted of an overnight survey of the entire Study Area, three weekday daytimesurveys of each of the three Study Area neighborhoods, and a Saturday daytime survey thatwas limited to the Fort Greene neighborhood. This section outlines the methodology usedto calculate an estimate of residential demand from the data collected at these times andlocations.

Figure 2-29 Survey Times and Locations

Survey Date Day of Week Time Location

1 9/13 Tuesday 9AM - 5PM Brooklyn Heights

2 9/13 Tuesday 9AM - 5PM Boerum Hill

3 9/13 Tuesday 9AM - 5PM Fort Greene

4 9/14 Wednesday 9AM - 5PM Brooklyn Heights

5 9/14 Wednesday 9AM - 5PM Boerum Hill

6 9/14 Wednesday 9AM - 5PM Fort Greene

10 9/17 Saturday 9AM - 5PM Fort Greene

7 9/19 Monday 9AM - 5PM Brooklyn Heights

8 9/19 Monday 9AM - 5PM Boerum Hill

9 9/19 Monday 9AM - 5PM Fort Greene11 9/21 Monday-Tuesday 10PM - 1AM Study Area

The simplest method for estimating residential demand for on-street parking is to recordlicense plate identities from a survey of parked vehicles and match them to zip codesidentified on registration records. The proportion of parked vehicles that are registeredwithin the study area serves as the estimate of residential demand. While many cities likeBoston (which was reviewed as a Comparable City for the Peer Review portion of thisstudy) use this methodology in their assessment of potential RPP zones, it fails to accountfor local residents whose vehicles are registered at an alternate address outside the survey

area.

Such registration behavior can affect a substantial share of resident vehicles in highlyurbanized areas, where higher levels of vehicle taxation/regulation, transient residencypatterns, and elevated second-home ownership rates can combine to obscure geographicconnections between residency and registration. The rate of alternate-address registrationin the Downtown Brooklyn RPP Study Area was anticipated therefore to be significant





enough to recommend a more sophisticated method of estimating residential on-streetdemand.

To simplify the discussion of the methodology and calculations implemented for ouranalysis, three rates of behavior are labeled as follows:

A = Locally-Registered Vehicle Utilization: the share of on-street utilizationattributed to locally-registered vehicles.

B = Local-Registration Rate: the rate at which resident-vehicles are registeredlocally.

C = Residential Demand: the share of on-street utilization attributable to resident-owned vehicles.

The purpose of the analysis is to determine a value for C for each survey period. To dothat, under this methodology, the A value is adjusted by the B value, to account for

alternate address registration rates.

Establishing Locally-Registered Vehicle Utilization (A)

The A value was determined by matching plate identities from parked vehicles to zipcodes identified by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) fromregistration records. This involved providing a single set of non-duplicate plate identities,culled from data collected during all surveys, to the DMV. The DMV returned a data setlinking a zip code to each plate identity for which a registration record was found. The zipcodes were then matched to those plate identities where they appeared within the fielddata from each survey. Plates that were matched to the three zip codes within the Study

Area, and the eight zip codes adjacent to the Study Area, were calculated as locallyregistered and used to determine the share of on-street utilization for locally-registeredvehicles(A), for each survey.

Figure 2-30 shows the utilization rate of locally-registered vehicles found during eachsurvey, expressed as share of overall utilization.

Figure 2-30 Locally Registered Vehicle Utilization

Estimating the Local-Registration Rate (B)

Establishing a value for B requires the identification of a set of vehicles that can reasonablybe assumed to be resident-owned, regardless of registration information. The rate of local-registration found within this set would serve as an estimated rate of local registration forall resident vehicles (B).

Survey Overnight Weekday1 Weekday2 Weekday3 Saturday

Area All All BKH BMH FG All BKH BMH FG All BKH BMH FG FG

Parking Share (%) 36% 28% 28% 29% 25% 27% 29% 28% 25% 29% 33% 29% 25% 23%





It was determined, in consultation with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), that anovernight survey, conducted between 10PM and 2AM, would help identify such a set. Thissurvey was conducted and the occupancy rate of locally-registered vehicles was calculatedusing the steps outlined for determining the A-rate.

One option is to use this rate (i.e., B=36%) to calculate the rate of local registration. Thisis not recommended, as the uniquely urban nature of the Study Area, characterized byhighly diverse and concentrated land-uses, and 24-hour activity patterns, creates somedoubt about the assumption that all vehicles parked on-street between 10PM and 1AM areresident-vehicles.

Additional analysis was therefore conducted to address this concern. Two subsets of thevehicles recorded during the overnight survey were identified by matching license platesfrom that survey to those recorded during the daytime surveys. Subset 1 consists of allvehicles observed during the overnight survey and at least one of the three daytimesurveys. Subset 2 consists of all vehicles observed during the overnight survey and at least

two of the three daytime surveys.

Figure 2-31 shows the result of this method, using the overnight group and the alternativesubsets, for determining the B value of local-registration rates. The fact that higher rates of local registration are observed for vehicles that are recorded in both the overnight anddaytime surveys supports the contention that many vehicles parked overnight are notresident-owned.

We recommend that a 52% value be used for B, i.e. assume that 52% of resident-ownedvehicles are locally registered (see Figure 2). An alternative is to use a 60% value, based onvehicles observed in both the overnight and at least two daytime surveys; however, this is

based on a smaller sample size.

Figure 2-31 Estimating Local-Registration Rate with AlternateMethodologies

Vehicles Recorded in: All Vehicles

Locally-registered

vehicles Share

Overnight Survey 498 181 36.35%

Overnight and 1 or more Daytime Surveys 245 128 52.24%

Overnight and 2 or more Daytime Surveys 129 78 60.47%

Calculating Residential Demand (C)

When values for both A and B are set, the C value can be calculated through the followingrelationship: A/B = C





This then becomes our base formula where the estimated local registration rate (B) is usedto adjust the share of on-street utilization for locally-registered vehicles (A), to calculateoverall residential parking demand (C), for each survey.

Figure 2-32 shows C values for each survey, calculated using this formula and the B values

resulting from the alternate methods for determining the local-registration rate (see Figure2) described above. It is important to understand that different assumptions for localregistration rates have major implications for the study results. Using the recommendedrate, the residential share of on-street vehicles is less than 60% in all neighborhoods, andparticularly low in Fort Greene, and would almost certainly qualify for RPP usingthresholds in common use across the country. However, if a lower rate of residentialvehicle ownership is assumed (i.e., using a 36% value for “B” or local registration of resident vehicles), the probable triggers for achieving RPP are likely only achieved in FortGreene.




Page 2-34

Figure 2-32 Residential On-Street Demand – As Share of Overall Demand

Survey Overnight Weekday 1 Weekday 2

Location StudyArea StudyArea BKH BMH FG StudyArea BKH BMH FG StudyArea

Using B-Rate of

all Overnight

Vehicles

100.00% 76.45% 78.29% 80.35% 69.00% 75.21% 80.23% 77.55% 68.33% 79.42% 9

Using B-Rate of

Sub-Set 1

Vehicles

(Recommended)

69.57% 53.18% 54.47% 55.90% 48.00% 52.32% 55.82% 53.95% 47.54% 55.25% 6

Using B-Rate of

Sub-Set 2

Vehicles

60.11% 45.95% 47.06% 48.30% 41.47% 45.21% 48.23% 46.61% 41.07% 47.74% 5





Chapt er 3. Feasib le Program Opt ions

Residential Permit Parking (RPP) is a common strategy used in cities that experienceparking pressures on residential streets. Typically used around major parking generatorssuch as commercial cores, schools, and stadiums, RPP programs prioritize parking forresidents, their guests, and short-term visitors, while discouraging long-stay employee andcommuter parking.

Cities typically set a two-fold test for introduction of RPP. First, a specified proportion of parking spaces must be regularly occupied – typically at least 75%. Second, a specifiedproportion of these parked cars must belong to non-residents – typically at least 35%. Thesurvey results in the three Downtown Brooklyn neighborhoods, reported in Chapter 2,show that all three neighborhoods clearly pass the first test. They also show that FortGreene, and possibly Brooklyn Heights and Boerum Hill, passes the second test.

RPP programs have had limited success in contexts where residential densities are high,such as since the number of permits issued far exceeds the number of spaces available.Data for Downtown Brooklyn show that the number of resident-owned vehicles is morethan double the amount of useable curb spaces within the Study Area.

This chapter therefore sets out several options for how RPP could be implemented in theunique context of Downtown Brooklyn. These options are not intended to berecommendations, but rather to set out the advantages and disadvantages of differentalternatives – including maintaining the status quo which is also a feasible alternative. As asubstantial majority of residents currently park their cars off-street, some options includestrategies that discourage the owners of these vehicles from abandoning garage parking for

an on-street permit.

The first section of this chapter outlines different options for implementing RPP on ageographic basis, including the No Action alternative (maintaining existing regulations),implementing a limited pilot program, and implementing a Study Area-wide pilot program.The second section outlines various options for program design to maximize the benefitsof any RPP program for area residents and the wider community.

Ge o g r a p h i c Op t i o n s – I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

Option 1 – No Action/Maintain Existing RegulationsThis option remains a viable recommendation following the results of the analysis. Despitea modest estimate of the resident-vehicle share of on-street occupancy, the census estimateof the volume of resident-owned vehicles (7,110) is more than double the roughly 3,500usable spaces in the Study Area. Under these circumstances, significant demand-management strategies and administrative efforts (pricing, lottery, wait listing) would benecessary to prevent the program’s permits from becoming more than merely “huntinglicenses.” This option would also avoid administrative costs – which would be passed on





to residents through permit fees – and ensure that all residents, including those who onlyoccasionally rent or borrow cars, have access to the parking resource.

Option 2 – Limited Pilot Program

Fort Greene is marked by the lowest residential on-street share among the three Study Areaneighborhoods (48% average). Boerum Hill has the most favorable balance betweenresident demand and on-street supply among the three neighborhoods (1,996 resident-owned cars for 1,769 on-street spaces). A pilot program limited to either, or both, of theseneighborhoods could increase on-street opportunity throughout the week. At the veryleast, hundreds of resident vehicles should be able to move from garage spaces to on-streetspaces following program implementation. Conversely, non-residents currently enjoyingfree on-street spaces would incur charges for storing their vehicles during area visits.

Option 3 – Study Area-Wide Pilot Program

Resident-vehicle shares of on-street parking are higher in Boerum Hill and BrooklynHeights than Fort Greene, and a decision on whether to introduce RPP in theseneighborhoods depends on the threshold that is used for the proportion of vehicles that arenon-resident. Permits could be neighborhood-specific, or a single zone could cover allthree neighborhoods in order to ease administration and give residents maximumflexibility.

Po l i c y O p t i o n s – Pr o g r a m De s i g n

The design of a pilot program, whether implemented across the Study Area, or limited to asingle neighborhood, affords options for crafting regulations and administration to thespecific needs of the Study Area. The four basic alternatives are outlined in Figure 1 andare summarized below:

Option 1 – No Action/Maintain Existing Regulations

This option would maintain existing regulations – meters on commercial frontages andstreet cleaning restrictions only on residential streets. This option has the advantages of simplicity of administration and enforcement, and would provide equal access to publiccurbspace for all groups of users – including residents who only occasionally requireparking. However, the potential benefits of the other options – such as ease in finding aspace – would be foregone.

Option 2 – Traditional RPP

This option is similar to RPP programs in other U.S. cities, such as Boston, MA andWashington, DC. It would prioritize parking for residents, and potentially reduce trafficcongestion from long-stay parkers searching for free on-street spaces. However,experience in these cities suggests that there will be little to no net improvement in parkingavailability, as residents will take advantage of the additional on-street parking by shifting





vehicles from off-street garages. The residential permit becomes a “hunting license,” ratherthan giving holders a meaningful chance of finding a parking space. The main impact of this option will be to redistribute the benefit of free on-street parking from all users toresidents and short-stay visitors. Moreover, this option would raise significant enforcementchallenges should free two-hour parking be granted to non-residents.





Page intentionally left blank





Option 3 – Allocate Through Waiting List

This option is similar to the RPP program in Toronto, where the number of permits wouldbe limited to the amount of available curbspace. It would be coupled with installation of multi-space meters on residential streets, which would be priced to limit demand by non-

residential vehicles. This option would, in most circumstances, guarantee parkingavailability for permit-holding residents, and for non-residents who are willing to pay.However, there would be fewer parking options for the large number of residents’ vehicleson the waiting list.

Option 4 – Market Pricing

This option is similar to the waiting list, as permit numbers would be limited to the amountof available curbspace. However, permits would be allocated according to willingness topay, rather than a waiting list – in other words, the price would be set at the level thatrestrains demand to the number of permits. This option would both guarantee parking

availability for all users, and raise revenue that could be redirected to neighborhoodimprovements and/or transportation alternatives. It would have the maximum impact oncongestion. However, there would be fewer options for residents who are not willing orable to pay to pay their vehicles.

Pr o g r a m m a t i c C o m p o n e n t s

Multiple programmatic components are available for any of the RPP options:

Permit Pricing

Number of Permits Issued Hours of Operation

Visitor Parking

Non-Residential Parking

Options for each element are further described below, including cited examples of implementation from our Peer Cities Review.

Permit Pricing

Setting the permit fee is a primary component of program design. Some cities, like Boston,

offer the permits free of charge, treating the program as a “service provided to residents.”In the United States, fees are frequently priced at a level that offsets most or all of theprogram’s administrative costs ($15-$60 annually). In contrast, Canadian cities commonlyset their fees much higher ($10-$40 per month), and base the fees on the cost of roadwaymaintenance (set at the cost of maintaining one space worth of roadway for a year) as wellas program administration. While this is likely a result of the elevated costs of maintainingcurbside access in winter-prone Canadian municipalities (Ottawa increases its monthlyRPP fee 250% during winter ), the model, along with other pricing strategies aimed at





reducing demand, is gaining supporters in U.S. cities where residential competition forspaces in urban neighborhoods is intensifying.

Number of Permits Issued

The overall number of permits issued under an RPP program can be constrained to reducethe level of competition between permit-holders for limited curbside spaces. The numberof offered permits can be limited to the number of program-regulated spaces (Toronto). Amarket-based approach to permit pricing can also serve to bring demand in line withsupply. Most programs however do not contain any limits on the overall number of permits offered under the program, most notably including Boston, where permits greatlyoutnumber regulated spaces.

A more common means of managing permit supply is to reduce the quantity for whichindividuals or households are eligible. This can be done by setting limits per household(Los Angeles, San Francisco), registered vehicle (most common), or resident (Minneapolis).

This can also be done using a pricing strategy, where the fee increases with each permitprovided to each individual or household (Toronto).

Hours of Operation

The hours of program operation are typically based on the nature of surrounding non-residential land uses. In areas where parking demand is primarily a function of localemployment or proximity to transit stations, operation is focused on weekdays duringdaytime hours. In areas where shopping and entertainment uses are common, hours maycover evenings and weekends.

Visitor Parking

Most cities allow for short-term parking (two-hours) without a permit. Additionally, there isa variety of approaches for accommodating longer-stay visitors to RPP areas, as well as forresidents who do not own a vehicle, but occasionally rent one or participate in car-sharingprograms. Typically a limited number of modestly priced ($10-15) visitor permits isoffered to each resident permit-holder annually. However, in an urban context such asDowntown Brooklyn where parking is scarce and expensive, visitor permits are notrecommended due to the potential for fraud and abuse. In addition, should all residents(not just permit holders) be granted visitor permits, a large number of permits would needto be issued, likely creating a secondary market. The exception would be visitor permits

that are charged for at market rate, i.e. comparable to off-street parking alternatives.However, multi-space meters provide a more customer-friendly alternative to meet visitorparking needs in this way, and would be easier to administer.

Non-Residential Parking

While the purpose of an RPP program is to restrict the use of on-street spaces by non-resident vehicles, some amount of on-street accommodation for these vehicles remainsnecessary, especially in urban districts with highly integrated uses. This can include





exempting a percentage of curbside spaces from RPP regulations. These spaces can beconcentrated along commercial corridors, or near centers of employment, and wouldinclude existing parking meters. Two-hour time limits for non-permit holders would alsoprovide options for shoppers and visitors.

Another approach would be to introduce multiple-space meters around and nearcommercial areas, or throughout the program area. There are good examples of thisapproach in international contexts, such as London, England. In several US cities,meanwhile, such as Pasadena and Redwood City, CA, prices have been adjusted to ensurea ready supply of available parking for shoppers and visitors. Permits would exemptresidents from meter-fees, while allowing area visitors to utilize spaces left idle duringperiods of low resident-demand. Conversely, the meters would ensure turnover of parkingspaces, so residents could “reclaim” spaces as demand increases. In order to prioritizeshort-term users, meters could be coupled with time limits (e.g. three hours), or escalatingcharges as used in Manhattan loading zones, where the second and subsequent hours costmore than the first hour. Multi-space meters or pay-and-display machines can be designedto be unobtrusive on residential streets.

Co n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s o f R PP Op t i o n s

Pros

Congestion Relief

The permit parking options, particularly the wait list and market pricing alternatives, couldreduce “cruising” by motorists searching for a parking space. There are three reasons tobelieve that this effect could occur:

• The “waiting list” and “market pricing” options could reduce the amount searchtraffic since local residents will know if they have viable on-street parking optionsor must change their patterns to use off-street parking.

• A portion of all-day on-street parkers are likely to be commuters who would have topay in off-street garages or take transit instead.

The windshield survey found that cost is the primary reason for parking on-street(71%). These parkers are anticipated to be sensitive to price, and a financialdisincentive may encourage residents to sell any vehicles not regularly utilized , but

only moved between valid on-street spaces.

Direct Revenue

Two of the permit parking options, particularly the market pricing alternative, offer thepotential for significant revenue generation. A $360 annual fee could bring in an estimated$440,000 in revenue. A market-based fee of $200 per month (based on local garage rates)could bring in over $5 million in revenue after administrative costs.





While permit fees would be levied under the Traditional RPP option, these would be set atcost-recovery and the City would not benefit from a net revenue stream.

The installment of multi-space meters installed at RPP regulated blocks presents anotherrevenue potential linked to RPP implementation. Program permits allow for the placement

of such meters along residential streets, by providing a mechanism for exempting residentsfrom hourly charges. Where hourly rates begin at a modest $1 for the first hour andescalate by $1 for each additional hour of parking stay, non-resident parking along theseblocks could bring in over $9,000,000 in annual revenue from streets within the RPPprogram. More aggressive escalation for long-term stays could bring in an additional$1,000,000 in revenue, along with higher turnover and greater availability.

Figure 3-2 shows the planning-level estimate of revenue potential for each of the twooptions.

Figure 3-2 Revenue Projection

Revenue Administration Costs Net Revenue

1. Waitlist Option

Resident Permits $882,0001 $441,0002 $441,000

Muni Meter Revenue $9,604,0003 $441,0002 $9,163,000

Total $10,486,000 $882,000 $9,604,000

2. Market Pricing Option

Resident Permits $5,880,0004 $588,0005 $5,292,000

Muni Meter Revenue $9,953,0003 $588,0005 $9,365,000

Total $15,833,000 $1,176,000 $14,657,000

(1) Estimated at $30/month (annual roadway maintenance cost for one space) for 2,450 permits

(70% of Study Area spaces)

(2) Estimated at 50% of permit revenue.

(3) Assuming $2-2.50 hourly rate, with meters in effect until 10PM, based on existing non-resident occupant

share and demand from permit holders.

(4) Estimated at $200/month (current off-street parking rates) for 2,450 permits.

(5) Estimated at 10% of permit revenue.

Indirect Revenue

All three of the permit options would encourage residents to register their vehicles locally(in order to be eligible for the RPP program), bringing additional tax revenues to the City of New York. Currently, many residents appear to register their vehicles elsewhere,potentially to take advantage of lower insurance premiums or out-of-state tax rates. Figures3-3 and 3-4 show the distribution of vehicle registrations recorded during the overnightcount.



Nass

CounQueens

County

Kings

County

Hudson

County

Richmond

County

New York

County

§̈¦278

§̈¦78

§̈¦495

§̈¦280

§̈¦95

§̈¦678

§̈¦295

§̈¦478

£¤1

UV907

UV440

UV908

UV27

UV25

UV21

UV444

UV700

UV3

UV9

UV81

UV495

UV25

Nass

CounQueens

County

Kings

County

Hudson

County

Richmond

County

New York

County

§̈¦278

§̈¦78

§̈¦495

§̈¦280

§̈¦95

§̈¦678

§̈¦295

§̈¦478

£¤1

UV907

UV440

UV908

UV27

UV25

UV21

UV444

UV700

UV3

UV9

UV81

UV495

UV25

re 3-3: Vehicle Registration by Zip Codes

1 - 5

6 - 20

21 - 78

Zipcode Boundary

Source: NYDOT, New York City Planning Dept, and ESR

52.5Miles

H u d s o n

R i v e r

Atlantic Ocean

Jamaica Bay

Lower Bay

Upper Bay

N e w

a r k R i

v e r

Vehicle Registration by Zip Code

* Additional zipcodes with 1 to 5 registrations outside of map ex




Page 3-12

Figure 3-4 Where Parked Cars are Registered

Where Overnight Vehicles are Registered

All Study Area Ext. Study Area* Brooklyn New York City Registrations Share Registrations Share Registrations Share Registrations Share Registrations Share Re

497 100% 154 31% 181 36% 210 42% 316 64%

* Extended Study Area - Incorporates the Study Area and the 6 adjacent Zip Codes.





Cons

Equity Concerns

Equity concerns would be raised with RPP options that incorporate higher permit fees. The

study area, like nearly everywhere else, is characterized by vehicle ownership rates thatincrease along with household incomes. This raises concerns and challenges especially fora market-based approach to permit fees and demand management. As shown in Figure 3-5,the number of vehicles owned by households with incomes of at least $100,000 (4,012) isgreater than the likely number of permits that could be made available in an RPP program(around 3,200). Implementation of an RPP program would result in vehicle owners whoare either unwilling or unable to pay the permit fee losing the option of parking on-street.In any RPP option, the cost of on-street parking will increase from the free parkingcurrently provided by the City.

Figure 3-5 Household Income and Vehicle Ownership

Household Income Vehicles Share Households Share Vehicles per Household

Less than 15,000 516 5.78% 3,014 13.09% 0.17

15,000-24,999 389 4.35% 1,651 7.17% 0.24

25,000-49,999 1255 14.05% 5,402 23.45% 0.23

50,000-74,999 1688 18.89% 4,552 19.76% 0.37

75,000-99,999 1074 12.02% 2,325 10.09% 0.46

100,000-149,999 1888 21.13% 3,084 13.39% 0.61

150,000 or more 2124 23.77% 3,004 13.04% 0.71

All 8934 100.00% 23,032 100.00% 0.39

Induced Travel

A drawback for any RPP program that successfully manages residential parking demand, isthat this might encourage residents who park on-street to use their cars more, as theywould be assured of a space when they return. Census and survey data support that suchspace assurance would induce more vehicular trips among residents currently parking off-street, as 31% of all residential vehicles in Downtown Brooklyn are driven to work, while

just 23% of residential vehicles parking on-street leave during the day

Implementation Barriers

Implementation of any RPP program will require the support of households within theproposed boundaries – most typically in the form of a petition signed by at least 50% of households. This could be particularly challenging for Study Area neighborhoods, wheretwo-thirds of households do not own cars. A traditional RPP approach would be especially





challenging in this regard, since it offers few benefits, and additional hardships, for thosewho do not own a car.

Additionally, were RPP implementation to proceed, the New York City Department of Transportation would face additional challenges in establishing administrative,

enforcement, and implementation procedures and responsibilities, since this would be thefirst program of its nature in the city. Legal feasibility for implementation of this program(with limited precedent for establishing market rate pricing structures) would need to bedetermined.



APPENDIX A

TURNOVER BY BLOCK – ALL BLOCKS



APPENDIX B

WINDSHIELD SURVEY FORM



Downtown Brooklyn On-Street Parking Windshield Survey

The Downtown Brooklyn Council and the New York City Department of Transportation are

conducting a survey of parkers to improve parking in this neighborhood. Would you please take a

few minutes to complete this survey? When you’re done, just drop the completed form in the mail

using the attached pre-paid envelope. If you enter your contact information, we will automatically

enter your name in a drawing to win a gift certificate to Junior’s Restaurant. If you have any

questions about this survey, please contact us at [email protected].

1. Approximately how much time did you spend looking for a parking space today? (check one)

a. Found a space right away

b. Within 5 minutes

c. 5-10 minutes

d. More than 10 minutes

2. How long did you park in this neighborhood today? (check one)

a. Less than 1 hour

b. 1 to 4 hours

c. More than 4 hours

3. Which of the following best describes your reason for parking on the street rather than in a

garage? (check one)

a. Cost

b. Distance to destination

c. Quicker to get in and out on street

d. Other – Please describe:

4. When you drive to this neighborhood, do you (check one):a. Always park on the street, even if it takes a long time to find a space

b. Look for a space on the street first, but then park in a garage

c. I usually park in a garage, but found a street space today

d. Other – Please describe:

5. What is the primary reason you drove to this area today? (check one)

a. Work or School

b. Shopping

c. Other Errands/ Appointmentsd. Residence

e. Subway or Bus connection

f. Other – Please describe:

Continued on Other Side⇒



Downtown Brooklyn On-Street Parking Windshield Survey

6. How close to your destination(s) were you able to park today? (check one)

a. Directly in front or directly across the street

b. Within 2 blocks

c. 3 to 5 blocks

d. More than 5 blocks

7. If parking on this street were restricted to residents only, would you (check one):

a. Park off-street (i.e., in a parking garage)

b. Park on another street, even if it took longer to find a space

c. Switch to another mode of transportation for trips to the area (Bus/ Subway/ Carpool)

d. N/A – I am a resident

e. Reduce/ eliminate your trips to the area

f. Other – Please describe:

8. Please give us any other comments or feedback regarding on-street parking in Downtown

Brooklyn.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation in this survey.

Your responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Please fill out the following if you would like to be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a gift

certificate to Junior’s Restaurant.Name:

Daytime Phone Number:

E-mail Address:

Winners will be notified by October 31, 2005.

Block Code:



APPENDIX C

DATA COLLECTION PLAN




Page C-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consult ing Associates

Data Collection Plan

I. Introduction

The Project Team and Project Advisory Committee agreed on a data collection strategy

that contains five components:

1. A parking turnover study;2. An overnight license plate survey;

3. Weekday daytime license plate surveys to occur in three different time periods;

4. A Saturday license plate survey to be conducted only in Fort Greene;5. A windshield survey; and

6. Survey of vehicles with placards parked at meters in Brooklyn Heights

A full listing of all applicable block faces located within the study area is shown inTable 1. These applicable block faces include all blocks faces within the three

neighborhood that legally permit parking, minus block faces with meters and non-

residential land uses. This subset of block faces within the study area results in 262 block

faces applicable to the study. These 262 block faces were the set from which block faceswere randomly selected for inclusion in each survey exercise. Additional field

observations may determine block faces which are inapplicable for study due to parkingor vehicular movement restrictions; these block faces will not be included in the data

collection effort.

A summary of the number of block faces proposed for each survey are presented in Table2. Each sample is statistically valid as each block face is randomly selected with equal

probability of selection. Each category of survey has also been developed to provide a

statistically significant representation of the overall study area and the three subareaneighborhoods within the study area.

The assumptions used in developing the data collection plan:

• Parking turnover covers 15% of the area once an hour for seven hours;

• The windshield survey will require 20% of the survey resources;

• Vehicles parked at metered spaces with government placards in Brooklyn Heights

during weekdays.

• The overnight survey assumes one study area with no stratification;

• The weekday surveys also assume one study area with no stratification;

• The overnight survey and the weekday surveys have the same amount of coverage;

•

Since Fort Green includes a total of 64 applicable block faces, all 64 block facesare included in the Saturday survey in Fort Greene;

• To obtain the sample sizes for the license plate surveys the original staff hourcapacity was reduced by the staff time required to complete the turnover study,

windshield survey, Saturday Fort Greene survey, and placard survey. The

remainder was divided into four equal parts. One part was assigned to each of

four time periods required for the overnight survey and the three weekdaysurveys.





Table 1: Applicable Block Faces within the Study Area

Street 1st cross street 2nd cross street block face

North and South

Columbia Heights Montague St. Pierrepont St. e

Columbia Heights Pierrepont St. Clark St. e

Columbia Heights Clark St. Pineapple St. e

Columbia Heights Pineapple St. Orange St. e

Columbia Heights Orange St. Cranberry St. e

Columbia Heights Cranberry St. Middagh St. e

Willow St. Pierrepont St. Clark St. e

Willow St. Clark St. Pineapple St. e

Willow St. Pineapple St. Orange St. e

Willow St. Orange St. Cranberry St. e

Willow St. Cranberry St. Middagh St. eHicks St. State St. Joralemon St. e

Hicks St. State St. Joralemon St. w

Hicks St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. e

Hicks St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. w

Hicks St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. e

Hicks St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. w

Hicks St. Love Ln. Clark St. w

Hicks St. Clark St. Pineapple St. w

Hicks St. Pineapple St. Orange St. w

Hicks St. Orange St. Cranberry St. e

Hicks St. Middagh St. Poplar St. wHenry St. Veranda Pl. Congress St e

Henry St. Veranda Pl. Congress St w

Henry St. Congress St. Amity St. e

Henry St. Congress St. Amity St. w

Henry St. Amity St. Pacific St. e

Henry St. Amity St. Pacific St. w

Henry St. Pacific St. Atlantic Ave. w

Henry St. State St. Joralemon St. w

Henry St. Joralemon St. Hunts Ln. e

Henry St. Joralemon St. Hunts Ln. w

Henry St. Hunts Ln. Remsen St. w

Henry St. Remsen St. Montague St. eHenry St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. e

Henry St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. e

Henry St. Love Ln. Clark St. e

Henry St. Middagh St. Poplar St. e

Henry St. Middagh St. Poplar St. w

Garden Pl. State St. Joralemon St. e

College Pl. Love Ln. end e






College Pl. Love Ln. end w

Clinton St. Atlantic Ave. State St. e

Clinton St. Atlantic Ave. State St. wClinton St. State St. Schermerhorn St. e

Clinton St. State St. Schermerhorn St. w

Clinton St. Schermerhorn St. Livingston St. e

Clinton St. Schermerhorn St. Livingston St. w

Monroe Pl. Pierrepont St. Clark St. e

Sidney Pl. State St. Joralemon St. w

Boerum Pl. Bergen St. Dean St. e

Boerum Pl. Dean St. Pacific St. e

Boerum Pl. Dean St. Pacific St. w

Adams St. Tillary St. Sands St. e

Adams St. Tillary St. Sands St. w

Hoyt St. Warren St. Wyckoff St. e

Hoyt St. Warren St. Wyckoff St. w

Hoyt St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. e

Hoyt St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. w

Hoyt St. Bergen St. Dean St. e

Hoyt St. Bergen St. Dean St. w

Hoyt St. Dean St. Pacific St. e

Hoyt St. Dean St. Pacific St. w

Bond St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. e

Bond St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. w

Bond St. Bergen St. Dean St. e

Bond St. Bergen St. Dean St. wBond St. Dean St. Pacific St. e

Bond St. Dean St. Pacific St. w

Bond St. State St. Schermerhorn St. e

Bond St. State St. Schermerhorn St. w

Nevins St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. e

Nevins St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. w

Nevins St. Bergen St. Dean St. e

Nevins St. Bergen St. Dean St. w

Nevins St. Dean St. Pacific St. e

Nevins St. Dean St. Pacific St. w

St. Felix St. De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. e

St. Felix St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. e

St. Felix St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. w

St. Felix St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. e

Ft. Greene Pl. De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. e

Ft. Greene Pl. De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. w

Ft. Greene Pl. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. e

Ft. Greene Pl. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. w

S. Elliott Pl. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. e






S. Elliott Pl. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

S. Elliott Pl. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. e

S. Elliott Pl. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. eS. Elliott Pl. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. w

S. Elliott Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. e

S. Elliott Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. w

S. Portland Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. e

S. Portland Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

S. Portland Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. e

S. Portland Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. w

S. Portland Ave. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. e

S. Portland Ave. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. w

S. Oxford St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. e

S. Oxford St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

S. Oxford St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. e

S. Oxford St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. w

S. Oxford St. Hanson Pl. Atlantic Ave. e

S. Oxford St. Hanson Pl. Atlantic Ave. w

Cumberland St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. e

Cumberland St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

Cumberland St. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. e

Cumberland St. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. w

Cumberland St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. e

Cumberland St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. w

Carlton Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. e

Carlton Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. wCarlton Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. e

Carlton Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. w

Carlton Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. e

Carlton Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. w

Adelphi St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

Adelphi St. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. w

Adelphi St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. w

Bond St. Wyckoff St. Warren St. e

Bond St. Wyckoff St. Warren St. w

Nevins St. Wyckoff St. Warren St. e

Nevins St. Wyckoff St. Warren St. w

East and West

Poplar St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

Poplar St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

Poplar St. Cadman Plaza West Cadman Plaza East n

Middagh St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n

Middagh St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Middagh St. Hicks St. Henry St. n






Middagh St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

Middagh St. Henry St. Cadman Plaza West n

Middagh St. Henry St. Cadman Plaza West sCranberry St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n

Cranberry St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Cranberry St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Orange St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n

Orange St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Orange St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Pineapple St. Columbia Heights Willow St. s

Pineapple St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

Pineapple St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

Clark St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n

Clark St. Columbia Heights Willow St. s

Clark St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Clark St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Pierrepont St. Columbia Heights Willow St. s

Pierrepont St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Pierrepont St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

Pierrepont St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Pierrepont St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

Pierrepont St. Henry St. Clinton St. n

Pierrepont St. Henry St. Clinton St. s

Montague St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n

Montague St. Columbia Heights Willow St. s

Montague St. Willow St. Hicks St. nMontague St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

Remsen St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Remsen St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

Remsen St. Hicks St. Dead End s

Joralemon St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Joralemon St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

Joralemon St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. n

Joralemon St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. s

Joralemon St. Garden Pl. Henry St. n

Joralemon St. Garden Pl. Henry St. s

Schermerhorn St. Clinton St. Court St. n

Schermerhorn St. Clinton St. Court St. s

State St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

State St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

State St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. n

State St. Garden Pl. Henry St. n

State St. Henry St. Sidney Pl. n

State St. Sidney Pl. Clinton St. n

State St. Clinton St. Court St. n






State St. Smith St. Hoyt St. n

State St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

State St. Hoyt St. Bond St. nState St. Hoyt St. Bond St. s

State St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

State St. Bond St. Nevins St. s

State St. Nevins 3rd Ave. n

State St. Nevins 3rd Ave. s

State St. 3rd Ave. Flatbush Ave. n

State St. 3rd Ave. Flatbush Ave. s

Pacific St. Court St. Boerum Pl. n

Pacific St. Court St. Boerum Pl. s

Pacific St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. n

Pacific St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. s

Pacific St. Smith St. Hoyt St. n

Pacific St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

Pacific St. Hoyt St. Bond St. n

Pacific St. Hoyt St. Bond St. s

Pacific St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

Pacific St. Bond St. Nevins St. s

Pacific St. Nevins 3rd Ave. n

Pacific St. Nevins 3rd Ave. s

Pacific St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

Pacific St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. s

Dean St. Court St. Boerum Pl. n

Dean St. Court St. Boerum Pl. sDean St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. n

Dean St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. s

Dean St. Smith St. Hoyt St. n

Dean St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

Dean St. Hoyt St. Bond St. n

Dean St. Hoyt St. Bond St. s

Dean St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

Dean St. Bond St. Nevins St. s

Dean St. Nevins 3rd Ave. n

Dean St. Nevins 3rd Ave. s

Bergen St. Court St. Boerum Pl. n

Bergen St. Court St. Boerum Pl. s

Bergen St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. n

Bergen St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. s

Bergen St. Smith St. Hoyt St. n

Bergen St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

Bergen St. Hoyt St. Bond St. n

Bergen St. Hoyt St. Bond St. s

Bergen St. Bond St. Nevins St. n






Bergen St. Bond St. Nevins St. s

Bergen St. Nevins 3rd Ave. n

Bergen St. Nevins 3rd Ave. sBergen St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

Bergen St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. s

Veranda Pl. Henry St. Clinton St. n

Veranda Pl. Henry St. Clinton St. s

Warren St. Court St. Smith St. n

Warren St. Smith St. Hoyt St. n

Warren St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

Wyckoff St. Court St. Smith St. n

Wyckoff St. Court St. Smith St. s

Wyckoff St. Smith St. Hoyt St. n

Wyckoff St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

Wyckoff St. Hoyt St. Bond St. n

Wyckoff St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

Wyckoff St. Bond St. Nevins St. s

St. Mark's Pl. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. n

St. Mark's Pl. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

St. Mark's Pl. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. s

De Kalb Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. s

De Kalb Ave. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. s

De Kalb Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. s

De Kalb Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. s

De Kalb Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. s

De Kalb Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. sLafayette Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. n

Lafayette Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. s

Lafayette Ave. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. n

Lafayette Ave. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. s

Lafayette Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. n

Lafayette Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. s

Lafayette Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. n

Lafayette Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. s

Lafayette Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. n

Lafayette Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. s

Lafayette Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. n

Lafayette Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. s

Greene Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. n

Greene Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. s

Greene Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. n

Greene Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. s

Warren St. Bond St. Nevins St. n





Table 2: Summary of Street Segments to be Surveyed

Survey Block Faces

Turnover 39*7=273

Overnight License Plate 52

Weekday License Plate Time 1 262Weekday License Plate Time 2 262

Weekday License Plate Time 3 262

Saturday 64

Windshield 60

Brooklyn Heights Placards at Meters 27

Total 1,000

II. Parking Turnover

The parking turnover survey is to include 15% of the study area. The study area consists

of 262 block faces. Fifteen percent of the 262 block faces is 39 block faces. Thirty-nine

block faces were selected at random and with equal probability of selection to represent

the study area for the parking turnover survey; each block face will be surveyed seventimes to determine turnover throughout the weekday. Table 3 presents the block faces

randomly selected for the parking turnover survey.

Table 3: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Parking Turnover Survey


North and South


Willow St. Clark St. Pineapple St. e

Willow St. Pineapple St. Orange St. e


Henry St. Amity St. Pacific St. w

College Pl. Love Ln. end e

Boerum Pl. Bergen St. Dean St. e


Bond St. Dean St. Pacific St. e

Nevins St. Dean St. Pacific St. e


S. Elliott Pl. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. w


S. Oxford St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. eCumberland St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. e



East and West

Cranberry St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Orange St. Willow St. Hicks St. n






Pierrepont St. Willow St. Hicks St. s

Pierrepont St. Henry St. Clinton St. n

Pierrepont St. Henry St. Clinton St. s

Montague St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Remsen St. Hicks St. Dead End s

Joralemon St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. n

Joralemon St. Garden Pl. Henry St. n

State St. Garden Pl. Henry St. n

Pacific St. Court St. Boerum Pl. s


Dean St. Court St. Boerum Pl. s

Bergen St. Court St. Boerum Pl. n

Bergen St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

Warren St. Court St. Smith St. nWyckoff St. Court St. Smith St. n

De Kalb Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. s




Warren St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

III. Overnight License Plate Survey

The overnight license plate survey will be used to determine what proportion of vehicles

registered at addresses outside of the study area do in fact belong to residents. Thatproportion will serve as a factor in the parking analysis. Twenty percent of the totalapplicable block faces (52 block faces) were selected at random and with equal

probability of selection to represent the study area for the overnight license plate survey.

Table 4 presents the block faces randomly selected for the overnight license plate survey.

Table 4: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Overnight License Plate Survey

Street

1st cross street 2nd cross street block face

North and South

Columbia Heights Pineapple St. Orange St. eColumbia Heights Orange St. Cranberry St. e



Henry St. Veranda Pl. Congress St e

Henry St. Congress St. Amity St. e







Street


Garden Pl. State St. Joralemon St. e

Clinton St. Atlantic Ave. State St. w

Clinton St. Schermerhorn St. Livingston St. w

Hoyt St. Bergen St. Dean St. e

Bond St. Bergen St. Dean St. w

Bond St. State St. Schermerhorn St. e

Nevins St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. e








East and West

Poplar St. Willow St. Hicks St. s



Middagh St. Henry St. Cadman Plaza West n

Orange St. Hicks St. Henry St. n

Clark St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n



Pierrepont St. Willow St. Hicks St. n

Joralemon St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. sState St. Garden Pl. Henry St. n

State St. Hoyt St. Bond St. n

State St. 3rd Ave. Flatbush Ave. s


Pacific St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

Pacific St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

Dean St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. s

Dean St. Hoyt St. Bond St. n

Dean St. Hoyt St. Bond St. s

Dean St. Nevins 3rd Ave. s


Bergen St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

Veranda Pl. Henry St. Clinton St. s


St. Mark's Pl. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. n

Lafayette Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. n








Street



IV. Weekday License Plate Surveys

The weekday license plate surveys will be used as the basis of analysis for the study,

informing the community of parking usage in Downtown Brooklyn. The weekday

surveys will be conducted in three different time periods. All 262 block faces presentedin Table 1 will be surveyed in all three weekday time periods. These surveys will include

notation of vehicles parked with government placards during each time period.

V. Saturday License Plate Survey in Fort Greene

Fort Green includes a total of 64 applicable block faces. A license plate survey of all 64

block faces is included in the Saturday midday period survey in Fort Greene. ThisSaturday survey is intended to collect data regarding demand from Atlantic Center.

Table 5 presents the block faces randomly selected for the Saturday license plate survey

in Fort Greene.

Table 5: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Saturday License Plate Survey (Fort Greene Only)


North and South

St. Felix St. De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. e





Ft. Greene Pl. De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. w

Ft. Greene Pl. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. e

Ft. Greene Pl. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. w


S. Elliott Pl. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

S. Elliott Pl. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. e

S. Elliott Pl. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. e

S. Elliott Pl. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. w

S. Elliott Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. e

S. Elliott Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. wS. Portland Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. e

S. Portland Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w


S. Portland Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. w

S. Portland Ave. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. e

S. Portland Ave. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. w







S. Oxford St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

S. Oxford St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. e

S. Oxford St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. wS. Oxford St. Hanson Pl. Atlantic Ave. e

S. Oxford St. Hanson Pl. Atlantic Ave. w





Cumberland St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. e

Cumberland St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. w


Carlton Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w

Carlton Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. e

Carlton Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. w



Adelphi St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. w


Adelphi St. Greene Ave. Fulton St. w

East and West

De Kalb Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. s

De Kalb Ave. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. s

De Kalb Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. s

De Kalb Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. sDe Kalb Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. s

De Kalb Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. s

Lafayette Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. n




Lafayette Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. n

Lafayette Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. s


Lafayette Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. s

Lafayette Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. n

Lafayette Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. s



Greene Ave. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. n



Greene Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. s





VI. Windshield Survey

The windshield survey will be administered to 1,000 vehicles, on approximately 60 block

faces. This assumes an average of 18 spaces per block face and allows four additionalstreets of data collection. In the event that the 60 block faces selected do not contain

1,000 vehicles, an extended set, including to additional block faces is provided. Table 6

presents the block faces randomly selected for the windshield survey.

Table 6: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Windshield Survey


North and South



Hicks St. Orange St. Cranberry St. e

Hicks St. Middagh St. Poplar St. wHenry St. Veranda Pl. Congress St w

Henry St. Pacific St. Atlantic Ave. w


Henry St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. e


Clinton St. Atlantic Ave. State St. e

Clinton St. State St. Schermerhorn St. w

Boerum Pl. Dean St. Pacific St. e

Adams St. Tillary St. Sands St. w


Bond St. Bergen St. Dean St. e

Bond St. Dean St. Pacific St. eBond St. State St. Schermerhorn St. e

Nevins St. Dean St. Pacific St. w


S. Elliott Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. w







Bond St. Wyckoff St. Warren St. e

East and West

Poplar St. Cadman Plaza West Cadman Plaza East n



Pineapple St. Columbia Heights Willow St. s

Pineapple St. Hicks St. Henry St. s








Pierrepont St. Columbia Heights Willow St. s

Pierrepont St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

Montague St. Columbia Heights Willow St. n

Remsen St. Hicks St. Henry St. s

State St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. n

State St. Sidney Pl. Clinton St. n

State St. Smith St. Hoyt St. s

State St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

Pacific St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. s

Pacific St. Bond St. Nevins St. n

Pacific St. Bond St. Nevins St. s

Pacific St. Nevins 3rd Ave. s

Pacific St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. nDean St. Court St. Boerum Pl. s

Dean St. Bond St. Nevins St. n


Bergen St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. s

Bergen St. Nevins 3rd Ave. n

Bergen St. Nevins 3rd Ave. s

Warren St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. n

Wyckoff St. Court St. Smith St. s


Wyckoff St. Bond St. Nevins St. s




VII. Government Placards

The number of vehicles parked at metered spaces with government placards will be

counted in Brooklyn Heights during weekdays. All blocks within Brooklyn Heights withparking meters will be surveyed (a total of 27 block faces); a listing of these blocks is

presented in Table 7. A previous study of parking along Atlantic Avenue will provide this data

from meters in Boerum Hill.

Table 7: Metered Blocks within Brooklyn Heights

Street between 1 between 2 block faceClark St. Monroe Pl. Cadman Plaza West south

Cadman Plaza West /Clinton St.

Clark St. Pierrepont St. west

Montague St Henry St Hicks St north

Montague St Clinton St Henry St. north

Henry St. Montague St Pierrepont St. east

Montague St Hicks St. Henry St. south




Street between 1 between 2 block face

Montague St. Henry St. Clinton St. south

Clinton St. Montague St Clinton St. west

Remsen St. Clinton St. Henry St. north

Remsen St. Henry St. Clinton St. south

Clinton St. Remsen St. Joralemon St. west

Joralemon St. Henry St. Sidney Pl. south

Joralemon St. Sidney Pl. Clinton St. south

Clinton St. Joralemon St. Livingston St. west

Schermerhorn St. Clinton St. Court St. south

Schermerhorn St. Court St. Clinton St. north

Atlantic Ave. Henry St. Hicks St. north

Atlantic Ave. Clinton St. Henry St. north

Atlantic Ave. Court St. Clinton St. north

Henry St. Middagh St. Cranberry St. west

Cadman Plaza West Tillary St. Middagh St. east

Henry St. Cranberry St. Orange St. westHenry St. Orange St. Pineapple St. west

Henry St. Pineapple St. Clark St. west

Cadman Plaza West Pineapple St. Clark St. west

Henry St. Clark St. Pineapple St. east

Clark St. Henry St. Monroe Pl south

Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking

Documents

Transcript of Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking