rv 2014: space exploration: innovative parking tools + strategies
DESCRIPTION
Space Exploration: Innovative Parking Tools + Strategies AICP CM 1.5 Explore the latest parking tools, policies and implementation steps for public and private sector parking applications. Discover online tools and right-size parking principles to turn around the parking situation in your community. Discuss ways to help your community adjust to the changing nature of parking and mobility. Learn from national organizations and agencies that are paving the way for a future of parking in support of TOD and sustainable development. Moderator: Lucy F. Galbraith, AICP, Director, Transit Oriented Development, Metro Transit, Minneapolis, Minnesota Jennifer West, GreenTRIP Policy Analyst, TransForm, Oakland, California Dan Bertolet, Urban Planner, VIA Architecture, Seattle, Washington Mark Gander, AICP, Director of Urban Mobility and Development, AECOM, New York, New YorkTRANSCRIPT
TOOLS TO BALANCE SUPPLY
Rail~Volu6on -‐ October 23, 2013 Dan Bertolet – VIA Architecture and Planning
• Best prac6ces research • Parking u6liza6on surveys • Online demand calculator • Stakeholder engagement • Model code • Parking management • TDM and pricing • Demonstra*on projects
OUR PROJECT
OUR PARTNERS Op*mize parking in mul*family buildings
Right-‐sizing parking means striking a balance between parking supply and demand. • Oversupply can be an impediment to achieving a wide range of community goals
• Undersupply can create the risk of neighborhood impacts and loss of real estate marketability
WHAT IS RIGHT-‐SIZE PARKING?
• Parking is expensive to build
• The cost of parking raises housing prices
• Excess parking compromises ac6ve transporta6on modes, transit efficiency, and urban design
• Parking encourages driving, which congests roadways and increases greenhouse gases emissions
WHY DOES RSP MATTER?
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
???
• Exis6ng tools and data are general and outdated • Dysfunc6onal market for parking
UTILIZATION SURVEY FINDINGS
• Surveyed parking u6liza6on at 220 mul6family buildings across King County
• On average, parking is supplied at 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit, but is only used at 1.0 spaces per unit
Geographic Variables • transit service • popula6on + job density
Building Variables • bedroom count • parking price • affordable units • residen6al density • average rent
PREDICTIVE MODEL
R2 = .80
www.rightsizeparking.org
THE RSP WEB CALCULATOR
Parcel-‐level es*mates
Map-‐based
Customized scenario-‐building
Impact of unbundling rent and
parking price
CODE GAP ANALYSIS
Outside Seaale, 82% of parcels require parking greater than model predic6on
MODEL CODE
• Market-‐based Approach Ø Remove parking minimums
• Context-‐based Approach Ø Op*mize minimums with context-‐based adjustments
hap://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/projects/right-‐size-‐parking/pdf/140110-‐rsp-‐model-‐code.pdf
PARKING PRICING
• 62% of proper6es surveyed unbundled parking price from the price of rent
• Residents charged > 10% of
monthly rent for parking used only half as many spaces as residents charged < 5%
• Elas6city is stronger in urban areas where there are beaer alterna6ves to driving
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Pricing and TDM
Policy and Model Code
Shared Parking
Two affordable housing providers: Beacon Development and Hopelink
Four ci*es: Seaale, Kirkland, Tukwila, Kent
CDC partner: District shared parking for Capitol Hill neighborhood
Kirkland, WA (pop. 84,000)
• Assess minimums for mul6family citywide
• Gap analysis and u6liza6on surveys showed minimums significantly above demand in several MF zones
• City has ini6ated process to update code: Ø MF minimums will be standardized across zones and set
approximately in line with the RSP calculator
Ø Adding context-‐based adjustments for unit bedrooms
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: CODE
Kent, WA (pop. 124,000)
• Assess MF minimums and on-‐street management for historic downtown with commuter rail sta6on
• Code review and gap analysis indicate MF minimums could be reduced modestly to reflect transit access
• U6liza6on surveys found excess supply of both public on-‐street parking and commercial off-‐street parking
Ø In near-‐term, city will focus on op*mizing the on-‐street system, e.g. signage, striping, refined *me limits, enforcement
Ø Longer-‐term intent to encourage shared parking
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: CODE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: CODE
Tukwila, WA (pop. 19,000)
• Evaluate parking issues in light rail sta6on area • Is Hide & Ride an issue?
Ø Sound Transit parking surveys showed 25% u*liza*on on surrounding streets; confirmed by recent observa*on
• Is the RSP calculator valid for immigrant popula6ons?
Ø U*liza*on surveys of 24 mul*family sites showed no significant differences in demand
• Web survey showed 61% of residents pay for parking at home
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: CODE
Sea^le, WA (pop. 620,000) • Residen*al Permit Zones
Ø Research found li^le innova*on in other ci*es Ø Pricing refinements could improve management
• Shared parking Ø Rules on sharing are unclear and limit op*ons
Ø Code should explicitly define a “share list,” as in Portland Ø Code should explicitly allow sharing below the minimum
• Parking Maximums
Ø Tie maximums to mode split goals
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: TDM
El Centro de la Raza and Beacon Development • Planned 112-‐unit affordable housing project
Ø Developing a comprehensive TDM Plan for the project to support a balanced parking supply and minimize neighborhood impacts
Hopelink • Exploring mul6ple TDM strategies at several of their exis6ng
low-‐income housing proper6es
Ø Bike parking, Car2Go memberships, subsidized transit passes, resident “travel training”, on-‐street management
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: SHARED PARKNG
District Shared Parking Pilot • Partnered with Capitol Hill Housing, a Seaale CDC • Rapidly growing n’hood with a goal to reduce need for
new parking
Ø Assess poten*al for district shared parking to provide be^er access to currently underu*lized supply
Ø Develop tools and incen*ves to create a system of priced parking that will connect customers with providers
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: TRANSIT PASS
ORCA Mul*family Development Passport • Comprehensive, annual transporta6on pass program
available to mul6family property owners or managers
• Reduced price -‐ amenity for residents
• Reduces demand for on-‐site parking
• May qualify projects for credit in green building cer6fica6on programs such as LEED
WHAT’S NEXT: PARK & RIDE IN MULTIFAMILY
RESOURCES
Right Size Parking Calculator www.rightsizeparking.org
Metro Transit’s Right Size Parking Website kingcounty.gov/RightSizeParking
Dan Bertolet VIA Architecture and Planning dbertolet@via-‐architecture.com 206-‐284-‐5624
Daniel Rowe King County Metro Project Manager [email protected] 206-‐263-‐3586
Map Based Instruc*ons and Video
Technical Background Search View Regional Parking Use
Select a Parcel or Area
View Parking Ra*o
Build a Scenario
Adjust Building and Parking Specifica*ons
View Change in Parking Ra*o Update
Adjust Loca*on Characteris*cs
View Change in Parking Ra*o Update
Research Objec6ves 1. Iden6fy independent variables, both
from a theore6cal framework and a prac6cal development and planning standpoint, to be tested in regression analysis
2. Conduct variables’ significance in predic6ng parking use
3. Develop a model using regression analysis, maintaining that all variables be significant and highly correlated.
4. Develop a website tool enabling interac6ve use of the model by interested stakeholders
Demonstra6on Project: Pricing/TDM
Project DescriptionResidential Units 150 150 150Parking Spaces 75 150 300Parking Ratio 0.5 1.0 1.5Levels of Parking 1.3 2.6 3.9
Cost/ Profit Stall Margin$150 23% 19% 15%$100 21% 15% 9%$50 19% 11% 3%
Project Revenue: Parking Price Elas*city
Urban Project Pro Forma • 25,000 sf site • 6 story building • 640 sf/unit • Underground parking • Land at $100/sf • Unit rent at $2.2/sf • Cap rate at 5%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
$50 $100 $150 $200 $250
Parking U*liza*
on per Unit
Monthly Parking Price per Stall Countywide Urban
Elas6city at $130 Countywide: -‐9% Urban : -‐47%
PARKING PRICING ELASTICITY
Independent Variable Transformation Coefficient Individual R Square Stepwise R Square
Constant NA 1.980910 NA NA
Gravity measure of Transit Frequency Natural log -0.066639 55.5% 55.5%
Percent of Units designated Affordable Square root -0.022966 27.6% 67.1%
Average Occupied Bedroom Count Inverse -0.360291 34.3% 73.7%
Gravity measure of Intensity (population + jobs) Inverse 35,353.047567 53.3% 76.2%
Units per Residential Square Feet Inverse 0.000139 17.1% 78.7%
Average Rent Inverse -154.420722 6.7% 80.0%
Parking Price as a fraction of Average Rent Square root -0.334655 18.1% 81.0%
STATISTICAL MODEL
CODE GAP ANALYSIS
• 61% of King County parcels have requirements > RSP predic6on
• Outside Seaale: 82% of parcels have requirements > RSP predic6on
• Outside Seaale: ci6es require 43% more parking than is predicted by the RSP model
• Assess the market for pricing and financing parking
• Develop TDM strategies to support a balanced parking supply
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Pricing and TDM
Policy and Model Code
District Shared Parking
• Develop model code, parking management, and neighborhood mi6ga6on strategies designed to promote RSP outcomes
• Assess poten6al for district shared parking based on supply
• Develop tools to price parking and connect customers
View Impacts