Shared Parking
Sharing Parking Facilities Among Multiple Users
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 21 December 2015
This chapter provides information on techniques for sharing parking facilities among various users to increase efficiency.
Shared Parking means that parking spaces are shared by more than one user, which allows parking facilities to be used more efficiently. It is a type of Parking Management. Shared Parking takes advantage of the fact that most parking spaces are only used part time by a particular motorist or group, and many parking facilities have a significant portion of unused spaces, with utilization patterns that follow predictable daily, weekly and annual cycles.
There are various degrees of shared parking. A parking space assigned to a specific user is not shared at all. On-street parking spaces located in a busy, mixed use urban area tends to be the most shared. In between are parking spaces that are shared among various employees at a particular worksite, parking that is shared by customers at a variety of businesses located in a mall, or arrangements by one facility to use another facilities parking at certain times, such as a tavern that allows its parking spaces to be used on Sunday mornings by attendees at a nearby church. An assigned employee parking space is typically used about 2,000 hours per year, while an on-street parking space in a busy area often gets three times as much use. Efficient sharing of spaces can allow parking requirements to be reduced significantly.
Specific ways of sharing parking are described below.
Parking can be shared among a group of employees or residents, rather than assigning to individuals. For example, 100 employees or residents can usually share 60-80 parking spaces without problem, since not all employees will drive to work at one time.
This strategy complements other TDM strategies that encourage people to reduce their vehicle ownership and use, such as Commute Trip Reduction and Location Efficient Development. This type of sharing 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.
Parking can be shared among different buildings and facilities in an area to take advantage of different peak periods (see Table 1). 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). ITE (1995) provides specific recommendations for shared parking implementation.
Table 1 Peak Parking Demand
|
Weekday Peaks |
Evening Peaks |
Weekend Peaks |
|
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
|
This table indicates peak parking demand for different land use types. Parking can be shared efficiently by land uses with different peaks.
Parking can be shared by relying on public parking facilities rather than having each building provide private off-street parking, since each public 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). On-street parking tends to be the best type of public parking facility for sharing, since it is visible and convenient. It is therefore helpful to manage on-street parking for maximum use, particularly in busy Commercial Centers.
Shared Parking is limited by the proximity of destinations that share a parking facility. Exactly how close they must be depends on the type of land use and the type of user. Table 2 summarizes acceptable walking distances for various types of activities. Acceptable walking distance is also affected by the quality of the pedestrian environment, climate, line of site (longer distances are acceptable if people can see their destination), and “friction” (barriers along the way, such as crossing busy traffic).
Table 2 Acceptable Walking Distances (Parking Evaluation)
|
Adjacent (Less than 100 ft) |
Short (less than 800 ft) |
Medium (less than 1,200 ft) |
Long (less than 1,600 ft) |
|
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. It assumes good pedestrian conditions (sidewalks, crosswalks, level terrain) that are outdoors and uncovered, with a mild climate.
In general, the potential for sharing parking is greatest in areas where land use activities are Clustered, and the benefits from sharing parking are greatest due to high parking costs. Priorities for sharing parking are listed below.
The concept of Shared Parking is well known, but it is often discouraged by current planning practices. Conventional planning often reflects an assumption that communities want the greatest possible supply of parking provided at the lowest possible price. Standards used in most communities require each building or facility include a minimum amount of off-street parking supply, based on studies of peak-period demand. Transportation professionals and public officials often prefer generous, simple and consistent minimum parking standards because they are easy to administrate and minimize spillover problems. All of these factors contribute to inefficient use of parking resources: many parking lots are seldom or never full, even during peak periods, and most parking spaces are unused most of the time.
These practices are well established, but are beginning to change, particularly in growing urban communities. Increasingly, communities have objectives to encourage infill development, use of alternative modes and reduce the portion of land that is paved.
Shared Parking is usually implemented by municipal government policy to allow and encourage it, with sharing arrangements actually made between individual facility developers and managers. It may require changes to zoning codes (see below), and development of appropriate standards and practices that local transportation planners can use to evaluate, manage and enforce shared parking arrangements. It can be encouraged by establishing parking sharing brokerage services to match potential sharing partners, which can be provided by a Transportation Management Association or local government agency.
Shared parking can also be implemented by providing public parking as a substitute for private parking. This can be done by:
· Providing a maximum amount of on-street parking in an area.
· Providing public off-street parking.
· Managing public parking faculties so the most convenient spaces are available to priority uses (such as customers).
· Addressing barriers, such as inadequate walkways that limit use of public parking.
· Encouraging more Clustered development.
· Allowing or requiring in lieu fees instead of private off-street parking.
Below is an example of wording to allow shared parking in municipal parking ordinances.
Introduction
Cumulative parking requirements for mixed-use occupancies or shared facilities may be reduced where it can be determined that the peak requirements of the several occupancies occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). The submittal requirements for a parking reduction request vary according to the method used to determine the parking reduction. The reduction methods and accompanying submittal requirements are outlined in this section. In all cases, a shared parking operations plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning showing that parking spaces most conveniently serve the land uses intended, directional signage is provided if appropriate, and pedestrian links are direct and clear. On-street parking spaces wholly adjacent to the property may be included in the required minimum.
Three methods for determining a parking reduction are as follows:
A. Intermittent or Seasonal Nonconflicting Uses
(1.) When required parking reductions are predicted as a result of sharing between intermittent or seasonal uses with nonconflicting parking demands (e.g. a church and a bank), then the reduction can be considered for approval by the Planning Commission without demand calculations or a parking study. Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one user at the same time.
(2.) If a privately owned parking facility is to serve two or more separate properties, then a "Shared Parking Agreement" shall be filed with the City of Fayetteville for consideration by the Planning Commission. Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, the property owner of the parking facility accepts responsibility for operating, maintaining and accepting liability for personal injury and property damage.
B. Parking Occupancy Rate Table
When the parking reduction has been shown to be feasible by using the demand calculations as determined by Table 3, Parking Occupancy Rates, the applicant shall submit a parking demand summary sheet showing the process for calculating the reduction as outlined in this section. (Note: The default rates from the Table 3, Parking Occupancy Rates are set to include a small "safety margin" of parking beyond that minimally needed to serve an average peak demand. Therefore a local study of parking demand may yield a greater reduction in parking required.)
(1.) The minimum number of parking spaces that are to be provided and maintained for each use shall be determined based on standard methods for determining minimum parking supply at a particular site.
(2.) The gross minimum number of parking spaces shall be multiplied by the "occupancy rate" as determined by a study of local conditions (or as found in Table 3), for each use for the weekday night, daytime and evening periods, and weekend night, daytime and evening periods respectively.
(3.) The gross minimum numbers of parking spaces for each of the purposes referred to for each time period shall be added to produce the aggregate gross minimum numbers of parking spaces for each time period.
(4.) The greatest of the aggregative gross minimum numbers of parking spaces for each period shall be determined.
Table 3 Parking Occupancy Rates
|
Uses |
M-F |
M-F |
M-F |
Sat. & Sun. |
Sat. & Sun. |
Sat. & Sun. |
|
|
8am-5pm |
6pm-12am |
12am-6am |
8am-5pm |
6pm-12am |
12am-6am |
|
Residential |
60% |
100% |
100% |
80% |
100% |
100% |
|
Office/ Warehouse /Industrial |
100% |
20% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
|
Commercial |
90% |
80% |
5% |
100% |
70% |
5% |
|
Hotel |
70% |
100% |
100% |
70% |
100% |
100% |
|
Restaurant |
70% |
100% |
10% |
70% |
100% |
20% |
|
Movie Theater |
40% |
80% |
10% |
80% |
100% |
10% |
|
Entertainment |
40% |
100% |
10% |
80% |
100% |
50% |
|
Conference/Convention |
100% |
100% |
5% |
100% |
100% |
5% |
|
Institutional (non-church) |
100% |
20% |
5% |
10% |
10% |
5% |
|
Institutional (church) |
10% |
5% |
5% |
100% |
50% |
5% |
This table defines the percent of the basic minimum needed during each time period for shared parking. (M-F = Monday to Friday)
C. Local Parking Study
When the parking reduction has been shown to be feasible by using a local parking demand analysis, the following three items must be submitted:
(1.) A parking demand analysis prepared by a qualified parking or traffic consultant, a licensed architect, city planner, or urban planner or civil engineer, which substantiates the basis for granting a reduced number of spaces. A local parking study shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Planning Commission. The study shall take into account the following three factors:
(a.) Existing parking surveys. Parking surveys shall determine parking occupancy rates of morning, afternoon and evening peaks on the seven different days of the week. The seven days of observation may take place over the span of two consecutive, typical weeks. In the case of new construction or addition of new uses, the surveys shall observe another circumstance with similar mixed uses. A combination of similar circumstances may be necessary to cover all the proposed land uses. The approximate square footages of the various land uses of the specimen projects shall be compared to the proposed project to allow the ratios of uses to be rated accordingly. In the case of an enlargement, or substitution of existing uses, the surveys shall document the occupancy rates of the existing parking facility.
(b.) Proximity and convenience factors. The following factors may influence the Planning Commission’s approval of the parking reduction figures:
• Distance between sharing uses and the parking facility
• Pedestrian connections among sharing uses and the parking facility
• Vehicular connections
• Whether parking will be paid
• Location--proximity to the CBD and general development density.
• Proximity to major transit corridors or stations.
• Special trip reduction programs, such as subsidized vanpooling, transit, shuttle or telecommuting
• Need for any reserved parking spaces. (Parking spaces to be shared cannot be reserved for specific uses or individuals except during off-peak hours.)
(c.) Captive market parking requirements. Parking requirements for retail, restaurant, hotel, convention and conference uses may be reduced where it can be determined that some portion of the patronage of these businesses comes from other uses (e.g., employees of area offices patronizing restaurants) located within a maximum walking distance of 500 feet. Parking requirements may be reduced up to 90 percent as appropriate. Whenever practical, such a reduction should be supported by surveys at similar establishments.
(2.) A covenant must be executed guaranteeing that the owner will provide the additional spaces directly or by payment of in-lieu fees if the City, upon thorough investigation of the actual use of parking spaces at the building within two years of initial occupancy, recommends to the Planning Commission that the approved reduction be modified or revoked. Said covenant shall meet the same requirements for covenants set forth in other sections of this document. The City must document insufficient parking supply by showing occupancy rates over 98 percent for a least two consecutive hours on at least three separate days within a single month.
(3.) Fee of guarantee. The owner shall pay a fee which will be applied towards the cost of a parking study of actual parking accumulation to be carried out within one to two years of occupancy.
(4.) Exception: The covenant guaranteeing either additional spaces or payment of in-lieu fees (2. above) and the fee for follow-up parking study (3. above) may be waived when the Planning Commission will certify that previous experience of similar shared parking projects indicates it is unlikely a serious deficiency would result.
d. Covenants. When a covenant between parties is required by this Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
(1.) Be executed by the owner of said lot or parcel of land the parties having beneficial use thereof.
(2.) Be enforceable by either of the parties having beneficial use thereof, or both.
(3.) Be enforceable against the owner, the parties having beneficial use and their heirs, successors and assigns, or both.
(4.) Be first duly recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds.
E. Parking Lot Location Standards. The location of all required and nonrequired parking lots with five or more spaces shall meet the location requirements below. All conditional uses hereunder shall be granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter regulations governing applications of conditional uses; procedures.
1. Permitted Locations by Right. Parking lots shall be located within the same zoning district as the use they serve. Required parking lots for uses allowed by right within a zoning district are allowed as a use by right in the same zoning district.
2. Permitted Locations as a Conditional Use. Remains the same.
3. Off-Site Locations. If off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot as the principal use due to existing buildings or the shape of the parcel, parking lots may be located on other property not more than 600 feet distant from the principal use, subject to conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. Parking spaces serving residential units must be located within 300 feet of the dwelling unit entrances they will serve whether they are off or on the site. Clear, safe pedestrian connections must be provided, requiring no crossing of an arterial street except at a signalized intersection along the pedestrian pathway.
When Parking Requirements Must be Met
Parking requirements shall be met at the time any building or structure is erected, enlarged, or increased in capacity, changed in use, or an applicable outdoor use is established or enlarged. In mixed-use developments, or developments affected by co-operative agreements between different uses on neighboring properties, changes in use will require a parking demand analysis using Table 3 or a Local Parking Study to demonstrate the change in parking demand patterns. A forecast deficiency greater than 10% must be met by the construction of additional parking spaces, payment of in-lieu fees, or support of shuttle service or other trip reduction program satisfactory to the city. If a parking study results in a forecast deficiency of less that 10%, no covenant or guarantee payment is required.
Maximum Number Allowed
Parking lots may contain up to 20% more spaces than the required minimum. Any additional spaces above 20% shall be allowed only as a conditional use and shall be granted in accordance with City zoning governing applications of conditional uses; procedures, and upon the finding that additional spaces are needed.
Shared Parking does not directly reduce vehicle travel if it substitutes for increased parking supply. To the degree that it increases the available supply of parking and reduces parking prices it can encourage automobile travel. To the degree that Shared Parking allows more Clustered Development it can encourage use of alternative modes.
Table 4 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel Impact |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
0 |
Depends on parking cost and land use impacts. |
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
0 |
" |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
0 |
" |
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
0 |
" |
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
0 |
" |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
" |
|
Increased public transit. |
0 |
" |
|
Increased cycling. |
0 |
" |
|
Increased walking. |
0 |
" |
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
" |
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
" |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Shared Parking can reduce parking facility costs (including aesthetic and environmental impacts), allows greater flexibility in facility location and site design, and encourage more efficient land use. Marshall, Garrick and Hansen (2008) found that low-speed urban streets with on-street parking tend to have lower traffic speeds, and so conclude that on-street parking is, “a tool to help create places that are safer, more walkable, require less parking, and have more vitality.” Costs include reduced motorist convenience and prestige, and increased automobile travel if it increases total parking supply. For more information see Parking Policy Evaluation.
Table 5 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
0 |
Depends on parking cost and land use impacts. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Can provide significant parking facility savings. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Can provide savings to consumers. |
|
Transport Choice |
0 |
Depends on parking cost and land use impacts. |
|
Road Safety |
0 |
Depends on parking cost and land use impacts. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces paved area. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Allows more clustered land use. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Allows more clustered land use. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
The Equity impacts of Shared Parking depend on how it is implemented and what is assumed to be the alternative. If Shared Parking reduces total parking costs it can increase horizontal equity by reducing cross subsidies from non-drivers to drivers. If it provides savings that are passed on to lower-income people it can be progressive. If it helps create more Accessible land use it can benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged and improve basic mobility.
On the other hand, zoning codes may be considered most equitable if they are applied consistently. Flexible standards, which are required for Shared Parking, may be considered unfair to competitors, and may create spillover problems if they fail (for example, if employees parking on residential streets rather than using a parking lot several blocks away as arranged by their employer).
Table 6 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
0 |
Varies depending on circumstances. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
0 |
" |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
0 |
" |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
0 |
" |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
0 |
" |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Shared Parking 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.
· Clustered development is desired.
· Traffic congestion or vehicle pollution are significant problems.
· Excessive pavement is undesirable.
Table 7 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
0 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
1 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
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).
Land Use Management
Shared Parking is a type of Parking Management and a Parking Solution. It is often implemented as part of TDM, Commute Trip Reduction, Transportation Management Associations and Campus Trip Reduction programs. It supports and is supported by Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements, Transit Improvements, Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Clustering and Transportation Pricing Reforms. It is important for Location Efficient Development.
Shared Parking is primarily implemented by local government policies and agencies, and by individual developers and businesses. Implementation often involves changing current planning, enforcement and design practices, sometimes with the support of professional organizations. Transportation Management Associations can provide parking facility brokerage services (for example, maintaining a system to match businesses that can share parking facilities).
Shared Parking require overcoming the traditional assumption that society benefits from a maximum supply of free or low-priced parking, and the resistance from land use and transportation planning institutions that are accustomed to inflexible minimum parking standards. Some public officials consider Shared Parking difficult to administrate (since it requires flexible parking standards, verification and enforcement), unfair (since some developers benefit more than others), and risky (since they could create spillover problems. Users accustomed to assigned spaces may object to this practice. There may be inadequate capacity during unusual peak demand periods.
Best practices for Shared Parking are described in various reports listed below. They include:
· Establish standard procedures for implementing Shared Parking which specify how to calculate minimum parking requirements for different combinations of land uses, acceptable walking distances, requirements for sharing agreements, verification and enforcement.
· Educate planning officials and developers as the potential for Shared Parking and procedures for implementing it.
· Provide a maximum amount of on-street parking, and public off-street parking as a substitute for private off-street parking. Encourage use of in lieu fees to substitute for private off-street parking.
· Use Transportation Management Associations or local planning agencies to provide Shared Parking matching and brokerage services.
· Insure that there is good pedestrian access and appropriate signage for users concerning Shared Parking.
· Perform regular parking studies and feedback from users to identify problems with Shared Parking.
· Anticipate potential spillover problems, and respond with appropriate regulations and enforcement programs.
|
What Street Parking Can Do For Downtowns (www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plcgarrick0511.artmay18,0,2436671.story).
As in other
parts of the country, Connecticut towns and cities are struggling to
revitalize their downtowns. Some of the planning and design decisions made in
the 1950s and 1960s make this goal more difficult. One such decision is the
elimination of street parking from many of our town centers. |
The Tri-Met (Portland area) Park & Ride Policy encourages Shared Parking near transit stations as an efficient and cost effective way to provide parking while minimizing the amount of land devoted to parking facilities. Park & Ride lots are shared with apartment complexes, a regional justice center, churches and movie theaters at more than three dozen sites. With some Transit Oriented Development projects, Tri-Met allows the total supply of off-street parking to decline. For example, if a Park & Ride facility is replaced by a new Transit Oriented Development of at least 30 residential units per acre, at least 75 employees per acre, or other comparable high-density development (Tri-Met, 2001).
By Dick Singer, City of Monrovia Public Information Officer
It seemed a risk worth taking - locating a 12-screen, 2,400-seat movie theater in the middle of Monrovia's Old Town without providing the usual adjacent parking structure.
It made sense. Monrovia's Old Town business district is compact (six blocks long and two wide) and abutted by residential neighborhoods on three sides. Medium and high-density housing (mainly senior citizen) had been developed immediately adjacent to the commercial properties. Both MTA and Foothill Transit buses provide service to the edges of Old Town and Monrovia has an active dial-a-ride service providing door-to-door public transportation.
Old Town was redeveloped in the 1970s as a pedestrian-friendly "main street" shopping and service district. Free public parking lots and street parking combined to provide more than 1,200 spaces scattered throughout the district that were never more than 80% filled. For several years, a Friday night Family Festival street fair - running weekly from March through to Christmas - drew as many as 8,000 people on a typical summer night with very little overflow parking into residential neighborhoods. Additionally, most of the businesses using public parking for their employees closed at 5 p.m. and few stores stayed open past 7 p.m., meaning that a shared parking plan seemed feasible - daytime use for office workers and nighttime use for theater goers.
The theater was to go up on one of the public parking lots, so those spaces had to be replaced, and were by the expansion of another City-owned lot and the re-configuration of a sidestreet adjacent to both that lot and the theater site. When the theater opened, there were more spaces than before the project began. In its first six months of operation, the theater has attracted good crowds and the parking has yet to be a problem. Lot and street parking is sufficient to handle the demand and convenient enough so movie-goers will happily walk two-to-three blocks between their cars and the theater to stroll past shops and restaurants.
The shared-parking plan has worked well in the project's early stages. The second phase of our plan is now about to begin. Theater crowds are drawing a new business mix to the district (as planned) and we are aware that more nighttime business use will develop over the next year. An assessment district is now in the works to finance more Old Town parking - either a structure or an additional street-level lot - to handle the expected increase.
|
Bars and churches are an ideal combination to share parking. Bars have their peak demand Saturday nights and churches have peak demand Sunday mornings. Bar patrons who stay late can simply leave their cars in the parking lot and walk to church early the next morning to pray for forgiveness. |
Paul A. Barter (2014), “A Parking Policy Typology For Clearer Thinking On Parking Reform,” International Journal of Urban Sciences (http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjus20), at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.927740.
Booz Allen Hamilton (2006), International Approaches to Tackling Transport Congestion: Paper 2: Parking Restraint Measures, Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (www.vcec.vic.gov.au).
CNU (2008), Parking Requirements and Affordable Housing, Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at www.cnu.org/node/2241.
Matthew R. Cuddy (2007), A Practical Method For Developing Context-Sensitive Residential Parking Standards, Dissertation, Rutgers University; at http://transportation.northwestern.edu/news/2007/Cuddy_dissertation_final_cv.pdf
Joshua Engel-Yan and Dylan Passmore (2010), “Assessing Alternative Approaches to Setting Parking Requirements,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vo. 80, No. 12, December, pp. 30-25; at www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2010/JB10LA30.pdf.
Reid Ewing (1996), Best Development Practices; Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time, Planners Press (www.planning.org); at www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/bestdevprimer.pdf.
“What Street Parking Can Do For Downtowns,” The Hartford Courant, (www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plcgarrick0511.artmay18,0,2436671.story).
Angus Hulme-Moir (2010), Making Way for the Car: Minimum Parking Requirements and Porirua City Centre, Thesis, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington (http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1458).
ITE (1995), Shared Parking Planning Guidelines, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).
ITE (2004), Parking Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).
Richard Lee, Robert Rees and Mackenzie Watten (2010), “Smart Growth Parking Requirements Review,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vo. 80, No. 12, December, 34-40; at www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2010/JB10LA36.pdf.
Todd Litman (1999), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf.
Todd Litman (2000), “Transportation Land Valuation; Evaluating Policies and Practices that Affect the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation Facilities,” VTPI (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2002), “Parking Costs,” Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004), Pavement Busters Guide, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/pavbust.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management Best Practices, Planners Press (www.planning.org); www.vtpi.org/PMBP_Flyer.pdf.
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).
Kyle Maetani, Michael Kodama, Richard Willson, William Francis & Associates (1996), Using Demand-Based Parking Strategies to Meet Community Goals; Local Government Parking Management Handbook, Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC), South Coast Air Quality Management District (www.aqmd.gov).
Wesley E. Marshall and Norman W. Garrick (2006), Parking at Mixed-Use Centers in Small Cities, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/Files/06-2864.pdf.
Wesley E. Marshall, Norman W. Garrick and Gilbert Hansen (2008), Reassessing On-Street Parking, Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).
Karel Martens (2005), Effects of Restrictive Parking Policy on the Development of City Centers, Environmental Simulation Laboratory, Tel Aviv University, for Israeli Ministry of Transport; available at www.mot.gov.il/wps/pdf/HE_TRAFFIC_PLANNING/RestrictiveParkingPolicy.pdf.
Metro Vancouver (2012), Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study; Revised Technical Report, Metropolitan Planning, Environment, and Parks (www.metrovancouver.org); included in 7 Sept. 2012 Regional Planning And Agriculture Committee Agenda at www.metrovancouver.org/boards/Regional%20Planning%20and%20Agriculture/Regional_Planning_and_Agriculture_Committee-September_7_2012-Agenda.pdf. Also see, “Apartment parking spots lift development costs in Vancouver,” Georgia Strait, www.straight.com/article-770756/vancouver/parking-spots-lift-prices.
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.
MRSC (2005), Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington (www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx).
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.
MTC (2007), Reforming Parking Policies To Support Smart Growth Toolbox/Handbook: Parking Best Practices & Strategies For Supporting Transit Oriented Development In The San Francisco Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (www.mtc.ca.gov); at www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/parking_seminar/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf.
NPH (2003), Residential Parking Tool Box, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California; at www.nonprofithousing.org/actioncenter/toolbox/parking/content.html. This website provides information on residential parking regulations, costs and management strategies to improve efficiency and increase housing affordability.
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 Reform website (www.parkingreform.org) promotes various reforms, particularly parking pricing with revenues returned to local communities and businesses.
PAS (2009), Parking Solutions: Essential Info Packet, Planning Advisory Service, American Planning Association (www.planning.org): at www.planning.org/pas/infopackets. These packets consist of compilation of related documents that provide practical information on various parking management strategies, suitable for use by planners and developers. These include:
· Parking Solutions (130 pages) includes six documents that describe modern approaches to parking management.
· Shared Parking (133 pages) includes more than thirty documents concerning shared parking, parking in-lieu fees, parking requirement reductions and exemptions, and downtown district special parking requirements.
· Green Parking Lot Design (66 pages) includes three documents that describe ways to improve parking lot environmental performance including landscaping, stormwater management and reduced heat island effects.
· Permeable Pavement and Bicycle Parking (38 pages) includes five documents concerning the use of permeable parking lot pavement materials and five documents concerning bicycle parking requirements and design.
Push and Pull (http://push-pull-parking.eu/index.php?id=57) project website provides information on various parking management programs in Europe.
Donald C. Shoup (1999), “In Lieu of Required Parking,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, pp. 307-320.
Donald Shoup (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press (www.planning.org).
Thomas P. Smith (1983), Flexible Parking Requirements, PAS Report 377, American Planning Association (www.planning.org).
Mott Smith (2006), Onsite Parking: The Scourge of America's Commercial Districts, Planetizen (www.planetizen.com/node/19246).
Stein Engineering (1997), Shared Parking Handbook, Portland Metro (www.metro-region.org); at www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/sharedpark.pdf.
Tri-Met (2001), Park & Ride Policy, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (www.tri-met.org).
ULI (2000), The Dimensions of Parking, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org) and the National Parking Association.
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).
USEPA (2009), Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/2009_essential_fixes.pdf.
Rachel Weinberger, John Kaehny and Matthew Rufo (2009), U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org).
Richard Willson (2015), Parking Management for Smart Growth, Island Press (http://islandpress.org); at http://islandpress.org/book/parking-management-for-smart-growth.
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
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#89