1. PARKING: THE WHY, HOW, WHERE,
AND WHAT OF A CONFOUNDING
PRACTICE Cities
Sunnyvale Cool
8, 2012
Brian Canepa November
Source: roarofthefour

2. Agenda
 Why is parking the way it is?
 How do you determine the “right” amount of parking?
 Where has reform been successful?
 What strategies are available to communities?
2

4. Conventional approach to parking
1. Require lots of off-
street parking for
each land use
2. Give away on-street
and off-street
parking for free

5. Minimum Parking Requirements
Purpose
 Napa: “to reduce street
congestion and traffic
hazards”?
 Santa Monica: “to reduce
traffic congestion”?
 In reality, minimum parking
requirements prevent spill-
over parking problems

7. 7

8. History of Parking
Requirements
Image: Google Maps

9. History of Parking
Requirements

10. Parking Consumes Large Amounts of Land
 If you require Retail 1.20
more than 3
spaces per 1,000
sq ft, you’re Office 1.33
requiring more
parking than
Food Store
land use
1.50
Bank 1.50
Restaurant 3.00
and Bar
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Building Sq.Ft. Parking Sq.Ft.
10

12. How much do “free” parking and highways cost?
 Off-street parking subsidy
(2002) - $127 to $374
billion
– Equal to 1.2% - 3.6% of
total national income
– Medicare = $231 billion
– National defense = $349
billion
 Highway spending = $193
billion (2007)
– 51 % generated through
user fees

13. Parking is Expensive
$30,000
$30,000 $30,000
$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
$30,000 $30,000
$20,000 $30,000
$30,000 $30,000 $30,000
$30,000
$30,000 $30,000 $30,000
$30,000
$30,000 $30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000 $30,000

14. Where is the Parking Problem?
Streets = $1.00/hr. Garages = $1.50/hr.
Building more spaces cannot solve the on-street
shortage

15. Parking Produces Traffic Congestion
 Every parking space is a magnet
for cars. Why provide more
parking than you have traffic
capacity to access that parking?
 Poorly managed parking results
in motorists circling for a
parking space, from 8 to 74% of
traffic in many downtowns.
 Eliminating just 10% of vehicles
from any congested location
makes traffic free flowing.
Source: “Cruising for Parking,” Don Shoup, 2006.

16. Driving Competes with Other Modes

17. Parking Worsens Housing Affordability
 For each parking space required in
a residential unit:
 Price of unit increases 15-30%
 Number of units that can be built
on typical parcel decreases 15-25%
 No accommodation for car-free
households: Getting rid of a car =
extra $100,000 in mortgage
 At >300 sq ft, each parking space
consumes more space than an
efficiency apartment
Sources: “A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and
Transportation Burdens of Working Families,” Center for
Neighborhood Technology, 2006. “The Affordability Index: A
New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing
Choice,” Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2008. Sedway
Cook studies of parking and housing costs in San Francisco and
Oakland.

18. Parking Requirements & Housing Affordability
 1961: Oakland’s first parking requirement
 One space per unit for apartments
 Construction cost increases 18% per unit
 Units per acre decreases by 30%
 Land value falls 33%
18

19. Which Uses Make Your City Active?
Restaurant Table
5’ x 5’ = 25 ft2
Office Cubicle
8’ x 9’ = 72 ft2
Parking Space
Bedroom 9’ x 11’ = 99 ft2 10’ x 20’ = 200 ft2
19

21. Institute of Transportation Engineers
Parking Generation Manual
 The parking generation
rate is the peak parking
occupancy observed at a
site.

22. Standard Parking Generation Rates Are Derived
From Isolated, Single-Use Developments

24. Actual Data Points

25. Source: Google Maps
 19 sites – 1980s
 15 sites – 1990s

26. Conclusion
• Parking occupancy is unrelated to floor
area in this sample.
• The parking generation rate of 9.98
spaces per 1,000 square feet looks
accurate because it is so precise, but the
precision is misleading.

27. Result
• Minimum requirements often set equal
to or above peak
• Peak hour – most businesses have empty
spaces
• Empty spaces represent a massive
economic, social, and environmental
burden

28. No Single “Right” Number
 Parking demand varies
with geographic factors:
– Density
– Transit Access
– Income
– Household size
– Pricing
 Cities can tailor parking
requirements to meet
demand, based on these
factors
 Supply ≠ Availability

29. Might
not
work
here.
What
works
here...

30. Residential Parking Demand at Suburban TODs
Average Peak
Supply
Parking
Source (spaces/unit
Demand
)
(cars/unit)
East Bay* 1.20 1.59
Santa Clara County** 1.31 1.68
ITE Parking Generation 1.20 --
* 16 multi-family rental projects in East Bay within 2/3 mile of transit station
(Cervero/Sullivan 2010)
** 12 TOD projects within ½ mile of rail transit stations in Santa Clara County
(San Jose State University, 2010)

31. East Bay Area TODs

32. East Bay TODs

33. Parking at TODs in Santa
Clara County
(San Jose State Study)
San Jose

34. Parking at TODs in Santa Clara Co.
 Parking Demand
Empt
– Range: 0.8 - 1.5/unit
y
– Average: 1.3/unit
Space
 Parking Supply s
– Range: 1.3 -2.3 26%
– Average: 1.7
 Over Supply
– Range: 14% - 39%
– Average: 26%

35. Chico
Palo Alto
Monterey
Santa
Monica

36. Commercial Parking Demand
Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet
5
4
3
2
1
0
Typical Code ITE (Stand Palo Alto Chico Santa Monica Monterey
Req Alone)

37. Conclusions
 Residential parking demand
– Comparable to ITE
• Average: 1 - 1.3 cars/unit
• ITE rate: 1.2 cars/unit
– Case Study: Archstone Fremont Center
• 80% of cars are still present in the middle of the day
 Commercial parking demand
– Below ITE
• Average: 1.5 per 1,000 sf
• “Suburban” ITE rate: 2.9 per 1,000 sf

39. Apocalypse?!

40. The Constituencies
“Stay out of my
neighborhood!”
Suburban Residents
Anti-Growth/Development
Traffic & Parking Congestion
Merchants
CONSTITUENCIES/
CONCERNS Community Activists
Parking Congestion Gentrification or Displacement
Loss of Customers/New Competition Social Equity
“Lots of free parking “No giveaways to
for everyone!” developers!”

41. In the Bay Area
Petaluma
Walnut Creek
Napa San Jose

42. CASE STUDY: SACRAMENTO

43. It’s the Economy, Stupid
What will help the economy?
Market forces
alone
Community
planning
Community
planning &
market forces
Don’t know
Source – APA, Planning in America:
Perceptions and Priorities, June 2012. 43

44.  On-street
parking is
congested
while…

45.  Off-street is
largely
vacant
 ~46,000
total spaces
empty at
peak hour
 $184M -
$1.15B in
unused
assets

46. Key Findings
 More off-street
parking will not
relieve on-street
parking congestion
 Infill/reuse is
currently difficult to
develop
 Parking entitlement
process creates
uncertainty, and is
costly in time and
resources

47. 47

48. Key Recommendations
 Exempt small and vertically-mixed use
retail/restaurant
 Permit shared parking
 Low, voluntary in-lieu fee
 Allow alternatives to on-site parking

49. Key Recommendations
 Simplify parking requirements across categories
 No minimum requirement for residential or mixed use
reuse of historic structures
Office? Cafe? Gallery? Bookstore?

51. Reforming Parking
1. Reduce or eliminate unnecessary
parking requirements
2. Share parking
3. Promote alternative modes
4. Establish parking maximums in
very transit-rich and walkable
areas
5. Adopt additional strategies for
parking management
– Unbundling the cost of
parking
– Parking cash-out
– Discount transit passes
– Carsharing and peer-2-peer
– Robust bike parking
requirements

52. Reforming Parking
6. Price on- and off-street parking
7. Adopt an on-street parking
availability target
8. Manage parking to achieve the
availability target using pricing
or time limits
9. Prevent spillover parking
impacts in surrounding
neighborhoods with residential
permit parking zones
10. Establish parking benefit
districts

53. Reduce or Eliminate Unnecessary Parking
Requirements
 Cities can tailor
parking requirements
to meet demand
– Blended requirements
– Small business
exemptions
 Streamline costly
entitlement process
 Maximums informed
by local market

54. Conventional Development
Shop
School
P P
P
T T T T
TT T T T
TT
T
P
P
Work
Play P

55. Mixed Use, Park Once District
Work
Shop
School
P
Play
T
T
Results:
• <½ the parking
• <½ the land area
• ¼ the arterial trips
• 1/6th the arterial turning movements
• <¼ the vehicle miles traveled

56. 1,400
1,000
Shared Uses:
1,200
Real Demand 800
Unshared Supply
1,000
1,800 1,800
600
800
1,600 1,600
400
38% Less
1,400
600
1,400
Residential
200
400
1,200 1,200
-
200
1,000 1,000 Office
-
800 800
Residential
600 600
Office
400 400 Restaurant
200 Restaurant 200
- -

57. Achieving Shared Parking in Existing Areas
 Indemnify private lots to
utilize parking during
non-peak hours
 Establish rules regarding
enforcement, managemen
t, pricing
 Make it mutually
beneficial for both the City
and lot owner
57

58. Promote Alternative Modes
 Enhance bicycle parking
requirements
 Allow alternatives to on-
site parking that reduce
or manage parking
demand
– Transit pass subsidies
– Guaranteed Ride Home
program
– Rideshare/vanpool services

59. In-Lieu Fee Programs
 Pasadena
 Reqs prevented changes of
use in Old Pasadena
 Pawnshop: 2.5
spaces/1,000 sf
 Restaurant: 20
spaces/1,000 sf
 Solution
 Parking requirements
reduced by 25%
 “Parking Credit Program”:
Low annual fee
 Cost to meet parking
requirement is now only
2.5% of previous cost
59

60. Progressive In-Lieu Fee Schedule
Representative Encourage Retaining
of Market Value Some On-Site Parking
Below Land
Value to
Encourage Infill

61. Unbundle Parking Costs
 Separates cost of parking from cost of leasing
 Allows for greater choice in housing and
commercial space
 Reduces vehicle ownership

62. Unbundle Parking Costs
House A: House B:
• 2,000 sq. ft. • 2,300 sq. ft.
• 3 bedrooms • 4 bedrooms
• 2-car garage • 1-car garage
• $500,000 • $500,000
Source: mimbles

63. 91 Apartments - 42 Parking Spaces – 237 Residents with 20 cars
Example: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA

64. Who’s Unbundling for Sale?
 San Francisco
• Four Seasons: $150/month for self-
park; $250/month for valet parking
(2004)
• 300 3rd Street: All parking owned by
3rd party, residents lease parking at
market rate
 Seattle (moda)
• All parking spaces leased month-to-
month
• 251 units sold out in one week
 St. Louis, MO (Ballpark Lofts)
• 25% of buyers opted for no parking
space

65. Parking Cash-Out
 Equally subsidize all modes of transportation
 Currently required by state law for all employers
with 50+ employees, who lease parking
 City of Santa Monica, CA requires compliance;
considering local requirement for all employers

66. Cashout Reduces Parking Demand and Traffic
100%
% o f p re vio u s p ark in g d ema n d
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
A m o u n t o f f e r e d t o e m p lo ye e s w h o d o n o t d r ive alo n e ( $/m o n t h )

67. Multimodal Infrastructure
 Bicycle sharing programs
 On-site facilities
 Carshare spaces
 Scooter/Motorcycle
parking
 Tandem/stacked parking
67

68. Parking Management & Financial Incentives
 Free transit passes
 Tax-free commuter
benefit program
 Free carsharing
membership
68

69. Vehicle Trip Consolidation, Promotion &
Scheduling
 Rideshare Matching
Services
 Shuttle Services
 Subsidized Vanpools
 Guaranteed Ride
Home Program
 Marketing/Outreach
 On-site Coordinator
 Telecommute
 Compressed work
week
 Staggered shifts
69

72. 4. Ensure good parking design

73. Price it Right: Managing Parking Through
Pricing
 Goals
– Set price to meet demand
(not too high, not too low)
– Ensure that 1-2 parking
spaces are available on each
block & address potential
spillover impacts
 How?
– Adopt policy to achieve 15%
vacancy
– Monitor occupancy, adjust
meter rates, permit
prices, and/or parking
supply to achieve vacancy
goal
73

75. Performance-based Parking Pricing: Redwood
City, CA
 Ordinance sets target of
85% occupancy for
downtown parking
 Prices are higher in central
on-street areas, lower in
outer areas and off street
facilities
 Time limits eliminated
 Multi-space meters installed
 Parking fund supports extra
police presence in
Downtown
 Results: Turnover
increased; Peak hour
availability increased from
0% to 18% on Broadway
75

76. Smart payment technology

79. Manage Spillover
 Residential Parking Permit
Districts
– Critical for addressing spillover
 Parking Benefit Districts
– Limited number of visitor
permits
– Residents decide how to spend
revenue
– Ex: Santa Cruz, West
Hollywood, Boulder, CO, Austin,
TX
 Site-specific traffic plans
– Schools, supermarkets, etc.

80. Brian Canepa
116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.284.1544
bcanepa@nelsonnygaard.com
NELSONNYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011