Strategies for More Efficient Use of Parking Resources
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
5 August 2008
This chapter describes various management strategies that result in more efficient use of parking resources, including sharing, regulating and pricing of parking facilities, more accurate requirements, use of off-site parking facilities, improved user information, and incentives to use alternative modes. For more information see Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning.
More Accurate and Flexible Parking Standards
Remote Parking and Park & Ride
Improve User Information and Marketing
Smart Growth and Location Efficient Development
Transportation Management Associations and Parking
Brokerage
Increase Capacity of Existing Parking Facilities
Commuter Financial Incentives (Parking Cash Out and
Transit Benefits)
Tax Parking Facilities or Their Use
Develop Overflow Parking Plans
Relationships
With Other TDM Strategies
References And
Resources For More Information.
Parking Management includes a variety of strategies that encourage more efficient use of existing parking facilities, improve the quality of service provided to parking facility users and improve parking facility design. Parking Management can help address a wide range of transportation problems (see Parking Evaluation and Parking Solutions), and help achieve a variety of transportation, land use development, economic, environmental objectives. Specific Parking Management strategies are described below.
Specific parking management strategies are described below.
Sharing parking spaces typically allows 20-40% more users compared with assigning each space to an individual motorist, since some potential users are usually away at any particular time. For example, 100 employees can typically share 60-80 parking spaces, since at any particular time some employees are on leave, away on business, or using an alternative commute mode. Even greater reductions are possible with mixed land uses, since different activities have different peak demand times. For example, a restaurant can share parking with an office complex, since restaurant parking demand peaks in the evening while office parking demand peaks during the middle of the day. Public parking facilities, including on-street parking spaces, can usually be shared efficiently among many destinations.
In lieu fees allow
developers to pay into a fund for off-site municipal parking facilities instead
of providing their own on-site parking (Shoup, 1999a). This results in more
efficient Shared Parking facilities, and allows parking
facilities to be located where they most optimal for urban design.
The appropriate number of motorists that can be assigned to a particular number of parking spaces depends on several factors. In general, the more diverse the users and the larger the facility, the more parking spaces can be shared.
Parking facilities can be managed and regulated to encourage more efficient use of parking resources and more efficient travel. This often involves making the most convenient parking spaces available to certain higher-value uses. Below are typical strategies.
· Regulate based on the type of vehicles or
users. For example, during peak periods dedicate the most convenient spaces for
service vehicles, customers, Rideshare vehicles, and vehicles used by Disabled People.
·
Limit parking duration (5-minute loading
zones, 30-minutes adjacent to shop entrances, 1- or 2-hour limits for on-street
parking in commercial areas), to encourage turnover and favor shorter-term
users (since higher priority trips, such as deliveries and shopping, tend to
park for shorter duration than lower priority trips).
· Encouraged employees to use less convenient
parking spaces (such as parking lots at the urban fringe) during peak periods,
in order to leave the most convenient spaces for customers. Develop a system to
monitor use of parking facilities and send reminders to employees who violate
these guidelines.
·
Charge higher Parking Prices and shorter
payment periods for more convenient spaces. For example, in prime central locations
charge 25¢ for each 15-minute period with a two-hour maximum, while at the
fringe charge $2.00 for 4-hours, with no smaller time periods available.
·
Implement more flexible Pricing
Methods which allow motorists to pay for only the amount of time they park,
which makes shorter parking periods relatively attractive.
·
Limit use of on-street parking to area
residents, or provide discounts to residents for priced parking.
· Limit on-street
parking of large vehicles (e.g., vehicles over 22 feet long or trailers) to
ease traffic flow and discourage use of public parking for storage of
commercial vehicles.
· Prohibit on-street
parking on certain routes at certain times (such as on arterials during rush
hour), to increase traffic lanes.
Current parking requirements are often inflexible and generous, applied with little consideration to specific geographic and demographic factors that affect parking demand at a particular location (Shoup, 1999; CTR, 1999; Litman, 1999; Millard-Ball, 2002). Parking requirements are based on parking generation studies that are mostly performed at new, suburban sites with unpriced parking, resulting in standards that tend to be excessive in urban areas with more multi-modal transportation, where parking is priced, and at sites with TDM programs (Shoup, 2002). Current minimum parking standards are often inflexible, applied with little consideration to specific geographic, demographic, economic and management conditions.
In many situations, parking standards for new facilities, and the supply of parking at existing facilities, can be reduced without creating significant parking problems, particularly if implemented as part of an integrated parking management program. More accurate and flexible parking requirements means that parking standards reflect the parking demand and costs at a particular location, taking into account geographic, demographic, economic and management factors. This allows parking requirements to be reduced in exchange for implementation of specific parking and mobility management strategies, such as:
· Regulations that encourage more efficient parking facility use.
· Priced Parking and Parking Cash Out.
· Overflow parking plans to deal with occasional peaks.
· Transit and Rideshare improvements.
· Smart Growth that increases land use Accessibility.
· Other TDM strategies that affect Parking Demand
Some communities limit on the maximum amount of parking capacity allowed at particular sites or within a particular area, particularly in growing Commercial Centers (Millard-Ball, 2002; Manfille and Shoup, 2004). This can be in addition to, or instead of, minimum parking requirements that are commonly imposed. Below are some examples (K.T. Analytics, 1995):
·
·
·
·
Remote Parking involves encouraging motorists (particularly commuters and residents) to use off-site or fringe parking facilities (typically located a few blocks from a Commercial Center), so the most convenient spaces are available for priority users (such as service vehicles and customers). Motorists usually prefer the closest parking location, but given a choice some will park further away to save on parking fees. In some situations (airports, large entertainment centers, and large commercial centers), Shuttle Services may allow longer distances between parking facilities and destinations. Strategies to accomplish this include:
· Information (signs, maps and brochures) on remote parking availability.
· Regulations and pricing that encourages long-term parkers to use urban fringe facilities
· Shuttle services, free transit zones and pedestrian facilities to improve access to remote parking facilities.
Park & Ride consists of parking facilities at transit stations, bus stops and highway onramps, particularly at the urban fringe, to facilitate transit and rideshare use. Parking is generally free or significantly less expensive than in urban centers.
Many parking problems result, in part, from inadequate user information and Marketing. Motorists need convenient and accurate information on parking availability and price, including what parking facilities exist near a destination, whether spaces are available in a particular facility at a particular time, the price they will need to pay, and whether there are less expensive alternatives nearby. Produce a Transportation Access Guide that provides concise information on how to access a particular destination by various modes, including parking availability and price. Parking information can include maps, signs, brochures and various types of Electronic Communication systems to provide information to motorists on parking facility location, availability (whether a parking lot is full), service options, and price (FHWA, 2007). This can help improve user convenience and security, increase the functional supply of parking, address many objections to specific parking management strategies. For example, motorists may be less resistant to parking regulation, pricing and reduced supply in a particular location if they can easily obtain information on alternatives parking and travel options that can meet their needs.
Smart Growth (also called New Urbanism) is a general term for policies that
integrate transportation and land use decisions, for example by encouraging
more development within existing urban areas where additional growth is desirable,
and discouraging low-density, automobile dependent development at the urban
fringe. Smart Growth can help create more accessible, less automobile-dependent
land use patterns. Smart Growth is an alternative to urban sprawl. Smart Growth
tends to reduce per capita vehicle ownership and encourage use of alternative
travel modes, and so it can reduce parking requirements and support other
parking management strategies.
Location
Efficient Development means development that is designed and managed to
take advantage of more Accessible, multi-modal
locations (good walking, cycling and transit). Parking requirements can be
reduced in such areas due to reduced automobile ownership and use. Location
Efficient Mortgage (LEM) means that lenders take into account transportation
cost savings by households that choose more accessible locations when
evaluating borrowing ability (Hoeveler, 1997). This encourages infill,
multi-modal development.
The usable parking supply serving a destination can often be increased by improving Walkability (the quality of the walking environment). Walkability takes into account sidewalk, path and roadway conditions; land use patterns; social acceptance; security and comfort for walking. Improved walking conditions expands the range of Shared Parking, and encourages park once trips, which means that visitors park their vehicles and walk to several destinations, rather than driving to, and parking at, each destination. There are many specific ways to Improved Walkability:
·
Improved sidewalks, crosswalks and paths.
·
Creating pedestrian shortcuts, such as mid-block paths and connections
between dead-end streets.
·
Improve facility designs to accommodate special needs, including people
using wheelchairs, walkers, strollers and hand carts.
·
Provide covered walkways, loading and waiting areas with shade from hot
sun and protection from rain.
·
Street furniture (e.g., benches) and design features (e.g., human-scale
street lights).
·
Implement traffic calming, speed reductions and vehicle restrictions.
·
Address pedestrian Security Concerns.
·
Creating more attractive, interesting and clean walking areas.
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are private, non-profit, member-controlled organizations that provide transportation services in a particular area, such as a commercial district, mall, medical center or industrial park. Transportation Management Associations can provide a variety of services that encourage more efficient use of transportation and parking resources. TMAs allow small employers to provide Commute Trip Reduction services comparable to those offered by large companies. They are usually more cost effective than programs managed by individual businesses.
Transportation management associations can provide parking brokerage services, allowing businesses to share, trade, lease, rent and sell parking facilities. For example, a TMA can match businesses that have extra parking supply at a particular time with nearby businesses that need parking at that time. This helps businesses deal with changing parking demands, and allows businesses that implement successful trip reduction programs to save money if they end up with unused parking spaces.
Increase the number of spaces in existing parking facilities by:
· Using currently wasted areas (corners, edges, undeveloped land, etc.).
· Changing from parallel to angled parking.
· Sizing a portion of spaces for motorcycles and compact cars. Small size stalls (275 square feet) require about 20% less space than average stalls (325 square feet). Up to 25% of spaces can typically be sized for compact vehicles, resulting in a 5% increase in total parking capacity compared with all spaces being average size. Motorcycle parking can sometimes be located in an area that is too small for automobile parking spaces.
· Car stackers and mechanical garages use various types of lifts and elevators to increase the number of vehicles that can fit in a parking structure. They can nearly double the number of vehicles that can be parked in a given area, although they are only suitable for cars (most trucks, vans and SUVs are too high), and require an attendant to operate.
· Using valet parking services. This can increase parking capacity by 20-40% compared with self-park.
Implement TDM
programs to reduce vehicle trips, and reduce parking requirements at sites that
implement such programs. For example, parking requirements can usually be
reduced 10-30% at sites with Commute Trip Reduction
programs. Parking Cash Out is particularly effective at
reducing parking demand. Carfree and Location
Efficient Development may provide parking spaces for Carsharing
vehicles, each of which can substitute for several private automobiles, and
therefore reduce total parking requirements.
Parking
Pricing means that motorists pay directly for using parking
facilities. Parking Pricing may be implemented as a parking management strategy
(to reduce parking problems in a particular location), as a mobility management
strategy (to reduce vehicle traffic in an area), to recover parking facility
costs, to generate revenue for other purposes (such as a local transportation
program or downtown improvement district), or for a combination of these
objectives. Use Improved Pricing Methods to improve
user convenience, pricing flexibility and cost efficiency.
Cost-based parking pricing (i.e., prices set to recover the full cost of parking facilities) typically reduces parking demand 10-30% compared with unpriced parking. Pricing of commuter parking, and time variable-rates (higher rates during peak periods) is particularly effective at reducing peak use. Pricing of commuter parking, and time variable-rates (higher rates during peak periods) is particularly effective at reducing peak use. Charging motorists directly for parking is more economically efficient and fair (horizontal equity) than unpriced parking that results in cross-subsidies from consumers who drive less to those who drive more than average.
When parking is
priced, it is often leased by the month, with significant discounts compared
with short-term pricing. This encourages motorists who pay the fee to drive in
order to get their money’s worth. It is more efficient to rent parking in
smaller time blocks (hourly or daily rates), or to prorate monthly leases by
the portion of days parking facilities are used. For example, if full-time
parking costs $50 per month, commuters who only drive 3 days a week should only
pay $30. This gives motorists more options and a financial incentive to use
alternative modes when possible. Similarly, some parking facilities offer
“Early Bird Specials,” which favors long-term parking – such discounts are
appropriate for less convenient parking facilities, but not for parking at
prime locations, which should be reserved for people parking for short-term
errands.
Shoup (2005) provides the following guidelines for efficient parking pricing:
Commuter Financial Incentives means that commuters are offered financial incentives to use alternative travel modes and reduce their use of parking facilities, particularly the most convenient parking spaces during peak periods. Parking Cash Out means that commuters who are offered a free or subsidized parking space have the option of choosing the cash equivalent, and Transit Benefits means that employers help fund their employees’ transit and rideshare fares. For example, employees might be able to choose between a free parking space, a monthly transit pass, a vanpool subsidy, or $50 cash per month. These payments may be prorated, so for example, employees who drive 30% of the time receive a 70% cash-out payment. This creates a more neutral benefit with respect to travel mode, letting commuters decide which commute subsidy they prefer. These incentives tend to reduce automobile commuting by 15-25%, and are fairer, since they give non-drivers benefits comparable to those offered motorists.
Commuter Financial Incentive benefits represent the savings that result from reduced parking costs. Businesses that own adequate parking may perceive little short-term savings from reduced parking demand. For example, if Commuter Financial Incentives convince 20 employees to shift from driving to alternative modes the employer may simply have 20 unused parking spaces. However, over time most firms have opportunities to benefit financially from reduced parking demand: by reducing the amount of parking they lease with their building, to provide additional parking to accommodate growth, to lease or sell to other businesses, or to use the land for a new building, equipment storage, or greenspace. To make it easier for businesses to save from reduced employee parking demand, commercial leases can unbundle parking (parking spaces are leased separately rather than automatically included with building space), and list parking as a separate line item (parking rents are listed separately from building rents). Parking brokerage services, provided by a Transportation Management Association or other local business organization, can help employers capture financial savings from reduced parking use.
Unpriced parking is often “bundled” with building costs, which means that a certain number of spaces are automatically included with building purchases or leases. Unbundling Parking means that parking is sold or rented separately. For example, rather than renting an apartment for $1,000 per month with two parking spaces at no extra cost, each apartment can be rented for $850 per month, plus $75 per month for each parking space. Occupants only pay for the parking spaces the actually need. This is more efficient and fair, since occupants save money when they reduce parking demand, are not forced to pay for parking they do not need, and can adjust their parking supply as their needs change.
For this to function efficiently, building owners must be able to lease or sell excess parking spaces (such as parking brokerage services described below), and local officials should regulate nearby on-street parking to avoid spillover problems that could result if residents use onstreet parking to avoid paying rents for parking spaces.
If governments must tax something, it may be appropriate to
tax parking as a way to control demand and correct existing distortions that
underprice parking. Taxes can be applied to parking spaces, parking subsidies
and parking rental transactions. For example, a municipality can charge a
special property tax of $5 annually per parking space owned by businesses, $10
annually per space provided free to employees, or a special sales tax of 20% on
commercial parking transactions. For example, the city of
2. It would encourage consolidation of curb cuts between property owners.
Parking tax reform can also be used to correct existing policies that undertax parking. For example, land devoted to parking is sometimes assessed at a lower rate than if the same land were used for buildings, on the assumption that rents are paid on buildings, while parking is an ancillary use. Taxing land devoted to parking at the same rate as building land gives businesses an incentive to reduce parking supply.
Parking passes sold or allocated to employees, officials or visitors should have clear limitations regarding where, when and by whom they may be used, and these limitations should be enforced. For example, it is often appropriate to limit parking pass use to a specific vehicle, individual, and area.
Employees, officials and volunteers are often allocated parking passes for use on official business. Such passes are sometimes abused, such as being used for personal trips, or loaned to other motorists. Such passes should be carefully controlled, with regular audits of their need and use.
Bicycle Parking, storage and changing facilities are important ways to provide convenience and security for cyclists at destinations. Bicycle parking improvements can reduce automobile parking and travel demand if inadequate bike storage is major deterrents to cycling. Effective bicycle parking requires a properly designed rack in an appropriate location for the type of use. There are many types of bicycle racks and lockers available.
Excessive parking
is often provided to meet infrequent peak demand that occurs during Special Events or other limited time periods. Parking
requirements can be reduced by developing an overflow parking plan. This can
include:
· Shared Parking arrangements during peak periods.
· Use of remote parking facilities with Shuttle Services.
· Promotion and pricing to encourage peak-period motorists to use remote parking.
· Promotion of alternative modes such as public transit and ridesharing to major events.
· Encourage employees to use remote parking sites or alternative modes during peak periods.
· Special parking regulation to favor priority vehicles (emergency, service, HOV, disabled, etc.)
· Improved walkability between destinations and nearby parking facilities.
Generous and free parking is often justified in order to avoid “spillover” parking problems in nearby areas. Spillover problems can be addressed directly with management, pricing and enforcement strategies. On-street parking can be limited to residents, which can be enforced by issuing permits to residents, or simply in response to complaints. Residential neighborhoods can be designated “Parking Benefit Districts,” where on-street parking is priced (residents can be exempt), with revenues used for neighborhood enhancement or to reduce property taxes (Shoup, 1994 and 1995).
Another approach is to provide some sort of compensation to residents who experience parking problems. For example, a high school can send complementary sport event tickets to residents of nearby streets who bear spillover parking problems. Shoup (1995) proposes using revenues from on-street parking in ways that directly benefit neighborhood residents.
Parking facility design changes can address a variety of problems and concerns (Mukhija and Shoup, 2006):
· User information. Add signs and wayfinding information within parking facilities.
· User convenience. Improve walkability within parking facilities, for example, by adding walkways, shading and covered shelter areas.
·
Aesthetics. Create more attractive
parking facilities, with landscaping, building, quality building materials,
public art and other attractive design features (Smith, 1988).
· Cleanliness. Keep parking facilities clean and in good repair.
·
Stormwater management. Use
state-of-the-art stormwater management and pollution controls. Use on-site
stormwater retention. Reduce total impervious surface and maximize greenspace.
Use permeable pavement surfaces. (Center
for Watershed Protection; NEMO; Booth and Leavitt, 1999)
·
Safety. Design parking facilities with
state-of-the-art safety design features and speed controls (Hamilton
Associates, 1998)
·
Security Concerns.
Design parking facilities for maximum natural surveillance (i.e., visibility
from the street or nearby buildings), adequate lighting, patrols, emergency
alarms and closed circuit video observation.
·
Disabled Access.
Use state-of-the-art accessibility standards for parking and pedestrian
facilities.
Table 1 summarizes these parking management strategies, indicates their typical reduction in parking requirements, and whether they tend to reduce vehicle traffic and therefore provide additional benefits (such as reductions in congestion, accidents, energy consumption, pollution emissions and consumer costs).
Table 1 Parking Management Strategies
|
Strategy |
Description |
Typical Reduction |
Traffic Reduction |
|
Shared Parking |
Parking spaces serve multiple users and destinations. |
10-30% |
|
|
Parking Regulations |
Regulations favor higher-value uses such as service vehicles, deliveries, customers, quick errands, and people with special needs. |
10-30% |
|
|
More Accurate and Flexible Standards |
Adjust parking standards to more accurately reflect demand in a particular situation. |
10-30% |
|
|
Parking Maximums |
Establish maximum parking standards. |
10-30% |
|
|
Remote Parking |
Provide off-site or
urban fringe parking facilities. |
10-30% |
|
|
Smart Growth |
Encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal development to allow more parking sharing and use of alternative modes. |
10-30% |
X |
|
Walking and Cycling Improvements |
Improve walking and cycling conditions to expand the range of destinations serviced by a parking facility. |
5-15% |
X |
|
Increase Capacity of Existing Facilities |
Increase parking supply by using otherwise wasted space, smaller stalls, car stackers and valet parking. |
5-15% |
X |
|
Mobility Management |
Encourage more efficient travel patterns, including changes in mode, timing, destination and vehicle trip frequency. |
10-30% |
X |
|
Parking Pricing |
Charge motorists
directly and efficiently for using parking facilities. |
10-30% |
X |
|
Improve Pricing Methods |
Use better charging techniques to make pricing more convenient and cost effective. |
Varies |
X |
|
Financial Incentives |
Provide financial incentives to shift mode, such as cash out. |
10-30% |
X |
|
Unbundle Parking |
Rent or sell parking facilities separately from building space. |
10-30% |
X |
|
Parking Tax Reform |
Change tax policies to support parking management objectives. |
5-15% |
X |
|
Bicycle Facilities |
Provide bicycle storage and changing facilities. |
5-15% |
X |
|
Improve User Information and Marketing |
Provide convenient and accurate information on parking availability and price, using maps, signs, brochures and electronic communication. |
5-15% |
X |
|
Improve Enforcement |
Insure that parking
regulation enforcement is efficient, considerate and fair. |
Varies |
|
|
Transportation Management Associations |
Establish member-controlled organizations that provide transport and parking management services in a particular area. |
Varies |
X |
|
Overflow Parking Plans |
Establish plans to manage occasional peak parking demands. |
Varies |
|
|
Address Spillover Problems |
Use management, enforcement and pricing to address spillover problems. |
Varies |
|
|
Parking Facility Design and Operation |
Improve parking facility design and operations to help solve problems and support parking management. |
Varies |
|
This table summarizes the parking management strategies described in this chapter. It indicates the typical reduction in the amount of parking required at a destination, and whether a strategy helps reduce vehicle traffic, and so also provides congestion, accident and pollution reduction benefits.
|
“If every place worth
visiting had enough parking for all the people who wanted to visit, there
would be no places left worth visiting.” “I have sometimes thought
of the modern university as a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held
together by a common grievance over parking.” - “The chancellor's job has
come to be defined as providing parking for the faculty, sex for the
students, and athletics for the alumni.” -A UC Berkeley chancellor |
Parking Management is usually implemented by local governments or individual businesses in response to specific parking and traffic problems. Some Parking Management programs are coordinated by regional governments. Concerns over an immediate parking problem will instigate development of a comprehensive parking planning process. Transportation engineers and planners, either within public agencies or hired as consultants, are usually responsible for performing parking studies, evaluating parking solutions and developing parking management plans.
Below is the typical process for developing a Contingency-Based parking management plan (TDM Planning):
· A parking supply inventory
(how many spaces exist of each type of parking: public and private, on- and
off-street, short- and long-term, free and paid, etc.) for each geographic
area.
· A parking utilization study
(what portion of each type of parking is used at various time, particularly
peak-periods) for each geographic area.
· Projections of how parking
supply and demand are likely to change in the future, taking into account
expected changes in land use, population, commercial activity, travel patterns,
etc.
· Use this information to
identify when and where parking supply is or will be inadequate or excessive.
Abundant, free parking encourages driving and helps create dispersed, automobile-dependent land use patterns. Many Parking Management strategies significantly reduce automobile travel, as indicated in Table 1.
Automobile travel tends to be quite sensitive to parking supply and price. The Price Elasticity of parking is –0.1 to –0.3, meaning that a 10% increase in parking charges reduces driving by 1-3% (Pratt, 1999). Charging cost-recovery prices (i.e., rates that recover the full costs of providing parking facilities) typically reduces drive alone commuting by 10-30%, particularly if implemented with other Commute Trip Reduction strategies (Analytics, 1995; Shaw, 1997).
Parking Management can help shift automobile travel to alternative modes, and improves access by creating more clustered, multi-modal land use patterns. As the number of parking spaces per employee in a commercial center declines, use of alternative modes tends to increase (Morrall and Bolger, 1996; Mildner, Strathman and Bianco, 1997). See Transport Elasticities and Land Use Impacts on Transport for additional information on how parking policies can affect travel decisions.
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel
Impact |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
3 |
Reduces total driving. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
3 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
1 |
If prices are higher during
peak-periods. |
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
3 |
Allows higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
3 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
3 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
1 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Parking Management can provide several types of benefits, described below. For additional information see Parking Evaluation.
Parking Management that reduces parking requirements can provide cost savings and increase consumer Affordability. Parking is one of the largest transportation costs (Litman, 2002; www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf). A comprehensive Parking Management program that includes several strategies (Shared Parking, more accurate parking requirements, pricing, Cash Out, etc.) can often reduce parking requirements by 30-50% compared with generous minimum parking requirements, unpriced parking, and each space assigned to an individual motorist. With appropriate Parking Management motorists still have adequate parking, although they may need to walk somewhat farther, and pay directly rather than indirectly for parking.
The magnitude of savings that result from Parking Management depends on specific conditions, including the cost per parking space and how much parking can be reduced. Below are some examples of potential savings, assuming that a comprehensive Parking Management program can reduce parking requirements by a third, and annualized parking facility costs average $1,200 in urban conditions and $600 in suburban conditions:
·
Cashing Out free parking is equivalent to a 3% wage increase for an
employee earning $40,000 per year at an urban location, and a 1.5% wage
increase for suburban employees.
·
If building rent represents 20% of a business’s total costs, and
parking represents 25% of rent costs, reducing parking costs by 40% results in
a 2% reduction in total costs. If the business has a 10% profit margin, this
increases profits by 20%.
·
If two parking spaces are currently included with housing, decoupling
parking (renting parking spaces separately) provides $100 monthly savings for
an urban household that only owns one vehicle, and $200 monthly savings if it
owns no vehicles. This represents a 12-25% reduction from a $800 per month rent
or mortgage payment. Suburban households save half this amount, a 10-20%
savings from a $500 per month rent or mortgage payment.
·
If standard practices result in an average of two parking spaces per
vehicle in urban areas and four spaces per vehicle in suburban areas, a 33%
reduction in total parking requirements results in total annualized savings of
$800 per vehicle.
·
Parking cost savings depend on the ability of facility managers to sell,
lease or rent excess parking capacity. For example, if a business has 100
parking spaces, and its Commute Trip Reduction program
reduces demand to 60 parking spaces, it will have 40 parking spaces that are no
longer needed. The business will need to sell, lease or rent these spaces, or
convert the land to other uses, in order to benefit from this reduced demand.
Parking brokerage services, perhaps through a Transportation
Management Association, a chamber of commerce or other organization can
help businesses capture parking cost savings.
Parking Management is one of the most effective ways to reduce motor vehicle traffic and achieve TDM objectives. Parking Management (Parking Pricing, Cashing Out parking, unbundling parking from housing) can reduce total automobile trips by 10-30%, and more if implemented as part of a comprehensive TDM program (see discussion of travel impacts above). This helps reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, road risk, pollution emissions and urban sprawl, and can increase Transportation Diversity.
Parking Management allows greater flexibility in facility location and site design. It gives building managers and developers more options for dealing with parking problems. It gives communities more control over land use, allowing higher density, more walkable urban areas. It can facilitate the preservation of historic buildings and districts, and allows designers to position buildings to meet access, aesthetic and environmental objectives in ways that are impossible if parking requirements are inflexible. Such design flexibility is particularly important for infill development and areas with high land costs, allowing redevelopment of central business districts and urban communities (Voith, 1998). Parking Management is an important component of efforts to create more efficient and attractive urban conditions (New Urbanism).
Parking restrictions and pricing can reduce business activity in an area and shift travel to more suburban locations (Shiftana, 1999), although these impacts depend on specific conditions, including how prices are structured, and the quality of travel and location alternatives. When parking revenues are used to improve local streetscape conditions or to fund transportation alternatives they can increase business activity in a downtown (Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, 2003).
Pavement imposes environmental impacts including reduced groundwater recharge, increased stormwater management requirements, reduced greenspace and wildlife habitat, and heat island effects (Land Use Evaluation). Parking consumes a significant portion of urban land, particularly in commercial and high-density residential areas. Parking Management can reduce urban sprawl and the environmental impacts that result (Willson, 1995).
Parking Management often increases administrative responsibilities for public officials and facility managers, and additional responsibilities and inconvenience on motorists.
Parking charges and restrictions in one area may cause motorists to park in other areas where they create congestion problems. This may increase management and enforcement costs, and create conflicts between neighbors.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel,
particularly in urban areas. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel and
parking requirements. |
|
Consumer Savings |
0 |
Mixed, depending on
strategy. Reduces driving affordability but reduces indirect parking costs through
taxes and rents. |
|
Transport Choice |
0 |
Mixed, depending on
strategy. Reduces driving affordability and convenience but improves other
modes. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel. |
|
Environmental Protection |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel and
the amount of land paved for parking. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel and
allows higher-density development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces vehicle travel and
the amount of land paved for parking. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
The Equity impacts of Parking Management depend on the type of strategies used, where and how they are applied, and the quality of transport alternatives. Strategies that reduce subsidies and charge motorists directly for the parking costs they impose tend to increase fairness (horizontal equity).
Some Parking Management strategies, such as parking Cash Out and Location Efficient Development can provide significant benefits to lower income and transportation-disadvantaged people. Most Parking Management strategies benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged by helping to create less automobile-dependent land use patterns, and reducing the parking costs they bear through taxes, rents and employment benefits.
Parking Pricing can be regressive, but overall equity impacts depend on how revenues are used and the quality of travel choices. If revenues are used to benefit lower-income households and there are good travel alternatives to driving, pricing and taxes can be progressive overall (Pricing Evaluation).
The table below summarizes the major equity impacts of various Parking Management strategies. Most tend to increase equity overall.
Table 4 Equity Analysis of Parking Management Strategies
|
|
Treats
everybody equally |
Individuals
bear the costs they impose |
Progressive
with respect to income |
Benefits
transport disadvantaged |
Improves
basic mobility |
|
More flexible requirements |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
Shared Parking |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
0 |
|
Priced Parking |
2 |
3 |
-2* |
2 |
2 |
|
Cash Out free parking |
3 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
Unbundled parking |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
Favor short-term parking |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Address spillover problems |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
Location Efficient
Development |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Restrict parking |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
Tax Parking |
1* |
1* |
1* |
1* |
0 |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
* Depends on who bears the
cost, how revenues are used, and the quality of alternative modes.
Parking Management can be applied in many situations (Evaluating Parking). It is particularly appropriate where:
·
A specific parking problem exists.
·
Land values and parking facility costs are high.
·
Smart Growth and Transit
Oriented Development are desired.
·
Dense development and urban redevelopment are desired.
·
Traffic congestion or vehicle pollution are significant problems.
·
Excessive pavement is undesirable.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
2 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
1 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
3 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
3 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
3 |
|
|
|
Campus |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Incentive to Reduce Driving and Land Use
Management
Parking Management supports and is supported by most other TDM strategies. Parking Management includes many Parking Solutions. It is often implemented as part of TDM, Commute Trip Reduction, Transportation Management Associations and Campus Trip Reduction programs, based on Contingency-Based Planning. It supports and is supported by Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements, Transit Improvements, Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Transportation Pricing Reforms and Context Sensitive Design. It is important for Location Efficient Development.
Parking Management programs are primarily implemented by local government policies and agencies, and by individual businesses. Implementation often involves changing current planning, enforcement and design practices, sometimes with the support of professional organizations. Transportation Management Associations can provide Parking Management and parking facility brokerage services (for example, maintaining a system to match businesses that have excess parking capacity with those that need additional spaces and arranging for parking facilities to be shared when appropriate).
Parking Management often represents a significant change from current practices, and so requires overcoming various institutional and political barriers. Current parking policies are based on the assumption that maximum parking capacity is desirable. Current parking standards tend to be applied inflexibly, for administrative convenience, with little consideration of demographic, geographic and management practices that may affect parking requirements. Parking Management requires public officials, planners and business leaders to become familiar with the many Parking Management strategies and their potential benefits. Parking Management requires changing current development, zoning and design practices. It requires an institutional framework (such as TMAs and TDM Programs) and addressing concerns over spillover impacts.
Best practices for Parking Management are described below, and in various documents listed in References and Resources. For more information see Evaluating Parking Policy.
· Parking policies should
emphasize efficient use of resources. User information services, Shared Parking, Parking Pricing
and overflow parking plans allow more efficient use of existing capacity and
avoid the need for excessive requirements.
· The most convenient parking
spaces should be managed and priced to favor priority users, such as people
with disabilities, Rideshare vehicles, delivery
vehicles, business customers and clients.
· Parking prices should be
higher during peak-periods. There should be little or no discount for long-term
leases.
· Parking should be considered
a high-quality service. Signs, maps and brochures should be used to provide
accurate information to users. Facilities should be attractive and safe. Users
needs and potential problems should be anticipated.
· Parking services need not be
one-size-fits-all. A parking facility may provide a variety of services
tailored to different users, including valet services for premium users,
convenient short-term parking for shoppers and delivery vehicles, longer-term
parking for commuters and residents, and special arrangements when appropriate
for commercial users.
· Parking facilities should be
integrated with overall facility and district design and style.
· Parking Management policies
and programs should be coordinated through a district or region, so prices and
management practices are consistent in comparable areas.
· Stakeholders should be
consulted and involved in Planning parking policies and
programs.
· New technologies should be
used to improve user information, convenience and safety, and for control
revenue.
· Parking management planning
should anticipate potential spillover problems, and respond with appropriate
regulations and enforcement programs. Enforcement should be adequate to
maintain a high level of compliance, predicable and courteous.
|
A
Texan with a big cowboy hat, boots and plenty of jewelry parks his sparkling
new limousine in front of a bank in The
loan officer hands him an application form. For an address he writes, “Ritz
Hotel.” For collateral he writes, “Cadillac, estimated value $100,000.” The
loan is approved and the satisfied customer hands the limousine keys to the
bank in exchange for a $500 check. Two
weeks later the Texan returns and returns the check, plus a $5 bill for
interest. Curious about this strange transaction, the loan officer inquires,
“Sir, you are obviously rich. You have a valuable car. You stay at the
fanciest hotel. You wear thousands of dollars worth of jewelry. Why did you
borrow such a small sum and not even bother to cash the check?” The
man replies. “I didn’t need the money. But where else can I park my car in
central |
For more examples see the Parking Solutions chapter.
The
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, which manages transportation
in the
· Arranging Shared
Parking with Park & Ride and other types of land uses, including
apartments, churches, movie theaters and government buildings near transit
stations.
· Using lower minimum parking
requirements around transit stations.
· Allowing Park & Ride
capacity near transit stations to be reduced if the land is used for Transit
Oriented Development, thus allowing car trips to access transit to be replaced
by walk/bike trips.
The
City of
Researchers Marshall and Garrick compared parking supply and
demand in three new urbanist and three conventional small city centers. In
general, the three mixed-use study sites provided much less parking per square
foot than the conventional control sites. The study sites thrived by making
much more efficient use of land for parking. The study sites also furnished a
significant amount of on-street parking and relied more on shared municipal
parking lots and parking garages. However, the towns with mixed-use centers
still demanded almost as much parking for new construction as did the towns in
which the conventional sites are located. On average, the amount of parking
mandated by base regulation in these six towns is about two and a half times
more than the peak use.
To encourage downtown development the Chattanooga Area
Regional Transit Authority developed
peripheral parking garages with free shuttle service. By constructing parking
facilities at either end of the business district, the system intercepts
commuters and visitors before they drive into the city center, reducing traffic
problems. Free shuttle buses are financed through the garages’ parking
revenues. They depart from each garage every five minutes all day, every day,
and pass within walking distance of most downtown destinations. The
electric-powered shuttles transport approximately one million riders each year,
making shuttle-served property attractive to businesses. Since 1992, when the
shuttle service began, over $400 million has been invested in the downtown,
including a major freshwater aquarium, over 100 retail shops and 60
restaurants.
The following policy reforms were implemented by the city of
· Eliminate minimum parking requirements for downtown housing. This allows developers to decide how much parking to provide at each location, based on market demand.
· Establish a maximum of 1 space for every 4 units, with additional parking allowed if more affordable units are provided.
· Establish a maximum parking ratio for dwelling units of 3 spaces for every 4 units. One space per unit is allowed for units with two or more bedrooms. Developers and individual tenants are free to secure additional parking spaces off-site.
· Provide flexibility in configuring off-street parking to give developers the flexibility they need to create space-efficient parking through the use of tandem, valet, and stacked mechanical parking.
· Require off-street parking to be below ground, or on the ground floor with active uses on all public frontages to prevent ugly, multi-story concrete parking garages and blank building fronts in the downtown area; some exceptions are allowed with a conditional use authorization by the planning commission, which is appealable to the Board of Supervisors.
· Establish limits on width of garage openings to off-street parking and loading to reduce vehicle exit speeds and conflicts with pedestrians.
· Prohibit residential portes-cochere (covered areas) for loading or parking, and prohibit garage entrances on important pedestrian, bicycle and transit streets. Driveways and narrowed sidewalks for portes-cochere and garage entrances create conflicts between autos and other modes.
· Require secure bicycle parking citywide for residential buildings of four or more units. 1 space is required for every 2 units in projects up to 50 units, and 1 space per 4 units in projects larger than 50 units.
· Require that parking spaces be sold/leased separately from dwellings in projects of more than 10 units, and provides exceptions for affordable housing projects. By “unbundling” the price charged for housing from the price charged for parking, people have the choice to purchase only as much parking as they need, people without cars aren’t forced to pay for parking they don’t need, and everyone pays less for their housing.
· Require car share spaces citywide at the ratio of 1 dedicated space for car sharing vehicles for each 200 dwelling units. Studies show that car-sharing services in the Bay Area are proven to reduce the number of vehicles people own and the number of car trips taken, while providing a car when needed.
Residents in 300 apartment units at Market
Common in
Residents pay building management (not the
parking operator) for swipe cards used at structure gates. Shoppers buy short
term permits to access the garage ($1-4/hr depending on length of stay, with
merchant validation allowed). Because retail is at ground floor and resident units
at upper floors (10 story building), residents generally park on the upper
levels where spaces are generally available. Elevators in the parking structure
leading to residential areas are opened only by tenant pass key to maintain
security.
· Installed new, electronic parking meters.
· Eliminated meter limits. Motorists may stay in one space as long as they pay for it.
· Structured parking prices to achieve about 85% occupancy (called the Goldilocks Principle: not too high and not too low). More popular spaces have higher prices and less popular spaces are cheaper, with price adjustments as needed.
· An education campaign to inform motorists of their parking options.
· Monthly permits for municipal parking lots, marketed to downtown commuters.
1. Additional
revenue finances additional downtown area services, providing about $1 million annually
for increased policing and cleaning.
A study comparing various cities found that:
A survey of university
campuses indicate that many are converting parking lots to buildings, fewer are
adding parking capacity, and many are implementing various parking and
transportation management strategies in order to devote more campus land to
academic facilities rather than parking lots. Typical parking management
strategies include permits, meters, cash-out program, prohibitive policy for
freshmen, and eligibility based on residential location. Annual permit fees
varied by location of campus and location of a parking space within the campus.
Various strategies are used to deal with spillover parking problems.
The city of
The study, Paved Over: Surface Parking Lots or
Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable Development?” (www.cnt.org/repository/PavedOver-Final.pdf
), evaluates the potential economic and social benefits if surface
parking lots around rail transit stations were developed into mixed-use,
pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented developments. The analysis concludes that
such development could help to meet the region’s growing demand for affordable,
workforce, senior, and market rate housing near transit, and provide a variety
of benefits including increased tax revenues and reduced per capita vehicle
travel. The parking lots in nine case studies are estimated to be able to
generate 1,188 new residential units and at least 167,000 square feet of new
commercial space, providing additional tax revenues, plus significant
reductions in trip generation and transportation costs compared with more
conventional development.
Employees at the city of
The Seattle Parking Tool was developed to help neighborhood planners
sort through the complicated choices associated with parking and understand the
options for addressing parking problems. It includes several components:
New York Times, 12 Nov. 2006
Spawned by suburban sprawl in the 1950s, local
requirements for the minimum of one or more parking spaces per unit have
abetted car dependency and - letting builders fold the $30,000-$40,000 per slot
into unit prices - pushed housing costs especially high in big cities, some of
which are now eliminating or revising parking space minimums to boost transit
and lower housing costs, with University of California-Los Angeles Professor
Donald Shoup saying, ''In the future, we will look back at minimum parking
requirements as a colossal mistake.''
Author of ''The High Cost of Free Parking'' (American Planning Association,
2005), Professor Shoup tells New York Times writer Linda Baker that with
its expensive housing and cheap parking, the nation ''got it the wrong way
around,'' but the change is under way. Condominiums without parking are already
common in Manhattan and a few other East Coast city cores, the writer reports,
but downtown Los Angeles still mandates 2.25 parking spaces for any unit, and
Houston requires 1.33 spaces for a one-bedroom and 2 spaces for a
three-bedroom, with a committee reconsidering these minimums along the
light-rail line.
Portland, the writer continues, eliminated central city parking minimums six
years ago; Seattle reduced the parking minimums for multifamily housing in
three major commercial corridors last year and may eliminate them in six core
districts and near light-rail stations next month; and San Francisco, which
gained more downtown housing in the last few years than in the previous 20,
replaced downtown minimums with a maximum of 0.75 parking space per unit.
''The city's modus operandi is 'transit first,''' stresses city planner Joshua
Switzky, pointing out that now downtown builders must ''unbundle'' the price of
parking from the price of a condo and adding, ''Buyers aren't obligated to buy
a parking space, and developers don't have the incentive to build spaces they
can't sell.''
In downtown Seattle's neighborhood of Belltown, where the average condo has 1.5
parking spaces, the 251-condo Moda project, now under way, includes 83 units
without parking, 125 with access to permit parking, and only 43 with assigned
spaces, each priced at about $30,000 more than the others, and all 251 sold
within a week.
The same happened with 24 condos without parking in the 261-unit Civic project
under construction near bus and light-rail stops six blocks from downtown
Mary Barr (1998), Downtown Parking Made Easy,
Boos Allen Hamilton (2006), International Approaches to Tackling Transport Congestion: Paper 2: Parking Restraint Measures, Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (www.vcec.vic.gov.au).
CBF (2001), Building Healthier Neighborhoods with Metrorail: Rethinking Parking Policies, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (www.cbf.org/resources/pubs/rethinking_parking.pdf).
Center for Watershed Protection (www.cwp.org) provides analysis and resources for minimizing hydrologic impacts and pollution.
CORDIS (2002), Parking Policy Measures and the Effects on Mobility and the Economy, Cost-Transport, CORDIS (http://cordis.europa.eu/cost-transport/src/cost-342.htm). This is a comprehensive research program in several European countries to investigate parking management strategies and develop standard parking policies.
CNT (2006), Paved Over: Surface
Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable Development?,
Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.drcog.org/documents/PavedOver-Final.pdf).
CNU (2008), Parking Requirements and Affordable Housing, Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at www.cnu.org/node/2241.
CROW (1994), Guidelines for a Coordinated Parking Policy, Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering (www.crow.nl).
Matthew R. Cuddy (2007), A Practical Method For Developing
Context-Sensitive Residential Parking Standards, Dissertation,
FHWA (2007), Advanced Parking Management Systems: A Cross-Cutting Study, Report FHWA-JPO-07-011, Intelligent Transportation Systems (www.its.dot.gov), FHWA, USDOT; at www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14318.htm.
FTA (1995), “Parking Supply Management,” TDM Status
Reports, Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov/library/planning/tdmstatus/tdm.htm).
Heffron Transportation (2002), Parking Management
Study, City of
HUD (2008), “Parking Regulations and Housing Affordability,” Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse, Volume 7, Issue 2, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, (www.huduser.org); at www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/vol7iss2more.html.
International
Parking Institute (www.parking.org) provides information and
other resources for Parking Management professionals.
IPI (2002), Parking 101: A Parking Primer, International Parking Institute (www.parking.org).
Elizabeth E. Isler,
Lester A. Hoel, Michael D. Fontaine (2005), Innovative Parking Management Strategies For
Universities: Accommodating Multiple Objectives In A Constrained Environment,
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).
Wenya Jia and Martin Wachs (1998), “Parking and Affordable Housing,” Access, Vol. 13, (www.uctc.net), pp. 22-25.
Luke H. Klipp (2004), The Real Costs Of San Francisco’s Off-Street
Residential Parking Requirements: An Analysis Of Parking’s Impact On Housing
Finance Ability And Affordability, Transportation for a Livable City (www.livablecity.org): at www.livablecity.org/resources/Parking_Housing_Affordability_Final.pdf.
Michael Kodama (1999), Parking Management
Handbook; How to Use Parking Management to Better Utilize Parking Resources,
Dept. of Environmental Quality, State of
Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup (2003), “Turning Small Change Into Big Changes,” ACCESS 23, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf.
J. Richard Kuzmyak, Rachel Weinberger, Richard H. Pratt and Herbert S. Levinson (2003), Parking Management and Supply, Chapter 18, Report 95, Transit Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).
Todd Litman (2004), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), “Parking Costs,” Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management Best Practices, Planners Press (www.planning.org).
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management: Innovative Solutions To Vehicle Parking Problems, Planetzen (www.planetizen.com/node/19149).
Todd Litman (2007), Pavement Busters Guide, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/pavbust.pdf.
Todd Litman (2007), Parking Management: Comprehensive Implementation Guide, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park_man_comp.pdf.
Todd Litman (2008), Recommendations for Improving LEED Transportation and Parking Credits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/leed_rec.pdf.
Michael Manville and Donald Shoup (2005), “People, Parking, and Cities,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, December, 2005, pp. 233-245; at http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,CitiesJUPD.pdf; summarized in Access 25, (www.uctc.net), Fall 2004, pp. 2-8.
Wesley E. Marshall
and
Karel Martens
(2005), Effects of Restrictive Parking
Policy on the Development of City Centers, Environmental Simulation
Laboratory,
Adam Millard-Ball, Patrick Siegman, and Jeffrey Tumlin (2004), “Solving Campus Parking Shortages: New Solutions for an Old Problem,” Planning for Higher Education, Society of College and University Planning (www.scup.org), Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 30-43.
John Morrall and Dan Bolger (1996), “The Relationship Between Downtown Parking Supply and Transit Use,” ITE Journal, February, pp. 32-36.
MRSC (2005), Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington (www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx).
MTC (2007), Smart Parking Seminar — Developing Policies for Your Community, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar.htm).
MTC (2007), Developing Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth in Local Jurisdictions: Best Practices, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (www.mtc.ca.gov); at www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar/BestPractices.pdf.
Vinit Mukhija and Donald Shoup (2006), “Quantity Versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements,” Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org), Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 296-308; at http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/QuantityVersusQualityInOff-StreetParkingRequirements.pdf.
National Parking Institute (www.parking.org) is an organization for parking professionals.
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting (2002), Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html).
NEMO Project (www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/nemo) addresses impervious surface impacts.
NJDOT (2007), “How To Handle Parking,” Transit Friendly Development: Newsletter of Transit Oriented Development and Land Use In New Jersey, Vol. 3, No. 1; at http://policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/tod/newsletter/vol3-num1/TODParking.html.
NPH (2003), Residential Parking Tool Box, Non-Profit
Housing Association of Northern
Oregon Downtown Development Association (2001), Parking Management Made Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm).
Parking Today Website (www.parkingtoday.com) has information and links to parking resources.
Parking Network (www.parking-net.com), provides information for parking professionals.
Richard H. Pratt (1999), Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Project B12 (www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=1033), DOT-FH-11-9579.
Gabriel Roth (1965) Paying for Parking, Hobart
Paper 33 (
Gary Roth (2004),
An Investigation Into Rational Pricing
For Curbside Parking: What Will Be The Effects Of Higher Curbside Parking
Prices In
Ryan Russo (2001), Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (www.nonprofithousing.org) and the Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy (http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu); at www.nonprofithousing.org/actioncenter/toolbox/parking.
Schaller Consulting
(2006), Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking
and Pedestrian Space in
Seattle (2001), Parking: Your Guide to Parking
Management, City of
Donald Shoup (1995), “An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter, pp. 14-28.
Donald Shoup (1999), “The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov., pp. 549-574; at www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf.
Donald Shoup (1999), “Instead of Free Parking, Access 15 (www.uctc.net), Fall, pp. 8-13.
Donald Shoup (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press (www.planning.org). This is a comprehensive and entertaining book of the causes, costs and problems created by free parking, and how to correct these distortions.
Donald Shoup (2005), Parking Cash Out, Report 532, Planning Advisory Service (www.planning.org/pas), American Planning Association.
Donald Shoup (2005), “Parking On A Smart Campus,” in
Donald Shoup (2006), The Price of Parking On Great Streets, Planetizen (www.planetizen.com/node/19150).
Donald Shoup (2007),
“Cruising For Parking,” Access 30, University of
Donald Shoup (2007), Parking Illustrated: Toy Cars And Stop-Motion Animation Show How Parking Reform Can Work, Streetfilms (www.planetizen.com/node/29107).
SFU (2005), Super
Mott Smith (2006), Onsite Parking: The Scourge of America's Commercial Districts, Planetizen (www.planetizen.com/node/19246).
SPUR (1998), Reducing Housing Costs by Rethinking Parking Requirements, The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (www.spur.org).
TLC (2003), The Myth of Free Parking, Transit for Livable Communities (www.tlcminnesota.org).
Jeffrey Tumlin and Adam Millard-Ball (2006), Parking For Transit-Oriented Development, ITE Annual Meeting (www.ite.org); summary at Nelson/Nygaard Consulting (http://nelsonnygaard.com/ITE_Parking_for_TOD.pdf).
USEPA (1998), Parking Management, Transportation and Air Quality TCM Technical Overviews, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/oms/transp/publicat/pub_tech.htm.
USEPA (1999), Parking Alternatives: Making Way for Urban Infill and Brownfield Development, Urban and Economic Development Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 231-K-99-001 (www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/prkgde04.pdf).
USEPA (2006), Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm).
Richard Voith (1998), “The Downtown Parking Syndrome: Does Curing the Illness Kill the Patient?” Business Review, Vol. 1 (www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brjf98dv.pdf), pp 3-14.
Wilbur Smith Associates, Michael R. Kodama Planning, Richard Willson, KT Analytics and Rick Williams Consulting (2006), Developing Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth in Local Jurisdictions: Best Practices, Draft Report, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (www.mtc.ca.gov); at www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_study/Nov06/MTC_Parking_BestPracticesDraft.pdf.
Richard Willson (1995), “Suburban Parking Requirements; A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter, pp. 29-42.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#28