170 likes | 440 Vues
Parking Barriers to Smart Growth. ABAG Technical Session: Smart Growth Strategies and Techniques for Parking February 25, 2004 Jeffrey Tumlin NelsonNygaard. Why is Parking Important?. Parking supply and management is the difference between smart growth and sprawl:
E N D
Parking Barriers to Smart Growth ABAG Technical Session: Smart Growth Strategies and Techniques for Parking February 25, 2004 Jeffrey Tumlin Nelson\Nygaard
Why is Parking Important? Parking supply and management is the difference between smart growth and sprawl: We need to manage and supply parking in line with broader goals • Parking consumes land • Parking is expensive Stuart Cohen, Transportation and Land Use Coalition
How is Parking Regulated? • Most local jurisdictions levy minimum parking requirements • Key aim: avoid spillover • Usually based on standards in neighboring jurisdictions, or derived from ITE Parking Generation
Effects of Minimum Parking Requirements • Cost • Makes Smart Growth less financially feasible • Housing less affordable • Land unavailable for other uses • Impacts on design and pedestrian friendliness • Generates traffic • Ample, free parking provides little incentive to use alternative modes
How Much is Enough? • No right answer • No such thing as set “demand” for parking: • Pricing • Availability • Transportation choices • Supply is a value judgment based on wider community goals • Don’t confuse supply and availability
Parking Barriers to Smart Growth Two Scenarios Where Parking Hinders Smart Growth • Developers forced to provide more parking than unconstrained demand, due to: • High minimum parking requirements • Inflexible parking requirements • No incentives/requirements for developers to manage parking to support Smart Growth goals
Three Broad Approaches for Local Jurisdictions • Tailor minimum parking requirements to match demand • Incentivize or require parking strategies to reduce vehicle trips and promote smart growth • Abolish parking requirements – let the market decide Choice depends on local context and planning goals
Tailor Minimum Parking Requirements • Parking demand varies with geographic factors: • Density • Transit Access • Income • Household size • Cities can tailor parking requirements to meet demand, based on these factors
Tailor Minimum Parking Requirements Local Examples • Mountain View and San Jose – parking reductions for transit oriented development • San Rafael – reduced parking requirements downtown • Menlo Park and Milpitas – reduced parking requirements for high-density housing • Palo Alto and Marin County – studies to tailor parking requirements to meet demand
Tailor Minimum Parking Requirements Advantages: • Avoids spillover problems • Reduces impacts of minimum parking requirements Disadvantages: • Complex to introduce effectively • Does not constrain parking demand • Sees parking requirements as a technical exercise, not a policy decision
Constrain Supply • Overall principle: encourage less auto-oriented development • Promotes self-selection – residents with fewer cars live close to transit • Different approaches: • Parking maximums • Requirements/incentives for demand management • Needs to be complemented with Residential Permit Parking or other strategies to stop overspill Catherine Preston, City of Cambridge
Parking Maximums • Promote alternatives to the private automobile • Can tackle congestion if related to roadway capacity or mode shift goals • Maximize land area for other uses • Appropriate in areas with strong real estate market where priority is to minimize auto dependence • Examples: downtown San Francisco, Portland, Cambridge
Parking Management Strategies Can be mandated or incentivized • Strategies to reduce parking demand: • Pricing • Unbundling • Car-Sharing • Other demand management (e.g. EcoPasses) • Strategies to reduce parking impacts: • Shared parking • Structured parking • Stacked parking/parking lifts • Design requirements (e.g. wrap parking in active uses)
Abolish Parking Requirements • Let developers, the public and the market decide • Create a level playing field • Needs complementary Residential Permit Parking strategy to combat overspill Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard
Role of Transit Agencies • Revise joint development policies – particularly parking replacement • Consider the total ridership potential of the project • Housing and commercial development generate more ridership per acre than surface commuter parking • Encourage projects that minimize parking and focus on the transit resources
Role of Regional Agencies • Promote best practices • Follow up studies of parking demand at completed developments • Condition major transportation investments on supportive land uses policies – particularly parking • Direct TLC/HIP funds to projects that minimize parking
For More Information Jeffrey Tumlin Nelson\Nygaard Transportation Planning for Livable Communities 833 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103 415-284-1544 jtumlin@nelsonnygaard.com www.nelsonnygaard.com Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard