Evaluating Parking Problems, Solutions, Costs, and Benefits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
September 4, 2007
This chapter describes factors to consider when evaluating parking policies, including perspective, problem definition, and evaluation criteria. It discusses various ways to define parking problems and evaluate solutions, specific evaluation criteria, typical parking facility costs, and impacts on consumers, economic development and land use.
Index
Defining Parking Problems and Solutions
Evaluation Framework and Criteria
Transportation
and Land Use Impacts
References And Resources For More Information
Parking policy refers to parking facility regulation, pricing, management and design decisions. Many TDM strategies involve parking policy changes, as listed below. This chapter discusses how to evaluate these policies.
TDM Strategies That Affect Parking Policy
|
·
Location Efficient Development |
According to management experts, “A problem correctly defined is a problem half solved.” How parking problems are defined affects which solutions are considered and how they are evaluated.
Parking problems are often defined to mean that motorists consider parking inadequate, inconvenient or expensive. This implies that the best solution is to increase parking supply without directly charging users. But there are other ways to define parking problems that suggest other Parking Solutions. Parking problems may reflect:
· Inadequate information for motorists on parking availability and price. The solution could be to improve use information.
· Inadequate user options. The solution could be to improve parking options, such as letting motorists choose between convenient, priced parking and less convenient, free/inexpensive parking.
· Inconvenient Parking Pricing methods, such as mechanical meters that require users to predict how long they will be parked and only accept certain coins. The solution could be to improve pricing systems.
· Inefficient use of existing parking capacity. The solution could be to use Parking Management strategies that result in more efficient use of parking facilities.
· Excessive automobile use. The solution could be to reduce Automobile Dependency and encourage transportation alternatives.
· Concerns over spillover parking congestion in nearby areas if parking supply is inadequate or priced. The solution could be to provide parking management and enforcement in impacted areas.
· Economic, environmental and aesthetic impacts of parking facilities. The solution could be to reduce parking supply and improve parking facility design.
Table 1 summarizes these different perspectives and the solutions they imply. This is not to suggest that there is a single correct perspective, problem definition or solution. It is often helpful to view the same problem from different perspectives, and to apply several solutions.
Table 1 Comparing Perspectives of Parking Problems
|
Perspective |
Problem Definition |
Potential Solutions |
|
Supply-oriented |
Inadequate supply, excessive price. |
Have governments, businesses and residents supply more parking. Increase minimum parking standards. |
|
Information Oriented |
Inadequate user information. |
Create signs, brochures and other information resources indicating parking availability and price. |
|
Choice- Oriented |
Inadequate consumer options. |
Increase the range of parking convenience and price levels available to consumers. |
|
Pricing Convenience |
Pricing is inconvenient. |
Develop more convenient payment and time options. |
|
Efficiency-oriented |
Inefficient use of existing parking capacity. |
Share parking facilities. Implement transport and parking demand management. Price parking. Provide shuttle services to parking facilities. |
|
Demand-oriented |
Excessive automobile use. |
Improve access and transport choice. Transport and parking demand management programs. |
|
Spillover Impacts |
Inadequate parking causes problems in other locations. |
Use management strategies to respond to spillover problems. Improve enforcement of parking regulations. |
|
External Impacts |
Parking facilities impose external costs. |
Reduce parking minimums. Price parking. Improve parking facility design. Implement TDM programs. |
This table summarizes different perspectives for viewing parking problems.
An Evaluation Framework specifies various details of an evaluation process. A Planning Process should define its goals, objectives, evaluation criteria and performance indicators. For example, the goal of a parking program could be to improve access to an area by reducing parking problems. Objectives might be to increase parking supply, encourage more efficient use of existing parking facilities, and encourage use of alternative transportation in that area. Performance indicators might include parking and transportation costs per trip, the ease of finding a parking space, support for strategic transportation and land use objectives, and user satisfaction measured through surveys and complaints.
Evaluation Criteria refers to factors that should be considered when evaluating parking problems and solutions. Some important parking evaluation criteria are discussed below.
Parking Demand refers to the amount of parking that would be used at a particular time, place and price. It is a critical factor in evaluating parking problems and solutions. Parking demand is affected by vehicle ownership, trip rates, mode split, duration (how long motorists park), geographic location (i.e., downtown, regional town centre or suburban), the quality of travel alternatives, type of trip (work, shopping, recreational), and factors such as fuel and road pricing.
There are usually daily, weekly and annual demand cycles. For example, parking demand usually peaks on weekdays at office buildings and on weekend evenings at theaters and restaurants. Parking demand can change with transportation, land use and demographic patterns. For example, a particular building may change from industrial to residential or office use, neighborhood demographics and density may change, and the quality of transit service may change, all of which affects parking demand.
Different types of trips have different types of parking demand, and different types of parking facilities tend to serve different types of trips. For example, commuters need long-term parking, and because they park all day they are relatively price sensitive. Many commuters are willing to walk several blocks for cheaper parking. Off-street parking leased by the month tends to serve commuters. Customers need shorter-term parking that is located as close as possible to their destination, and are often willing to pay a relatively high hourly price for increased convenience. On-street parking that is metered or regulated to maximize turnover tends to serve customers.
Adequacy refers to whether there is sufficient parking at a particular time and location. What constitutes adequacy varies depending on conditions and user expectations. For example, even in dense areas parking is usually adequate during off-peak periods, or at a sufficient price. Similarly, parking may be considered inadequate at a particular location, but is available a few blocks away. Unregulated parking it may be adequate for residents and employees, who park early in the day, but inadequate for delivery vehicles, customers and clients who arrive later. Conversely, parking with a 2-hour or less time limit, or is priced, may be considered adequate for short-term users but inadequate for employees and residents who must park all day.
Transportation professional organizations have developed recommended minimum parking requirements for various types of land use, as illustrated in Table 1. These standards are based on numerous parking demand studies, which are generally performed at new suburban sites with unpriced parking. Parking regulations often reflect an 85th percentile demand standard, which means that 85 out of 100 sites will have unused parking supply even during peak periods. These standards tend to be excessive for more accessible conditions, priced parking, where other TDM strategies are implemented, or where parking facility costs are high (Shoup, 1999).
Table 2 Typical Off-Street Parking
Requirements (ITE, 1999)
|
Building Type |
Unit |
Spaces |
|
Single Family Housing |
Dwelling Unit |
2.0 |
|
Multi-Family Housing |
Dwelling Unit |
1.8 |
|
Apartments |
Dwelling Unit |
1.5 |
|
Neighborhood Commercial |
100 sq. m. GLA |
4.7 |
|
Community Commercial |
100 sq. m. GLA |
5.3 |
|
Regional Commercial |
100 sq. m. GLA |
5.8 |
|
|
100 sq. m. GFA |
3.2 |
|
Fast-Food Restaurant |
Seats |
0.85 |
|
Church |
Seats |
0.5 |
|
Hospital |
Beds |
2.6 |
|
Light Industry |
100 sq. m. GFA |
2.2 |
GLA = Gross Leasable Area GFA = Gross Floor
Area
Parking facilities must be located within convenient walking distance of the destinations they serve. Table 3 indicates acceptable walking distances between parking facilities and destinations.
Table 3 Level of Service By Walking - Distance
in Feet (Smith and Butcher, 1994)
|
Walking Environment |
LOS A |
LOS B |
LOS C |
LOS D |
|
Climate Controlled |
1,000 |
2,400 |
3,800 |
5,200 |
|
Outdoor/Covered |
500 |
1,000 |
1,500 |
2,000 |
|
Outdoor/Uncovered |
400 |
800 |
1,200 |
1,600 |
|
Through Surface |
350 |
700 |
1,050 |
1,400 |
|
Inside Parking Facility |
300 |
600 |
900 |
1,200 |
This table indicates parking access Level of Service (LOS) rating under various conditions.
Acceptable walking distance is also affected by climate, line of site (longer distances are acceptable if people can see their destination), “friction” (barriers along the way, such as crossing busy traffic), and by the type of activity and user, as described in Table 4.
Table 4 Walking Level of Service For Various Situations
|
Adjacent |
Minimal (LOS A or B) |
Medium (LOS B or C) |
Long (LOS C or D) |
|
People with disabilities Deliveries and loading Emergency services Convenience store |
Grocery stores Professional services Medical clinics Residents |
General retail Restaurant Employees Entertainment center Religious institution |
Airport parking Major sport or cultural event Overflow parking |
This table indicates maximum acceptable walking distance from parking to destinations for various activities and users.
The usable parking supply serving a destination can often be increased by improving pedestrian access. Improving sidewalk or path, developing a shortcut, adding shade or rain covers along walkways, improving personal security, and aesthetic improvements can expand the range of parking facilities that serve a building or area. Users usually prefer the closest possible parking location, but given a choice, motorists sometime prefer to park further away to save on parking fees. In some situations (airports, large entertainment centers, and large commercial centers), shuttle buses may allow longer distances between parking facilities and destinations.
Most people have little idea what it really costs to provide a parking space, because they never purchase parking facilities as an individual item (parking facilities are usually bundled with buildings), and when consumers pay for parking, a portion of costs are often subsidized. For example, when a campus or city charges users to recover parking costs, land costs and property taxes are often excluded. As a result, consumers tend to underestimate the full costs of providing parking. Parking facility costs are described below. For more detailed information see the “Parking Costs” chapter of the Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Guidebook at www.vtpi.org/tca.
A typical parking space is 8-10 feet (2.4-3.0 meters) wide and 18-20 feet (5.5-6.0 meter) deep, totaling 144-200 square feet (13-19 sq. meters). Off-street parking requires driveways (connecting the parking lot to a road) and access lanes (for circulation within a parking lot), and so typically requires 300-400 square feet (28-37 square meters) per space, allowing 100-150 spaces per acre (250-370 per hectare). On-street parking is usually 7-8 feet wide (2.1-2.4 meter) and requires 20-22 feet (6.1-6.7 meters) of curb.
Land costs can vary from just a few thousand dollars for a rural acre to more than a million dollars an acre in major urban areas. Because parking must be located adjacent to or very near to destinations, it is not usually possible to use the cheapest land.
In some situations land is available for parking at little or no additional cost, such as a part of existing road right-of-way, or part of a parcel that is not needed for buildings. But these may still have an opportunity cost. For example, using curb space for parking may require trade-offs with traffic lanes, landscaping or sidewalk space. Land used for off-street parking may displace buildings or gardens. Public land devoted to parking facilities is often treated as having no cost, but there is usually an opportunity cost. For example, land used for municipal parking facilities could be rented or sold, or converted into parks. The cost includes the reduced income and taxes, or the loss of benefits from a park.
Table 5 indicates typical construction costs for various types of parking facilities. These costs increase for facilities build on poor soil or significant grades, irregular shapes, and for landscaping or facilities such as washrooms and elevators. In addition to these “hard” costs, facility development usually involves “soft” costs for project planning, design, permits and financing, which typically increase project costs by 30-40% for a stand-alone project (Dorsett, 1998; ITE, 1999).
Table 5 Typical Parking Construction Costs