Parking Solutions
A Comprehensive Menu of Solutions to Parking Problems
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM
Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
March 7, 2007
This chapter describes and evaluates various solutions to common parking problems. For more information see “Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning,” available at www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
Every vehicle trips requires parking at its destination, so parking facilities are an integrated component of the roadway system. Parking is one of the first experiences that people have when traveling to a destination. Convenient and affordable parking are considered a sign of welcome. Parking that is difficult to find, inadequate, inconvenient or expensive will frustrate users and can contribute to spillover parking problems in other areas. As a result, inadequate parking supply can create problems to both users and nonusers.
However, excessive parking can also create problems. Parking facilities are expensive to construct, imposing financial costs on developers, building users and governments. In addition, parking facilities impose environmental costs, contradict community development objectives for more livable and walkable communities, and abundant, unpriced parking tends to increase driving and discourage use of alternative modes
|
Parking
Management Paradigm Shift Parking
Management represents a paradigm shift, that is a change in the way
parking problems are defined and potential solutions Evaluated.
Old paradigm: motorists should nearly always be able to easily find, convenient, free parking at every destination. Parking planning consists primarily of generous minimum parking requirements, with costs borne indirectly, through taxes and building rents. New
paradigm:
parking facilities should be used efficiently, so parking lots at a
particular destination may often fill (typically more than once a week),
provided that alternative options are available nearby, and travelers have
information on these options. This means, for example, that parking lots have
a sign describing available , that motorists may often have a choice between
paid parking nearby, or free parking a few blocks away. It also requires good
walking conditions between parking facilities and the destinations they may
serve. Parking planning can therefore include Shared
Parking, Parking Pricing and regulations, parking
User Information, and Walkability
improvements. |
This chapter describes various solutions that can be applied to parking problems. It can help expand the range of solutions considered, and identify the best one to use in a particular situation. Table 1 lists the parking solutions described in this chapter. See Parking Evaluation for information on factors to consider when comparing and selecting these strategies.
Table 1 Parking Solutions Described in This Chapter
|
|
Encourage Use Of Remote Parking More Accurate Parking Requirements |
|
Improve Transport Alternatives Transportation Demand Management |
|
Charge Impervious Surface Fees |
This table shows the parking solutions described in this chapter. Headings show general approaches, with specific strategies listed below.
This section describes general approaches to solving parking problems, and specific ways to implement these solutions.
Description: Have developers, businesses or governments build more parking facilities.
Advantages: This is a well-accepted solution supported by existing planning practices. It tends to be politically popular. It minimizes transaction costs. Because unpriced parking is usually income tax exempt, it is financially attractive (a typical employee must earn nearly $2,000 annually in pre-tax income to pay for a parking space that costs employers only $1,000). It is considered fair overall, since an average consumer bears their share of parking facility costs.
Disadvantages: It costs developers, businesses or governments hundreds of dollars per space in annualized costs (Table 2), increasing business overhead costs and taxes that are ultimately borne by consumers. It represents a subsidy to driving, and is unfair to people who drive less than average. It encourages driving, which increases traffic congestion, crashes and environmental impacts. It creates low-density, Automobile Dependent land use patterns, a less pedestrian-friendly environment, and discourages infill development.
Table 2 Typical
Costs Per Space (Parking
Evaluation)
|
Location & Type |
Land Costs |
Land Costs |
Construction Costs |
O & M Costs |
Total Annualized Cost |
|
|
Per |
Per Space |
Per Space |
Annual, Per Space |
Annual, Per Space |
|
Suburban, Surface, Free Land |
$0 |
$0 |
$1,500 |
$100 |
$242 |
|
Suburban, Surface |
$50,000 |
$455 |
$1,500 |
$100 |
$284 |
|
Suburban, 2-Level Structure |
$50,000 |
$227 |
$6,000 |
$200 |
$788 |
|
Urban, Surface |
$250,000 |
$2,083 |
$2,000 |
$150 |
$535 |
|
Urban, 3-Level Structure |
$250,000 |
$694 |
$8,000 |
$250 |
$1,071 |
|
Urban, Underground |
$250,000 |
$0 |
$20,000 |
$350 |
$2,238 |
|
CBD, Surface |
$1,000,000 |
$7,692 |
$2,500 |
$200 |
$1,162 |
|
CBC, 4-Level Structure |
$1,000,000 |
$1,923 |
$10,000 |
$300 |
$1,425 |
|
CBD, Underground |
$1,000,000 |
$0 |
$22,000 |
$400 |
$2,288 |
This table illustrates typical parking facility costs. Also see the Parking Cost Spreadsheet.
Below are some specific strategies for increasing parking supply.
Description: Establish minimum off-street parking requirements in zoning regulations and development policies, and raise these minimums as needed to accommodate growth in parking demand. It is helpful to coordinate such requirements among jurisdictions in a region in order to avoid conflicts (Bradley, 1997).
Advantages: This is a common way to increase parking supply. It is easy to implement in most communities by adjusting existing zoning codes and development policies. Generous minimum parking requirements for new construction can be justified because it is usually much more expensive to add parking capacity later.
Disadvantages: It imposes high economic and environmental costs, adding thousands of dollars per space to development costs. It is slow to implement and so cannot solve immediate parking problems. It is inflexible and standard parking requirements do not necessarily represent demand at a particular site (Shoup, 1999a). It is unfair to people who use less parking than average. It places the full cost of solving parking problems on new development, even if parking problems result from a shortage of parking at existing facilities. It discourages new, infill development, which can contribute to urban blight, and reduces housing affordability (Location Efficient Development).
Description: Design streets with parking lanes. Convert traffic lanes to parking lanes. Minimize restrictions for on-street parking. Convert parallel to angled parking. In smaller commercial centers, onstreet parking may provide most of the parking supply.
Advantages: On-street parking is convenient, visible and cost efficient. It is a form of Shared Parking, with each space serving many destinations, and so tends to have a high load factor. It does not require access lanes, and so uses less land per parking space than off-street parking. It is relatively inexpensive. On-street parking can provide a buffer between pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Converting parallel to angled parking increases capacity (it can almost double the number of spaces), and make parking faster and easier (Edwards, 2002).
Disadvantages: Only a limited amount of curb parking can be provided in an area. It often involves trade-offs with traffic lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk space, and other uses of street space. Parallel parked cars are a hazard to cyclists, particularly if lanes are narrow. Under some conditions, angled parking increases the rate of collisions, although it tends to reduce their severity.
Description: Use public resources to build parking facilities. This can include direct government funding, free or discounted land provided to developers, tax exemptions and other favorable tax policies, and public parking facilities incorporated into public-private-partnership projects.
Advantages: It increases the supply of public parking where it is most desirable from a community perspective. Governments can control when and where parking supply is added.
Disadvantages: It tends to be expensive, and represents a public subsidy for driving. It is slow to implement (planning and constructing new parking facility can take years). It is inflexible, resulting in expensive structures that have few alternative uses if expected demand does not occur.
Description: Develop additional parking where land is relatively inexpensive and available (off-site parking for an individual building or facility, or fringe parking for a commercial district). Provide information and incentives to encourage longer-term parkers (particularly commuters) to use the remote parking. This can include signs, brochures, pedestrian improvements, shuttle services, free transit zones, regulations (particularly limits on the length of time a vehicle can be parked at more convenient spaces) and pricing (remote parking is unpriced or relatively inexpensive).
Advantages: Less expensive than increasing central area parking supply. May allow use of otherwise unused land, such as odd-shaped or contaminated parcels. By shifting parking spaces and traffic it allows increased density and reduce traffic impacts in central areas, improving efficiency and environmental quality.
Disadvantages: Is less convenient than closer parking. Remote parking spaces may not be used. May require additional costs, such as subsidized shuttle service or enforcement. May involve paving greenspace.
Description: Increase the number of spaces in existing parking facilities by using currently wasted areas (corners, edges, undeveloped land, etc.) and 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.
Advantages: Can be an inexpensive way to increase capacity.
Disadvantages: Potential is usually limited. Current trends are toward larger parking spaces due to increasing average vehicle size and requirements for disabled vehicle parking. May reduce user convenience or involve paving greenspace. May involve additional repainting and repaving costs.
Description: 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.
Advantages: Stackers and mechanical garages can significantly increase the number of vehicles that can be stored in a particular area. They are a flexible way to address growing demand for parking spaces at relatively low construction cost and no additional land requirements.
Disadvantages: Relatively high equipment and operating costs (although usually less than building additional structured parking). Only suitable in parking structures with attendants. Increase time required to park and retrieve vehicles. Unsuitable for many types of vehicles (vans and trucks).
Description: This involves strategies that result in more efficient use of existing parking facilities, resulting in increased occupancy rates or load factors.
Advantages: This can be a quick, cost effective and flexible way to solve parking problems. It supports TDM and Smart Growth objectives, and most strategies reflect Market Principles. Some strategies improve consumer services and Transportation Choice.
Disadvantages: It may require new planning and administrative structures. It may be less convenient to users than increasing parking supply.
Below are specific strategies to encourage more efficient use of existing parking capacity.
Description: Provide information on parking availability and price using signs, brochures and maps, websites, and parking information incorporated into general marketing materials. Provide real-time information on the location of available parking spaces.
Advantages: Can be a cost effective solution to some parking problems. Is quick and flexible. It tends to reduce motorist delay and frustration, and increase user satisfaction. Information may be incorporated into existing marketing material at little extra cost.
Disadvantages: Potential impacts may be limited. Imposes costs. Providing accurate real time information tends to be difficult and expensive.
Description: This involves encouraging long-term parkers (commuters and residents) to use off-site or fringe parking facilities. This can include information (signs, maps and brochures) on remote parking availability; regulations and pricing that encourages long-term parkers to use urban fringe facilities; and shuttle services, free transit zones and pedestrian facilities to improve access to such parking facilities.
Advantages: May be a quick and inexpensive way to solve city center parking problems.
Disadvantages: Is inconvenient. May not be successful. May require additional costs, such as subsidized shuttle service.
Description: Public parking can be regulated to support parking and
transportation objectives.
Limit the maximum time a vehicle can park in more convenient spaces, to encourage turnover and shift long-term parkers to less convenient facilities. Time limits for the most desirable spaces typically range from 3 minutes for loading zones, up to 2 hours.
Limit the types of vehicles that may use certain parking spaces, including delivery vehicles, rideshare vehicles, and residents’ vehicles.
Limit on-street parking of large vehicles or recreation vehicles, to ease traffic flow and discourage people from using public parking resources for long-term storage.
Prohibit on-street parking on certain routes at certain times (such as on arterials during rush hour), to increase traffic lanes.
Advantages: Allocates the most desirable parking spaces to preferred users. Imposes minimal direct costs on governments. Is widely used and understood, and so is easy to implement.
Disadvantages: Imposes costs for planning, signs and enforcement. Users often find regulations confusing and frustrating. Favors some motorists and businesses over others. Enforcement tends to be unpopular.
Description: Pedestrian Improvements paths and sidewalks, shortcuts, covers and shade, crosswalks, and Address Security Concerns. New Urbanist design principles can help create more pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and neighborhoods.
Advantages: This increases the range of parking facilities that can serve a destination, and creates a safer, more pleasant experience for users. Can be part of an overall program to improve pedestrian conditions and encourage alternative transportation.
Disadvantages: Requires financial and land resources.
Implementation may require new planning and funding practices, particularly for
improvements on private property, and for creating new shortcuts.
Description: Share parking facilities among users. This can occur at different scales, as described below.
Description: Share parking among a group of employees or residents, rather than assigning to individuals. For example, 50 employees or residents can usually share 30-40 parking spaces without problem, particularly if implemented in conjunction with other Commute Trip Reduction and Location Efficient Development strategies.
This can be a consumer option. For example, motorists could be offered an assigned space for $100 per month, or a shared space for $60 per month. This allows individuals to decide whether they are willing to pay extra for an assigned space, or capture the savings that result from shared parking.
Description: Share the use of off-street parking facilities among different buildings in an area to take advantage of different peak periods (see Table 3). For example, an office complex can efficiently share parking facilities with a restaurant or theaters, since offices require maximum parking during weekdays, while restaurants and theaters require maximum parking during evenings and weekends. As a result, the total amount of parking can be reduced 40-60% compared with standard off-street parking requirements for each destination (Smith, 1983). Barton-Aschman Associates (1982) and ITE (1995) provide specific recommendations for shared parking implementation.
Table 3 Peak
Parking Demand
|
|
|
|
|
Banks Schools Distribution facilities Factories Medical clinics Offices Professional services |
Auditoriums Bars and dance halls Meeting halls Restaurants Theaters |
Religious institutions Parks Shops and malls |
Advantages: Quick, flexible and inexpensive way to use parking facilities more efficiently.
Disadvantages: It may require additional administration and enforcement activities. Users accustomed to assigned spaces may object. There may be inadequate capacity during unusual peak demand periods.
Description: Public parking can be a particularly efficient type of Shared Parking since each space can serve many users and destinations. As a result, 100 public parking spaces can be equivalent to 150 to 250 private parking spaces. Developers or building owners can be allowed or required to pay in-lieu fees that fund public parking facilities as an alternative to minimum requirements for private off-street parking (Shoup, 1999b).
Advantages: Can be a cost effective way to provide parking.
Disadvantages: It may require additional administration and enforcement activities. It may be less convenient to users than a separate parking facility at each site. There may be occasional problems during unusual peak demand periods.
Description: Access Management refers to improved coordination between roadway design and land use to reduce traffic problems. It tends to convert automobile-oriented strip development into more Clustered development with fewer driveways and improved pedestrian connections between sites. This allows shared parking and improved travel choices.
Advantages: It can result in more efficient use of parking facilities and provide other benefits, including reduced congestion and crashes, improved transportation choice, more efficient land use, and improved streetscape aesthetics.
Disadvantages: It requires additional administration and enforcement activities, and it may impose costs on government and businesses.
Description: This involves developing minimum parking requirements that more accurately reflect a site’s parking demand, taking into account specific geographic, demographic and management conditions (Smith, 1983; ULI, 2000; Millard-Ball, 2002). For example, minimum parking requirements can be higher in more automobile-oriented locations and lower at locations that are more Accessible, have priced parking, or have TDM programs. Current parking standards tend to reflect parking demand in automobile dependent, suburban sites with unpriced parking, and so tend to be excessive in areas with better travel options, mixed land use, priced parking or other TDM strategies (Shoup, 2002). The Land Use Impacts on Transportation chapter describes methods that can predict how land use and transportation management factors can reduce parking demand. The table below summarizes some of these effects.
Table 4 Travel
Impacts of Land Use Features (Land Use Impacts)
|
Land Use Feature |
Reduced Vehicle Travel |
|
Residential development
around transit centers. |
10% |
|
Commercial development
around transit centers. |
15% |
|
Residential development
along transit corridor. |
5% |
|
Commercial development
along transit corridor. |
7% |
|
Residential mixed-use
development around transit centers. |
15% |
|
Commercial mixed-use
development around transit centers. |
20% |
|
Residential mixed-use
development along transit corridors. |
7% |
|
Commercial mixed-use
development along transit corridors. |
10% |
|
Residential mixed-use
development. |
5% |
|
Commercial mixed-use
development. |
7% |
Special efforts may be required to develop variable parking requirements that are politically and administratively acceptable.
· Consult stakeholders to identify specific concerns related to variable parking requirements.
· Establish standard methods to determine the minimum parking requirements at a particular site, based on defensible research.
· Establish Transportation Management Associations that offer parking brokerage services so facilities with excess parking capacity can sell, lease or trade it to others. This allows all building owners to benefit from flexible parking requirements, not just developers of new facilities.
· Develop ways to evaluate results and correct spillover problems or increased future demand. For example, there could be requirements that if a lower level of parking supply proves inadequate, developers will be required to implement additional TDM strategies or build additional parking facilities in the future.
Advantages: Flexible standards that more accurately reflect demand at a particular site are more efficient and fair than inflexible parking requirements.
Disadvantages: May require new planning and administrative responsibilities. May be abused if applied inconsistently. Some planners and developers may consider them unfair.
Passes that allow motorists to use parking facilities are
often not carefully controlled. For example, an employee may be given a parking
pass for official business trips, but use the pass for personal use. Campuses
sometimes give complementary parking passes as an reward for special
achievements (for example, the University of
More careful control of parking passes can reduce inappropriate use of parking facilities. This involves establishing written guidelines that specifically define who may receive a complementary parking passes and under what circumstances it may be used. Managers responsible for distributing such passes can be made aware of their full cost to an organization. Each agency or group can be limited in the total number of passes they may distribute. Passes can be limited to specific users, types of