planning for low parking/no parking development presented by kevin shively, nelson\nygaard, october...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Planning for Low Parking/No Parking DevelopmentPresented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013
![Page 2: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview
Changing travel patterns Implications for off-street parking Trends in low-parking/no-parking development Challenges for planning and implementation Case Study: Low parking development in Berkeley, CA Minimum parking requirements > Access
requirements
2
![Page 3: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Travel patterns are changing...
3
Vehicle travel peaked in 2008
Millenials are driving less (23% less than their counterparts in 2001!)
‘Boomer driving will decline…
![Page 4: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Implications for developers and employers
Less interest in bundled parking
More interest in – location, – walkability, – transit accessibility– nearby amenities– Bike access & parking– Carsharing
Affordable housing imperative
Focus on transportation benefits
4
Challenges: Planning Legal Political
![Page 5: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Genentech
5
Bus/Shuttles $4 per day
incentives for all users / alt
Priced parking 100 million
miles saved $100 million
saved on parking
South SF TDM Ordinance
![Page 6: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Demand vs. Requirement: Downtown Palo AltoObserved peak
occupancy: 1.91 spaces
per 1,000 s.f.
Existing Requirement: 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Would require 5,210 more spaces than observed demand to bring
downtown to 4 spaces per 1,000 sf requirement At $51K/space = $298 million
Peak occupancy w/ 10% vacancy:
2.1 spaces per 1,000 s.f.
![Page 7: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Example: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA
![Page 8: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Gaia Building – Parking Demand
91 apartments, theater, café & office space
42 parking spaces supplied Result: 237 adult residents with just 20 cars
![Page 9: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Parking fee: $150/month
Parking costs are “unbundled”
![Page 10: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Case Study: Garden Village, Berkeley, CA
81 dwelling units– 36 2br units– 45 4br units– Student-oriented
Replaces 20,000 sf office on-site
No private off-street parking proposed*
Applicable Parking Requirement: 72 spaces
*Proponent applied for a concession under the state density bonus law
![Page 12: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Case Study: Berkeley, CA
12
![Page 13: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Case Study: Garden Village Apartments, Berkeley, CA
162 secure bike parking spaces inside apartments
24 bike lockers on ground floor
16 bike racks for short-term/visitor parking
Off-street parking for up to 10 shared vehicles
No private off-street parking.
13
Transit passes On-site bike repair
station $10 bike link
parking card for all residents
Grocery trolley in each unit
![Page 14: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Parking Demand Analysis
Questions: 1. How many spaces will residents/visitors use?2. How many vehicle trips will be made?3. Where will residents/visitors park?
Alternative methods to estimate demand: 4. ITE-rates5. Vehicle-ownership6. URBEMIS7. Surveys of comparable sites
14
![Page 15: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Methods for Estimating Demand
Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE): Parking Generation, 4th edition– New use: “Low/Mid-Rise Apt.” (ITE 221 = 1.2
spaces/unit)– Existing use: “Office” (ITE 701 = 2.4 space/1,000 sf)– Estimated net peak demand = 48 spaces weekday/ 78
wknd– ITE itself acknowledges that Parking Generation, “may
not best reflect local conditions…surveys of comparable local conditions should always be considered as one of the best means to estimate parking demand to account for local factors.”
Vehicle ownership– 5% student vehicle ownership rate (UC survey)– Estimated demand for 14 spaces (5% of 266 residents) 15
![Page 16: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
URBEMIS
Trip generation based emissions model
Takes factors besides land use into account:– density– mix of uses– local-serving retail– transit service– ped/bike environment
Avoids double-counting
Daily Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit (Average Rate)
9.577.5 6.59 5.86
4.2 4.18
02468
1012
Single-Fam
ily Deta
ched
Reside
ntial P
UD
Low-Rise
Apartm
ent
Reside
ntial C
ondo/T
ownho
use
High-Rise
Apartmen
t
High-Rise
Res.Con
do/Tow
nhou
se
![Page 17: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Parking Analysis: URBEMIS estimated ratios
17
Garden Village Apartments, Berkeley, CA
![Page 18: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Parking Analysis: Travel Surveys of Comparable Local Sites
18
42 Units 30 parking
spaces (0.7/unit)
Residents ineligible for on-street permits
![Page 19: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
75 units + retail
18 parking spaces (0.24/unit)
Residents ineligible for on-street permits
Parking Analysis: Travel Surveys of Comparable Local Sites
![Page 20: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Parking Analysis
40 units + retail
11 parking spaces (0.27/unit)*
Residents eligible for permits, but none taken
* Parking leased separately, some to non-tenants
![Page 21: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Parking Analysis: Travel Surveys of Comparable Local Sites
Count entering/existing vehicles Intercept residents/visitors at main entrance &
ask: 1. Do you live here? 2. What mode of travel did/will you use?3. How many vehicles do you keep in town? 4. Where is/are vehicle(s) currently parked?5. Did you pay to park there? 6. Does your vehicle have a permit?7. Are you affiliated with UC?
21
![Page 22: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Parking Analysis: Travel Surveys of Comparable Local Sites
22
85%
15%
No Ve-hicle1 Ve-hicle
73%
7%
3%
10%
3%4%
1%
Walk
Bus
Bike
Rail
Drive-alone
Carpool
Other
Mode of current trip
Vehicle availability
![Page 23: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Parking Analysis: Travel Surveys of Comparable Local Sites
23
35%
33%
31% On-site garage/lotOther off-streetOn-street
Parking locationPaid; 59%
Did not pay; 41%
Payment for parking
![Page 24: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Case Study: Garden Village, Berkeley - Conclusions
Literature shows ample free on-site parking can increase vehicle trips, VMT and emissions
Residents and visitors primarily use non-auto modes of travel
URBEMIS, vehicle ownership and local surveys suggest total peak parking demand for 14-38 vehicles (before TDM provisions)
Surveys showed 40% of vehicles at comparable sites parked off-site, off-street.
Healthy private market for parking (Craigslist showed 12 offers for monthly parking within 7 blocks at $70-$120/mo)
Some residents may opt to park on-street in RPP zones or walk 10-15 min. to outside of zone.
Prior surveys show 19 on-street spaces available within 2 blocks overnight.
24
![Page 25: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Effects of Minimum Parking Requirements
Cost
– Makes Smart growth less financially feasible
– Housing less affordable
Land unavailable for other uses (reduced tax revenue!)
Impacts on design and pedestrian friendliness
Generates traffic
Ample, free parking provides little incentive to use alternative modes
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard
![Page 26: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Replace Minimums with Maximums
26
• Sacramento, CA• Portland, OR• San Francisco, CA• Stuart, FL• Seattle, WA• Spokane, WA• United Kingdom (illegal in entire nation)
• Eugene, OR!• Coral Gables, FL• Fort Myers, FL• Fort Pierce, FL• Los Angeles, CA• Milwaukee, WI• Olympia, WA
These cities have abolished minimum parking requirements, citywide or in districts:
![Page 27: Planning for Low Parking/No Parking Development Presented by Kevin Shively, Nelson\Nygaard, October 28, 2013](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062417/5518bffc550346991f8b5538/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2013
Kevin Shively1402 Third Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98101(206) 428-1927