CITY of ANN ARBOR Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study – Phase II FINAL REPORT
June 2007
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Table of Contents
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1
CHAPTER 1. BENCHMARK AND EXISTING POLICY DOCUMENTATION ...... 1-1 Benchmarks – Existing Conditions and Policies ...... 1-1 Parking Management Toolbox Primer...... 1-15
CHAPTER 2. PUBLIC OUTREACH WEEK #I...... 2-1 Notes from Focus Group Meetings ...... 2-1 Notes from the Policy Boards Meeting...... 2-14 Notes from Key Institution Interviews ...... 2-19 Notes from the Open House...... 2-23
CHAPTER 3. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 3-1 Public Feedback...... 3-1 Parking Management Toolbox ...... 3-12
CHAPTER 4. PUBLIC OUTREACH WEEK #2...... 4-1 Notes from Focus Group Meetings ...... 4-2 Notes from Policy Boards Meeting...... 4-9 Notes from the Open House...... 4-11
CHAPTER 5. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5-1 Recommended Parking Principles ...... 5-1 Toolbox Actions...... 5-5 Beyond the Toolbox...... 5-24 Implementation Factors ...... 5-26
APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES
APPENDIX B. COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW
APPENDIX C. IN LIEU FEES
APPENDIX D. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PARKING FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWNS
APPENDIX E. CASE STUDY – BOULDER, CO APPENDIX F. THE 511 TRAVEL INFORMATION SYSTEM
APPENDIX G. REAL-TIME ON-STREET OCCUPANCY TECHNOLOGY
APPENDIX H. ORDINANCE EXAMPLE: DEMAND-RESPONSIVE ON-STREET PRICING
APPENDIX I. OPEN HOUSE SURVEY FEEDBACK
Page i • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Table of Figures
PAGE Figure 1-1 DDA Parking System Inventory and Utilization...... 1-3 Figure 1-2 Inventory by Sub-Area ...... 1-3 Figure 1-3 Sub-Area Utilization ...... 1-3 Figure 1-4 Cost versus Effect Analysis ...... 1-16 Figure 1-5 Making Clear What Meters Offer the Community...... 1-19 Figure 1-6 Multi-Space Meter ...... 1-21 Figure 1-7 Toolbox Matrix of Policies, Tools, and Principles Addressed ...... 1-30
Figure 2-1 Focus Group 1 Attendees...... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Focus Group 2 Attendees...... 2-5 Figure 2-3 Focus Group 3 Attendees...... 2-8 Figure 2-4 Focus Group 4 Attendees...... 2-10 Figure 2-5 Policy Board Meeting Attendees ...... 2-14 Figure 2-6 Toolbox Feedback Summary...... 2-18 Figure 2-7 Open House Attendees...... 2-23 Figure 2-8 Policy Options Voting...... 2-25
Figure 3-1 Toolbox Feedback Summary...... 3-2 Figure 3-2 The Toolbox...... 3-13
Figure 4-1 Alternative Modes Focus Group Attendees...... 4-2 Figure 4-2 Commuter Focus Group Attendees ...... 4-4 Figure 4-3 Resident Focus Group Attendees ...... 4-5 Figure 4-4 Business Community Focus Group Attendees ...... 4-7 Figure 4-5 Policy Board Meeting Attendees ...... 4-9 Figure 4-6 Open House Attendees...... 4-11
Figure 5-1 Leading Pedestrian Interval – Pedestrians First...... 5-8 Figure 5-2 Leading Pedestrian Interval – Turning Vehicles Second ...... 5-8 Figure 5-3 Parking Hours and Costs by User...... 5-22 Figure 5-4 Cross-Support Factors Among Toolbox Actions ...... 5-28 Figure 5-5 DDA Staffing Cost Estimates for Recommended Survey Program ...... 5-30 Figure 5-6 Estimated Staff Costs for Basic Travel Choice Office Surveys...... 5-30 Figure 5-7 Actions: Implementation Factors ...... 5-37
Page ii • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Introduction
The 2006/2007 Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study was a two-phase effort to document existing parking conditions and develop parking management policy. This report documents the conclusion of the study’s second phase, which was designed around a deliberative process for incorporating extensive public outreach efforts into the development of parking policy recommendations for Downtown. The second phase included two weeks of intensive public outreach opportunities, including focus group meetings, policy maker workshops, and public open houses. This report summarizes the input received during both weeks of outreach, development of parking policy principles, and a proposed program of options to achieve Downtown’s vision for a parking as one element of the transportation network. Chapter 1. Benchmark and Existing Policy Documentation
In preparation for the first week of public outreach meetings, the Project Team developed a pair of technical memoranda to be delivered to expected attendants. These “study materials/cheat sheets” were designed to maximize the effectiveness of the meetings by framing the nature and context of the discussions, and presenting detailed explanations of key terms and concepts to be discussed.
The following sections present these pre-meeting memoranda, beginning with a “benchmarks” handout summarizing findings from the study’s first phase and followed by a “Parking Management - Toolbox Primer” handout.
Benchmarks – Existing Conditions and Policies The Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study was initiated as the first step in the City’s pursuit of a comprehensive parking strategy for Downtown. Phase 1 focused on documenting and analyzing parking supply along with surveying user-end parking perceptions. The objective of Phase 2 was to recommend policy to focus the parking system’s role in facilitating access and circulation to Downtown. This section, which was the first deliverable of Phase 2, summarizes findings from Phase 1, covering the following tasks:
z Background research to establish Downtown’s economic, land use, and regulatory context, including documentation of employee travel characteristics, interviews with key local stakeholders, a summary of relevant zoning regulations, and illustration of the area’s land uses; z Analysis of DDA’s parking inventory, including available supply and quantified utilization patterns during peak periods, input received via written survey and interviews with parkers, and projections of future demand based on proposed development;
Page 1-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Summary of complementary parking inventories, specifically those owned by private companies, residents, and the University of Michigan; and z Provision of meaningful opportunities for public involvement, including the survey and parker interviews described above, as well as a public workshop to discuss public perceptions and concerns on parking conditions, plus meetings with the project’s advisory committee.
Existing Conditions – A Summary of Phase I Findings Transportation Culture Through quantitative data collection and qualitative input from existing parkers, the following three key elements were determined to set the context for travel and access patterns to Downtown:
z Rates of Single-Occupancy Vehicle commuting are modest compared to regional and statewide travel characteristic, and are trending downwards. z Downtown employees appear to embrace alternatives to personal automobile commuting, especially active forms of commuting (i.e., walking and bicycling), compared to regional and state norms. z Alternative mode promotion and commuter benefit programs are in place, but could use more promotion, especially in the “lead by example” form coming from the City and County.
The DDA Parking Inventory Figure 1-1 through Figure 1-3 summarize the data collected in September 2006 upon which the inventory findings are based.
Page 1-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 1-1 DDA Parking System Inventory and Utilization
Weekday Weekend Garage or Weekday Evening Evening Location Permits Lot Capacity Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy City Hall No Lot 33 27% 30% 6% Kerrytown No Lot 25 72% 96% 100% Main & Ann No Lot 46 93% 93% 98% Farmer's Market No Lot 75 51% 36% 40% 4th & Catherine No Lot 51 90% 49% 76% Main & William No Lot 24 50% 100% 100% South Ashley No Lot 134 63% 86% 94% 1st & Washington Yes Lot 60 80% 82% 73% 1st & William Yes Lot 108 72% 43% 98% Fingerle Yes Lot 55 47% 7% 5% 4th & Washington No Garage 273 84% 45% 77% Maynard Yes Garage 770 81% 39% 51% Forest Yes Garage 558 100% 9% 17% 4th &William Yes Garage 775 87% 35% 77% Ann & Ashley Yes Garage 811 86% 12% 30% Liberty Square Yes Garage 562 79% 33% 46% South 5t (Library) No Lot 185 95% 58% 55% 1st & Huron No Lot 162 97% 99% 100% On-Street No NA 1,063 68% 98% 100% All NA NA 5770 81% 47% 57%
Figure 1-2 Inventory by Sub-Area
Spaces Sub-Area On Street Off Street Both Main Street 345 2,448 2,793 Kerrytown 175 1,041 1,216 State Street 442 1,517 1,959 South Campus 266 558 824 Study Area 1,063 4,707 5,770
Figure 1-3 Sub-Area Utilization
Weekday Occupancy Evening Occupancy Friday Night Occupancy Sub-Area On Street Off Street Both On Street Off Street Both On Street Off Street Both Main Street 68% 84% 82% 102% 38% 46% 109% 53% 60% Kerrytown 74% 72% 73% 73% 43% 47% 81% 37% 43% State Street 68% 82% 79% 107% 39% 54% 106% 50% 62% South Campus 72% 100% 91% 98% 9% 38% 97% 17% 43% Study Area 68% 84% 81% 98% 35% 47% 100% 48% 57%
Page 1-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Existing conditions in Downtown present two distinct parking constraints: Evening on-street parking, and off-street parking in monthly parking facilities. z Overall parking supply is sufficient to meet existing demand. Average daytime peaks of 83 percent are characteristic of a parking supply that is being optimally used. z Off-street utilization is higher than on-street during weekdays. Policies aimed at preserving on-street spaces, including off-street discounts, monthly permits, and time limits at meters, appear to be effective. On-street availability during weekday midday hours is over 30 percent across the study area, and within each analysis sub-area (for a total of 339 spaces available overall and no less than 45 spaces available in any of the subareas). z Concentrations of on-street parking shortages may create the perception of weekday parking shortages. Concentrations of highly occupied on-street spaces during weekday counts include: – Washington Street, west of Fifth Avenue; – The block of Washington Street, South Ashley Street, William Street, and Main Street; and – Campus-area streets, including blocks surrounding the Quad and within the South Campus sub-area.
z Surveys indicate that location is the biggest driver of parking demand across the DDA inventory. While the Existing Conditions analysis found that parking is widely available at most times, location preferences are creating perceptions of parking shortages for many parkers.
z The role of cost in parking and travel decisions is minimized for off-street. This is a result of a number of factors: – Employer-subsidies for commuter parking costs; – Minimal rate differentials between parking options; – Location and facility-type preferences of parkers are higher priorities.
z 1-Hour and 30-Minute meters are under-utilized. In addition to a generally low level of occupancy at these meters, many of them appear to be located ineffectively. 1-Hour meters are sometimes placed a block or two from retail/ restaurant uses, while spaces directly in front of these businesses offer two hours of parking (i.e., Liberty Street, between Main and First Streets). Occupancies along South University Avenue, where all 38 spaces are restricted to 1-hour parking, are also especially low. Some 30-minute meters are placed where there is no apparent short-term parking demand (i.e., Washington Street, between Division Street and the Liberty Square garage). z Wait list data indicate a concentration of commuter demand at facilities in the western areas of Downtown. Wait lists at Ann & Ashley and 4th & William are significantly longer than at other facilities. These garages also have two of the three
Page 1-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
highest daytime occupancy averages among facilities offering permits. Car-pool, van-pool, go!pass, and other employer-supported programs may be especially effective in reducing permit pressure at these facilities. z Surveys and interviews indicated a number of positive Downtown parking conditions including: – High rates of park-once behavior (87%); – A diversity of trip generators (24% of daytime parkers were not there for work); – Long-term visitation relationships and high visitation rates among Downtown parking customers; and – The large majority of parkers find a spot within two blocks of their destination and do not feel they are charged too much. z Surveys and interviews also highlighted some areas of concern including: – Perception of security risks at parking structures; – Employees using on-street parking spaces; – Some available off-street spaces appear to be, or feel, hard to find; – High rates of parking subsidy among daytime parkers; – Ineffective enforcement of time limits; and – Very short time limits may be hindering Downtown’s “Park Once” objective. z Among transportation alternatives, travel preferences indicate that transit appears to offer the greatest promise for shifting more employees away from personal auto commuting. Current transit barriers indicate that some form of express, or commuter, bus service offers a unique opportunity to capture a latent transit market among Downtown employees. z Annual added demand of between 50-100 new monthly parking permits is projected for DDA parking facilities.
Other Inventories z University of Michigan facilities likely capture most of the parking demand from full-time faculty and staff. Their permit system offers a number of significant advantages over use of DDA facilities including price, location, and the convenience of yearly payment. z Most private accessory parking (i.e., on-site parking provided at commercial establishments, solely for the use of customers and employees of those stores) is significantly under-used. These lots rarely peak above 85 percent utilization and average just over 60 percent. This amounts to an underutilization of groundspace which could be used for higher, better, and more cohesive land uses for Downtown, and countless unnecessary curb-cuts that are disruptive of pedestrian traffic. z The backyard parking market arises largely from unmet monthly permit demand.
Page 1-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Public Input z The Ann Arbor community is highly attuned to parking issues, with its members frequently possessing strong, well-informed, and often opposing opinions on various parking and related issues. A number of relationships between user groups and multiple perspectives on parking issues have emerged over the course of this project phase. z In general, those most opposed to expanded parking supplies are near-Downtown residents. Those most in favor of more parking, and especially more parking permits, are commuters and developers. Those who feel strongest in favor of maintaining parking lots are downtown shopkeepers who are concerned about customer resistance to parking structures. Near-Downtown residents, on the other hand, are decidedly mixed in their opinions about converting lots to mixed-use development. Those most averse to using garage spaces are commuters and women in general. The biggest concern among merchants appears to be overly aggressive meter enforcement (time-limit enforcement excepted). z Opposition to converting lots to stand-alone garages, in contrast, is general and widespread. z Commuter sentiment, as demonstrated through parker survey responses, is clear on a number of issues. In general, commuters feel they pay too much for parking (if they pay for it themselves) and that there is not enough parking. z Many commuters feel that if parking gets much more complicated, working Downtown will not be worth the trouble. z The Real Estate community is equally engaged in parking issues. The lack of monthly parking permits in particular is seen as a hindrance to marketing Downtown office space, and one of the biggest reasons for companies leaving Downtown space. Some feel that they could fill vacant space at a premium if permits at a nearby facility were generally available, opening the potential for market-pricing strategies at monthly facilities.
Existing Parking Policy Developing a formal, comprehensive parking policy for Downtown need not, and should not, start from scratch. Below is a summary of DDA’s existing parking principles that exemplify the sort of ideas that serve the city today, and can be used to form the basis of a formal and comprehensive parking policy for the future.
Page 1-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Policies & Principles1
Supply Management z Regularly review the number of parking spaces available to determine if additional parking is needed. This includes calculating current and anticipated parking demand and usage. z Conduct regular and ongoing analyses of downtown development to anticipate and respond to parking needs. z Encourage the inclusion of public parking facilities within new downtown developments, particularly underground parking. z Land and financial limitations mean that the supply of parking at peak periods may never match demand. z Coordinate a shared-parking approach for special events; including use of Washtenaw County, City, UM, and AATA Park and Ride parking locations.
Demand Management z Parking is very different in an urban environment compared to the suburbs. z It’s the people we want downtown, not necessarily their cars. z Land and financial limitations mean that the supply of parking at peak periods may never match demand. z Coordinate a shared-parking approach for special events; including use of Washtenaw County, City, UM, and AATA Park and Ride parking locations. z Parking-cost subsidies by employer discourage the use of alternative transportation.
Cost and Revenue z The public parking system operations can and should be financially self-sustaining, with no need for tax subsidy. z Income from all parking sources must be reserved for system operations, maintenance, repair, and construction and parking alternatives.
Pricing and Payment Options z Parking rates should be set to encourage specific behaviors. z Parking-cost subsidies discourage the use of alternative transportation.
Availability & Turnover z Availability of on-street parking conveys a great deal about the convenience of shopping and doing business in Downtown.
1Information on DDA policies and principles are from the principles identified in the Downtown Ann Arbor Parking Study - Phase I Final Report, 2006, as well as the DDA website: http://www.ci.ann- arbor.mi.us/DDA/history.html#about
Page 1-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Support Community Visions z The right balance of parking availability, location, and price is essential to Downtown’s vitality and growth z One of Downtown’s strengths and appeal is its compact, walkable form, with short blocks, a clearly defined street grid, and a density of services, businesses, and uses in its core. z Discourage urban sprawl, encourage reinvestment in existing communities, and support more balanced regional development. z Create and maintain compact, walkable and safe downtown neighborhoods with opportunities for social interaction. z Parking is part of a transportation system, and should be understood in that context. z Multi-modal options maximize the feasibility of doing business, shopping, working, and living in Downtown. z Parking-cost subsidies discourage the use of alternative transportation. z The right balance of parking availability, location, and price is essential to Downtown’s vitality and growth z Cars make it possible for many people to use and enjoy Downtown z Discourage urban sprawl, encourage reinvestment in existing communities, and support more balanced regional development. z Encourage on street parking for short term use whenever possible to support local retail, moderate traffic speeds, and buffer sidewalks from street traffic.
Structure Design, Maintenance, and Upkeep z Incorporate quality, aesthetics, safety, and longevity in structural improvement plans. z Construct DDA developments with the goal of quality and longevity. z Recognize that maintenance and repair are perpetual concerns and plan accordingly.
Principles in Practice For each of the policy areas examined above, it is important to examine how well actions have served these principles over time. Below is a sampling of key actions related to the areas of parking policy examined above.
Supply Management z The City’s zoning code exempts as-of-right developments within DDA boundaries from minimum parking standards. While this constrains certain types of parking supply that generally are expected to grow along with development (accessory parking), this shifts the supply emphasis over the shared and public DDA-managed parking system.
Page 1-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z There has been no major supply expansion in nearly 25 years. z A comprehensive parking study (Phase 1) was commissioned in 2006 to assess parking supply and utilization equilibrium, in order that supply management be based on quantified data. z Plans for the redevelopment of the 1st & Washington parking lot call for mixed-use public/private development that incorporates a garage with public spaces. z Expansion of the 4th & William garage began in 2006. z In 2000, the DDA began funding travel choice investments, such as go!pass and the Link service, as a more economical alternative to meeting transportation needs than only providing additional parking spaces.
Travel Choice z DDA policy for approximately the last ten years has been that addressing demand for parking by providing choices for travel is much cheaper than building and maintaining new supplies. The following TDM initiatives have been funded in order to relieve expansion pressure on the parking system: – Go!pass - The DDA, the AATA, and the getDowntown program launched the go!pass, universal transit pass offering unlimited rides for a small annual employer-paid fee, in the fall of 1999. As of 2006 there were over 5,000 go!passes in use. – getDowntown - The getDowntown program was launched by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), the DDA, the City, and AATA in 1999 to reduce the parking costs associated with working and doing business in Downtown. The program provides a wide range of services for Downtown employers, employees, and property managers. It advises Downtown property owners on ways to reduce the need for tenant parking and provides information and assistance to downtown businesses and employees on commuting options, such as biking, riding the bus, walking, and ridesharing. – The Link - The AATA Link bus, a Downtown circulator service, started in September of 2003. First-year ridership was quite low, a fact that was seen by many as an indication of the lack of interest in transit in Ann Arbor. Funding ran out in 2005 and the service was discontinued. In the fall of 2005, a partnership between the University of Michigan, the DDA, and the AATA, re- initiated Link service. Strategic improvements included improved scheduling and routing, and on December 5, 2006, The Link set a one-day record of 1,975 riders.2 In January, 2007, there were 32,956 passenger trips on the two Link buses, demonstrating the possibility of finding the right solution to tap Ann Arbor’s potential for increased transit use.3 While a significant portion of the Link ridership is anticipated to be students, the benefit is students traveling to downtown without utilizing a downtown parking space.
2 Arbor Update- Ann Arbor Area Community News: “Perseverance of the Link”, February, 2007. 3 Ibid.
Page 1-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Cost and Revenue z In 2004, the DDA and the City negotiated a change in their parking agreement in which a significant percentage of parking revenues are now directed to the City’s General Fund. z Keeping the parking system financially self-sustaining is one reason for a recently approved monthly parking permit rate increase. z The DDA began funding free bus passes (go!pass) as a cheaper way to accommodate more employees than building more parking spaces. z The DDA uses parking revenues to help fund the getDowntown and go!pass programs, The Link transit service, and a getDowntown bike locker campaign.
Pricing and Payment Options z Rates at parking structures are currently set below meter rates to discourage long- term use of on-street spaces. z Pricing of on-street spaces ends at 6PM, which is well before demand drops below 85% occupancy during evenings.
Availability & Turnover z Most on-street spaces within Downtown are limited to one- or two-hours of parking. z A number of garages such as Maynard have their most convenient spaces set aside until 10:00 AM to preserve off-street visitor parking opportunity.
Shared Parking z The DDA and the City frequently work with developers to coordinate the acquisition of monthly parking permits to be used in lieu of on-site parking provision. z The vast majority of parking activity within Downtown occurs at shared public facilities.
Support Community Visions z The provision of a large, central, and parking supply of parking for Downtown relieves pressure to provide on-site parking. This allows for the compact, dense, mixed-use development patterns that make Downtown a stand-out regional residential, employment, and recreational destination. z Zoning exemptions for on-site parking in Downtown help reduce the cost of developing Downtown projects, as well as to encourage more compact, walkable development patterns. z Currently proposed rate adjustments for monthly permits are intended to decrease the differential between monthly rates, and the cost to pay by the hour for the same amount of parking. This is intended to make alternative transportation choices more attractive to downtown commuters. z Development patterns supported by Downtown zoning exemptions and the parking system also support efficient alternative mode travel including walking, biking, and using transit.
Page 1-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Parking policies that support efficient alternative transportation options I.e., getDowntown and go!pass) increase employment access for those that cannot afford, or cannot participate in, daily personal automobile travel. z Reducing development costs through zoning exemptions for on-site parking for downtown redevelopment projects reduces the cost of operating a business in Downtown, which in turn reduces the cost of goods and services for local populations.
Structure Design, Maintenance, and Upkeep z Between 1997 and 2002, rates for monthly permits doubled, and hourly rates rose by 50%. Revenue gains were invested in upgrades to parking structures that had suffered from years of deferred maintenance. z All necessary upkeep of the parking inventory is considered part of operating costs, and as such is paid for by parking revenues. z The 1999 replacement of the former 4th & Washington garage has set a standard for desirable structure-design for Downtown –for its outward appearance, pedestrian integration, and personal safety features such as exposed stairwells and elevator. Summary Looking ahead to the next task of Phase 2, identifying a set of parking management/parking policy tools for Downtown, areas that are worth special attention are constraints identified in Phase I and the policy areas for which current actions and outcomes fail to live up to the intentions of existing and desired policy. Below is a look at the key parking policy components reviewed above, and how actions currently measure up to expressed policies. This review was the starting point during the project’s first set of public outreach meetings.
Supply Management The DDA policy statement that best sums up existing conditions is “Land and financial limitations mean that the supply of parking at peak periods may never match demand.”4 Aspects of common community visions, including Smart Growth and compact, walkable development also support a resignation that Downtown cannot, and should not, seek to build its way out of any and all parking supply constraints that arise.
The per-space construction cost for the DDA system’s “model” garage, 4th & Washington, was about $32,000. While this represented a number of costs that were higher than normal, including those due to site restrictions, this is similar to the cost of a planned deck expansion in Plymouth, Michigan.5 That project will add just over 120 spaces at a cost of $3.9 million, or about $32,000 per space. Current expansion of the 4th and William site is estimated to cost roughly $32,000 per gained space.
4 DDA website: http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/DDA/Goals/goalstransportation.html 5 Tony Bruscato, “hometownlife.com”, March 1, 2007.
Page 1-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Travel Choice The DDA currently operates on the premise that if it is cheaper to get more people to work on a bus, or on their bike, or on foot, than it is to build more parking, then investment in TDM is a sound economic development tool. Few others in the Ann Arbor community are likely to know that parking construction and maintenance costs as much as it does. Broadening such an understanding, while setting parking rates to cover costs of maintenance and expansion, might go a long way in generating public support for TDM as an alternative to facility expansion that would drive up rates.
Cost and Revenue Allowing parking revenues to continue to be absorbed into a general fund undermines one of the most powerful parking management tools available – tying parking revenues directly to local improvements. Stakeholders, such as parkers and shopkeepers, are much more willing to accept higher parking fees if they are confident that they will see direct local investment in things like transit services, streetscape improvements, bike facilities, enforcement, street cleaning, lighting, parks funding, etc.
The recent change in the DDA agreement puts $2.8 million per year in parking revenues into the City’s General Fund. This makes it harder to sell pricing strategies to the public by obscuring where the increased revenue would go.
Pricing and Payment Options Parking pricing is currently moderately used to manage parking demand; however this tool could be used more effectively in areas where current parking constraints exist. Extending meter rates into the evenings and using pricing to reduce permit wait lists are two ways to do this. When parking rates doubled between 1997-2002, the wait list was halved.
Given the availability of many new payment technologies, Ann Arbor’s current payment options for most Downtown parkers are rather limited. Other than monthly permit holders, nearly all parking revenues are collected strictly through cash.
It is likely that the overwhelming popularity of monthly parking permits is based on their convenience as much as, if not more than, the price break they offer. The DDA is set to offer credit card payment options for all parkers. In addition, payment technologies similar to the remote-sensor debit-device systems used nationwide on toll roads could expand permit-level convenience to even occasional hourly parkers.
Meter technologies exist to allow parkers to pay only for time that they use, and to not have to return to meters to add time, reducing ticket anxiety for those staying longer than expected. Pricing can be used to shift most longer-stay visitor to use the off-street inventory, while allowing the occasional splurge for an extra hour of parking among curb- parked visitors. Meanwhile the same rates could make commuter parking patterns prohibitively expensive.
Page 1-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Availability & Turnover Short-term parking opportunities are sufficient at almost all times, and generally close to most popular destinations. Compared to the parking utilization guidelines where 85% of spaces on each downtown block are recommended to be utilized at any time, on-street parking in Ann Arbor during is generally under-used with midday occupancy averaging 68%. This indicates an underused supply of what are typically the most desirable parking spaces in a commercial district. This appears to be the result of time limits that, while preserving ample availability for very short trips, reduces the available supply of spaces for those wanting to spend more time in Downtown. Such time limits, in fact may be more discouraging of visitor parking than commuter parking, as commuters have time and opportunity to learn how to “beat the system” or know that parking tickets are relatively affordable, whereas visitors are much less likely to take a chance with a less familiar enforcement system. Under these conditions there is likely much more demand for visitor parking at off-street facilities than needs to be, as these facilities likely capture the majority of those who want to stay in Downtown for an undetermined amount of time.
On-street parking shortages in the evening are a direct result of meters expiring just at the start of the dinner and nighttime entertainment rush.
Midday off-street spaces are less constrained than evening on-street spaces, but are constrained enough to create a wait list for monthly permits. This wait list is in many ways an undesirable condition that runs counter to established parking policies. Options for eliminating the wait list include both reducing demand for permits by providing other viable travel choices, and increasing the supply of spaces available during commuting hours.
Support Community Visions The biggest development-supportive success to come out of Downtown parking policy may be that most developers of commercial properties do not expect to meet their project- generated parking demand on-site. The well-established process of meeting such demand within the parking system is a strong shared-parking success that benefits all of Downtown. This allows Downtown to continue to develop as a compact, walkable, traditional urban center.
However, over 2,000 under-utilized accessory parking spaces remain in Downtown. These spaces are typically about half full, and represent dozens of extra pedestrian/ vehicle conflict points (driveways) within Downtown. Zoning policies may need to discourage such provision for future developments more explicitly to ensure that more of Downtown’s developable land gets put to higher and better uses.
The DDA’s TDM investments, while serving the practical purpose of providing access more economically than through new parking construction, also support multi-modal and equitable access principles.
Page 1-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
The current monthly permit distribution process, however, has greatly enabled employer subsidization of commuter parking costs in Downtown, which undermines principles of supporting alternative modes, and exacerbates the wait list situation. Allowing parking permits to accumulate in the control of employers and property owners has transformed permits into office lease and employment perks that obscure the real cost of parking from those making the daily decisions about how to get to work.
Lastly, bicycle lockers are currently in place at all but one DDA parking structure and most DDA surface lots. Bike racks are available at all parking facilities.
The DDA’s TDM investments, by making Downtown a more walkable, bikable, transit- friendly place to live, work, and play, help define the district’s strengths compared to the surrounding region, where even the smallest trip involves driving from one parking lot to another.
Zoning exemptions from on-site parking requirements help offset some of the extra cost of developing in dense urban areas.
The shared parking system supply can support many more businesses than could isolated accessory parking lots within the same space. Such concentration of uses generates higher rates of foot traffic, as the district becomes one where people will actually walk for the sake of walking, or take a longer route between the garage and work, because the walking is enjoyable. This is the key to urban centers competing with surburban districts by emphasizing their own strengths, rather than mimicking the strengths of others.
The monthly permit distribution process shifts significant portions of the real market value of these permits to property owners and employers rather than the parking system, or DDA-funded public improvements. Both parties hold onto idle permits after tenants have moved out or employees have moved on, as their limited supply and long wait lists have rendered them far more valuable than their monthly cost. Office space that comes with permits can be leased at a premium, or leased more quickly compared to space that does not. Employers offer permits as part of their benefits package. The fact that both parties have shown a willingness to pay month after month for unused permits rather than return them to the system, shows that there is clear value to these permits beyond what the DDA recoups in price.
Structure Design, Maintenance, and Upkeep While design problems at some structures are difficult to address (isolation of elevators at Liberty Square), the DDA has demonstrated that its commitment to maintaining and improving its inventory facilities is genuine. The 4th & Washington structure is a marquis parking development offering design details that, not only serve to enhance the pubic realm, but attend to the personal safety of its users as well.
Page 1-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Parking Management Toolbox Primer In support of Ann Arbor’s efforts to establish a comprehensive parking policy, this section outlines a toolbox of policy options which approaches parking management from all sides:
z Supply; z Demand; z Cost and revenue; z Pricing and payment; and z Availability and turnover.
The five categories of policy options are first explained, with best practices of how the policies have been implemented elsewhere. Three scenarios of mechanisms for how the policies could be applied to Ann Arbor are then presented, based on four scenarios. Each scenario offers the community the opportunity to decide what objectives they want the parking policy to fulfill and their comfort with the options and results of implementing the different options. The three scenarios range from maintaining the status quo, to moderately integrating new tools, to ambitiously integrating new tools, as well as an offering a combination option. In this way, Ann Arbor can view a spectrum of options, and can eventually select from whichever policies best supports the community’s goals. Finally, a parking management success stories are provided to support the link between strategic parking policy and economic success in downtown districts.
The Parking Management Toolbox Supply Management Tools – Public Supply Managing the supply of parking (the actual number of parking spaces, regardless of utilization patterns) has two components: the public parking supply, defined in Downtown Ann Arbor as all of the on-street and off-street spaces managed by the DDA, and the private supply, comprised of the University of Michigan inventory, private/accessory parking, and backyard parking.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Data is the key to all decision making. To support any future decision making regarding the construction of additional spaces, data on the following costs should be researched and documented annually:
z Converting on-street spaces to angled-parking; z Constructing new decks at existing structures; z Constructing new surface lots; z Constructing new structures; z Constructing underground parking; and z Joint-Development construction.
Page 1-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Data from the American Planning Association, International Parking Institute, as well as other Downtown Development Authorities, can offer an effective range of cost estimates, for each option.
Strategic planning would then be used to weigh the costs and benefits of these options (including the actual and opportunity cost of using downtown real estate to expand parking) against the costs and benefits of investing in multi-modal options. This is in line with recent strategic approaches taken by the DDA, and can be formalized into an economic analysis that can make the process of determining final investment selections clearer. For instance, such an analysis can estimate the number of commuters likely to switch to carpooling or bike-commuting in response to offering monthly permits to rideshare vehicles, or extending existing bike lanes. The cost of providing these benefits can be measured against the cost of providing a new parking space to each commuter that would have shifted modes, to determine which investment to make.
Figure 1-4 presents the results of a similar economic analysis used at Stanford University to compare the efficacy of various access-investment options. As shown, multi-modal investments are typically more cost effective early on. This results from the unavoidable fact that only so many commuters are likely to ever switch to a given mode. Once effective strategies have captured these markets, the amount of funding required to attract additional mode shifts goes up dramatically; and at some point providing additional parking becomes more cost effective. However, this figure clearly shows that, for Stanford at least, it was highly cost effective to aggressively capture a number of mode-shift markets before investing in parking expansion.
Figure 1-4 Cost versus Effect Analysis
Page 1-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Coordinated Planning The City and the DDA can coordinate with major land use developers (including the University) to effectively anticipate changing access needs, and develop a pro-active approach to meet them. The prime opportunity is for the different parking inventories to be shared (especially between the DDA and the University), to maximize the efficiency of use of both systems.
Supply Management Tools – Private Supply
Zoning and Regulations z In-Lieu Fee: Under a formalized In-Lieu Fee system, developers pay a fee instead of building a set amount of on-site parking. The fee levels are assessed, similar to parking requirements, based on the size and type of a proposed development. These fees are used to fund public parking and transportation infrastructure and services, such as supply expansion or travel choice investments. z Unbundle Parking: Most housing arrangements offer the resident a parking space as part the lease or purchase cost. Unbundling parking prohibits the common practice of including parking in the rental or purchase cost of housing units. Parking spaces would be rented and sold (and charged for) separately from housing space. This reduces housing costs for households that own fewer cars than average, and makes clearer the cost of owning and storing a car. This strategy is also effective in providing developers with a financial incentive not to build parking for which there is not a paying market. z Maximum On-Site Parking Standards: A ratio, similar to those used to set minimum requirements for on-site parking, limits the number of parking spaces that can be placed on-site at new developments within Downtown. Based on the size of the development, these caps direct parking demand accommodation into public facilities shared by all Downtown developments. Demand Management Tools
Travel Choice In any area where quality pedestrian environments facilitate, not only pleasure walks and sight-seeing, but basic daily transportation, managing demand for automobile movements and storage is of particular importance. Supporting multi-modal options in these areas goes beyond transportation and environmental idealism to the heart of economic growth and preservation. Ann Arbor is certainly the best place in the region to spend a Saturday walking between shopping, lunch, a movie, and Frisbee in the park. And it maybe the only place in the region one can stop off at a Farmers Market, a library, the cleaners, and a choice of fine ethnic take out all on the walk home from work. The key to preserving this is accommodating demand growth while minimizing the impact of automobiles on the pedestrian environment and development densities.
The following sections outline commonly used and widely effective transportation and parking demand management strategies:
Page 1-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Employer-Based Commuter Benefits: Local companies can be urged or compelled to develop their own Commuter Benefits plans, including goals for reducing single- occupancy vehicle mode shares among their own employees. Incentives for voluntary participation include public agency guidance, support and funding, bonus development area for new developments, cost savings from providing less parking, and transportation benefits to attract and retain employees. Common strategies implemented include: – Ridematching services (already offered by AATA); – Free or reserved parking for rideshare vehicles; – Transit benefits (pre-tax payroll deductions or go!pass-type transit pass benefits); – Parking Cash Out, where employers pay employees that do not use parking; – Showers and bike lockers at the work site; z Transit Improvements: Surveys from Phase I identified a potential for commuter, or express, bus service to address many drivers’ barriers to transit-based commuting. The lack of bus stops within walking distance to homes or park-and-ride access, as well as the duration of current bus trips to Downtown, were commonly cited by those indicating an interest in using transit but currently depend upon driving. Express bus service, with park-and-ride or “kiss-and-ride” (drop-off space, but no parking, at bus stop) access, could effectively address these barriers. One full commuter bus translates roughly to 50 less cars in DDA garages at midday. Other transit investments could include funding improved evening service to accommodate entertainment as well as employment-based trips. z Bike and Pedestrian Network Improvements: Improving the feasibility and enjoyment of these active forms of transportation can reduce daily demand for short- and long-term parking. z Bike and Pedestrian Amenities: Bike lockers, street furniture, wayfinding, etc. z Remote Parking: Park-and-ride lots and peripheral lots are two common strategies that can shift parking accommodation outside of areas where land is constricted or in high demand. z User Information and Marketing: This could help shift the balance between on-street and off-street demand in the evening. Effective, real time wayfinding can build awareness of parking options for those circling the Main Street area for a space. Marketing can counteract common negative perceptions about structures and encourage use. z Residential Parking Permits: Alter Ann Arbor’s existing program to address concerns about residents only using on-street parking, instead of their on-site spaces. Public outreach and customizing regulations for individual neighborhoods are effect means for communicating the
Page 1-18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
benefits of such programs for near-Downtown neighborhoods. z Valet Parking: Valet services can provide a virtual “bottomless cup” of front door spaces for parking customers, while shifting demand from on-street spaces to under- used facilities nearby. This could provide a useful strategy for overcoming evening parkers’ resistance to under-utilized parking structures. Facilities that are parked by valet attendants offer capacity gains of up to 40 percent by allowing tandem parking patterns. For example, that would translate into an increase of over 100 additional spaces at the Ann & Ashley facility without building one more space. z Changes to Monthly Permit System: Switching distribution of permits to an electronic debit card system, and requiring that each card be registered to a vehicle as well as a name, can effectively eliminate most permit hording and the “building- in” of parking costs into lease rates and employment benefits packages. Such a system can also offer “refunds” to permit holders for unused weekdays, encouraging occasional use of transit or other options. z Shared Parking and Park Once: Zoning amendments and employer-based Commuter Benefits programs discussed above are strategies that could help build upon the Shared Parking success of the parking system.
Cost and Revenue Tools Establish a Parking and Transportation Figure 1-5 Making Clear What Fund Meters Offer the Strategies which charge the user for each Community car parked will be more effective when all parking revenues are captured internally and dedicated to provide desirable, local parking, plus transportation and civic improvements (see Figure 1-5). The alternative, charging for parking and using it for other uses, amounts to parkers paying for non-parking related impacts. Dedicating meter money to transportation and local sidewalk and streetscape improvements can also win the support of the local business community by improving the appeal of their physical surroundings.
Page 1-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
“The only reason meters went into Old Pasadena in the first place was because the city agreed all the money would stay in Old Pasadena…when we figured out that the money would stay here, that the money would be used to improve the amenities, it was an easy sell.” Marilyn Buchanan, Chair, Old Pasadena Parking Meter Zone Advisory Board.
Pricing and Payment Tools Price On-Street Spaces According to Demand All things being equal, on-street spaces are generally the most desirable spaces in downtown districts. These are the easiest spaces to get into and out of. This is the type of space that is likely to be closest to any particular Downtown destination. And it is likely the only type of space that offers the chance of watching one’s own car while dining. For these and other reasons, most visitors in communities across the country, and specifically Ann Arbor, look for a space on the street before even thinking of off-street options.
This type of overwhelming preference leads to search traffic issues. Some studies have shown that as much as one-quarter to one-third of traffic in downtown districts can consist solely of those looking for a space to park.6 For this reason, on-street spaces should be treated like a scarce public resource. Market economics can play an important role in clearing up the disparity between the value customers place on parking at these spaces and what they typically pay to do so. See Appendix A for more information about the impacts of search traffic.
Price Off-Street Spaces According to Cost Off-street spaces on the other hand are the most expensive spaces in Downtown Ann Arbor. The cost to construct and maintain these spaces is likely much higher than most users would estimate. Maintaining a clear relationship between the cost of these spaces and the rates charged to use them is a key strategy in terms of clarifying demand in terms of actual costs, public relations, supply management, and travel choice funding for the City and the DDA.
Expand Payment Options through New Technology In addition to current plans to begin accepting credit card payments at all DDA off-street facilities, the utilization of electronic debit payment systems could extend many of the conveniences offered to monthly permit holders. Similar to those used on many toll roads, these cards can be used to quickly pass through entry and exit points of off-street facilities. Charges are recorded against a debit account attached to the card, and customers receive a monthly bill, or charge against their account. Extending this convenience to hourly customers could increase user comfort with structures, and significantly reduce entry and exit queuing at off-street facilities. This could be especially useful during event evenings, as
6 “No Vacancy – Park Slope’s Parking Problem and How to Fix It”, Transportation Alternatives, 2007.
Page 1-20 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
regular symphony and performance theatre-goers are a likely market for such passes, and their arrival patterns would maximize the queue-reduction benefits of this strategy.
Multi-Space meters (see Figure 1-6) and other new on-street fare collection technology can expand fare and payment options for Downtown street spaces. Such technology simplifies the process of adjusting rates, and allows customers to:
z Pay only for time-used; z Pay by credit or debit card; z Be notified of impending meter expiration by cell phone; and z Pay by cell phone.
Re-structure Monthly Permit Figure 1-6 Multi-Space Meter Distribution Process The current system of permit distribution could be reformed to:
z Prohibit future contracting of permits; z Distribute permits to individuals; and z Register permits by vehicle.
These reforms could be expected to eventually eliminate the potential for stockpiling of permits by property owners and employers, and make it more difficult for the cost of parking to be obscured through employment benefits and lease tie-ins.
Availability & Turnover Pricing Pricing can be much more effective for maintaining availability among on-street spaces than the time limits currently employed for this purpose. Pricing allows parkers to choose where and when, and for how long, they will occupy public parking spaces. In some places pricing has replaced time limits entirely7. This reduces enforcement needs to simply checking for expired meters. Enforcing time limits on the other hand, requires multiple- passes, chalking tires, and other labor-intensive efforts.
For off-street spaces, publicly discussing the broad rate increases necessary to pay to construct additional parking inventory could be effective in generating support for multi- modal alternatives, as well as reducing complaints about having to park on the top floor of existing structures or occasionally not finding a space at a preferred location.
7 In February, 2006, Redwood City, California eliminated time limits at its downtown meters in favor of turnover generated by demand-responsive pricing.
Page 1-21 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Parking Structure Design, Maintenance, and Upkeep The 4th & Washington structure is loved by those that use it, and those that walk by it. Its price tag illustrates the cost of accommodating parking appropriately in districts like Downtown Ann Arbor. Follow the 4th & Washington example, and build upon its lessons to provide efficient parking facilities that people want to use.
Implementation Options Downtown Ann Arbor has a long history of innovative parking management. The strategies outlined above follow in this tradition. However, whenever a city or public authority is faced with implementing new strategies, they must select from an array of options that can, at one end, emphasize a less disruptive approach that maintains much of the status quo, and at the other end really “push the envelop” and puts the district at the forefront of innovation.
The only recommendation we would make in this regard is for the city not to pick just one approach. It is almost certain that among these strategies, there are some for which a careful and cautious approach would be best, and some with which Downtown is more than ready to run. Below is a detailed look at some of the implementation options available for the strategies identified in this memo, as well as what is being done currently.
A matrix summarizing the policies, tools, and principles addressed follows the discussion (Figure 1-7).
Supply Management – Public 1. Current Approach
z The DDA operates under the lesson learned that just about any other means of providing access to Downtown is cheaper than building more parking, especially new stand-alone parking. Supply expansion options are limited to where it can be done most economically, such as expanding existing structures and seeking joint- development of existing lots, or seeking public parking provision at new developments. z The DDA maintains a strict policy that parking pay for itself, avoiding any public subsidy of parking costs.
2. Moderate Change
z Calculating the cost and effect of various travel choice strategies can simplify the process of determining which investments, including supply expansion, offer the most sensible approach to providing Downtown access. For instance, if recent efforts to shift commuters to biking have produced limited results, investment in transit improvements might produce more in terms of getting cars out of garages. z Make clear that the cost of expanding the parking inventory will result directly in raised parking rates for all users. With each expansion, the average per-space cost of providing off-street parking in Downtown increases as, for the most part, each new
Page 1-22 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
space will continue to be more expensive to build than the last. Directly correlating parking rates to such changes in the per-space cost will provide incentive for existing parking customers to support a multi-modal approach to access management. This will also help finance supply expansion projects when necessary.
3. Ambitious Change
z Capping the current parking supply within Downtown. Citing community opposition and the interest of preserving Downtown from increased effects of vehicle traffic and storage, the City could put a firm moratorium on any new parking system space construction. This would make it clear that any new growth in access demand would have to be met through alternative means. z Rule out any expansion of the parking supply through anything but joint- development, mixed-used projects.
Supply Management – Private 1. Current Approach
z As-of-right development in Downtown is currently exempt from parking requirements as laid out in the zoning code.
2. Moderate Change
z Unbundling legislation covering all new residential development could be used to reduce excess provision of on-site parking for Downtown housing projects. Appendix B presents sample legislation for implementing an unbundling program. z A formalized In-Lieu Fee system to replace parking requirements, where new development is assessed a fee based on proposed bulk and uses, could help finance public parking and transportation options serving Downtown.
3. Ambitious Change
z Parking maximums, codified in zoning codes, can establish the maximum number of on-site parking spaces that can be included in Downtown development projects. Bonus FAR can be tied to voluntary payment of an In Lieu-type fee into a public parking and transportation fund.
Demand Management – Shared Parking and Park Once 1. Current Approach
z Most parking activity within Downtown is captured by the public, shared parking system. While over 2,000 spaces of on-site accessory parking are available for employees and customers at Downtown commercial locations in Downtown, surveys indicate most of the parking is significantly underutilized.
Page 1-23 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
2. Moderate Change
z Use zoning and regulation changes to discourage future on-site parking provisions.
3. Ambitious Change
z Regulate against accessory parking.
Demand Management – Employer-Based Commuter Benefits 1. Current Approach
z The getDowntown program reaches out to local employers as part of its mission to promote commuting alternatives. The program can assist employers in establishing commuter benefits packages for their employees. It will also assist interested employers in marketing alternative commute options available such as AATA’s ride- matching services and the go!pass program.
2. Moderate Change
z Establish a formalized municipal Transportation Coordinator position to serve as an informational and marketing resource for Downtown employers and employees.
3. Ambitious Change
z Make participation in a district-wide Commuter Benefits program mandatory for local employers of 25 or more. Single occupancy vehicle commute rates can be monitored, and reduction targets set as part of the program.
Demand Management – Transit Improvements 1. Current Approach
z DDA funds support both the go!pass program and The Link circulator service.
2. Moderate Change
z Make go!pass participation mandatory for all local employers.
3. Ambitious Change
z Use parking revenues in support of a commuter bus program.
Demand Management – Bike and Pedestrian Network Improvements and Amenities 1. Current Approach
z DDA funds are used for sidewalk improvement projects and bicycle locker programs. City funds are used to provide bike lanes.
Page 1-24 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
2. Moderate Change
z Invest Parking and Transportation Fund revenues in bike and pedestrian improvements, based on cost-effect analysis versus other transportation/access provision options. The result would be a varying investment, depending on relative value returned compared to other investment choices.
3. Ambitious Change
z Dedicate a fixed portion of Parking and Transportation Fund money for pedestrian and bike improvements, based on not just transportation and access benefits, but air quality and quality of life benefits for the whole community. The fixed rate can be set much higher than would ever be expected from a pure cost-benefit analysis of these modes versus other investments, based on the principle of providing a consistently high level of financial support for these highly desirable travel modes.
Demand Management – Remote Parking 1. Current Approach
z There are currently five park-and-ride lots served by AATA Downtown-serving bus routes. These lots are located well-outside of Downtown, and are free of charge.
2. Moderate Change
z Seek additional park-and-ride locations, especially in locations where parking would be part of a shared with parking for commercial uses. Such locations help reduce additional car trips when located at lots serving daily trip destinations such as cleaners, grocers, and daycare.
3. Ambitious Change
z Establish new commuter bus service with limited park-and-ride stops to Downtown. Such premium service could carry a fare rate twice the normal bus rate, yet still compare favorably with parking costs.
Demand Management – User Information and Marketing 1. Current Approach
z The DDA and getDowntown website both offer extensive information on parking options within Downtown.
2. Moderate Change
z Maintain and market a dedicated Parking Downtown website to provide information, including suggestions and recommendations for where to park based on time of day, day of week, and special events parking needs. Part of the website could offer a community forum on all parking issues, allowing policy makers easy access to stakeholder feedback on all things parking.
Page 1-25 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
3. Ambitious Change
z Invest Parking and Transportation Fund money in a comprehensive Wayfinding capital campaign to improve the directional signage to, real-time space information about, and marketing image of, DDA parking facilities.
Demand Management - Residential Parking Permits 1. Current Approach
z The City manages an existing Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program that has been implemented in some near-Downtown neighborhoods.
2. Moderate Change
z Market RPP benefits and program options online for residents seeking recourse to parking spillover conditions.
3. Ambitious Change
z Install multi-space meters in problematic areas, while exempting vehicles with residential permits. Revenues could be earmarked within the Parking and Transportation Fund for neighborhood-specific sidewalk improvements or beautification. This would effectively form a Parking Benefit District for both residents and non-residents. See Appendix C for a sample of a revenue return strategy for a Parking Benefit District.
Demand Management - Valet Parking 1. Current Approach
z The City recently provided a temporary valet permit for an entertainment venue on Main Street as a trial.
2. Moderate Change
z Enter into agreements with local establishments to use DDA structures to store valet-parked vehicles. This could avoid attendants using street parking and bring in revenue from otherwise idle parking spaces. The service could reduce search traffic on local streets and increase use of less-favored DDA structures.
3. Ambitious Change
z The DDA could establish public valet stations near busy evening intersections. The service would not be tied to any one use, allowing customers to dine, see a show, and/or shop while leaving their cars with the valet. The service could reduce search traffic on local streets and increase use of less-favored DDA structures.
Page 1-26 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Cost and Revenue 1. Current Approach
z Parking can yield ample public revenue, especially when on-street spaces are priced based on demand and off-street spaces are priced sufficient to cover costs. Recent changes, however, have complicated the process by which parking revenues are directed back into parking and transportation provision. If the city returns this revenue to pay for added public spending on preferred transportation and civic improvements, the public is more likely to support necessary rate increases. Investments that have proven effective in other communities for generating popular support for pricing strategies include: transit improvements, streetscape improvements, tree plantings, lighting improvements, burying overhead utility wires, increased security, and graffiti removal. Parking meters with revenue returned to the local neighborhood have already been a great boon to downtown businesses in Pasadena, California, where each block generates $80,000 a year in meter revenue to finance a high level of public services.
2. Moderate Change
z The system of parking revenue being kept out of the General Fund would make it clearer to parkers what their payments are bringing in return. Placing it into a Parking and Transportation fund would make clear the policy that, rather than allowing public subsidization of parking costs, parking income will be used to subsidize more desirable forms of local and regional transportation, as well as civic improvements.
3. Ambitious Change
z Create a Parking and Transportation Fund into which all monies received from parking charges and violations are pooled to support continued and expanded parking and transportation options. This makes public priorities, as well as parking revenue streams, clearer.
Pricing and Payment Options (See Appendix D for a summary of technology for parking pricing and Appendix E for an example of modern parking technology in use)
1. Current Approach
z Pricing is used to discourage long-term on-street parking and encourage use of parking structures. z Pricing, payment convenience, as well as the distribution process of monthly parking permits facilitates single-occupancy commuting. z Monthly parking permit rates that offer a slight discount compared to paying for hourly parking encourage single occupancy vehicle commute behavior.
Page 1-27 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Monthly parking permits are acquired, and rarely relinquished, in bulk by developers, property owners, and employers. The long wait lists for individuals seeking permits increase the value of permits included in office leases and employment benefits well beyond their cost. This makes it all the more important for developers to acquire bulk permits for their projects, further reducing permit turnover to those on wait lists.
2. Moderate Change
z Extend meter regulations into evening hours, when on-street spaces are currently filled to capacity for hours at a time. z If congestion and lack of availability continue, prices can be adjusted to catch up with demand. Ideally, rates can be set at a “Goldilocks” rate, where about 15 percent of on-street spaces on each block are consistently available - not too high and not too low. z Increased permit rates would be expected to reduce wait times for individuals seeking new permits, and encourage commuters to seek alternative transportation options. z Permits are distributed directly to individual users, and registered to their vehicles. This makes permits non-transferable. z Implementation of an Electronic Debit Card System would:
– Reinforce the non-transferability of permits by tying permit use to an active payment account; – Allow monthly charges to be based on daily use, rather than a flat rate, so users have an incentive to occasionally use other modes, or otherwise cut back on the days they drive to Downtown; and – Simplify permit-utilization tracking, allowing the DDA to manage demand across inventory, tracking use patterns at each facility by hour, day, month, and time of year. 3. Ambitious Change
z Different meter rates on each block can be set to maintain availability on all streets. All rates would be demand-responsive, even on the most popular blocks. See Appendix F for sample legislation for demand responsive pricing. z Permit rates could be used to eliminate wait lists altogether and encourage commuters to seek alternatives to driving alone. z Price permits to eliminate the wait list. Increased revenues can be directed at providing attractive alternatives such as commuter bus service.
Page 1-28 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Availability & Turnover 1. Current Approach
z Time limits are imposed on all metered spaces, and many off-street facilities. Data from Phase I of the current parking study indicate that many on-street spaces with very short time limits are currently under-utilized (existing supply of 240 1-Hour spaces are about 62% utilized on weekdays at midday). 2. Moderate Change
z Enforcement of time limits is challenging. Surveys of parking turnover rates could be used to identify areas in need of targeted enforcement to discourage commuter parking at meters. z Periodic utilization surveys can identify locations where meter limits could be expanded to maintain desirable utilization levels.
3. Ambitious Change
z Use pricing to encourage turnover and maintain availability. While general reaction to increased meter rates can be expected to be negative, if done effectively demand- responsive pricing lets the parker “shop” for the right parking option, in part by making all options available at all times. Each driver can decide how much convenience to buy when parking, and stay for as long as he or she wants to pay to do so. As long as spaces remain available, parking duration is no longer a critical concern. Parking Structure Design, Maintenance, and Upkeep 1. Current Approach th z The 4 & Washington structure set a new standard of parking structure design for Downtown. z Rates are set to ensure that facility maintenance and upkeep are a fixed aspect of the operating budget each year.
2. Moderate Change
z Joint-development of public parking facilities within private developments offers the opportunity to place sidewalk-oriented commercial and residential uses, and resulting pedestrian traffic, at the site of parking facilities. z Rates for monthly permits can be set to reduce length of time individual customers spend on wait lists.
Page 1-29 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
3. Ambitious Change
z Redevelop some existing structures to incorporate sidewalk-oriented commercial uses. Garages such as 4th & William and Forest could be retro-fitted to incorporate small restaurant and shop spaces along the street. z Rates for monthly permits can be set to eliminate all wait lists
Figure 1-7 Toolbox Matrix of Policies, Tools, and Principles Addressed
Level of Constraints Policy Area Tools Principle Addressed Innovation Address Supply Moderate Joint-Development Midday Off-Street Management Supply Expansion Supply Ambitious Re-Develop Existing Visions for Compact, Management Structures Walkable Development
Demand Moderate Transportation Midday Off-Street Supporting Multi-Modal Management Coordinator Options Demand Ambitious Mandatory Commuter Midday Off-Street Supporting Multi-Modal Management Benefits Participation Options Demand Moderate Mandatory go!pass Midday Off-Street Supporting Multi-Modal Management Participation Options Demand Ambitious Commuter Buses Midday Off-Street Supporting Multi-Modal Management Options Demand Moderate Strategic Ped/ Bike Midday Off-Street Supporting Multi-Modal Management funding Options Demand Ambitious Fixed Ped/ Bike funding Midday Off-Street Supporting Multi-Modal Management Options Demand Moderate More Park and Ride Midday Off-Street Management Demand Moderate Expand Valet Permitting Evening On-Street Management Demand Ambitious DDA Managed Valet Evening On-Street Management Zoning Moderate Un-Bundling Visions for Compact, Walkable Development
Zoning Moderate In-Lieu Fees Visions for Compact, Walkable Development
Zoning Ambitious Parking Maximums Visions for Compact, Walkable Development
Cost and Moderate Extend Meter Hours Evening On-Street Revenue
Page 1-30 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Level of Constraints Policy Area Tools Principle Addressed Innovation Address Cost and Moderate Pricing to Manage On- Evening On-Street Revenue Street Demand Cost and Ambitious Pricing to Manage Evening On-Street Provide On-Street Revenue Demand and Turnover Parking to Support Local Businesses
Cost and Moderate Price Monthly Permits Midday Off-Street Revenue based on Hourly Rates Cost and Moderate Price Permits to Reduce Midday Off-Street Revenue Wait Lists Cost and Ambitious Price Permits to Midday Off-Street Revenue Eliminate Wait Lists Cost and Moderate Parking and Parking Should Pay for Revenue Transportation Fund Itself Payment Options Moderate Reform Permit Midday Off-Street Distribution Payment Options Ambitious Debit Card System for Midday Off-Street Permits and Hourly parkers Availability Moderate Use surveys to identify Midday Off-Street Provide On-Street areas to target Parking to Support Local enforcement of time Businesses limits to preserve short- term availability Availability Moderate Use surveys to identify Midday Off-Street Provide On-Street areas where time limits Parking to Support Local may be producing under- Businesses or over-utilization patterns
Availability Ambitious Pricing to Manage Evening On-Street Provide On-Street Demand and Turnover Parking to Support Local Businesses
Page 1-31 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Case Studies Successful parking management is a proven economic development tool. Below is a set of comparable downtown districts for which parking management tools have played a key role in successful economic revitalization efforts.
Boulder, Colorado In the 1970’s, the downtown of this university community was dying, saddled (among other problems) with a shortage of convenient customer parking and very little transit. Its economic revival has been catalyzed on the transportation side by several key policies: the complete abolition of parking requirements for all non-residential uses; charging for parking, with all revenues used to benefit the downtown; and a policy of funding the most cost-effective mix of transportation modes, instead of only parking garages. Recognizing that “the economics of parking garages are dismal”, as one planner put it, the business-led downtown district now uses parking meter revenues to fund a range of demand reduction alternatives, including free transit passes for every downtown employee.
Santa Monica, California Santa Monica is known for the lively pedestrian mall that anchors its downtown. Less known is the “Park Once” philosophy that allows the theaters, restaurants, offices and residences gathered along it to thrive with far less parking than conventional manuals predict is required for its constituent uses. Shared public lots and garages, strategically located, allow the downtown to function well with just 2.1 spaces per 1000 square feet of building space.
Old Pasadena, California In recent years, Old Pasadena has re-emerged from its decline into Skid Row status. In 1993, the district’s nascent revival was being hindered, as in Boulder, by a serious lack of convenient, available, “front door” parking spots for customers. Old Pasadena then had no parking meters, and proposals to install them were opposed by local merchants, who feared charges would drive customers away. Today, the $1 per hour meters have funded the district’s beautified alleys, street furniture, trees, tree grates and historic lighting fixtures, and fund its marketing, mounted police patrols, daily street sweeping and steam cleaning of sidewalks. Sales tax revenues quadrupled from 1992 to 1999, showing, perhaps counter-intuitively, that charging for parking can go hand-in-hand with remarkable revenue increases for local retailers.
Page 1-32 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Chapter 2. Public Outreach Week #I
The first of a pair of public outreach weeks was completed during the last week of March and consisted of four components, as described below.
z A series of four meetings with focus groups, consisting of: – Alternative Mode advocates; – City residents; – Downtown commuters; and – Representatives from the Downtown business community. z One meeting with representatives of four key policy boards, consisting of: – The Ann Arbor City Council; – The Downtown Development Authority; – The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; and – The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission. z A series of four interviews with representatives from key Downtown institutions; – University of Michigan; – Washtenaw County; – The Ann Arbor District Library; and – The Main Street Area Association. z A public open house held at City Hall.
Notes from each of these events are summarized below.
Notes from Focus Group Meetings Continuing the Phase II focus on obtaining public input to direct the development of parking policy, the Project Team conducted a series of focus group meetings during the week of March 26th. These meetings were intended to solicit feedback from stakeholders with specific interests in, and perspectives on, parking. A total of four focus groups convened during the week.
z The Alternative Transportation advocacy community z Ann Arbor Residents z Downtown commuters z The Downtown businesses community – Local business owners, the Chamber of Commerce, and other business interests including the real estate community.
Page 2-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
For each meeting, Nelson\Nygaard facilitated a discussion of Phase I findings and potential strategies and direction for a Downtown parking policy. Following are summaries of the feedback received from the groups attending each meeting.
Focus Group 1 – Alternative Transportation Community 26th March 2007 DDA Conference Room
Figure 2-1 Focus Group 1 Attendees
Name Representing Frank Schwende Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Matt Weingarden Bus Commuters Ana Iacob Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Dave Askins Self Erica Briggs getDowntown Pete Hines Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Kris Talley Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Phil Farber Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Mary Stasiak AATA Lily Guzman Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Chris White AATA Tamara Real Arts Alliance Don VanCleave DDA Elizabeth Tidd Bicycle Commuter Sharron Tubb Self Joan French Self Ray Fullerton Self Jhamal Frederiksen Self Donna Goen Health Media, Inc.
Many at the table commute to areas other than Downtown including:
z Stadium/ Packard area; z South Industrial Highway area; and z North Campus
Most rely on alternatives to personal auto travel for commuting. Stated mode reliance, in order of significance, consisted of:
z Bike, z Transit, and z Auto.
Page 2-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Most reside in or around Downtown. No one’s commute, via any mode, is longer than 20 minutes.
Most regular bicycle commuters have access to inside storage at work, including one with access to bike lockers (AATA). An AATA employee noted that providing lockers at work is now required for new development.
Two attendees noted that they had access to showers at their commute destination – work (AATA), classes (UM).
Issues z Wayfinding should be better – identify routing, storage options. z City of Toronto cited as exemplary in wayfinding and storage (stores can request lollipop bike racks from the City) z Education – For cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians. How to ride, where to find lanes and routes, using and maintaining bikes; driver responsibilities to respect pedestrians and cyclists (should be part of driver education) as well as bike lanes; cyclists off of sidewalks (no more signed sidewalk routes) and where pedestrians need to be aware of cars and bikes. z Speeds on North Main (and other unnamed streets) scare cyclists out of bike lanes, and onto sidewalk. z Not enough bike lanes – 30 miles currently. z Suggestion for Weeklong Bike festival – Education, safety
Barriers to Biking z Weather, required effort (acquiring/ maintaining necessary equipment, physical effort to ride), being sweaty (lack of showers at destination), safety. z Land Uses – shift away from shopping and serving local market to dining and serving regional market. Diners are less inclined to bike as are those coming from farther away. z Yearlong bike commuting is big, despite weather. z Pedal-pooling can overcome many barriers – psychological support for required effort, safety in numbers. z Lend-a-Bike could help with necessary equipment barriers – tried in the 70’s and bikes were stolen wholesale.
Barriers to Walking All agreed that Downtown is very walkable. Attendee from Lincoln Park DDA stated that he comes to Downtown to walk. Barriers to more walking include:
z Sidewalks – general conditions and weather-related maintenance, laws requiring sidewalks to be cleared by property-owners are not enforced;
Page 2-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Safety – Cars; z Security – Walking at night in areas with out housing or evening uses (Transit Center/ Library block); and z Weather – Rain is worse than cold/ snow. Barriers to Using Alternative Modes z Many UM students arrive from areas where not driving is not thought of as an option. Where students come from directly affects how they perceive walking, biking, and bus options. z Safety – Drivers entering one-way streets do not look for pedestrians, cyclists coming from other direction. Incentives z go!pass – stated as the reason attendee stays at current employer. z getDowntown working on offering discounts at Downtown shops for Downtown employees (similar to common arrangements within shopping malls) – could generate more walking errands in district. Buses z Buses don’t run late enough or often enough. They should run at least until 11 PM on weekdays and later Thursday – Saturday – as late as 3AM. z Waiting for buses in the Winter is brutal. z A coffee bar/ wireless access at Blake Transit Center would make waiting a lot nicer/ more productive. z Bus drivers need to be ambassadors—be friendly and embracing around events/ Christmas shopping season. z Transit needs to be branded. z Express/ Commuter buses would need to run at least 3 buses in the AM and PM peaks.
Parking z “It’s easy to park in Ann Arbor” z “Perceived parking problem is sign of success” z One attendee stated that his entire department (at UM) walked or biked because otherwise they would have to pay for parking. z Two people will not pay for parking and will go out of their way to avoid paying (will walk a mile). z “DDA should charge for on-street at night.” Equity issue of charging day time and not night time—Daytime businesses’ customers have to pay, why not evening businesses?
Page 2-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z One attendee’s friend will always bike or walk except at night when parking is free. Then he drives
Signage z A number of attendees noted not being able to distinguish between UM and DDA parking garages. Some have gotten tickets for parking at UM garages, thinking they were public/ DDA garages. z “Monthly Parking Only” signs are placed so that driver is already entering garage before they are seen. Must back up, often with a line of cars waiting behind.
Future of Bike/Walk use in Downtown z Attendees were almost universally optimistic about growth of these modes for travel into and around Downtown, though all agreed that there is less today than in the past. The 1970’s were noted as the height of bicycle use in Downtown. Focus Group 2 – Residents 27th March 2007 DDA Conference Room
Figure 2-2 Focus Group 2 Attendees
Name Representing Richard Shackson Downtown CAC Nancy Stokes Downtown Residents Ray Detter Downtown CAC Constance Crump Downtown Residents
While efforts were made to reach out beyond the Downtown and near-Downtown neighborhoods, all those attending were residents of Downtown.
Discussion
Do people have the information they need about alternatives to parking? z People who need information on alternatives will find it out
Is parking sold separate from the unit? z One person’s unit comes with parking z Some of us have been talking about a carsharing pool. What it means to a developer is that he doesn’t need to provide so many parking spaces. z Metro 202 provided parking nearby in a garage: 21 parking spaces for 44 units— across the street. z Some people are renting their off-street spaces and using on-street parking to gain income.
Page 2-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z In some mixed-use buildings, only residential units have deeded parking.
What do you do when you’re driving in Downtown? z Walk 98% of the time z Drive to Kerry town to studio that has parking. z My side of town is a small town. I know most of the merchants. I grocery shop at the farmer’s market, Sparrows, and the Food coop. I bum a ride every few weeks or so for toilet paper. I can find all the good quality food I need downtown. z If I’m stopping downtown and going somewhere else, I’ll often take my car. I’d have a hard time getting rid of my car. z Before 9 AM, I can find a meter anywhere.
Do people take advantage of free on street parking to lock them up for the whole night. z One person’s husband parks on street for the night at 6:30 (lives downtown) z There’s a lot behind Kerrytown where there’s a box you pay at that one person does not pay. But others have found enforcement “quite efficient”. However if it was easy to pay by credit card, “that would be fabulous”. z There was little interest in expanding RPP program as many feel they have adequate off-street parking and don’t bother with street spaces. z People going to the Y in Old West End are cruising to try and get free parking.
RPP program with meters? z Oppose any spread of parking meters in residential neighborhoods. Wouldn’t like the look of meters on residential street.
Bicycling and Walking Downtown z I used to bike quite a bit. I didn’t have a car for 6 or 9 months and it worked fine. z On sidewalk riding was a problem. Recent enforcement has worked – less people riding on the sidewalk, especially downtown. z Mid block alleys are really dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians. z AATA bike racks are being used very well.
Transit z The AATA pulsing in and out twice an hour works very well. Even when buses are late, the coordinated transfer works. Announcements made at approaching intersections. “A very customer-oriented organization” Part of the reason is that it’s an independent organization. z One attendee used to commute by bus, before retiring.
Page 2-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z One never rides a bus, but in the summer will bike quite a bit. His mother used the bus all the time, even as entertainment. z One attendee tried using the bus, but the stop was hard to get to and service times were really inconvenient.
Comments z Many on-streets space are empty because of the meter limits. z Some one-hour meters were put in place out of a desire for short term parking in front of lofts to unload groceries. One participant was concerned that some availability be maintained for that purpose. z One participant does not own a car but controls two parking spaces that he doesn’t use. He walks, rides the bus, and occasionally gets a ride to surrounding areas for shopping. z All others own cars and most have on-site parking z One lives at Main and Liberty with no onsite parking. She rents in a garage and her husband does his best to park on street. Her car hardly ever gets used, sitting in the 4th & William garage for months. z Older apartments tend not to have on-site parking, especially loft conversions along Main Street. z In our neighborhood, there is permit parking on just one side. Cars park on-street before after passengers ride a vanpool to work in Detroit. Their cars are on the street all day. z A lot of people are parking and using the Link instead of running around using parking. z Opening the city lots for free is fabulous! z One attendee stated that she keeps her car only because she is looking for a new job for which she may need it. Otherwise she’d sell it. z There was a time when a student couldn’t have a car in town. It was a school regulation. z The university should offer storage options for students. z Every development downtown should bring it’s own parking solution. Liberty lofts still has units for sale. Ashley terrace is still struggling.
z We want no more free standing parking structures. Also, no more surface lots. Want more residential downtown, not retail or parking. Want some kind of plan so that on-site parking is there for at least the tenants of the building. Focus Group 3 – Downtown Commuters 28th March 2007 DDA Conference Room
Page 2-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 2-3 Focus Group 3 Attendees
Name Representing Sharon Stanley Permit Holders Gale Redding Commuters Barbara Mangan Permit Holders Jhana Frederiksen Commuters Alexis Cecil Commuters Olga Billakis Property Owners
z 3 Participants do not have permit z 2 Participants have permits (1 paid by employer/ 1 not) z 1 Participant is a landlord who lives downtown and maintains permits to offer to tenants.
Discussion and Comments
Length of Commute z Most commute about 20 minutes in the morning and up to 40 minutes or more in the evening. z Many complained about the traffic, especially during construction.
How far will people walk from parking to work? z Generally, about 10 minutes - one person will walk over one mile. z In general, older people would not consider alternatives, younger people would. One noted that being environmentally sensitive, and having time to do stuff on a bus, would be of considerable value in taking an express bus. z Two non-permit holders vary their parking patterns to match weather conditions and time constraints. For each, however, finding a free spot in surrounding neighborhoods is the primary form of parking. Will pay when weather is poor, or time is limited.
Do you use your car during the day? z Most leave their car all day, but one uses it once in a while. z One parks underground at Ann Ashley because she knows the spot will be there when she gets back and there’s easy egress out of the garage. Another person didn’t know that there was parking underground. z Generally finding parking at midday is difficult, which discourages midday trips. z One company employs couriers. They have a very hard time finding parking during the day. It was not clear if they would be willing to pay more to have a guaranteed parking space for couriers (through on-street pricing). But finding space was essential.
Page 2-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Would non-cash payment options make paid parking more attractive? z All agreed it would
Would you pay for a permit if there weren’t a waiting list? z All non-permit holders agreed that they would not.
Light Rail z This would need to be direct from their community, or very near by – “When you’re almost at work, why would you park and switch?” z Must start and end in a convenient location. z It will be very difficult to overcome the independence that the car offers.
Express Bus Service z One would ride such a bus if it was cheaper than paying for gas z One person would use the bus except that she sometimes needs to use her car after work. She did take it once, but it made a lot of stops and took too long. z If it ran during rush hour times every 15 - 30 minutes, two would ride. z If it was a comfortable ride and you could do other things, same two would ride. z “When I get out of work, I want to go home. I don’t want to wait a half hour.” z “If I can get stuff done on the bus, that’s valuable time I wouldn’t have had.” z “It would be really nice if it was every ½ hour rather than every hour “
HOV z If there was a carpool lane more people would be apt to carpool. z This would also help appeal of express bus service. z It would be great to have an Emergency ride home for mid day and late night when one has to stay late or leave early.
Access to Permits/ Cashing out parking z When a new person comes in there’s not necessarily a permit. One person has been on the list for a couple of years. z “I highly suspect if I didn’t get my permit, I wouldn’t get the permit and I wouldn’t get the $100.” z Usually I’m running errands for the office before I get in, so I would not take the cash out. z One person walks to work even though she could get a free permit. z At one law firm with two senior partners, one does not have a permit because he’s willing to walk. It’s his way of getting exercise.
Page 2-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z “To know that you can definitely get a space is definitely worth a lot. I would still pay a $100 to park.”
Rebates for Non-Driving Days z “If I have the permit, I’m going to drive.”
Effect of Courthouse z Monday is a busy day at the courthouse as hundreds of prospective jurors come downtown. Clients cannot park on-street. Closing of 4th and Williams spaces, and shift of permits to 4th & Washington made things much worse. Attendee’s law-firm is looking for new space in the suburbs because of this parking issue. Majority of people would prefer to stay in Ann Arbor. Focus Group 4 - Downtown Business Community 28th March 2007 DDA Conference Room
Figure 2-4 Focus Group 4 Attendees
Name Representing Bill Milken Milken Realty Andrew O'Neal O'Neal Construction Ed Shaffran Shaffran Jesse Bernstein Chamber of Commerce Bob Gates First Martin Karen Farmer Kerrytown Shops Jason Boggs Kerrytown District Association Newcombe Clark MSAA Mary Stasiak AATA Tom Heywood State Street Ron Dankert Swisher Discussion
What are the sizes of your companies? Focus group participants noted they had the following number of employees; 3.5, 4, 5, 14, and 14. Participants estimated that the number of employees within downtown businesses would range from 2 to 200.
What are your individual parking needs; your customers; your employees? One participant noted that their parking needs for their own office were minimal. The participant had limited on-site parking, enough for staff and visitors, and expressed knowledge of where to park when coming downtown for personal reasons. One participant noted that they are located at Main Street and William Street (Chamber of Commerce), and they have high traffic volume coming through the door that they need the parking system to accommodate. The participant added that the Chamber had received
Page 2-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
phone calls from Detroit Edison (DTE) complaining that they’d been in Ann Arbor for years, and were on the permit waitlist for 250 parking permits, and questioned why Google is getting a free ride. A participant noted that the discussion should also be about mobility and providing more resources, like shuttles. Another participant agreed, adding that a number of spots are taken up by evening employees, and felt that part of the problem was due to a lack of late night buses to the AATA’s Park & Ride lots.
Would the DDA overnight parking permit fit with restaurant/evening employees schedules? Participants were skeptical of this solution. The participant felt that it would be difficult to get employees out of the nearby spots (if they are even actually the ones parking in them) and noted that a restaurant owner would never buy parking permits for all of their employees. One participant suggested the Nelson/Nygaard team speak with Dennis Serras to get his opinions, as he owns multiple restaurants in Ann Arbor. One participant suggested extending the hours of meter enforcement and another felt that extending meter hours would penalize the customers. A participant noted that people will do anything for free parking. Another participant noted that the parking structures in the Main Street Area are very convenient and are easy to get in and out of quickly. One participant noted that after business hours, parkers are more concerned with convenience than cost.
Would valet parking work downtown? One participant commented that if on-street parking is full, valet parking would be appealing, partly from a safety standpoint, in order to not have to walk up and down within the parking structures. Another participant felt there would be a cultural resistance to valet parking here, as it is a university town and a little more laid-back, it might seem snooty to having valet parking. One participant felt if valet parking was implemented, it would have to be given a significant period of implementation, like a year, to really determine how well it was working.
Is there an interest in Wayfinding information, such as real-time info on available parking spaces? Participants generally felt this would be beneficial, as Ann Arbor is often confusing to visitors, particularly with the one way streets. One participant noted that the increasing number of cars with navigation systems helps to reduce confusion. A participant commented that there are businesses that would like to locate in the downtown, but there isn’t parking available, so they go to the edges of town instead. Another member noted that this isn’t just the case with small offices, it’s the same with large offices too, and not only are they not being attracted downtown, but they are leaving downtown too. One participant remarked that companies just need to change their name to Google and then they’d not only get parking, but also for free.
Convenience and Parking Solutions A participant shared that visitors to the DTE building tend to play roulette to get one of the free visitor spots right in front, then when there aren’t available, they eventually go across
Page 2-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
the street to the parking deck and end up frustrated and late. The participant was bothered that people still seem to hold on to the idea that they will always be able to park right in front of their destination.
One participant shared that they lived within walking distance to one of the AATA outlots, but riding the bus into the downtown takes 40 minutes. The participant noted they did not have that much time, but would take an express bus if it only took 15 minutes to get downtown. Participants agreed that bus frequency should increase, and noted that light rail would be great, but questioned how that would be funded. One participant noted that parking structures have to be one part of the solution, and added that light rail and buses won’t solve the problem alone.
A participant was amazed after going to Birmingham, MI, as the first two hours of parking were free. Another member remarked that it would be possible to do that here. One participant commented that Ann Arbor is a very walkable town, but said they wouldn’t walk all over in the middle of winter. A member suggested that as many levels as structurally possible should be added to every current parking structure. It was acknowledged that some people love certain surface lots and prefer not to park in structures. One participant noted that it would be a waste to put a structure on a flat lot, and said that the goal should be to keep downtown walkable. Another participant noted that a combination of elements is necessary to create a solution.
Express Bus One participant questioned where the threshold is, that if you’re willing to take the bus, how much longer are you willing for it to take to get downtown. Another participant said that a 30 minute ride would be the maximum, but added that reliability is also a factor. A participant noted that some people just need to have a car, especially if they make multiple trips during the day. One participant said the focus should be on reducing the parking demand of the big users like City and County employees, and giving them the incentive to come in on buses.
Other Issues Employment z Most employees work a standard 9-5 shift, with the exception of DTE employees, which have different shifts throughout the day. z State Street employees mostly park in the Liberty Square Structure. There was a feeling in the group that the right people are using the garages during the day. z In Kerrytown, most people park in the adjacent neighborhood or park in two hour parking and move their car every two hours. The group stated there are no complaints from residents of surrounding neighborhoods of people parking and then walking to Kerrytown.
Page 2-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Parking Permits z The group stated that the permitting process works either officially through the DDA or a developer will have his name on floating lists, and when a permit opens up he/she will call their client and ask them if they need another spot. z There is a $19 difference between having a monthly permit and just paying at the structure out of pocket. The group noted that the gap is getting smaller. z The group liked the idea of permits going away completely and then people getting billed monthly for their parking usage. They believed this idea would give more flexibility to people who only park downtown part-time. z It was stated that the problem with parking in structures is that there are always going to be people who want a guarantee of close parking.
Adding New Parking Supply z Building more spaces immediately was a primary concern for many in this group. The group noted the City’s goal to add 3000 new residents in or near downtown, and that they will need parking. z Some feel the city needs to add to the parking inventory, and that they worry about businesses leaving, in part because employees are running out of choices for parking. z Businesses are moving out to South State Street because of the parking. It’s not an economic decision, but one of convenience. z It was noted that the top levels of the Maynard Structure are usually empty, but motorists do not want to travel up 5 levels to find that out. z The group said new technologies to inform people of where spaces are located would be a plus. (Like updates on cell phones)
Pricing and Payment z The price of a parking ticket is $10. This is far less than a comparable ticket in New York or Chicago. If ticket prices remain low, it will encourage people to continue to park illegally. z With regards to free parking after 6pm, it was noted that most of those spaces are taken up by restaurant employees or patrons. This policy has not hurt businesses (but some in the group said that it may in the future). z The group was supportive of the idea of no time limits for meters, with charges going up the longer a vehicle was parked in that space. z They also noted that no one carries quarters anymore – a credit or debit card would be highly convenient for parking downtown. z The group stated that a balance was needed between encouraging turnover for retail businesses but also not deterring businesses. z The group also wanted to make sure money from parking fees were used to pay and maintain parking (and not taken for other things)
Page 2-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Some felt that building a new structure and then charging higher fees to pay for it would work – that people would pay more money for parking than what they do now. z Some merchants liked the free parking on Sundays because it made them busier.
Final Thoughts One participant expressed concern regarding a “death spiral”, that if Ann Arbor looses its culture and panache, the City will loose things like Google to other places, and added that maintaining a viable downtown is more tenuous task than it used to be. A participant noted that the overall transportation solution for downtown will have multiple needs, and added that as a major city it is difficult to imagine that there is a one lane road coming into the downtown. Another participant noted that the City needs a policy, a plan, and a vision for the City. One member brought up the Pfizer campus, and noted that in terms of size, it is larger than the downtown. The participant shared that one vision for the redevelopment of the site included light rail that would go to U of M campuses and to the downtown. The participant added that however it is redevelopment will have a huge impact on the City, and felt that municipal, state, and University funding would need to come together to fund and support light rail.
Notes from the Policy Boards Meeting On March 28th, 2007, the Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study Project Team facilitated a meeting of Downtown’s key transportation policy makers including:
z Ann Arbor City Council; z Ann Arbor City Planning Commission; z Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and z Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.
Individuals in attendance are listed in Figure 2-5. Attendees were randomly assigned to participate at three tables, with the only requirement being that every agency must be represented at each table.
Figure 2-5 Policy Board Meeting Attendees
Name Representing Name Representing Fred J. Beal DDA Ethel Potts CPC Bonnie Bona CPC Evan Pratt CPC Dawn Gabay AATA Wendy Rampson CPC Leah Gunn DDA Nancy Shore AATA Jennifer Hall DDA Sandi Smith DDA Roger Hewitt DDA John Splitt DDA Marcy Higgs Council Mary Stasiak AATA Joan Lowenstein Council Margie Teall Council D. Nacht AATA Kirk Westphal CPC
Page 2-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
The objective of this meeting was to frame how the community’s overall goals can be aided through parking policy. A brief presentation of the quantitative and qualitative results from Phase I began the meeting, providing participants with a clear picture about how Downtown’s parking inventory (including DDA-managed parking, private commercial on-site parking, backyard parking, and the influence of University of Michigan parking) is currently being utilized. The presentation concluded with a summary of key concerns reported by parkers and the general public during Phase I.
The presentation was followed by a consensus-building session on the community’s needs which policy makers believe the transportation system should serve and prioritize. These “transportation needs” will be the basis for the establishment of policy goals and objectives, as well as how transportation resources can work together as a comprehensive strategy to support the City’s overall goals.
The meeting concluded with a discussion of potential parking policies and strategies, as presented in the Parking Toolbox memo. The Project Team introduced a spectrum of potential strategic policies and various levels of implementation. General feedback from the meeting’s participants was received through discussions at breakout tables, as led by Project Team facilitators. Finally, each table presented a series of key points and conclusions based on the elements of the Toolbox. Feedback received from each table is presented below, summarized by agency, followed by a summary of feedback on the Toolbox options as presented at the conclusion of the meeting.
Feedback Received Table 1 - Parking Policy Positions z DDA – Parking policy should support options to Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel and attempt to intercept vehicles before they reach Downtown. Transit options are needed for commuter service – rail or commuter bus. z City Council – Prioritize cost effectiveness. Parking should go where it is needed – note the Google problem (where are they going to park with their 400 free permits?). Parking enforcement costs are a key issue. Discerning majority opinion from vocal minority opinion is a challenge where parking attracts passionate opinions from all sides of issues. z AATA – We need to balance the needs of retail establishments with needs of office tenants. z City Council – City Council has a policy of supporting public transportation. z Planning Commission – The Commission’s focus is on quality of life for residents. Parking is an unglamorous component of Downtown. It is not efficient to require each private building to provide its own parking. Design requirements are lacking, for example, where to places access points at off-street facilities. z DDA – The DDA acts as Downtown’s parking authority. We struggle with operating parking as a business, while at the same time using parking to support business vitality. If DDA were a private parking operator, it could raise rates much higher,
Page 2-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
but as a public authority, it must consider the impact on businesses. The DDA board believes more parking is needed in Downtown, but some want to emphasize alternative transportation options first. Monthly pass rates are artificially low, but how much it can be increased is unclear. The parking permit wait list is representative of the cost discount and space convenience; it is not a measure of unmet parking demand as most people on the waitlist are already parking elsewhere. For those that receive free parking outside of Downtown, there is no incentive to come Downtown any other way but in SOVs. This is important in considering the impact of the Google deal. z AATA – Whatever is done, do not hurt Downtown businesses. Downtown vitality is key to everything. Table 1 – Toolbox Feedback z Extending meters – There was general support for extending the time meters are in effect, while noting that enforcement costs are an issue. Enforcement officers complain about the difficulty of enforcing time limits. z Valet and Pricing – Convenience outweighs price at night. This priority could work for Valet and pricing on-street spaces. Valet parking could improve utilization of structures that now sit empty. z Wayfinding – Support for wayfinding was clear, noting a particular need for signage to let people know which lots are public (i.e., City Hall and Fingerle). z Park and Ride and Express Bus Service – These should work because so many commuters go to the same outlying towns. z Parking Cash Out – General support with some doubts about applicability. z Unbundling Parking – There was general support for unbundling, though some feel that current zoning already encourages it. z Joint-Development – The DDA will not do any more stand alone structures. Building more parking is not at the top of DDA’s priority list.
Table 2 – Parking Policy Positions z DDA – The DDA is looking at the need for more parking as result of the Google deal and potential similar deals. z AATA – The AATA is looking at peak hour needs, evaluating countywide service. z Planning Commission – The Planning Commission looks at parking as a land use - the least productive land use in Downtown. z City Council – The Council must take all comments into consideration. The economy is a key concern. The Council likes the idea of extending meter hours, but not everywhere. z All – Each board must deal with balancing needs. The approach must be realistic and all agreed that some additional parking is needed. However, all also agreed that reduce the amount of parking needed through alternative transportation options is an equal priority.
Page 2-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Table 2 – Toolbox Feedback z Joint-Development – Joint-development options for parking structures are generally supported. z Transportation Coordinator – A dedicated staff person is valuable, though the attendees were not sure whether it required a full time position. This could be handled by the Chamber of Commerce and the getDowntown program. z Commuter Benefits – Implementing a requirement for a mandatory pre- development meeting with Planning staff/Transportation Coordinator is supported. Such a meeting should provide non-binding information on TDM options available to Downtown employees. Some felt this was too ambitious for Midwesterners and that it would be hard to identify what might work. z Mandatory go!pass – Only if it is free. z Commuter Buses – Bus-only lanes to improve speeds would be a key to success. Signal priority would also be needed (AATA currently doing a pilot project). z Bike/Ped Funding – Special assessments are a bad way to fund these programs. Instead the City should commit to an annual funding level. z Un-bundling of Parking Costs – Generally supported with the objective of reducing car ownership. z In Lieu Fee – Developers that pay will want control over spaces. Hard to do in current context as there are wait lists for permits and most permits are not for reserved spaces. z Parking Maximums – It was generally felt that this option goes against the grain in Ann Arbor. If a developer wants to build accessory, this takes pressure off of City. z Demand-Based Pricing – This was thought to be worth looking into. Support to extend meter hours based on demand was also supported. Table 3 – Parking Policy Positions z AATA – The agency’s focus is currently on analysis and improvement of a transit system integrated with City, County, and other service areas. z Planning Commission – The Commission’s recent focus is on emphasizing and prioritizing non-motorized transportation, while reducing the emphasis on vehicle level of service. z DDA – The DDA parking goal is Park Once. z General Comments: – A good comparable for Downtown would be Boulder, Colorado. – Attendees were happy to see the evidence of solid park-once behavior. – Ann Arbor needs to do better with what we are already doing. – The future of mobility is in mass transit. Table 3 – Toolbox Feedback z Express Buses – Express buses could build momentum for rail.
Page 2-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Mandatory go!pass – The pass is too cheap. If it doesn’t cost, it isn’t valued. z Valet parking – This has never been successful, but may have promise if done right. z Wayfinding – Generally supported. z Demand-Based Pricing – Generally supported. Remove time limits, and target enforcement. z Joint Development – Ann Arbor’s lack of experience is holding back implementation of mixed-use strategies. Liberty Square is a good example of an unsuccessful past attempt that has dampened enthusiasm for this strategy. z Park and Ride – Supported, but trip times into, out of town need to be improved.
Summary of Toolbox Feedback from All Tables Figure 2-6 provides a summary of the feedback received for each specific strategy outlined in the Parking Toolbox and discussed at each breakout table. The overall feedback for each strategy is derived by: z Assigning it two points for each table that gave it general support; z Assigning it one point for each table that gave it mixed support; and z Assigning it two negative points for each table that generally opposed it. Zeros were assigned where options were not discussed, or feedback was uncertain.
Figure 2-6 Toolbox Feedback Summary Strategy Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Score Joint-Development: DDA Parking in Private Development 2 2 2 6 Express Transit Service - Rail or Bus 2 2 2 6 Extending Meter Regulation into Evenings 2 2 2 6 Valet Using DDA Structures 2 1 2 5 Support Mass Transit 2 0 3 4 Parking Cash Out 2 0 2 4 Retrofitting Garages with Street-Level Uses 2 0 2 4 Expanding Existing Garages 2 0 2 4 Pricing to Eliminate Time Limits 1 0 2 3 Bike and Ped Funding 0 2 3 3 Unbundling 1 2 0 3 Park and Ride 1 0 1 2 Make Existing TDM programs More Effective 0 0 2 2 TDM Coordinator 0 2 0 2 Graduated Meter Rates to Generate Turnover 0 2 0 2 Regular Data Collection 0 2 0 2 Monthly Permits as Debit Cards 2 0 0 2 Base Monthly Rates on Hourly 0 1 0 1 In-Lieu Fees 0 1 0 1 Fix Permit Distribution System 2 -2 0 0 Parking Caps 0 -2 0 -2 TDM Mandates -2 -2 -2 -6
Page 2-18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Notes from Key Institution Interviews One-on-one interviews were conducted with representatives from the following organizations to obtain key input regarding plans for parking and transportation improvements, and options to expand existing programs:
z University of Michigan; z Washtenaw County; z The Ann Arbor District Library; and z The Main Street Area Association.
These interviews were conducted via phone calls and in-person meetings. Summaries of these discussions follow.
University of Michigan Phone interview with Sue Gott, University of Michigan, Planner, April 19, 2007
The following summarizes input gathered from the conversation with Ms. Gott.
The University’s approach to parking is regional. There are five campuses in and around Ann Arbor. The University caters its parking approach at each campus to local transportation conditions.
The University’s approach emphasizes demand management. Supply strategies are most often considered in reaction to new waves of demand increase, coming from changes in University-related activity – the on-going Medical Campus expansion for example. The emphasis on managing demand rather than building to suit it stems from a number of planning polices, such as:
z The high financial cost of parking construction – especially in Downtown; z The opportunity cost of using land for parking; and z The objective of supporting transit use (UM and AATA) among students, staff, and faculty.
The University’s planning and parking offices were described as being continually engaged in cooperation and negotiation with the DDA on a number of Central Campus/ Downtown parking issues, such as:
z Visitor parking at the University: The University relies upon the DDA to accommodate certain, regular patterns of visitor parking demand; z The need for on-street ADA parking near campus buildings; z Improving co-sponsored TDM and transit programs; and z Developing/ sponsoring additional TDM and transit programs.
Page 2-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Car-Sharing – The car-sharing program, in which a number of cars provided through ZipCar were placed at UM structures on three campuses last fall, is growing steadily. Current utilization is around 25 percent. The Central Campus cars are used quite a bit more that those on North and Medical, but usage of the Medical Center cars is picking up. Students are using them much more than staff, as was expected.
ZipCar will advise the University when more cars should be added. Generally the company looks for utilization of about 50 percent, so that is not expected to happen before next fall. The University guarantees a minimum revenue stream of $1,500 per car per month, so they want to be prudent about adding new cars. The University has been encouraging the City to join in and establish a few cars of their own.
Valet – The University has a long-standing arrangement with the Bell Tower Hotel, under which the hotel can use up to 15 vehicles Monday through Friday and 30 vehicles on weekends for a flat monthly fee of around $2,100. The impetus for this agreement was the fact that many of the hotel’s guests are UM visitors. It has worked well, but given the tightness of parking on campus, they do not want to encourage or expand such relationships.
Washtenaw County Phone interview with Gordon Burger, Washtenaw County, March 28th, 2007
Current Plans z The County does have a number of construction projects planned, but none in the Downtown area. z The County is committed to begin the process next year of relocating Juvenile Court. This court currently resides outside of Downtown, on Platt Road, within the Family Court facility. This court is likely to be re-located in Downtown within the existing courthouse building. Remodeling and possible limited expansion of this building are likely strategies for accommodating the new court. The court is slated to leave its existing building by 2010. z This is expected to create demand for 120 new spaces, in addition to the 300 monthly parking permits currently allotted to County employees at the Ann & Ashley parking structure. It is not anticipated that any of this demand will be accommodated on-site. The existing 300 permits represent free parking for nearly 90 percent of the County’s 340 Downtown employees. The County does not have any plans to change its existing policy of providing this level of free parking to its current Downtown employees or the 40 new Downtown employees expected to come with the move. z The County intends rather to approach the DDA about the possibility of accommodating the additional parking demand at the Ann & Ashley structure.
Page 2-20 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Ann Arbor District Library Meeting with Josie Parker – Director, Ann Arbor District Library, March 28th, 2007
On March 28th, 2007, a member of the Project Team met with Josie Parker, Director of the Ann Arbor District Library. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit information on any recent, current, or planned changes related to the library’s parking needs, policies, and actions. Following is a summary of information related to these issues.
z The Library: Ann Arbor District Library’s central library is located within Downtown, at the northeast corner of 5th Avenue and William Street. While serving as a local branch for Downtown residents, the Downtown library is also the central location for the District’s many programs and services. Regular visitors commonly come from 8-10 miles away. Visitation for the current year is expected to exceed 600,000 following an eight percent increase in visitation last year. z The Library Lot and Parking Patterns: Sunday is the Library’s busiest day. It is open for only four hours, but these are the four busiest hours of the week. Ms. Parker believes that the biggest reason for this is that parking at the adjacent South 5th Avenue lot is free on Sundays. Their clients have a clear preference for surface parking over parking in structures. The library is open until 9:00 PM Monday to Saturday and evening patrons are especially reluctant to use structures. z Recent Parking Plans: In 2006, there was a plan to redevelop the DDA- managed Library Lot. The development plan included both a new City courthouse and Police station, as well as underground public parking. The amount of proposed parking would have increased the public parking capacity at the site. The proposed land uses however were subject to strong public objection, including those who felt that these land uses conflicted with the adjacent library and nearby businesses who felt their customers would not continue to park at the site once the facility was moved beneath such uses. The proposal was not adopted by the City Council. z Current Parking Plans: The Library has contracted for a feasibility study to identify potential expansion opportunities. The current building is composed of three sections which vary in age and structural design. It is currently unclear whether the existing building therefore can be expanded vertically, or if so by how much. Due to site constraints, any proposed horizontal expansion plan would likely include redevelopment of the Library Lot. Such a plan would fit with the current DDA preference to seek joint-development opportunities for supply expansion.
Main Street Area Association Phone interview with Ms. Ellie Serras, Director, Main Street Area Association, April 12, 2007
The Main Street Area Association, an organization that is similar to a Chamber of Commerce, or business improvement district, is focused on the Main Street area of Downtown. In addition, her husband is the owner of four restaurants on Main Street,
Page 2-21 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
including the Real Seafood restaurant which has been operating on Main Street since 1975.
Ms. Serras represents an area where the business community is increasingly dominated by restaurants and bars. These establishments employ thousands of staff members. As such, she is keenly interested in the issues concerning high on-street occupancies in the evening periods.
Her primary concern is the strategy of extending meter hours into the evenings in order to reduce demand at these times, and free up some availability for restaurant customers. This strategy is a response, in part, to the common perception that many of the on-street spaces are filled by Main Street area employees who park on-street and remain in the same spot all night. Ms. Serras is sure that the on-street demand in the evenings is, in part, generated by employees, but feels that no one can really identify how significant their impact is.
Furthermore, Ms. Serras does not see much of a problem with the lack of on-street vacancies, citing that full blocks indicate that one is “where the action is” so to speak.. She sees the potential extension of meter hours as a punitive effort, and would like to see a more “creative” approach to a problem that she does not have much of a problem with. She also felt that employees would continue to “plug” the meters till whenever they became free and continue to park on-street even if meters were extending until 10 at night.
Her suggestion as the best approach to the problem is to shift demand over to off-street facilities through wayfinding and information campaigns. She stated that much of the restaurant clientele are coming from outside the area and “have no idea” where to find the structures. If this information were made clear, along with marketing the idea that trying the garages first will save time, many patrons would give up looking on-street and drive directly to close-by garages.
Ms. Serras also echoed some of the comments from the business community focus group, that extending transit – in particular the Link service – would be a boon for evening businesses and relieve some of the on-street demand. She would like to see the Link run until 3:00 AM.
She also echoed the business community focus group sentiment that evening customers place more importance on convenience than price. She also “loves” the idea of expanding valet services, an idea she says she has been pushing for years. She would like to see the DDA manage this and have the valet stations be placed in prominent locations.
She was uncertain of the potential of using overnight monthly permits to shift employee demand off-street, feeling that, with so many Main Street businesses employing hundreds of staff, the cost of subsidizing or paying for such permits would be too costly.
She mentioned the need for improvements in the entry and exit queuing at structures. She looks forward to the implementation of credit card payment options in the hopes that this may help. She was doubtful of the prospect of debit-based parking cards attracting interest among evening customers.
Page 2-22 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
In closing, Ms. Serras suggested that the DDA could do more to keep the four Downtown neighborhood associations abreast of new developments and policies. She suggested that monthly updates would help theses associations keep up with “what is going on and what is available.”
Notes from the Open House On the evening of March 29th, the Project Team held a two-hour Open House to conclude the week of public outreach meetings. All those interested in attending were invited through a series of announcements, a press release, and invitations made during the Focus Group and Policy Maker meetings. Figure 2-7 presents the names of the 26 attendees received. Figure 2-7 Open House Attendees
Name Representing Debbie Francis DTEES Ronnie Jones DTE Energy Alan Connor Self Steven Gavas Parthenon Restaurant, Wireless Toyz Jesse Bernstein AAA Chamber of Commerce Tom Higginson Borders Mary Stasiak AATA Sam Breck Self Carl Rinne Self Jane Kamfer Self Herbert Kamfer Self Chris Adams Self Terri Blackmore Self Russ Collins Michigan Theater Kay Werthan Self Chris Crockett A2D2 Larry Horvath Self Vhiie Carm Self Paul M Ganz DTE Energy Joan French Self Ray Fullerton CAC Jim Hart Self Ray Detter Self Jill Damon 16 Hands Gallery Robert Klinger Self Bob Kuehne Self
Participants were guided through a series of four distinct stations, arranged sequentially to present existing conditions and policies before introducing potential strategic and policy options. The stations, in order, were:
Page 2-23 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Existing Conditions – A summary of findings from Phase I, including inventory, occupancy, and public perceptions; z Existing Policy – Current policies and actions related to parking; z Policy Options I – Options offering a moderate approach to new and innovative ideas; and z Policy Options II – Options offering a more ambitious approach to innovative strategies.
Each station was attended by a member of the Project Team to present material, provide detailed information, answer questions, and receive feedback from participants.
Comments Received st z The 1 and William lot is permit-only parking until 6:00 PM, but occupancy drops significantly beginning at 4:00 PM. Allowing earlier, free public parking could address employee demand that is currently filling on-street spaces. z Many visitors to Station 1 (Existing Conditions) noted that they did not know that Fingerle was a public lot. Again, this lot could provide capacity for restaurant employees in evenings. z Parking information should be provided by local businesses to their customers. z An Information Station is needed in Downtown z We would like to see much more mixed-use, especially attached to parking. z Parking revenue should go back to the City. z Look at Non-Motorized Transportation plan – is there an intention to get rid of parking along Liberty at State? This would be terrible. z Require new residential to provide at least 1 space per unit. z Permit distribution is unpredictable. z Permit parkers should park outside of Downtown core. z Explore flexible parking options for permits. z Borders book store requires loading/unloading space, especially for performances.
Voting Following the last station was a large printout summarizing options discussed at the final three stations. Participants were given dot-shaped stickers – four red and four green – and asked to place green dots next to the options they most favored, and red dots on the options they least favored. Figure 2-8 presents a summary of received votes.
Page 2-24 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 2-8 Policy Options Voting
Tool Positive Negative Cost effective alternatives to new parking 3 6 Parking pays for itself 1 Current zoning exemptions 10 Joint Development 4 Re-Develop Existing Structures 9 1 Transportation Coordinator Position 3 Mandatory go!pass 1 Commuter Buses 5 Strategic Bike/Ped Investments 4 1 Fixed Same 1 1 More Park and Ride 8 DDA Valet 1 3 Current Valet Trials 6 5 Oversupply of on-site parking 3 In Lieu Fees 1 Parking Maximums 1 1 Dedicated Parking Revenues - Current 2 5 Extend Meter Hours 6 1 Price to manage on-street Demand 3 1 Price to manage turnover 8 Price Monthly Permits for demand 5 Price to Wait List 1 6 Current Monthly price, distribution 1 Distribution process 6 Debit Cards 4 On-Street Pricing to discourage commuter parking 3 Surveys to identify target areas for enforcement 2
Page 2-25 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Chapter 3. Preliminary Recommendations
The following sections present preliminary recommendations for:
z A summary and balancing of the feedback received during the first week of public outreach; z A Downtown Parking Policy; z A Toolbox of parking management strategies in support of the Policy; and z A recommended sequence of implementation actions based on the Toolbox.
Public Feedback The following provides a summary and balancing of the feedback received during the week of March 26-30, 2007, when the Project Team presented a spectrum of potential parking policies and strategies
Detailed feedback received during these events is documented in previous project memoranda. The intent of the following summary is to describe the context within which these tools were analyzed for final selection.
Figure 3-1 summarizes the feedback received at each outreach event using the following rating system:
z Assigning it two points if attendees offered general support; z Assigning it one point if attendees gave it mixed, but generally positive support; z Assigning it no points if the topic was not discussed or if opinions were mixed; z Assigning it one negative point if attendees gave it mixed, but generally negative responses; and z Assigning it two negative points if attendees offered negative responses.
The following sections expand upon the feedback received for each proposed tool.
Page 3-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 3-1 Toolbox Feedback Summary
Alt. Bus. Policy Open Strategy Modes Residents Commuters Community Boards House Total Express Transit Service - Rail or Bus 2 0 2 1 2 2 9 Monthly Permits as Debit Accounts 2 0 2 2 1 2 9 Support Multimodal Options 2 2 2 1 2 0 9 Pricing to Eliminate Time Limits 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 Bike and Ped Funding 2 2 2 0 1 1 8 Extending Meter Regulation into Evenings 2 1 0 1 2 2 8 Joint-Development: DDA Parking in Private Development -1 2 1 2 2 1 7 Fix Permit Distribution System 2 0 1 2 0 2 7 Graduated Meter Rates to Generate Turnover 2 1 0 1 1 2 7 Using most cost effective means of providing access 1 2 1 2 2 -1 7 Retrofitting Structures with Street-level Uses 2 1 0 0 2 1 6 Evening Link Service 2 0 1 2 1 0 6 Park and Ride 2 0 1 0 1 2 6 Parking Cash Out 2 0 1 0 2 0 5 Valet Using DDA Structures 1 1 0 2 2 -1 5 Make Existing TDM programs More Effective 2 1 1 0 1 0 5 Expanding Existing Structures -2 -1 1 2 2 2 4 TDM Coordinator 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 Unbundling 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 In-Lieu Fees 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 Base Monthly Rates on Hourly 2 0 -1 0 0 0 1 TDM Mandates 2 0 0 -2 -2 1 -1 Parking Caps 2 0 0 -2 -1 0 -1 Key – 2 = Strong Support 1 = Support 0 = Neutral or Not Addressed -1 = Opposition -2 = Strong Opposition
Page 3-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Express Transit Service - Rail or Bus Express transit was proposed as a tool for reducing commuter parking demand within the Downtown district. Current transit services may be missing markets in key outlying communities. Current Park and Ride operations do not extend to some communities from which many auto commuters travel, and offers only local service from existing locations. Express service from key communities outside of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County could tap potential transit markets among commuters willing to pay for comfortable, speedy service into Downtown. Ridership on such service could decrease long-term parking downtown and monthly permit demand within the parking system, freeing up space for shoppers and other users.
This strategy received positive feedback from most outreach participants, and especially strong support from the Alternative Modes and Commuters focus groups, as well as mostly positive responses from Policy Board members. Commuters from Brighton averred that they would ride such a service.
Within the Commuters group, attendees least interested in express transit service were those currently holding DDA monthly parking permits. Others expressed various levels of interest in using transit if it provided trip times and costs comparable to driving. Particular interest arose in exploring express bus service that could take advantage of HOV lanes during roadway construction. All those in attendance felt that this was a valuable strategy to pursue.
Those attending the Alternative Modes group felt that express transit could improve transit’s commuter share by appealing to riders from outside the traditional AATA service market. However, these participants did not volunteer to use the service, primarily because they currently travel by an alternative mode.
The Business Community group was more skeptical, voicing two doubts: uncertainty that any bus service would really be “express,” and doubts that bus service in general could attract significant ridership from current drivers.
Most participants felt that either bus or rail would be equally effective in attracting ridership if service levels were comparable between the two and service were reliable, though rail investment might provide more potential economic benefit from development investment.
Monthly Permits as Debit Accounts Replacing the current pre-paid monthly parking permit with a debit account payment system, similar to that used on many toll roads across the nation, was proposed as a tool for reducing parking demand in general and monthly permit demand in particular. Such a system could reduce permit demand by linking monthly access directly to users, who would be charged per daily use using accounts managed by the DDA, rather than paying a
Page 3-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
flat monthly fee. This makes the daily cost of driving transparent to the user and prevents employers, landlords, and developers from controlling the distribution of permits. Without necessarily changing the pricing structure, this strategy could also reduce daily parking demand by removing a key incentive for permit holders to drive each day - maximizing the use on their pre-paid monthly permit investments.
This strategy was widely supported by attendees during our outreach events. Many participants placed a high priority on any strategy that would make the permit distribution process more transparent. For others, providing an incentive for monthly parkers to not drive every day was the most important benefit of a debit account system.
Some DDA board and City Council members, however, expressed reservations about changing the current system since it provides the public sector with a level of control over where permits are distributed -- a level that has historically and currently been used to effectively attract businesses and new development to locate in Downtown and support ongoing economic development.
Support Multi-Modal Options The City has a long history of being a leader in providing multi-modal transportation. Continuing support for investments in alternative mode options needs to be backed up with city policy to help frame future discussions and analyses of parking and access. Financial policy statements supporting a recognized mobility asset for the district can shape decision making by illustrating multi-modal investment options in comparison with the other investment options. This should be reinforced with the ongoing Transportation Plan update process.
Continued and enhanced provision of multiple transportation options that provide access to Downtown with comparable travel times and facilities was seen by most as an important district asset that can and should be used to reduce demand for parking in Downtown. Most agreed that new structured parking is typically the most expensive means for cities to provide visitors and commuters with Downtown access, and that, in general, the potential to shift travelers from driving while keeping them coming to Downtown should be the first priority of parking policy. Those indicating less enthusiasm for this policy felt that the market for mode shifting was limited, and access strategies need to focus on expanding parking supply.
On-Street Parking Pricing Strategies Pricing was presented as a tool for managing turnover and availability of on-street parking spaces, so that these spaces can maximize the number of vehicles they accommodate. This tool can be effective where and when curb spaces are currently over or underutilized. Demand-responsive pricing is increasingly seen as the most promising means of maintaining availability. Effective pricing can potentially produce availability at all times in all places – maintaining high rates of utilization while discouraging complete saturation of the inventory. This also provides the benefit of capturing the real value of high-demand
Page 3-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
spaces, and turning that value into revenue to fund public improvements – including parking and transportation options. At the same time, it allows low-demand spaces to remain as a lower-cost option.
Pricing received support at most outreach events, though support among some groups was somewhat qualified. Most liked the idea of charging more for the most attractive spaces, while others were wary of driving visitors away from Downtown by charging too much for parking. This strategy received strong support from the Alternative Modes focus group and at the Open House.
Bike and Pedestrian Funding Two options for directing parking and transportation investments toward bicycle and pedestrian improvements were proposed to reduce demand for parking. These modes are widely recognized as viable transportation options in Ann Arbor, especially within Downtown. Supporting non-motorized travel is also perceived as less expensive than investments in new parking supply. Conversation, therefore, was not about whether to continue Ann Arbor’s investment in these modes, but how investment levels should be set – either strategically to reduce parking demand, or at a fixed level based on principled support for these modes regardless of impact on parking.
The second funding option proved to be more popular among outreach participants. The many benefits of supporting non-motorized transportation that go beyond its impact on parking demand were cited as a reason for setting an ambitious level of funding for these modes each year. Benefits noted specifically include:
z Reduced transportation costs; z Improved physical fitness levels; z Decreased air pollution; and z Reduced traffic congestion.
Others, especially among the business community participants, were doubtful of the impact such investments were likely to have on parking.
Extending On-Street Meter Regulation into Evenings Extending meter regulation into evening hours was proposed as a means for managing the overall parking inventory and shifting on-street demand to off-street facilities at times when demand has been shown to be much higher than on-street supply. On-street demand rises sharply directly following the current end of meter regulation each evening, swinging up from a midday average of about 68 percent to an average of roughly 100 percent shortly after 6:00 PM. Extending meter hours could stabilize on-street demand at these times, freeing up some spaces and relieving traffic on popular blocks. With surplus capacity available in off-street facilities, parkers would still be able to find spaces, so no parker would be turned away due to lack of space.
Page 3-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Those supporting this strategy felt that eliminating free, unlimited parking at these spaces would open up parking opportunities for visitors and reduce traffic congestion on Main Street area blocks. Others saw this as an equity issue, feeling that people should have to pay for parking that is in demand, whether it is at night or during the day. Others noted that daytime parkers currently “subsidize” evening parking by providing the majority of overall parking revenues.
Stakeholders from the Business Community presented mixed opinions on this strategy. Some felt that it would indeed free up priority spaces for nighttime customers, while other felt that any time a charge is introduced for a previously free good, business suffers. In general, the majority of those attending the focus group felt that it was a strategy worth trying in areas of highest evening demand.
Joint-Development: DDA Parking in Private Development Joint-development of public parking within private, mixed-use projects was proposed as a strategy for expanding DDA parking supplies while reducing cost and land-use impact. This addresses the public’s nearly universal opposition to construction of any new stand- alone parking structures, which current DDA policy opposes as well. This also presents a unique opportunity to add reduced-cost housing options within Downtown.
The theory of this strategy was almost universally supported by outreach participants. Alternative modes advocates and some residents, who oppose any expansion of the parking supply, were the only ones opposed to this strategy in theory. Past performance has instilled serious doubts in some, however, about the ability of the City and local developers to successfully accomplish joint development. The Liberty Square project, whose non-parking elements predominantly have been vacant since construction, was cited by those most skeptical of this tool’s potential.
That being noted, current DDA policy indicates that this is the only form in which new public parking facilities are likely to be developed.
Amend the Permit Distribution System This policy was proposed to address a number of issues with the current permit distribution system, including:
z The long wait list for permits; z The ability of businesses and property holders to acquire and control permits; and z The City’s use of free parking permits to lure investment in Downtown.
We did not propose a specific means for fixing the current process, intending to first gauge general interest in reforming the current system.
Amending the current system was supported fairly strongly among most outreach participants. Policy Board members, however, emphasized the success and advantages of the current system and hesitated to change it without sufficient explanation of the options.
Page 3-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Members of the Business Community focus group offered some of the strongest support for this policy, noting a growing sense of resentment among individuals and businesses that have waited for parking permits for years following the deal to give Google 400 permits for free.
Graduated Meter Rates to Generate Turnover This strategy is part of the larger concept of using pricing to manage on-street spaces. Graduated rates specifically address the issue of promoting turnover to free up spaces for short-term parking. Where short-term parking is a priority, parking can start with a limited period with no charge, and then rates can increase for each subsequent hour or half-hour to discourage longer stays.
This strategy was generally favored along with support for the on-street pricing strategies noted above.
Investing in Cost-Effective Access Options This strategy is proposed as a formalized version of the process that DDA currently undertakes when considering parking expansion. The current assumption is that new structured parking is always the most expensive, and most often the least cost-effective, option for providing Downtown access. Formalizing a cost/benefit analysis for weighing parking construction against investments in alternate modes could provide clearer direction for the DDA and the City, and identify modes that offer greatest potential to affect parking demand.
Most support the theory of looking at parking in the broader sense of providing access. Few subscribe to the “build it (parking inventory) and they will come” theory of focusing solely on providing parking. Those that opposed the current DDA policy, as well as our idea for formalizing its approach, included the extremes of both sides of the table: those that wanted no new parking at all, and those that felt that the current need for additional parking supply superseded any interest in demand management options.
Retrofitting Existing Garages with Street-Level Uses This strategy was proposed as a means for improving the pedestrian environment at the site of existing parking structures. Placing street-oriented uses such as shops and restaurants at the base of existing structures would reduce the physical impact of parking on the compact, mixed use land use patterns that are central to much of the appeal of Downtown. This would, however, result in the loss of some parking spaces at the facility.
This was a particularly popular option among residents, many of whom expressed opposition to future, as well as existing, parking structures (during this phase, as well as at the Study’s Phase 1 Open House). This was also popular among those at the Alternative Modes group who felt that such retrofitting could be used to enhance the pedestrian environment. No one expressed opposition to this strategy. One DDA board member
Page 3-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
noted that this is currently being considered for the Ann & Ashley structure but that retrofitting would not be possible at some existing structures.
Evening Transit Service (Link) By offering transit service, such as the increasingly well-used Link service, during evening hours, more employees and visitors might choose not to bring their cars with them to areas with overcrowded curbside spaces. This strategy was proposed as a means of reducing parking demand in the evening.
Evening transit was very popular within the Business Community focus group, with some participants citing increased use of the Link among daytime customers. Later service could extend this success into evenings. Most other groups responded positively to this strategy as well, mostly notably the Alternative Modes focus group. Reservations were expressed, however, by some board members as to the funding of this operation.
Park and Ride This strategy was proposed to reduce weekday off-street parking demand by attracting commuters to a cost-saving option of parking closer to home and riding a bus the rest of the way downtown.
Many participants expressed frustration with the current state of Park and Ride service, citing poor stop location (including Park and Rides so close to Downtown that the short distance between the lot and their destination made getting out of the car pointless), long trip times, and frequent stops. Many of these participants, however, felt that there was significant potential to improve the current service and attract increased ridership on buses.
Parking Cash Out This strategy was proposed as a means of reducing midday off-street parking demand, by providing cash incentives to employees to not drive to Downtown. This is an increasingly popular strategy in cases where parking is currently offered free of charge to all employees, and is most effective where parking spaces are leased separately by employers from the property owner. Under a Parking Cash Out program, employees are offered a choice between free parking and a monthly cash benefit. Participants in the program allow the employer to lease fewer spaces, producing savings from which the cash benefit can be funded. This also addresses the common inequity of providing benefits to those that drive (free parking) while not offering an equivalent benefit to those that do not.
This was well-received by most groups when presented as a voluntary program for employers interested in offering commuter benefits. This was an especially popular strategy for those already commuting via alternative modes. Others expressed skepticism about the applicability of this tool to all but a few employers and the level of interest among those few. As a required policy, this option did not receive much support beyond the Alternative Modes focus group.
Page 3-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Valet Using DDA Structures This strategy could accommodate additional parking demand in off-street facilities without forcing drivers to park in the off-street facilities. By providing the service on the street in popular parking areas, demand at overcrowded curb spaces can be accommodated in under-used off-street facilities without attempting to change visitor parking patterns. Using DDA facilities can also avoid area resident concerns about attendants using their streets or nearby private lots for storing cars or creating unwanted evening noise and traffic. Using DDA facilities and DDA-managed attendants would keep the service and its customers from being tied to one specific destination, allowing patrons to use the same parking service for the whole evening, while free to move from one establishment to another. An additional resource for valet parking could be underused, private accessory lots.
This strategy was fairly well-received by all focus groups and the Policy Board members, and was especially popular with the Business Community focus group. The ideal location of the valet drop-off was a matter of some disagreement, with some feeling that it must be in a prominent location near destinations, and others feeling that attendants at existing off- street structures would be more practical.
Some skepticism was raised about the cultural embrace of a service that some might see as “snooty” or “fancy.” This feeling, however, was countered by the general sense that convenience trumps price for many evening visitors. It was also argued that valet would be especially embraced by those who feel unsafe in structures. In general, many felt that this strategy offered a good deal of promise for expanding parking access for Downtown’s growing restaurant and evening entertainment market.
Make Existing TDM Programs More Effective and Visible This strategy was proposed as a means of reducing commuter demand for off-street parking by improving the many programs available to Downtown commuters and residents. The consensus among outreach participants was that existing TDM programs were sufficiently comprehensive, but that too many employees and employers were unaware of their availability. Improved marketing and, in particular, recruitment of employer participation were cited as ways to make more people aware of the programs and result in increasing their effectiveness. While some participants felt that current SOV rates were about as low as they were going to get, most felt that encouraging alternatives as effectively as possible remains important. Expanding Existing Parking Structures This strategy was proposed as a continuation of the current DDA strategy, as put into effect most recently at 4th & William. Expanding existing structures provides new parking supply at a reduced per-space construction cost, and without the land opportunity cost of building a new facility on a new site.
This strategy is especially popular among those believing in the need for more parking spaces. Most, citing the recent deal in which Google was promised up to 400 free monthly permits, felt supply expansion was a clear need and that this was the most obvious place to start.
Page 3-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
This strategy, however, does provoke strong opposition from groups and individuals resistant to any new parking supply expansion in Downtown, as well as some opposed to higher parking structures specifically. Those among the Alternative Modes focus group and some residents living near downtown voiced the strongest opposition encountered during public outreach efforts.
TDM Coordinator This strategy was proposed as a means of increasing the effectiveness of TDM programs and ultimately reducing commuter demand for off-street parking by formalizing some of the efforts of the getDowntown program. Many municipalities and counties have established TDM coordinator positions to assist local employers with setting up commuter benefits programs. These positions are often created in areas of elevated traffic congestion where participation in a TDM program is mandatory for local businesses or new developments. In these locations, TDM coordinators help companies establish and meet goals for reducing rates of single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) commuting. Another common strategy is requiring a meeting with the TDM coordinator as part of the development approvals process.
On a “wholesale” level, the TDM coordinator would work with Ann Arbor’s businesses, property mangers, and hotel managers who, in turn, would work with their respective employees, tenants, and guests to advance travel options. On a “retail” level, the coordinator would provide public information and education to end-users via City-wide information campaigns, commuter websites, direct mail, and at bus stops and commuter retail stores.
While Ann Arbor does not appear to suffer the levels of congestion that typically instigate municipal-level TDM efforts, Downtown already benefits from a central warehouse of information (the getDowntown program) on available commuter benefits.
The proposed strategy would formalize this program and designate an official TDM coordinator within it. This was proposed as a means of raising the profile of the work already being done, and the potential benefits being offered.
Most outreach participants expressed some level of support for this strategy, while some doubted whether formalizing the current system would make much difference.
Unbundling Parking Requiring that developers sell or rent accessory parking separate from the rent or purchase of housing units is an increasingly popular strategy for reducing housing costs and increasing the efficiency of on-site parking supplies. This strategy was proposed as a potential means of:
z Increasing efficiency of site-specific parking at future development projects; z Reducing the housing costs for those owning one or fewer cars; and z Providing an incentive for developers to market projects to households owning one or fewer cars.
Page 3-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Unbundling parking costs from housing costs can:
z Encourage developers to only build parking spaces that can be sold or rented; z Lower housing costs for those that choose not to purchase or rent parking; and z Create a development environment attractive to those seeking to reduce their own automobile use.
This strategy received support from Alternative Modes focus group members, residents, and policy board attendees, while others were mostly neutral. This is presently a fairly uncommon policy in the Midwest and, as such, may require additional promotion and public discussion before community support can be properly gauged (see Appendix for sample ordinance language).
In-Lieu Fees This strategy was proposed as a means for shifting future parking supply away from on-site provision and into the public parking inventory. In simple terms, a fee is paid by a developer into a parking development fund in lieu of the development of on-site spaces. This was suggested as a means of generating funds for future expansion of the parking system (as well as funding alternative options), while getting away from the idea that parking permits should be given away to encourage development. Payment of such fees can either be mandated in lieu of on-site parking (for no cost benefit to the developer), or they can be offered as a cheaper alternative to meeting minimum parking requirements.
This tool did not elicit much feedback during the outreach activities. In part, the long wait list for monthly permits within the parking system created doubt that developers would be willing to pay into a parking development fund that their tenants would be unable to use. Others felt that developers should provide more on-site parking construction. Some of those felt that it was only right that developers “pay their own way” in response to the sense that the current system gives away spaces in the parking system, in essence subsidizing parking for private developments.
While most groups were indifferent to this proposed tool, it did receive some support from the Alternative Modes group, and neutral responses at the Open House.
Base Monthly Rates on Hourly This strategy was proposed as a means of reducing demand for monthly parking permits by basing monthly rates on hourly use for a typical commuter (i.e., 8 hours per day for 21 days per month). This strategy did not garner much response during outreach activities. The limited feedback that was received was mixed, with Alternative Modes advocates it and commuters opposing.
TDM Mandates This strategy was proposed as a means of increasing the participation of existing and future businesses and employees in TDM programs such as go!pass. For the most part, mandatory
Page 3-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
participation in TDM programs is more common in areas suffering from congestion issues. This appears to be a lesser concern in Ann Arbor, even in Downtown.
This strategy received consistently negative feedback from most groups, with the noted exception of the Alternative Modes focus group and some residents. Non-mandatory TDM promotion however received strong support, as noted above.
Parking Maximums/Caps This strategy was proposed as a means for shifting future parking supply away from on-site provision and into the public parking inventory. Placing a limit on the number of spaces that can be included in projects, or setting an overall cap on on-site parking in the Downtown area, represent two ambitious approaches encouraging such a shift.
During the outreach efforts, these approaches received consistently negative responses from most groups, with people stating that such strategies were too controlling. In fact, many participants, especially at the Open House, expressed a desire to eliminate the current exemption from parking requirements for Downtown developments.
Parking Management Toolbox This section presents a set of recommended parking management strategies to comprise a Toolbox of management options in support of the Downtown Parking Policy. Figure 4-1 presents a summary of proposed Toolbox contents, while the remainder of the section provides some background on the rationale for each selection.
Page 3-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 3-2 The Toolbox
Tools Purpose Transit Services Reduce Parking Demand, Local and Regional Accessibility Displace Evening Demand from On- to Off-Street, Local and Regional Valet Parking Accessibility Pricing Demand Management, Revenue Generation Technology/ Payment Options Reform Permit Distribution, Encourage Reduced Use Park and Ride Displace Parking Demand from Downtown, Regional Accessibility Commuter Benefits and TDM Demand Management, Local and Regional Accessibility Non-Motorized Transportation Investments Local Accessibility, Park Once Support, Smart Growth Policy Information and Wayfinding Increase Efficiency of Existing Inventory, Local and Regional Accessibility Zoning Manage Private Parking Supply Expand Existing Facilities Manage Parking System Supply
Transit Services Expanding transit services was widely supported among participants in project outreach activities. While many feel that the local transit market has been exhausted and gains in ridership will be hard to win, others have cited recent increases in ridership on the Link service. Express bus operations, focused on the traditional commuter market, garnered exceptional support. Additionally, Phase I survey responses indicate a few key barriers to regional transit markets than can be addressed.
Technology Technology is the key to many of the ideas that were well-received during project outreach activities. Specifically, payment options for both on- and off-street parking were well- received ideas that would require new technology investments. Technology will also be the key to implementing some of the pricing strategies that also received favor from the community and focus groups, such as graduated rates for longer parking stays. Technology will also be key to implementing some of the information dissemination ideas that were well-received, such as:
z Parking information delivered to cell phones and in-vehicle navigation systems; and z Real-time signage at structures and at highway exits.
Pricing Pricing as a demand management tool was especially well-received for on-street spaces. Pricing strategies for off-street parking, and specifically monthly permits, received more mixed feedback. Pricing, however, is gaining attention among parking management interests for the promise it offers in simplifying demand management and generating revenue that can fund downtown revitalization and transportation improvements. Potential
Page 3-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
pricing strategies should therefore be considered for all public parking, with a priority on the on-street inventory.
Non-Motorized Transportation Dedicated investment in non-motorized transportation received strong support among many stakeholders. This is a key strategy for supporting Park Once environments. The Ann Arbor community, as demonstrated in the Phase I Employment Profile, indicate a high interest in non-motorized commuting. Ann Arborites appear well-inclined to walk and bike to work across greater distances (and in harsher seasonal conditions if the “Worst Day of the Year Ride” is any indication) than most. Outside of its potential parking management benefits moreover, outreach participants have indicated support for setting consistent levels of non-motorized investment, based on community principles in support of these modes.
Park and Ride Park and Ride service is well-supported by those providing feedback during outreach activities. AATA Board members have indicated that improving existing service is an area of current focus for the authority. Future improvements could prove very useful to parking demand management in Downtown.
Commuter Benefits and TDM This is another well-supported concept, though some disagreement was noted among focus group members as to whether existing services are marketed effectively. Specifically, it was felt that penetrating into the workplace was a key challenge in Downtown. Raising the profile of the informational clearinghouse services being provided by the getDowntown program will be an important tool for managing commuter parking demand.
Valet Parking This strategy is widely supported as well, and benefits from very strong support among some groups – notably the business community and policy makers. Perhaps most importantly, this strategy offers significant promise to address one of the most challenging problems identified in Phase I – how to shift evening parking demand away from the curb and into garages without forcing drivers to change their habits.
Zoning The current zoning exemption for parking requirements in Downtown garnered strong negative feedback at the Phase II Open House. In addition, a number of outreach participants have expressed the desire to see developers provide their own parking. In addition, a current study of zoning overlay district strategies appears to be favoring removal of parking requirement exemptions for some areas of Downtown.
Page 3-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
This represents a policy shift away from supporting a Park Once/ Shared Parking environment. A Park Once approach to parking policy has been an important tool used to revitalize numerous downtown districts (see Appendix).
If zoning exemptions are ever removed, it will be important to implement other tools to maintain an emphasis on accommodating parking demand within a publicly managed, shared inventory.
Information and Wayfinding Everybody loves this idea. An effective wayfinding program can, not only increase the efficiency of existing parking supplies, but make things easier for users of all modes to find their way around Downtown. Many in the business community feel that their customers do not know where to find off-street parking when on-street spaces are unavailable. Pedestrian and bike advocates support the idea of making it easier to find bike parking or estimate the walking time between destination points.
Supply Expansion The above options represent tools for reducing the amount of parking supply needed to support Downtown. Once these tools have been exhausted, the City and the DDA must decide whether Downtown offers sufficient parking opportunities to support desired levels and forms of accessibility. None of the above tools will bring down the cost of adding new parking. In fact, by making Downtown a more vibrant, accessible destination, successful implementation of many of these tools may increase land and opportunity costs for parking construction. Supply expansion, therefore, is likely to remain the most challenging tool in the box to implement.
Page 3-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Chapter 4. Public Outreach Week #2
The preceding sections, summarizing initial public outreach feedback and outlining preliminary recommendations, formed the basis of discussion during the second and final week of public outreach for Phase II. A summary of this information was distributed prior to meetings, while handouts and displays of the same helped to facilitate and frame discussion during the meetings. The focus and purpose of these final meetings with key Downtown stakeholders was to help identify a final set of recommendations. In doing so, the Project Team relied upon feedback during this week on any “fatal flaws” related to the preliminary set of recommendations.
The second week of public outreach was convened from May 7 – May 10, 2007, and consisted of three components, as described below.
A second series of meetings with the first week’s focus groups:
z Alternative Mode advocates; z City residents; z Downtown commuters; and z Representatives from the Downtown business community.
Another meeting with key policy board representatives from:
z The Ann Arbor City Council; z The Downtown Development Authority; z The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; and z The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission.
In addition, a second public open house was held at Community High School. Notes from each of these events are summarized below.
Page 4-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Notes from Focus Group Meetings
Alternative Modes Focus Group Figure 4-1 Alternative Modes Focus Group Attendees
Name Representing Dave Askins Self Pete Hines Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Kris Talley Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Phil Farber Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Shannon Tubb Self Joan French Self Ray Fullerton Self
Participant Questions & Comments
Parking Principles, Policies, and Miscellaneous z Who attended the Commuter Focus Group? z What are the topics covered by the rating system? z One participant had an issue with the wording of #5 of the Proposed Parking Principles – If everyone knows they can get a parking permit, will that result in continued building until there is no longer a waitlist? Another participant questioned what the measure of “sufficient” would be within this principle. A participant commented that if #5 tells us when parking supply isn’t sufficient; it should also be able to tell when there is an oversupply. Someone questioned how the supply is being monitored if permits are eventually going away.
Biking z Regarding the ratio of one bike space for every car spaces – would those be covered inside the structure? A participant noted that bike hoops should be right in front of business, and added that that’s why they bike. Another participant noted that if they were regularly commuting by bike they would like some to be covered. z A participant noted that biking is cost-effective, so they should be given the best access. (There was a resulting discussion regarding why it is not possible to say definitively that one mode of access is (versus seems) more cost-effective than another, because the scale slides as people shift between modes.) z One participant shared that there is sometimes an objection to bike lockers if people are able to pay at it (versus renting the locker on a monthly basis) as there is a concern that homeless individuals could use them as a sleeping space z Cyclists should be rewarded for biking, as an issue of fairness – hoops should be located every 30-40 ft. One option is to remove on-street metered parking spaces
Page 4-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
(possibly out one per block), and put bike hoops in the parking space, as the symbolic impact would be huge! (One observer responded that this idea would be terrible, and would have a bad impact on merchants). z No place to park your bike on Main St between William and Liberty when the chairs and tables are out. z Places where meters are close enough to the street that bike racks are parallel (like on Washington) put the bikes at risk of being wiped out when a big SUV backs up into a space. z Principle #4 should say “Support and respect modes of access…”
Parking and Signage z How would on-site shared parking be facilitated (would this work because some people are gone during the day)? z Does the idea of using debit cards at meters mean that permits won’t be switched over to debit cards? z Regarding wayfinding, could pricing be posted? Such as on-street versus structured, so you know before you get there and can make an informed decision – as well as posting that covered bike-parking is available free of charge inside the structure. z The wayfinding signs should show where stores are too, not just transit info – example of sign that showed the cost of driving versus taking the bus z Regarding pricing for on-street parking – is the program at the point of looking at what price point is necessary to get to 85% occupancy? How does setting the rate for parking in the structures work? z Is there a vision for how daytime parking structures should be priced in order to avoid building new parking? z Have you talked with restaurant owners on Main St. to see how they feel about extending hours on the meters at night? z During discussion of pricing and managing the percentage of student users, regarding balancing a strict market approach and leaving it up to the DDA, one participant commented that even if a ceiling price is set that businesses are still comfortable with, students would still be comfortable with that price too, so how will the number of student users be controlled? z One participant commented that the group he works form refuses to locate downtown because they don’t want to pay for parking. z Questions regarding the multi-meter system – how it would work and be enforced? z Would there be any value to keeping some amount of the “luxury permits” so some people can pay a huge amount for a guaranteed space? z Where does the parking in-lieu fee go?
Page 4-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Commuter Focus Group Figure 4-2 Commuter Focus Group Attendees
Name Representing Sharon Stanley Permit Holders Gale Redding Commuters
Participant Questions & Comments
Parking Principles, Policies, and Miscellaneous z Clarification on “TDM” and a discussion followed on the use of a new term like “Transportation Options.” z Need to make transportation options available to more than just employers, need to bring more visibility to the general public, via newspaper articles, etc.
Alternative Modes z Question on the U-M Zip Car program regarding who supplies the cars. z Thought a lot of people use the AATA ride-match program. z Saw a bike chained to a bus stop and thought that was clever. Since some bike racks were removed from Main Street, more people are chaining to street furniture. z Regarding a possible commuter bus from Brighton, would they go in on the cost? If it started and actually happened, people would use it.
Parking & Signage z Concerned about extending meter hours, know that a lot of businesses on Main Street that are very against it, they think it’ll be very unfriendly to visitors, and visitors are worried about getting tickets – there are no numbers to show that it’s the employees that are using the meters at night. z Good that Ann Ashley has a sign out front that say $2 for the rest of the night, the problem is that people think they can’t walk, and think they need to be right out in front, the valet service should help this problem too. z The valet service will be good for weekends. One attendee comments that they come down for dinner and go to 4th & Washington first to park; if no parking is available, they’ll go out to the suburbs to eat. z What would the charge for valet be? They’ve tried a small program and charged $10, it didn’t seem to work well, and it wasn’t well advertised . z Would there still be a monthly permit or just debit cards? So you could come and go as you please? Would there be no guarantee that you could get a spot? z How do you regulate a time limit with the in-vehicle meters – can you stay as long as you want?
Page 4-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z How do out-of-town visitors know what the demand pricing is? If someone is paying with change and keeps coming back to the meter, would the demand pricing still work? z The idea of retro-fitting structures is a dream – right now no one leaves Main Street, no one ventures off, so people are having a hard time starting (and keeping open) new businesses. z It’s hard for new businesses to locate here because there’s no parking for employees. Residents Focus Group Figure 4-3 Resident Focus Group Attendees
Name Representing Richard Shackson Downtown CAC Nancy Stokes Downtown Residents Susan Nenadic Downtown CAC Lindsey Jean-Hard Downtown Residents Peter Pollack Downtown Residents Sonia Schmerl Old West Side Margaret Wong Downtown Residents Herb & Jane Kaufer DDA Ray Detter Downtown CAC Constance Crump Downtown Residents
Immediate Steps z There is a basic perception that parking structures pose greater hazard to users than on-street parking. Is there any data that shows that to be the case, other than anecdotal evidence? z General support with extending the service time of “The Link” later into the evening. z General support for expanding (or improving) express bus service into downtown from surrounding communities. z Regarding valet parking, would the cost of service cover the space and valet tenant? Is there a market to pay for the service? Attendees where satisfied with staff assurance of a niche market. z Regarding on-street parking, and meter fees, a suggestion was made to raise meter fees but make garage parking free (later at night – past 6:00pm.). This suggestion was offered as a solution to business owner’s concern that higher meter fees would be troublesome for minimum wage employees. z Regarding extending meter hours, general consensus was that meters should be activated throughout the DDA district rather than just one or two sub-areas.
Page 4-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z There was strong backing for the “smart” meter parking elements, specifically demand pricing, and ability to be charged only the time used rather than blocks of time. z A concern over convenience of multi-space meters to the user. Particularly with meters that require a receipt to be placed into the car. There was support for these types of machines; they just wanted to ensure they were convenient and easy to understand for users. z General support for car sharing, interest to expand program into areas of downtown that may benefit residents as well as students. z Major concern regarding winter maintenance of sidewalks, snow build-up makes it very difficult for residents to use walking as a primary mode of transportation. Particularly handicapped as the ramps are typically covered with snow banks from street plows. z Zoning changes – some remaining apprehension with retaining the parking exemption, seemed that most attendees wanted new development to provide parking, but provide it only underground. Attendees were supportive of having the two options, with Site/Urban Design treatments used to “hide” parking access, and retaining retail or more active uses at the ground level helping calm apprehension with a centralized approach to providing parking. The In-Lieu fee also seemed to assuage some concern with the “as is” option as the fees could provide funding to programs and projects that many of the attendees seemed to support (transit, non-motorized transportation, etc.). z One concern arose concerning parking entrances sited on secondary streets, would this cause negative impacts on these streets that may be more typically characterized as residential? z Wanted to have the report recommend all new parking be put below-grade. z Suggestion that all new development downtown should be required to provide a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces. Exact amount could be addressed through the concurrent zoning study.
Near-Term Steps/Long-Term Steps z There was general support for expanding commuter, express bus service. However, could expected ridership could be quantified? z There was a concern that information on meter pricing, options, and technology needed to be communicated to users, as many people still pay into meters after 6pm – even when hours of operation are placed on the meter. z Concern expressed over “right-turn on red” intersections, which is not safe for the pedestrian. z Concern expressed over any motorized object being operated on a sidewalk – question of safety for pedestrians z Noted that the pedestrian countdown signage at intersections is very helpful for pedestrians, especially those who move a little slower.
Page 4-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Business Community Focus Group Figure 4-4 Business Community Focus Group Attendees
Name Representing Mike Giraud Colliers Bob Gates First Martin Karen Farmer Kerrytown Shops Mary Stasiak AATA Tom Heywood State Street Ron Dankert Swisher
Participant Questions & Comments
Parking Principles, Policies, and Miscellaneous z Who are the suggested “funding sources”?
Alternative Modes z Running the Link later at night and during the summer would be a substantial cost. z Whenever you ask someone “Would you do this?” you get a big response, but when it actually happens, you get a much smaller percentage of people that do. z Can AATA legally run outside of the county? – Could have an inter-agency relationship. z Regarding AATA’s real-time technology being used at park and ride lots – The technology is available downtown because there is a tower, uncertain if the range would go that far out. z Would the Travel Choices Coordinator expand beyond downtown? There are pockets throughout the City that could benefit from reduced traffic congestion. z Whatever is done to benefit the pedestrian experience will benefit the bus. z Need to more clearly define who will meet with the Travel Choice Coordinator to bring back the information to the employees, can’t just leave it to the office manager. z AATA was looking at a cashless fare card – but have been holding back, because they didn’t want to go ahead if U-M is doing something different and the DDA uses something else – multiple systems should work together – should be able to just use a credit card, and if you didn’t want to use a credit card, then could use a DDA card or AATA card or whatever. AATA needs new fare boxes, current ones are over 10 years old, but don’t want to buy them and miss out on potential to coordinate.
Metered Parking z Since the main group opposed to lengthening meter hours was Main Street, why not tailor the pilot project to State Street – if it’s billed as a test then we’re the only
Page 4-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
neighborhood association for it, Main Street will put forth violent opposition to it, and still haven’t heard anything from the City regarding enforcement. z Each area has distinctly different character: Main Street has more dining, State Street has less dining and more retail, so would be careful about just using State Street as a model. z Have to sell it to the customers, not the merchants – Kerrytown is smaller, there is less foot traffic, will those people really want to feed the meter for 2 more hours? Thinks people will just drive out to Zingerman’s Roadhouse, still supporting a local business, but they have free parking. z One attendee states that he heard from the Mayor that City Council wouldn’t adopt a plan for meter hours to be extended, they won’t change union contracts for people to work later, right now they’re done at 5:15, everyone knows you can park after that with no enforcement. z If the issue with meters is that the employees are using it, why wouldn’t they just feed the meters for 2 hours longer? z Need to do more than just increase the meter hours, need multiple approaches. z If Kerrytown spaces are never full, don’t need to use demand pricing. z Love the idea of charging more for longer stays. z Even though the current meter system is subsidizing employee parking, Main Street will fight evening extensions.
Valet & Other Parking z Small controversy about the parking list – needs more refined list or more investigative process – will that process be improved? Understand that now the wait times are up to 3 to 4 years for a permit?! z How many valets do you need to park a whole structure? Obviously in any structure 100% of it couldn’t be filled with valet. Would meters have to come out on Main Street? z With the valet service, how do you avoid clogging up Main Street, or any other street in the downtown? z Don’t want there to be an issue of getting your car back after dinner – it can’t take 30 minutes. z Cards should work at any structure, flat lot, or meter and at the end of the month, the employers get a bill for usage, businesses want a fixed system, something that is recognized everywhere, and adds to the current system of a permit only working at one location, (which the DDA is currently not charging enough for) – need flexibility. z Great idea to go to a system that is all hourly. z Permit system isn’t flexible enough for people now – know some people that would take the bus 2 or 3 days a week, but just drive everyday because they are paying the full cost of the permit anyway.
Page 4-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Need to think about how many spaces could be added to Ann Ashley and Tally Hall – think we may already be too late to keep Google downtown.
Notes from Policy Boards Meeting Figure 4-5 Policy Board Meeting Attendees
Name Representing Art Wolfe Citizen Nancy Shore AATA Evan Pratt CPC Ethel Potts CPC Roger Hewitt DDA Bonnie Bona CPC Sonia Schmerl Citizen Dawn Gabay AATA Leah Gunn DDA David Nacht AATA Stephen Rapundalo City Council Jennifer Hall DDA Chris Crockett Citizen Ted Annis AATA Marcy Higgs Council John Splitt DDA Ray Detter Citizen
Immediate Steps z In expanding the transit opportunities to downtown, a question came up regarding “guaranteed ride home programs” – essentially, would they be available? z Question on precedents of successful and unsuccessful strategies for dealing with parking. New Haven, CT in the 1970’s was offered as unsuccessful, Boulder, CO in the 1990’s as successful. z There was significant discussion regarding ensuring neighborhood, on-street parking is changed to require a permit. This was a recurring issue, and one attendee felt that if park ‘n ride lots were initiated that all neighborhoods (adjacent to downtown) should have permit parking requirements. z If Valet Service is initiated, it needs to pay for itself and maintain current revenue stream. z It was noted that Kerrytown on-street parking, as well as parking meters at the Farmer’s Market are often used as “park ‘n ride” lots. One representative expressed interest in Kerrytown serving as pilot for extending meter hours. z There was general agreement that extending parking meter hours was a good idea. Representatives noted that the Main Street Association was against the program, so this area may not be a strong candidate for a pilot program.
Page 4-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Will success in one district translate to success in another? z There was strong backing for the “smart” meter parking elements, specifically demand pricing, and ability to be charged only the time used rather than blocks of time. z How did U of M factor in to the recommendations? There was a strong suggestion to include recommendations to the University even though the City has no authority over their actions. Some felt that the University would cooperate to some degree. z One attendee noted that all the recommendations are interrelated and act as a whole to be effective. This was seen as a positive sign that city officials “get it.” z One attendee asked about an excise tax on commuters or people driving into the downtown from elsewhere, a la London. z Most attendees seemed to prefer to maintain existing zoning requirement (or lack of requirement) for minimum parking spaces. There was interest in an in-lieu fee to initiate the density premium in place of providing parking spaces. z Funding was brought up as an issue.
Short- and Long-Term z Instead of the mandatory meeting with TDM coordinator, there should be a carrot rather than a stick to get businesses there. Suggestion of money or free parking passes. Also mentioned that the coordinator should be available to meet at place of business. z Several attendees didn’t think there would be much interest on part of businesses to take advantage of programs offered, or employees. Not enough congestion and Michigan’s car culture. z Question on how to deal with North Quad and the additional 550 students it will bring into downtown – and subsequently their cars. Generally how to differentiate between downtown residents and students parking downtown. z Interest in moving demand pricing to earlier stage of implementation (from long- term to short-term).
Notes from the Open House On the evening of May 10th, the Project Team held a two-hour Open House to conclude the second series of public outreach meetings for Phase II of the study. All those interested in attending were invited through a series of announcements, a press release, and invitations made during the Focus Group and Policy Maker meetings. Figure 4-6 presents the names of the public attendees.
Page 4-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 4-6 Open House Attendees
Name Representing Larry Horvath Citizen Grace Singleton Zingerman's W. Say 208 Group Art Wolfe Citizen Ray Detter Self Robert Klinger Self
Participants were guided through a series of three distinct stations, arranged sequentially to present feedback from the first series of public outreach meetings before introducing recommended strategic and policy options. The stations, in order, were:
z Feedback – What the Project Team heard from focus groups, policy makers, and the public during the first round of public outreach in March; z Recommended Policy and Management Toolbox – The Project Team’s recommended Downtown Parking Policy, along with specific parking principles, and a set of recommended parking management tools for Downtown; and z Recommended Actions – A detailed discussion of Immediate, Short-Term, and Long-Term parking management actions recommended by the Project Team.
Each attendee was guided through the three stations by a member of the Project Team. During this process a conversational exchange of ideas and feedback was encouraged.
Comments z One participant encouraged more of an emphasis on alternative transportation in the Parking Policy. z Another participant disagreed with the recommendation to keep Downtown’s minimum parking requirement exemption.
Page 4-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Chapter 5. Final Recommendations
Following the second week of public outreach activity, and further consideration of existing opportunities and constraints, the Project Team delivered a final set of Downtown Parking Policies and recommended actions in support of the Policies.
Recommended Parking Principles The following eight principles comprise a comprehensive Parking Policy for Downtown. The principles are ordered by level of priority, beginning with a general principle/ policy statement, then proceeding through four demand-related principles, before addressing the recommended supply management approach. This intentionally reflects an emphasis on the high level of multi-modal assets within the Downtown community, and the value of capitalizing on these assets to reduce parking demand prior to taking supply-oriented actions.
First Principle Ann Arbor’s public, stakeholders, and policy makers have provided clear direction that parking is important, but in the context of the overall transportation system. This contrasts with the base assumption in many downtown districts that transportation needs will first be met through personal vehicle accommodation. The First Principle of the Downtown Parking Policy is therefore -
1. Parking is one part of a multi-modal transportation approach to providing Downtown access and mobility.
Demand Principles Downtown parking management should expand upon established strengths. Years of thoughtful parking management have provided many strong qualities upon which to build, beginning with the Park Once/ Shared Parking mobility environment created by the DDA parking system.
The success of the municipal parking system gives the City and the DDA great control over the location, design, and volume of parking supply for the district. Just as importantly, it allows them to shrink the land use impact of parking within Downtown, while maintaining accessibility. Such benefits have been critical to the revival of numerous downtown districts (see Appendix). The second principle of the Parking Policy therefore is to –
2. Seek to accommodate all Downtown parking activity within the DDA parking system.
This places a responsibility upon the City and the DDA to meet current and anticipated levels of demand more completely than it does today. Providing new structured parking
Page 5-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
spaces is almost always the most expensive means of providing access and mobility for downtown districts. Accommodating demand through more economical means – such as shifting demand to alternative modes, including ridesharing – will therefore be a necessary component of achieving the second Policy principle. This is an approach closely aligned with current DDA practice, a practice that will serve as the third principle of the Downtown Parking Policy –
3. Seek the most cost effective means for providing Downtown accessibility.
The central challenge of providing meaningful access via modes other than low-occupancy personal vehicles is that success requires changing peoples’ travel habits and inclinations. Ann Arbor, however, has two important assets to support increasing alternative mode shares for Downtown users. The first is its populations’ demonstrated willingness to embrace and utilize a wide range of mobility options. The second is a stated civic and popular desire for environmentally sensitive, “smart” growth development for Downtown. Support for alternative modes, therefore, lays in the means themselves, as well as ends beyond reducing demand accommodation costs. The fourth principle of the Downtown Parking Policy therefore is to –
4. Support modes of access that promote efficient land use patterns, environmental sensitivity, non-motorized mobility options, and the community’s overall quality of life.
Broad policy support for such modes can lend them stability – freeing their funding from traditional and immediate performance measures, and allowing the stable presence required to gradually affect local and regional transportation inclinations.
Another challenge for maximizing the benefit of Downtown’s multi-modal assets is the transportation culture of the surrounding region. The majority of visitors and commuters entering Downtown each day reside in areas where virtually no trips beyond recreational walking and biking are completed without the use of a personal automobile. Changing the perceptions of mobility options among visitors is most difficult. The City, however, as one of Downtown’s largest employers, has a great opportunity to reshape the transportation culture of Downtown commuters through its own employees. The fifth principle of the Downtown Parking Policy, therefore, is that –
5. The City administration will assume a leading role in defining preferred commuter transportation patterns within Downtown by encouraging alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle commuting among its elected officials and employees.
Supply Principles Accommodating and encouraging continued success of Downtown, however, is likely to mean that demand will continue to grow, and that eventually some of that demand will have to be met with new parking supply. Serving the Policy’s second principle for capturing the bulk of district parking activity within the public parking system will require
Page 5-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
that capacity be maintained for those that are willing to pay for it. This will be especially crucial to accommodating demand from new developments and attracting developers to the public parking system as an alternative to constructing on-site parking. The next principle of the Downtown Parking Policy is therefore to –
6. Maintain sufficient parking supply to allow purchase of monthly parking access instrument on demand, or following a waiting period of no more than 30 days.
Reducing or eliminating the wait list for monthly parking, and making the process of acquiring permits (or passes) more transparent, has been identified as a key objective to support business attraction and retention in Downtown. Such a change will also be a key step in validating developers’ faith in the parking system, a key to the success of potential In-Lieu fee programs, and/ or the continued use of parking permits in-lieu of on-site parking. If parking is to be built, following the direction of the second principle outlined above, it should preferably be part of the municipal parking system rather than within individual developments.
On the other hand, a wait of 30 days can provide an opportunity for new tenants to assess their level of parking needs before investing in a monthly permit. Incentives to try a commuter bus, or the go!pass, or biking for a month may help overcome a portion of the immediate inclination to drive and park without considering other options.
None of the above changes the fact that building parking is expensive (roughly $36,000 per structured-parking space in 2006). While the Toolbox Actions section below identifies means for reducing the overall level of space construction, building new parking supplies will remain very costly. Therefore, the next principle of the Downtown Parking Policy is to –
7. Maintain a formalized process for funding new parking.
The DDA should work with the City to establish conditions in which the DDA can expect a coordinated effort in planning and funding new parking construction. The DDA has a solid record of making parking pay for itself, including the cost of adding new supply. However, the continued use of the municipal parking system as an economic development tool obligates all those invested in this approach to pitch in when deals push economics beyond the standard funding and planning processes.
The first step in this process will be determining when more parking is needed. This last principle of the Downtown Parking Policy is likely to remain the most challenging, and is therefore examined in more detail below –
8. Maintain a formalized process for determining when new supply is needed.
Such a process should follow the first six principles of the Downtown Parking Policy, by reflecting the practical and principled emphasis on exhausting demand management
Page 5-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
options before addressing capacity constraints with new supply. Options for such a process are examined below.
Step 1: Track Conditions z Track the Market: The DDA currently does an exemplary job of monitoring the local business and development markets. Staff is well informed on what is going on in real estate and development markets, and who is doing what within these markets, including innovative development and transportation strategies. This level of involvement with the business community will continue to provide invaluable guidance for managing parking supply. z Track Utilization: In the first phase of the study, the Project Team outlined a series of regular data collection efforts recommended for the DDA to use as part of its parking management program (see Phase I Final Report – Appendix D). Formalizing a process for tracking utilization using the occupancy tracking technology the DDA already has will be the first step in maintaining the ability to track near-term parking needs. z Coordinate on Economic Development Strategies: The recent Google deal (400 free parking permits offered to lure an influential employer to Downtown) points to the reality that parking access can play a major role in economic development. The City, the Chamber of Commerce, and the DDA should therefore meet early in the process of such deals to determine the potential volume of permits being discussed, the potential value returned to the City for providing this incentive, and to begin developing an approach that follows the established Downtown Parking Policy.
Step 2: Determine When to Build Once processes for determining utilization and near-term projections are set, determining when to build can take a number of approaches.
In the long-term, a market-based approach is preferred. This relies upon letting demand determine rates for all forms of parking system use. Once that has been established, and Toolbox and other parking demand management strategies have been exhausted, occupancy can serve as the trigger for either higher rates, or new construction. The steps for this approach are outlined below.
Market Approach z Allow demand to determine rates - preserving some availability at all times and in key areas (though not necessarily in all facilities at all times). z Use management strategies to moderate demand and rates. z Build parking when Toolbox options are exhausted, revenues are secured to pay for it, a desirable opportunity arises, and demand is sufficient to support it.
Page 5-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
The simplicity of market-based approaches is attracting a tremendous amount of attention from planners and public parking managers across the country. However, concerns about disparities in the ability of various market segments to pay are common, especially where alternative mobility options are limited. While mobility options are not an issue within Downtown, other concerns have been raised during the study that may complicate a market approach.
The disparity between the market price that might be set by parkers within the University community and those within the business community has raised concerns about the business community being priced out under a pure market-based pricing system. Similar concerns involve the potential of long-term parkers to drive rates too high to attract visitor parking. The Project Team is convinced, following focus group meeting with business leaders and real estate brokers, that the lack of predictable parking access is currently a greater deterrent to employers than parking costs. However, it appears likely that student demand could potentially drive purely market-responsive rates prohibitively high for employees, even if parking options were readily available.
These are certainly legitimate concerns – private enterprise and short-term visits are two key components of Downtown’s diverse economy and land use vitality. An alternate approach to strict market-pricing may be able to support a continued mix within the parking market, while preserving much of the potential for pricing to manage demand. Such an approach is outlined below.
Augmented Market Approach z Identify market segments that may be priced out of the parking system under a fully market-based approach z Estimate rate ceilings needed to preserve parking system access for these market segments. z Allow demand to determine rates up to this level – preserving some availability at all times and in key areas (though not necessarily in all facilities at all times). z Use Toolbox strategies to manage demand and availability, and to forestall reaching rate ceilings. z Build parking when Toolbox options are exhausted, revenues are secured to fund it, and a desirable opportunity arises or rate ceilings are reached.
Toolbox Actions A sequence of parking management actions based on the Toolbox is proposed below. The sequence is based both on implementability of each action, and the necessary sequence for maximizing the cross-support potential of select actions – supportive actions in place prior to supported actions, or mutually supportive actions implemented together.
Page 5-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Support Actions Establish a Dedicated Funding Source Set up a dedicated funding source for Toolbox Actions. The DDA has an existing Transportation fund that supports alternative transportation programs such as the go!pass, the Link, and various getDowntown programs. All parking revenues generated by new parking-related policies, strategies, and actions (excluding In-Lieu fees) should be directed into this fund.
Dedicating new parking revenues to such funds has been used to great success in smaller city downtown districts (see Appendix for examples).
Create a Supportive Context Identify/ Maintain a Parking and Transportation Oversight Committee: Many recommended actions will benefit from a coordinated approach. Such an approach has been the key to other successful efforts before – go!pass, getDowntown, the Link. The key parties involved in these efforts will remain the key parties for implementing the recommendations below. However, since these recommendations have been developed from outside, an oversight committee can play a vital role in bringing parties together and identifying the distinct benefits each strategy holds for them.
The existing Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) steering committee can serve well in this role while it remains intact. Before disbanding, however, the committee should identify an appropriate replacement to support the Downtown Parking Policy, and oversee implementation of recommended actions.
Maintain on-Going Parking and Transportation Conditions Review: A program for regular parking conditions monitoring was proposed and detailed in Appendix D of the Phase I Final Report. This program was recommended as a means for supporting parking management via timely and relevant utilization data. A program that utilizes the McGann electronic data collection system and moderate-cost labor should be established to regularly collect data as described in the appendix, including:
z Occupancy – By facility, by day, week, calendar month, year; z Average and Peak occupancy – By facility, by Sub-Area, daytime and evening; z Hours at or above 90 percent occupancy for each facility; z Turnover; z Tracking effects of Alternative Mode promotions; z Tracking effects of gas prices, transit fare programs; z Time limit enforcement; and z Customer perceptions, experiences, and travel patterns via windshield surveys.
Page 5-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
In addition, data on mode use, and feedback on Travel Choice options, can be tracked under the direction of the Travel Choice Coordinator (see below).
Lead by Example: The City administration, as one of Downtown’s largest employers, can play a crucial role in defining transportation priorities by directly supporting Parking Policy Principle 4 – support for alternative modes. Recommended immediate steps include:
z Setting quarterly, one-on-one meetings between the City’s benefits coordinator and the Downtown Travel Choice Coordinator (see below); z Offering a cash benefit equivalent alternative to parking-cost subsidies for non- driving employees; and z Full participation in the go!pass program.
The City should also encourage other public entities, including the County, DDA, and the Library, to follow their lead.
Immediate Actions Maximize Downtown’s Accessibility through Non-Motorized Modes Maintain All-Season Sidewalk Access: Ensure that street plowing does not leave sidewalks and crosswalks inaccessible. Enforce shoveling/ sidewalk clearance laws.
Establish A Policy in Support of Prohibiting “Right Turns on Red”: Feedback from Downtown employees and residents indicate a significant level of concern over pedestrian safety and comfort, especially at intersections, and especially regarding turning vehicles. Direct project team observation also supports the need to calm turning movements and prioritize pedestrian crossing.
While the benefits of allowing RTOR for motorists and overall traffic flow are well known, the disadvantages for cyclists and pedestrians (especially those with limited vision) are often not. In the simplest terms, allowing RTOR effectively turns the red light into a yield sign. One study documented that, with RTOR, 15 percent of drivers do not stop, and 42 percent make a rolling stop.1 The drivers that do stop tend to inch into the crosswalk space in hopes of finding a gap in traffic. Often drivers check to the left for approaching traffic, and fail to pay attention to people walking from the driver’s right side.
Having vehicles constantly turning is most problematic for pedestrians with limited vision, as they rely on engine noise to judge when and where to cross the street.
Establish A Policy in Support of Leading Pedestrian Intervals: A technique gaining favor among pedestrian safety experts is the Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). An LPI re-times the signal phasing so that the pedestrian phase begins a few seconds before the vehicular
1 Zegeer, C.V. and M.J. Cynecki. Methods of Increasing Pedestrian Safety at Right-Turn-on-Red Intersections, Final Report. Report No. FHWA/IP-86/10, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1986.
Page 5-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
phase. Typically, this permits a pedestrian to get halfway across the street and establish presence in the crosswalk before vehicles start turning, thus increasing the tendency for drivers to yield as required.
Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show an intersection with a 6-second LPI. The first image shows the WALK phase; the second image shows the WALK plus green phase. Note that most everyone has cleared the crosswalk before the van turns. The general rule is that the LPI phase should be long enough to allow people to walk half way across the intersection at four feet per second – a 48-foot wide street would receive a 6-second LPI.
Increase Non-Motorized Transporta- tion Funding: The DDA has two Figure 5-1 Leading Pedestrian sidewalk programs, both of which use Interval – Pedestrians TIF funds. The first is a sidewalk First maintenance program, which sets aside a fixed dollar amount of funding for repair and replacement of sidewalks, tree pit and grates, tree, light poles, etc. This program has been in place for roughly 10 years, and according to the DDA appears to be catching up with deferred maintenance that should free up funds in future years.
The other program is a capital improvements program that identifies desirable, transformative streetscape projects designed to change and improve the way Downtown is used Figure 5-2 Leading Pedestrian and perceived. These are multi-year Interval – Turning projects, with comprehensive planning Vehicles Second and public outreach activities preceding physical improvements. The most recently completed project was a State Street Area improvement project. The DDA is currently 90% complete with its planning for its next project - on Huron and Fifth/Division.
Community input, however, clearly indicates that non-motorized transportation should be a top transportation priority, for reasons beyond reducing parking demand. The
Page 5-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
2006 City of Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation (NMT) Plan states: A comprehensive non-motorized transportation system based on best practices is of paramount importance to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Ann Arbor.
Increasing the current five percent set aside of transportation funds the City provides can fund projects that fall in between the regular maintenance and large scale renovation projects funded by the DDA – occasional purchases of new street furniture, intersection configurations, plantings, and completing bike lane and sidewalk networks leading into Downtown for examples. The DDA’s Transportation fund, which is recommended to receive all new revenues generated by Toolbox implementation, is another potential source of funding for such actions.
Formalize a Downtown Travel Choice Coordinator Office Raising the profile of the activities carried out by the getDowntown program can increase the impact of existing services and reduce commuter parking demand. This will also be crucial to the success of the majority of Toolbox options. Additional staffing and funding are recommended. But, equally important, is for the City to embrace these services and market them directly to employers.
There is currently a great deal of “best practice”-level travel choice programs available to Downtown commuters. The Downtown, however, is surrounded by a region that is unaccustomed to having travel “choices”, and as such many commuters are less likely to go looking for these options. While current marketing efforts are marked by effective graphic design and clever messaging, designating an official office as a clearinghouse for information on these programs is recommended as a means of reaching out directly to employees. Recommendations include:
z Communicating the existence of the office through City websites and informational materials; z Marketing the Coordinator role directly to local businesses, making full use of the Chamber of Commerce’s connection; z Taking the lead by directing City benefits staff to work directly with the Coordinator office; z Establishing a series of quarterly Travel Choice networking meetings between the Coordinator office and Downtown employee benefits personnel; and z Adding at least one additional full-time and one part-time, staff member to support the Coordinator.
The getDowntown office is currently housed within the Chamber of Commerce and financed through AATA, DDA, and the City – with the Chamber providing some accounting support as well as physical space and marketing. This arrangement appears to work well. Other options include bringing the office into the DDA organization or the AATA.
Page 5-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Expand Car-Sharing Car-sharing services are provided through ZipCar at UM facilities on three campuses, including central campus. Use of this service has been increasing since its Fall 2006 Actions. Expanding this program into DDA facilities can provide support for alternative mode options for more Downtown commuters. One of the most challenging mode shift barriers is the occasional need for work day access to a personal vehicle, for either professional and personal trips. Access to car-share vehicles can be effective in accommodating these trip needs for those that may have rode a bus or a bike to work.
The DDA should reach out to ZipCar, or other potential car-sharing services, to discuss expansion options. The companies will identify which locations, if any, would work for their services, and how many they might be interested in using.
Provide Free or Discounted Rideshare Parking The best few spaces in each structure should be reserved for registered car- and vanpool vehicles until 10:00 AM. Parking rates should be discounted or lifted entirely. Rideshare participants can communicate through the Downtown Travel Choice Coordinator which structures they prefer. This information can then be used by the DDA to determine how many spaces should be set aside at each location.
Any costs of such a strategy will be more than offset by reduced costs related to demand for new parking spaces.
Offer Free “Limited Use” Passes for Employers with Evening Operations There is currently fairly low demand for the existing 4:00 PM – 9:00 AM parking permits. Such passes, however, may serve the needs of employees working evening shifts. While purchasing permits at $30 each for a restaurant full of employees appears an unattractive option for many employers, the DDA may consider offering these passes for free in an attempt to shift employee demand away from curb spaces. Such an offer could be made dependent upon attendance of Travel Choice Networking sessions (see below).
Implement a Valet Parking Pilot Project at Maynard Structure Valet service offered at the Maynard parking structure will serve a number of purposes, including:
z Increasing daytime capacity at a facility that is popular among visitors and commuters; z Offering options for evening visitors to the State Street area; z Decreasing search traffic along State Street in evenings; and z Increasing efficiency of space at Maynard, especially at top floors.
During weekdays, all non-permit parking should be accommodated by valet services. These can be used to concentrate the space required to accommodate visitor parking,
Page 5-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
potentially freeing up more monthly parking for this popular structure. One portion of the structure could be reserved for valet-served vehicles, which would eliminate the current practice of saving first level spaces until 10:00 AM that creates some resentment among permit holders and those waiting for monthly parking at the structure.
During evenings, valet service can add a parking convenience and personal comfort for customers willing to pay for it. On-street capacity in this area is limited, sending many customers to structures. Valet service can save them time, and eliminate the need for reluctant customers to navigate a parking structure.
In the evenings, a valet fee can be charged in addition to standard hourly rate costs for parking duration. The current structure operator is an experienced firm in valet services, simplifying implementation and operations. This should be a revenue positive program.
Operate Evening Link Service The Link service has been steadily gaining ridership, and business owners have noted that their patrons have begun using the service. Evening service can relieve on-street parking demand by providing a viable transit option for visitors and employees. While the Link currently runs until 11:00 PM, service after 6:00 PM is limited to central campus and university housing areas. Extending the evening route to reach Downtown’s evening destinations would provide a viable transit option for visitors and employees of some of the more popular Ann Arbor restaurants and entertainment venues.
Once evening Link service establishes solid ridership, AATA should evaluate the benefit of expanding other Downtown-serving routes later into the evening.
Establish a State Street Area Parking Benefit District Pilot Project The State Street sub-area of Downtown should be used to begin a pilot Parking Benefit District (PBD) to demonstrate the benefits of using on-street pricing to manage availability and generate funds for public improvements. Like just about all on-street parking in Downtown, spaces along this street are filled to capacity in evenings. High demand for evening uses combines with the cessation of parking regulations at these spaces to reduce availability to almost nothing. Market pricing these spaces can use pent up demand for these spaces to generate public benefits, while improving availability for those willing to pay for the convenience these spaces offer. At the same time, the excess capacity available at the off-street facilities in the evenings means that no parking demand must go unmet. Elements of the PBD pilot must include:
z Previous Actions of free Overnight parking permits to businesses with evening operations, Valet Parking pilot, and extended Link service to provide additional access options for evening employees and patrons; z Roll out of multi-space on-street meters offering electronic and cash payment options – these meters will help distinguish the PBD area, so this should be the only
Page 5-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Downtown location where such meters are installed during the first few months of the pilot; z At a minimum, covering State Street between Washington Street and South University Avenue with these new meters; th z Preferably, covering Liberty Street and William Street between State Street and 5 Avenue; North University Avenue between Thayer Street and State Street; and Maynard Street as well; z Extending the $1 per hour rate for curb spaces on these blocks until 9:00 PM; z End time restrictions at curb spaces after 6:00 PM (so that on-street spaces meet the needs of evening parkers who frequently combine a meal with other activities); z The City empowering the DDA to adjust rates in response to parking occupancy, with the express goal of attaining approximately 85 percent occupancy on most blocks (see Redwood City ordinance in Appendix); z Completion of the DDA’s current Wayfinding and Information program providing State Street customers with clear directional information on off-street options, locations, and availability; and z Direct return of all post-6:00 PM meter revenue to State Street area public improvements.
The pilot program, and all of the supportive elements described above, should be at least 12 months in duration to adequately track its effectiveness as parking patterns adjust to evening pricing, and revenue accumulates. If successful, the pilot should be systematically expanded to include additional State Street Area streets, to the level that it proves effective in maintaining availability targets.
Complete the Information and Wayfinding Campaign The DDA currently has projects underway for Parking Information signage and Wayfinding. A proposed signage system offering information on the availability and location of parking will begin on the freeways surrounding Ann Arbor, continue at the off ramps, lead visitors to downtown, provide directions to the four downtown districts, specific destinations and parking, and then direct them back to the freeways.
The Wayfinding signage system will include extensive pedestrian signage to encourage a “park once” environment. Such a campaign should also guide bicyclists looking for routes, racks, and lockers and provide estimated walking distances (in minutes) to popular attractions.
Other Wayfinding investments worth considering include:
z Extend and maintain Next Bus/ Last Bus Technology all through the system; z Utilizing Michigan’s 511 transportation telephone hotline resources (see Appendix); and
Page 5-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Electronic information kiosks at the transit center, in or near parking structures, and at any other activity centers.
Implement Express Commuter Bus Service The AATA has been investigating long-range express bus service options for the last few years. Obstacles to these services have included:
z Capital investment expense; z Regulatory and judicial restrictions on capital investment in “over-the-road” coach vehicles; and z The current AATA focus on intra-county service.
Express bus service, however, is of direct financial interest to the DDA, should such a service prove likely to reduce demand for additional off-street parking inventory. In addition, the University and the Chamber of Commerce have both stated interest in supporting true express service to areas of high commuter demand. Such service would directly address key barriers to transit identified in Phase I among commuters interested in transit use. In addition, focus group feedback has indicated that express buses could be attractive to current drivers seeking a more productive, less expensive, and/ or more environmentally conscious commute – commuters that have said they themselves would take such a bus.
While the AATA appears near a solution, involving contracting services outside of the Authority, a concerted effort and support among parties with vested interest in these services could prove instrumental in getting the buses on the road. Such an effort could also result in key improvements to eventual service, including potential extra-county routes.
The greatest impact on off-street parking demand may come from service that reaches out to communities beyond Washtenaw County. While the AATA is not averse to such geographical expansion, reducing parking demand is likely not its top service planning priority. An expanded planning effort may therefore be necessary to maintain this objective in express bus routing.
Track Technology Investment Opportunities Technology is constantly evolving, while Actions costs for established technologies tend to continually decrease. Investment opportunities should be tracked and planned for including:
z Payment Options – Debit Accounts for hourly parking, Smart Cards that can pay for on- and off-street parking as well as transit, new meter technology; z On-street occupancy tracking (see Appendix); and z Use of Michigan’s 511 (transportation telephone hotline) resources.
Page 5-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Expand the Guaranteed Ride Home Program This program can provide an important transportation “safety net” for Downtown employees committed to alternative commute modes. The current program is limited to registered Rideshare participants. Expanding the program to other populations of committed alternative modes users, such as car-share members and monthly transit customers, can help alleviate the fear of these deeper commitments and make alternatives more attractive and feasible for commuters.
Coordinate Park and Ride Improvements AATA is currently working on options for improving existing Park and Ride service, as part of its Transit System Development study (Parsons Brinckerhoff, Michigan, 2007). The City, County, the Chamber of Commerce, the University, and the DDA should work with the AATA to implement improvements that can address barriers to expanding bus commuting into Downtown. Possible considerations might include:
z Placing stops within shopping centers to accommodate multiple rider needs (i.e., groceries and other errands); z Incorporating some existing stops as the last stop before Downtown on some Express service routes (no more than one nearby stop per route and only if existing Park and Ride stops can be incorporated within a direct route into Downtown from previous stops); and z Providing real-time information about bus operations and travel time to Downtown at the Park and Ride facilities.
Leave Parking Exemptions in the Zoning Code Current practices, such as parking exemptions and allowing acquisition of monthly permits to serve in lieu of meeting on-site requirements, are considered best practices for downtown parking management, and have served many such districts well.
Imposing minimum parking requirements, by contrast, may relieve some pressure on the DDA inventory and permit wait list, but will also solicit a number of conditional changes that run counter to established Smart Growth and parking management policies. Such changes would include:
z Introducing more driveway/ sidewalk intersections and increasing vehicle traffic at these points; z Reducing foot traffic on Downtown streets as building tenants arrive at their front door by car; and z Reducing overall efficiency of parking supply – more spaces are used less (as shown through the existing private parking inventory).
Many of the conditions generating interest in removing parking requirement exemptions can be addressed through Implementation of Toolbox strategies and the establishment of the Downtown parking policy. Such conditions include:
Page 5-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Lack of parking availability and lengthy, inconsistent permit wait lists, which complicate the use of Parking System spaces to meet development-related demand; and z Lack of funding sources for parking system expansion. At the same time, the requirements attached to developments seeking bonus FAR for their projects provide the City with some leverage over larger development projects, and their impact on the parking system and potential spillover parking issues. Continuing to allow developers to opt out of meeting requirements on-site through the establishment of In Lieu fees will further develop the potential benefit of these requirements, by making shared parking options more attractive (see In-Lieu Fees, short-term recommendations below).
Facilitate Shared On-Site Parking Shared parking can be encouraged through zoning (by not counting parking square footage against allowable floor area or requiring a match of shared spaces for all dedicated spaces built on-site) and/or requiring shared parking as part of any type of conditional-use permit or negotiated plan approval process, as Arlington County, VA, does. At a minimum, shared parking needs to be allowed by Ann Arbor’s zoning code as a way of meeting or reducing parking requirements.
The DDA (or other third-party incorporated entity) could negotiate for shared parking, manage parking, and hold liability. Making shared parking work requires a forum for addressing disputes or concerns among various property owners and ensuring consistent management practices. A third-party entity could also lease parking lots from individual property owners and manage them so that motorists perceive all the parking in the district as a common pool. More important, by leasing the parking lots, the third party entity can assume all liability for incidents that occur in the parking lots, relieving individual businesses and property owners from that burden.
Pursue Existing Joint-Development Opportunities The City and the DDA should coordinate with the District Library’s current study to identify potential expansion opportunities. This may present a uniquely ideal opportunity for joint development of the surface lot adjacent to the site (see Task 4B memo). A library extension would present a favorable use combination with a structured/ below-grade shared parking facility. The site location is also favorable for meeting existing and future demand in the district, being within close proximity to two heavily used structures – Maynard and 4th & William.
The site of the former 1st & Washington Street structure presents another ideal opportunity for Joint-Development expansion of the off-street inventory.
Continue Seeking Joint Development Opportunities Developing on existing lots is preferable from an urban design perspective to building up at existing structures. While some regular parking customers have expressed vehement
Page 5-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
opposition to building upon lots, opposition to taller structures is just as strong among many residents, and many of the concerns over losing surface parking to garage conversion can be addressed through thoughtful design controls.
Incorporating new parking supplies within mixed-used developments provides a number of benefits, including:
z Providing active uses at the site of parking – housing (above) and commercial uses (in front) can place increased pedestrian activity at the site of garaged parking, reducing the negative impact of parking on sidewalk activity; z Increase comfort with structured parking – active uses make parking structures feel less isolated and more secure; z Efficiency gains – Uses place parking customers on-site, mixed-uses are conducive to sharing of spaces; z Shared expense – public/private financing can provide economic efficiencies over separate, smaller developments; z Increase public support for construction – this is the preferred form of parking development among stakeholders; and z Providing a unique opportunity to provide low-cost housing in Downtown.
Certain uses are more appealing than others, and finding the right mix of uses and parking will be key to the success of projects. A recent proposal to develop underground parking with a courthouse and police station on the lot next door to the library, for instance, incorporated uses that heightened, rather than lowered, concerns about using the proposed parking structure.
Until opportunities become available, continued expansion of existing structures may be necessary to meet latent and potential midday off-street parking demand.
Identify Priority Areas Use Phase I data to identify areas of joint-development opportunity priority. Based on the data collected and analyzed in Phase I, the Main Street and State Street sub-areas both have heavily utilized structures immediately surrounded by highly utilized on-street spaces, indicating a higher priority for finding expansion opportunities in these areas. Seeking desirable expansion opportunities in these areas should begin immediately.
In the longer-term, utilization data for structures should be updated and tracked using existing tracking technologies to continue to monitor and identify such areas. On-street utilization updates can be completed with minimal staffing requirements.
Page 5-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Short-Term Actions
Implement Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Recommendations A number of recommendations contained in the 2006 City of Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Plan could provide particular support for the recommended Downtown Parking Policy. Prohibiting ROTR and implementing Leading Pedestrian Intervals are discussed above as part of immediate Actions recommendations. The following short-term actions are also recommended in support of increasing non-motorized mobility in Downtown:
z Installing crossing islands for Huron Street crosswalks; z Installing pedestrian countdown signals; z Evaluate converting First and Ashley streets to two-way traffic, with bike lanes on Ashley; and z Extending on-street parking one block south on west side of Main Street below William Street.
Establish A Pilot Valet Program in the Main Street Area Contrasted with the State Street valet recommendation, valet stations in the Main Street area should be placed on the street, close to popular destinations. This can both bring services closer to popular destinations and shift demand (cars) to wherever availability is greater. While this will require the loss of some key curb spaces, converting off-street spaces to virtual on-street spaces can produce tremendous overall capacity gains. Spaces that are loading zones prior to 6:00 PM would provide the best locations for these stations, as they may feel like less of a “taking” than a metered space.
Using DDA facilities to store valet-parked cars can address resident concerns that valet activity could increase traffic and noise on their streets. Accommodation of valet-served cars can be used to fill top floors of garages where valet parking can produce capacity gains of roughly 40 percent, as more cars can squeeze into the same space via attended versus self-parking.
An additional resource for valet parking could be underused, private accessory lots, which may offer proximity benefits compared to some DDA garages, and could relieve access congestion or high demand at some structures. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that these locations do not create increased traffic within residential areas surrounding Downtown.
Install Additional Multi-Space Meters In addition to the meters installed for the State Street PBD, such meters should continue to replace the current standard meters when opportunities arise. The new meters offer a number of key customer conveniences, including:
z Accommodating credit/ debit card payment at meters, as well as cash;
Page 5-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Payment and notification by cell phone; and z Paying only for time used.
In addition, these meters offer a number of other benefits in comparison to the current meters:
z Reduced sidewalk “clutter” – fewer installations per block; z Increased capacity – new meters allow car lengths to define how many spaces are on each block, standard meters tend to estimate, erring on the side of undercounting; and z Enhanced pricing options.
Investigate Additional Parking Benefit District Opportunities Assuming successful implementation of the State Street Area Parking Benefit District (see Immediate Actions above), opportunities to create additional districts should be monitored. While the Main Street Area Association strongly opposes one of the main components of such districts – charging for on-street space whenever demand exceeds 90% - demonstrated benefits from the State Street Area PBD may attract future support. Additionally, this area holds a great deal of promise for successful PBD Actions. The high level of evening parking demand, the concentration of higher-end restaurants, and the ease with which centralized valet stations could provide “bottomless” virtual curb access in this area all bode well for an area with tremendous potential turning pent up parking demand into public benefits while shifting demand from overburdened inventories to under-used structures.
Quarterly Travel Choice Networking Sessions The Downtown Travel Choice Coordinator will host quarterly sessions to share new information between the Travel Choice office and Downtown benefits coordinators, including available program updates and employee feedback on existing programs.
Provide Parking Discount to Networking Sessions Participants Previous year attendance at the Coordinator’s Networking Sessions can be used to offer discounted parking rates for Downtown employers. A per session discount rate can be assessed for each session attended. For example, a five percent discount could result in a 20 percent 2009 rate reduction for employees whose representative attended all four 2008 sessions. No action beyond attendance need be compulsory to attain the discount, but regular attendance of these sessions is likely to result in travel choice information filtering down to employees whose employers had no previous interest in communicating such information.
Page 5-18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Offer Debit Account Alternative to Monthly Permit Holders A debit account system would provide useful management benefits compared to the monthly permits, including:
z Rewarding occasional use of alternate commute modes – this will become increasingly important as other Toolbox strategies are implemented such as express commuter bus service; z Tracking unused cards; z Encouraging permit turnover - Cards would be less transferable, discouraging employers and property owners from holding onto permits following turnover; and z Establishing a payment system that will enable new pricing and discount options.
Weekend parking can be held exempt from account charges to continue encouraging employees to shop and visit Downtown at these times.
To be attractive to current permit holders, these account options must clearly present a discount, based on the cost of 198 hours (9 hours of daily parking for 22 monthly workdays) of monthly parking, versus the cost of a permit.
Operate Summer Link Service Assuming evening Link service proves successful, it will be important to provide service continuity through the summer months. Levels of service can be adjusted relative to reduced demand. However, some service should remain through these months to maintain ridership gains.
Expand Express Commuter Bus Service To the extent that initial service proves successful and creates new areas of demand, new routes should be identified and funding secured.
Formalize an In Lieu Fee Option Current on-site requirements for bonus development are sometimes met through the acquisition of monthly parking permits. This is a preferable alternative to new on-site parking construction. Formalizing a fee option similar in nature to this practice can offer a number of advantages, including:
z Making the development process more predictable – Current options are unknowable until negotiations with the DDA are completed. A formal fee process would make the costs and opportunities of not building on-site available up front; and z Provide funding for expanded parking and transportation options – The current process produces demand pressures on the existing system, and produces minimal revenue benefits to the parking system.
Page 5-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Offering annual or monthly fee options, as opposed to one, lump-sum fee, can help with project financing. If fees are kept below the cost of providing dedicated parking on-site, and parking spaces are generally available nearby, such a fee can be very attractive to developers. For this option to work, wait lists for monthly parking can be no longer than 30 days, so developers can rely on the parking system to provide access for their tenants. (See Appendix for further details.)
Implement Alternatives If Current Zoning Exemptions are Removed Existing minimum parking requirement exemptions for Downtown development are seen as unpopular, and are currently under consideration for removal. Should they be removed:
z In-Lieu Fee options will become even more crucial to preserving a Park Once environment; z Exemptions for non-residential uses should be maintained; z On-site parking at residential developments of a minimal size should be required to provide a specified match in public parking spaces on-site as well; and z Design guidelines should be included to protect pedestrian-priority streets from parking access points.
Implement New Parking Requirements Regardless of the outcome for vehicular parking requirements, the following alternative requirements should be added to the zoning code:
z Minimum bicycle parking requirements equal to at least one bicycle space for every 10 vehicle spaces (in any City district) by land use; z Preferential parking spaces reserved for registered rideshare vehicles; and z A minimum requirement of 1 car sharing space per every 20 dedicated on-site spaces built.
Implement Right Turn on Red Prohibitions and Leading Pedestrian Intervals Key pedestrian intersections within Downtown should be identified for potentially prohibiting right turns on red (RTOR) while incorporating Leading Pedestrian Intervals into signal phasing. Together, these tools can provide measurable improvement in pedestrian crossing safety and comfort, further supporting the Park-Once environment in Downtown. Following guidelines provided by the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the City should seek to implement these pedestrian safety tools wherever appropriate. Some candidate intersections are:
z State Street at Liberty Street; z Main Street at Liberty Street; and z Main Street at Washington Street.
Page 5-20 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Long-Term Actions Manage All Parking Demand with Pricing Demand-responsive pricing for all parking should be a long-term goal for Downtown. Once high-tech multi-space meters are installed, the DDA will be capable of adjusting rates by time of day, day of week, and length of stay throughout Downtown. This will allow the elimination of time limits, a chronic source of enforcement headaches and parker anxiety.
Meter regulation should be in effect when and where unregulated parking consistently nets occupancy rates higher than 90 percent. Rates are adjusted in response to demand, targeting roughly 85 percent occupancy on all blocks. Note: the current color code system that helps identify time limit ranges at meters can be used to indicate more or less expensive parking locations.
Currently emerging technology that tracks occupancy and payment via a centralized computer system will soon become more common, and likely more affordable (see Appendix). This level of centralized, electronic, real-time occupancy information can indicate where availability and demand become out of synch with established targets. This can also simplify enforcement, reducing staffing costs.
Pricing off-street parking should follow a similar, though more broadly applied, approach. Introducing too many rate variables may produce too much confusion for this inventory intended to serve both long-term and short-term parking. And keeping simplified rates for off-street facilities provides an option for those that may find on-street meter rates confusing. Additionally, unintended consequences can follow when adjusting rates hourly within a long-term market – higher midday rates encouraging employees to drive to lunch for example.
Nonetheless, some rate adjustments are worth considering, once debit accounts and hourly rate structures are fully implemented, such as:
z Adjusting rates between locations; and z Adjusting weekday versus evening and weekend rates.
For instance, Ann & Ashley might charge $1 per hour during weekday hours and $0.50 per hour during evening and weekend hours, while 1st & Huron might charge $1.50 during the daytime and $2 at night. The Actions of real-time signage at each facility will greatly improve the simplicity of communicating current rates for all drivers.
Offer Debit Accounts for Hourly Parkers Rates can be varied by time of day, day of week, and location, in response to demand. To encourage non-commuters to establish accounts, the first hour of any parking can be offered free of charge at all times.
Page 5-21 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
During times of supply constraints, the DDA can choose to temporarily stop offering accounts and place applicants on a wait list pending additional supply or demand management impacts. In following with the Downtown Parking Policy however, wait lists should not exceed waiting times of 30 days.
Offer Off-Street Parking Discount Options Under such a system, and assuming a flat hourly rate of $0.80 per hour:
z Storing a vehicle for 20 hours per day for 28 days would cost - $448. z Everyday commuter use for a nine-hour day/ five-day week would cost - $133 per month. z Weekly two-hour parking would cost - $3.20 per month.
Figure 5-3 Parking Hours and Costs by User
Parking/Cost Comparison Visitor Commuter Resident* Monthly Parking Hours 8 180 560 Monthly Parking Cost $4 $133 $448 Cost/ Hour Average $0.50 $0.74 $0.80
Providing a discount from standard hourly rates and maintaining the current flat-fee-based monthly permit options, may be preferable to protect access for key Downtown populations under such a pricing scheme.
z Permanent residents – – Discounted hourly rates, or monthly permit options, for those with at least 30 days of primary residency registered within the DDA boundary; and – Continuation of current monthly permit options. z Employees – – Discounted or free monthly, 4PM-9PM access permits; – Discounts for annual participation in Travel Choice networking sessions (see short-term actions above); – Hourly rate caps – should demand continue to push rates above employee affordability, rate caps could be installed, triggering additional space construction rather than rate increases once availability drops under a capped rate; and – Continuation of current monthly permit options. z Visitors – First hour is free for all. This represents a much deeper discount for shoppers vs. commuters and residents, and will encourage their use of debit accounts, which in turn can reduce garage queuing. z In-Lieu Fee Contributors – Discounted hourly rates for residents of buildings whose developers paid In Lieu fees. Level of discount can be tied to proportion of In-Lieu
Page 5-22 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
fees paid to on-site spaces built. This can amount to substantial discounts for residents of such buildings that acquire a permanent resident discount as well. Implement Seamless Payment Systems “Smartcard” technology can be used to allow customers to use one card to pay for on- street and off-street parking, as well as transit. This can greatly increase the appeal of setting up a debit account. Such a system is being tested in Washington, D.C., the success of which will likely result in an evolving technology that at some point will be highly feasible for Downtown.
Implement Pedestrian Improvements DDA’s Transportation fund can be used to implement recommendations identified in the 2006 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, while providing additional impetus to focus on maximizing pedestrian mobility within Downtown. Additional safety and mobility issues and solutions to be investigated can include:
z Mid-block crossings; z Crosswalk striping; z Curb extensions/ bulb-outs; z Medians/ Refuges; z Intersection Stop Lines; and z In-pavement lighting at selected crosswalks.
Retro-fit Existing Structures Street-oriented uses at the ground level of garages will help reduce the negative impact of existing, stand alone structures on sidewalk activity. This is a key, not only to maintaining vibrant, comprehensive pedestrian networks, but improving sense of personal security in and around structures.
Unbundle Parking Costs The unbundling of parking costs from space rental/ purchase costs for residential uses in new Downtown developments can:
z Encourage developers to build only the number of parking spaces for which there is a market; z Lower housing costs for those that choose not to purchase or rent parking; and z Create a development environment attractive to those seeking to reduce their own automobile use.
A minimum monthly lease rate for such spaces can be set to a percent of comparable parking costs at a DDA facility – Cost of monthly permit, or 25% of cost of 720 hours of hourly parking (24 hours for 30 days). See Appendix for further details.
Page 5-23 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Beyond the Toolbox This report has outlined policies and programs for short- and long-term Actions, each of which have been vetted through the public, stakeholders, focus groups, and policy makers. In the process of generating these options, the Project Team has also developed the following additional programs for consideration.
Contracted Permits Existing monthly parking permit contracts limit the flexibility of parking management at affected structures. The practice of such contracts should cease. Employers holding significant permit volumes under contract – 10 or more – should be encouraged to work with DDA and getDowntown staff, as well as the eventual Travel Choice coordinator, to identify:
z Potential Travel Choice strategies for reducing employee permit demand; and z Compensation options for contract reductions.
Once wait lists have been eliminated, the value of these contracts will be greatly diminished, increasing the feasibility of “buying” them back.
Washtenaw County Courthouse Plans The County is planning to relocate Juvenile Court from the Platt Road Family Court facility to the existing Downtown courthouse building by 2010 (See task 4B memo – Key Organization Interviews). The County expects to approach the DDA with a request for new permits to accommodate up to 120 re-located employees, in addition to the 300 monthly parking permits currently allotted to County employees at the Ann & Ashley parking structure. It is not anticipated that any of this demand will be accommodated on-site. The existing 300 permits represent subsidized parking for nearly 90 percent of the County’s 340 Downtown employees.
The City and the DDA should make it clear that no new contracted permits will be made available at either the Ann & Ashley or any other DDA structure. The existing ratio of permits-to-employees is already extremely high. Instead, the DDA and the getDowntown staff (as well as the eventual Travel Choice coordinator) should work with the County to identify:
z Potential Travel Choice strategies for reducing employee permit demand; and z Compensation options for contract reductions.
This action offers an opportunity to the City to implement Principle #5 by working with the County to find alternatives; this can also serve as a precedent for any future requests for permit “contracts.”
Page 5-24 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Premium Permits It may be advisable to maintain a handful of the premium monthly permits at each facility as a revenue generator. These permits however, should be market-priced in order to extract the maximum revenue value of dedicated spaces within a shared inventory. Revenues should be dedicated to the DDA Transportation fund.
Marketing Residential Parking Permit Program The Project Team has no recommended changes to the current approach to implementing Residential Parking Permits in the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. While many of the Toolbox actions outlined above are likely to create increased parking demand outside the DDA boundary (on-street pricing, continuing the parking requirement exemptions for new development), the Project Team does not recommend implementing RPP in neighborhoods that have not demonstrated majority support for it. While the presence of significant student populations in some neighborhoods may present a barrier to establishing majority support in neighborhoods that could benefit from the program, Actions outside of the established petition process would likely result in significant backlash.
Rather, the Project Team would recommend marketing the benefits of the program to residents, and providing program flexibility to cater to local demand conditions. The bottom line is to offer the program (as the City already does), but not force it on any neighborhood that does not want it. This option will be more crucial as demand for Downtown parking increases. The City, in particular, can work with neighborhoods less likely to petition for the program to promote its benefits.
Violation Forgiveness Establishing a practice of “first time forgiveness” for parking violations related to recent regulation changes will be an important public relations effort that can ease acclimation to new parking management practices. A friendly note, informing violators of new policies, as opposed to giving them a ticket, can be an effective means of communicating changes to valued customers, and can help reduce perceptions that changes are simply enforcement- revenue generators.
Increase Campaign to Get Bicycles Off of Sidewalks There is currently far too much bicycle traffic on Downtown sidewalks, especially on high pedestrian-traffic blocks. An effective campaign to shift bike traffic from these walkways must include a combination of educating bike riders and making Downtown roads safer and more comfortable for them. A campaign to accomplish this should be conducted through the Travel Choice Coordinator Office, and could include:
z Lobbying to legally prohibit bicycle-riding on Downtown sidewalks, and enforcing prohibition in key areas; z Implementing an education campaign;
Page 5-25 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Involving the University; z Completing bike-lane routes through Downtown; z Installing shared-use arrows on streets lacking capacity for full bike lanes; and z Placing “Share the Road” signs along Downtown streets – especially at Downtown entry points.
Expand The Programs The travel choice programs outlined this report were developed to apply specifically to Downtown Ann Arbor. However, many of the programs have the potential to provide benefits throughout Ann Arbor. Just like in the description of the Express Bur Service, programs should initially be implemented with Downtown as their very specific focus, and only when successful be expanded. The Travel Choice Coordinator position should be flexible enough to expand successful programs throughout all of Ann Arbor. In the long- term, this position may be located within a regional transportation operator; for example, if the mission of AATA is expanded to provide transportation and access services throughout the region.
Locating the travel choice coordinator within the regional transportation provider has been a successful structure at agencies across the country. The Lane Transit District which provides transportation services to the Eugene-Springfield area of Oregon, includes a Commuter Solutions department which promotes and offers transportation options programs to the region’s businesses, organizations, and educational institutions for their employees, staff, and students. Their programs include carpool matching, support for walking and biking groups, and travel smart marketing information.
Kings County Metro Transit, in Washington state offers several programs aimed at getting people out of their cars, including the "Move it! Youth Program" which was a student-led public education program to get people to use more sustainable modes of transport, the "Partners in Transit" sustainable living program, as well as car and van pooling registration and service.
Triangle Transit Authority (who offers transit services in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan region of North Carolina) includes travel demand management staff who coordinate their ride sharing program (including an on-line ride share matching service), carpooling and vanpooling programs, as well as a commuter option service which promotes transit, cycling, walking, and telecommuting.
Implementation Factors Cross-Support While the recommended actions are not presented as an “all or nothing” package, many of the actions offer various levels of cross-support for one another. Some actions, such as funding the DDA’s Transportation fund, will lend support to most. The level of success for
Page 5-26 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
actions, on the other hand, may greatly depend on the Actions of many other, supportive actions. Sometimes the support factor is financial; sometimes it lies in adding incentives for modal shifts. Many strategies will also benefit from both forms of cross-support. Express bus service for instance will greatly benefit from:
z Changing the monthly parking permit system to a debit account system – a change that would provide a financial incentive for drivers to occasionally commute by bus; z Funding from the DDA’s Transportation fund, which in turn is supported by on- street pricing and any other action that result in increased parking revenues; z Expanded Car-Sharing, which can provide a fall-back option for those that may occasionally need a personal vehicle during the workday but would prefer to commute by transit; and z A Travel Choice Coordinator that can market the benefits of the new service.
The combination of extending Link service into the evening, introducing evening on-street pricing, and providing valet services represents another form of cross-support. The most controversial of these actions is evening on-street pricing. This action, while widely supported among public outreach participants, is strongly opposed by some within the business community. However extending Link service and establishing valet parking are each widely and strongly supported by this community. By implementing all three, not only would visitors be presented with a set of new evening access options, but a potential compromise may be attained.
Figure 5-4 summarizes the cross-support relationships among each of actions recommended in this memo.
Page 5-27 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 5-4 Cross-Support Factors Among Toolbox Actions Discount for Rideshare Vehicles Express Commuter BusService Expanded CarShare Program Funding Transportation Fund Travel ChoiceCoordinator Joint-Development Supply Evening On-Street Pricing Debit Accounts/ Payment Technology Investments Zoning -NoMinimums Evening LinkService DDA-Managed Valet Parking Information
Toolbox Actions NMT Programs Park andRide In-Lieu Fees Unbundling Wayfinding Expansion Options
Funding Transportation Fund | | | | | | | | z | | | | | | z | Express Commuter Bus Service | | | | | z | | Evening Link Service | | z | | | | | | DDA-Managed Valet | | z | | | Evening On-Street Pricing | | z z | | | | | | | z z Park and Ride | | | | | | | | | Travel Choice Coordinator | | | | | | | | | | | | Expanded Car Share Program | | | | | | | | | Discount for Rideshare Vehicles | | | | | | | | | NMT Programs z | | | | | | | Parking Information | | | | | | | | | | Wayfinding | | | | | | | | | Zoning - No Minimums | | | | | | | | | | | Joint-Development | | | | | z | Supply Expansion Technology Investments | | z | | | | | | Debit Accounts/ Payment Options | z | | z | | | | | | | In-Lieu Fees z | | | | | | | | | | | | z | | | Unbundling | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |= Cross-Supportive Relationship z = Strong Cross-Supportive Relationship
Page 5-28 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Feasibility This section outlines preliminary projections of financial costs and institutional efforts required for implementation of the Immediate and Short-Term Actions recommended above.
Immediate Actions
Funding the DDA’s Transportation Fund Minimal new cost. A few administrative-level staff hours to establish process for directing new and incremental revenue sources to the fund. Essentially the sources of revenue would be any new revenue-positive parking management strategy, including incremental income from meters after 6:00 PM.
Maintaining Oversight Committee No new costs.
The existing committee is expected to remain intact throughout the Immediate and Short-Term Action timeframe (3 – 18 months).
On-Going Parking and Transportation Conditions Review The recommended, on-going effort to review parking and transportation conditions will require a moderate staffing investment from the DDA Parking Operations staff and the Travel Choice Coordinator. Primary DDA staffing responsibilities with cost estimates include:
z Extracting digital information from the McGann system – Set up: One time cost of 40 staff hours; Maintenance: 1 staff hour per week. z Meter Occupancy Surveys – 40 intern-level hours, twice annually; 32 staff hours, twice annually. z Windshield Surveys – 12 intern-level hours, twice annually; 24 staff hours, twice annually.
Figure 5-5 presents a summary of staffing cost estimates for these actions.
Page 5-29 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 5-5 DDA Staffing Cost Estimates for Recommended Survey Program
Annual Estimated Actions Staff Level Hours Iterations Hourly Rate Estimated Cost McGann Extraction General 40 1 $35 $1,400 General 1 52 $35 $1,820 On-Street Surveys Intern 40 2 $15 $1,200 General 32 2 $35 $2,240 Windshield Surveys Intern 12 2 $15 $360 General 24 2 $35 $1,680 Total All 149 61 $170 $8,700
A basic level of quarterly and annual travel pattern surveying should also be conducted by the Travel Choice Coordinator and staff. These surveys would track use of travel choice benefits as well as overall modal use among Downtown employees. Office staffing costs would include:
z 40 intern-level hours and 24 staff hours for annual surveys; and
z 24 intern-level hours and 16 staff hours for quarterly surveys.
Figure 5-6 provides an estimate of the overall staffing costs of these options.
Figure 5-6 Estimated Staff Costs for Basic Travel Choice Office Surveys
Staff Level Hours Annual Iterations Hourly Cost Estimated Cost Intern 40 1 $15 $600 General 32 1 $35 $1,120 Intern 24 4 $15 $1,440 General 20 4 $35 $2,800 Total 116 10 $100 $5,960
Lead by Example Anticipated implementation costs for this Action include:
z City’s Employee Benefits Administrator staff training – Initial meeting with Travel Choice Coordinator to discuss plan for promotion of travel options to City employees (8 one-time staff-level hours); z Quarterly meetings with Travel Choice Coordinator (16 annual staff-level hours – four for each meeting and follow-up actions); z Go!pass participation - $5 annually for 801 employees ($4,005); and z Other alternative-modes-related benefits.
Page 5-30 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Eliminating subsidization of parking costs could save the City money that in turn should be used to fund alternative transportation options, include Commuter Bus fares, bicycle storage and changing facilities, etc. By comparison, a “parking cash- out” program which would offer employees existing parking benefits along with a cash option for not using parking, should net-out as a revenue-neutral change to existing practice.
Maintain All-Season Sidewalk Access Minimal new cost.
This is enforcement of existing “shoveling” laws and more thoughtful or thorough street-plowing practices. Minimal cost associated with extra diligence – slightly slower plowing, enforcement staff hours to cite untended sidewalks. Marketing campaign through direct mailing recommended to notify property owners of the extent of their responsibility and its importance to the community.
Increase Non-Motorized Transportation Funding Funding level to be established by City, based on overall transportation funding. Doubling the current commitment (from 5% to 10% of the overall transportation budget) is recommended.
Formalize a Travel Choice Coordinator Position New costs will include additional staffing, and increased marketing investments. Recommended positions include at least one additional full-time, and one part- time, staff member to assist the Coordinator.
Annual new staffing costs related to recommendations:
z Full-time staff costs – $35,000, plus benefits. z Intern costs - $15,000 each.
The getDowntown program is currently housed within the Chamber of Commerce and financed through AATA, DDA, and the Chamber. While re-locating the position to other organizations might offer some benefits, restructuring will bring costs as well. A marketing budget should be established based on the number of travelers to be reached. At $2 per year per employee, the cost would be $100,000 for Downtown Ann Arbor’s approximately 50,000 employees.
Expand Car-Sharing No new costs. Careful selection of location should result in no added costs, as the car-sharing provider will compensate the DDA for space utilization.
Page 5-31 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Coordination with the University, which has successfully worked with Zipcar in placing 6 shared vehicles on its campuses, will be important for maximizing the benefit of this strategy.
Free or Discounted Rideshare Parking Minimal cost. Maximum loss for 50% discount is $0.40 per space per hour – less than $20 per week, per space.
Free “Limited Use” Passes for Employers with Evening Operations Virtually no new cost:
z New cars will be filling empty spaces, not displacing any paying customers. z New users are not currently significant consumers of passes at current prices, therefore the discount (or give-away) amounts to little to no lost revenue.
Valet Parking Pilot at Maynard Structure This is, at worst, a revenue-neutral action. For evening services, revenue from valet fees should more than offset program costs. For daytime services, capacity gains for permit-parking can garner significant savings in both direct revenue and reduced demand for new parking spaces.
Capacity gains can be as high as forty percent, but conservatively assuming a one- third capacity gain, parking for 100 visitor vehicles can be accommodated by 75 valet-controlled spaces, compared to 100 individually accessible spaces. Setting aside 25 fewer spaces for shoppers means roughly 25 more permits that can be offered. At $125 per permit each month, that’s over $3,000 in new revenue from existing spaces each month. Compared to a construction cost of $36,000 per structured space, eliminating the demand for 25 new spaces amounts to nearly $1 million dollars in savings. Additional savings could be realized if this program were expanded to multiple sites.
The Maynard pilot should run at least six months to properly gauge success, and should probably run the full 12 months in support of the State Street PDB pilot. Success for the valet program can be measured in numerous ways, including:
z Increased daytime revenues – more efficient accommodation of short-term parking should allow for more monthly parking; z Increased evening utilization – utilization should increase from utilization among those resistant to personally accessing structures; and z Evening service revenues – the convenience fee attached to evening valet should provide a direct indication of the level of use the program is achieving.
The DDA should rely on their contracted parking operator’s expertise in the management of valet services to decide program details such as:
Page 5-32 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z Car storage options to minimize circulation issues and retrieval time; z Developing flexible staffing and storage plans for various demand conditions – event nights, graduations, shopping seasons, etc.; and z Access-point locations.
Note: Due to the age of Maynard and other structures, an engineering assessment may be required to determine the maximum weight load of upper structure floors before tandem parking efficiencies are sought.
Evening Link Service Current service runs until approximately 6:00 PM at a per hour cost of roughly $154 for two buses. Existing evening service that runs until 11:00 PM is limited. Assuming that existing evening service runs at about half the cost of full service, the proposed service would amount to a new cost of roughly $400 per night – approximately $84,000 for eight months of service.
All parties involved in funding existing service – The City, the DDA, the AATA– have a vested interest in the benefits offered by evening service. All are recommended to be involved in the planning for, and funding of, the service extension.
State Street Area Parking Benefit District Pilot Costs of the program include:
z Roll out of multi-space meters offering electronic and cash payment options – about $20,000 per machine (this Action is currently planned by the DDA; this recommendation is simply to start installation in the State Street Area, and possibly accelerate the planned roll-out); and z Added evening meter-enforcement labor costs.
Revenue from the program can be expected from:
z New on-street parking charges (dedicated to new fund) – about $2.70 per space, per night; and z Valet fees.
Organizational and legal requirements of this program include:
z The City empowering the DDA to adjust rates in response to parking occupancy, with the policy goal of attaining approximately 85 percent occupancy on most blocks (see Redwood City ordinance in the Appendix); and z Coordination between the DDA, the State Street Area Association, and the Chamber of Commerce – this will be critical to the success of the pilot.
Page 5-33 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Additional input from the City, the AATA, and the University will be highly beneficial as well.
Complete Information and Wayfinding Campaign No new costs. This program is already funded and in the process of implementation.
Commuter Bus Service The AATA estimates the cost of contracting commuter bus operations at about $330,000. This is for routes between Downtown and two cities, each running two morning peak and two afternoon peak trips. The contracted buses are highway coaches with high-back seats, reading lights, and overhead storage racks, offering at least 45 seats.
Coordination will be vital to implementing this service as this would be a new type of service for the area. A coordinated effort between the DDA, the University, and the Chamber of Commerce will be crucial to pushing its realization and ensuring that the maximum potential benefit is derived from this investment. None of these parties may have enough incentive on their own to implement such a service, however between the cost savings from reduced demand for new parking spaces for the DDA and the University, the potential to increase AATA’s presence in the region, and the marketability of Downtown jobs for the Chamber, there is more than enough collective incentive to work out funding and implementation issues.
Track Technology Investment Opportunities Minimal staff time costs – approximately 50 general staff level hours per year, or 1 hour of research/literature review per week.
Expand Guaranteed Ride Home Program Minimal new cost. Project Team experience indicates that the value of these programs lies is in the assurance they offer to participants, and that participants actually rarely take advantage of the ride service. Representatives from the AATA stated that that has been the experience with the existing program so far as well.
Coordinate Park and Ride Improvements Moderate staff hour commitments – approximately 20 general staff level hours per month for four months.
Coordination between the AATA, the DDA, and the Chamber of Commerce will aid in the identification of ideal parking locations, building upon recommendations made in the recently completed “County-Wide Service Plan” completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff. . A group effort to survey employee perceptions of the value of various location options and stop amenities – spaces within a retail center parking
Page 5-34 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
lot, specific nearby uses, next/last bus and directional signage, etc. – offer the greatest potential for ridership gains.
Leave Parking Exemptions in Zoning Code No action recommended. No new costs.
Facilitate Shared On-Site Parking No new costs. Incorporated into proposed changes to zoning code ordinances.
Pursue Existing Joint-Development Opportunities No new costs – continuation of on-going efforts.
Continue Seeking Joint Development Opportunities No new costs – continuation of on-going efforts.
Identify Priority Areas Minimal new cost. Coordinated with “Conditions Review” discussed above. Roughly 16 additional general staff level hours for annual review of geographic constraint patterns.
The first step for this Action should be to use Phase I data to identify priority areas of potential expansion. Utilization data for off-street facilities should be updated and tracked using existing technologies to guide decision marking. Updating the calculations of on-street utilization can be completed from the Conditions Review data collection, with minimal staffing requirements.
Select Short-Term Actions
Debit Accounts Alternative to Monthly Permits Moderate cost.
The DDA has already introduced a “smart” card for parking customers. Interested individuals pay a $10 deposit for the card and then place however much value they want on the card. At this point there are several dozen out in circulation and many more being requested by phone. .
Transitioning from DDA’s current initiative to a comprehensive “smart” card would be expected to require a moderate financial and staff time investment, since it would be building upon the current process.
Provide Parking Discount to Networking Sessions Participants Minimal new cost. Discounts are recommended only when market pricing of off- street spaces results in rates that are too high to support local businesses. Discounts,
Page 5-35 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
therefore are tied to business development, and would only amount to a reduction of already increased rates, or a limit on new potential revenues from market-rate pricing.
Summer Link Service Extending day and evening service, as recommended as a Short-Term action above, from an eight-month service to a year-round service would add roughly $50,000 in service costs.
Funding and coordination for this service would be expected to continue in their current form.
Formalize In Lieu Fee Option No new costs. Incorporated into proposed changes to zoning ordinances.
This Action will require a change in the City’s Zoning Code. Once established, this is a revenue-positive supply management strategy that shifts parking activity away from dedicated, site-specific inventories and into the shared, public inventory, while producing funds to support implementation of the parking management Toolbox.
New Parking Requirements z Minimum bicycle parking requirements z Preferential parking spaces reserved for registered rideshare vehicles z Car sharing spaces
No new costs. The minimal space needed to meet these requirements is assumed to have little impact on the appeal of Downtown development opportunities. In the long term, the positive affect on low-impact transportation options could further enhance Downtown’s appeal as a uniquely accessible place to live,
Figure 5-7 below summaries the feasibility factors discussed above and provides a brief review of other factors likely to be involved in the successful implementation of each Action.
Page 5-36 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 5-7 Actions: Implementation Factors
Key Institutions - New Cost Preliminary Cost Coordination and/ or Self- Revenue Basic Performance Toolbox Actions Factors Projections Funding Other Funding Sources Funding Generator Measure/s Funding the DDA’s Financial Minimal DDA, City, and All incremental and new No No Public improvements, Transportation fund Structuring Neighborhood Area parking-related revenues transportation investments Associations Conditions Review Staff hours Minimal DDA None Necessary No No On-Street and Off-Street Utilization Efficiencies Lead by Example Staff hours Minimal City None Necessary No No City employee SOV commute share Travel Choice Salary - $15,000 per intern City, AATA, DDA, Funding the DDA’s No No Downtown Employee SOV Coordinator Office Interns Neighborhood Area Transportation fund Mode Share Salary - Staff $45,000, plus benefits Association, and the Chamber of Commerce Expanded Car Share None Revenue guarantee DDA, UM None Necessary Yes Potentially Revenue, Downtown Program Employee SOV Mode Share Discount for Rideshare Lost Parking Minimal - More than offset DDA, AATA None Necessary No No Downtown Employee Vehicles Revenue by reduced demand for Rideshare Mode Share new spaces Maynard Structure Valet Labor Moderate City, DDA, Neighborhood None Necessary Yes Potentially Revenue, Evening Off-Street Area Association, and the Utilization, Parking Search Chamber of Commerce Traffic State Street PBD Pilot New Meters $15-20,000 each DDA None Yes Yes On-Street Availability and Labor - Minimal - Additional City, DDA, Neighborhood None Necessary Partial No Parking Search Traffic Enforcement enforcement costs offset Area Association, and the by additional violation Chamber of Commerce revenue Evening Link Service Operating $76.53 per service hour City, DDA, Neighborhood AATA, DDA, City, No No Hourly Ridership, Parking Costs Area Association, and the getDowntown, UM, P&T Search Traffic Capital Costs No new buses needed. Chamber of Commerce Fund Express Commuter Bus Capital and Capital and Operating - City, DDA, AATA, UM, Farebox, Funding the Partial No Annual Ridership, Reduced Service Operating $330,000 annually for Chamber of Commerce DDA’s Transportation Off-Street Midday Parking service to two cities fund, Federal Programs Demand, Parking Permit Turnover Rates Track Technology TCC Office 8 Hours per month, City, DDA, AATA, UM, None Necessary No No Increased roll out of new Investments Staff Hours networking and reviewing Chamber of Commerce transportation technologies
Page 5-37 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Key Institutions - New Cost Preliminary Cost Coordination and/ or Self- Revenue Basic Performance Toolbox Actions Factors Projections Funding Other Funding Sources Funding Generator Measure/s intern reports. TCC Office 8 Hours per week Intern Hours Park and Ride Next Bus Moderate - variable AATA, DDA, Chamber of Funding the DDA’s No No Annual Ridership, Reduced Systems Commerce Transportation fund Off-Street Midday Parking Lease Moderate - variable Federal grants Demand Agreements NMT Programs Additional Additional 5% of City Not Applicable No No Downtown Employee Bike and Funding transportation budget Pedestrian Mode Shares Parking Information and None On-going, funded program DDA None Necessary No No Evening and Weekend Wayfinding Utilization at Structures Zoning - No Minimums None No action Not necessary None Necessary - - Increased Private Parking Utilization Rates Joint-Development Space $36-40K per space DDA Funding the DDA’s Yes Potentially Midday Utilization, Permit/ Supply Expansion construction Transportation fund Debit Account Wait Lists Debit Accounts for Moderate Entry gate access DDA None Necessary No No Wait List - 30 Days or Shorter, Commuters systems, staff time for Short-term Parking Utilization marketing Discount for employees No new cost Discounts only go into DDA, Chamber of None Necessary No No Employer retention, office of Travel Choice effect after increased off- Commerce, City vacancy rates Networking participants street rates
Page 5-38 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
APPENDIX A IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Appendix A – Implementation Examples
Following are examples where some Toolbox recommendations have been implemented, along with a web source for further information on most.
Park Once
Santa Monica, CA The downtown plan seeks a “Park Once -Pedestrian First” approach which emphasizes prominent identification of parking entrances so that visitors park at the first available parking facility. New commercial development pays into a shared parking fund and is not required to provide separate parking. An active street frontage is essential to encourage walking, which calls for ground-floor retail fronting the structures to minimize “dead space” and conceal parking facilities to improve street level views1.
Monrovia, CA (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 for senior citizens) 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
1 Muller, J (2004) “Piecing Together City’s Parking Puzzle”, Santa Monica Daily Press, 31 July 2004.
Page A-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
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 more nighttime business uses are anticipated to 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 in demand.
More information at http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm
Parking & Transportation Fund
Pasadena, CA Prior to1993, all curb parking in Old Pasadena was free, restricted only by a two-hour time limit. Employees typically parked in the most convenient spaces, moving their cars periodically to avoid citations, and customers had difficulty finding places to park. City staff proposed installing meters but the merchants and property owners opposed the idea. They realized that employees occupied many of the most convenient curb spaces, but they feared that meters would discourage customers from coming to the area. Customers and tenants, they assumed, would simply go to shopping centers (such as the nearby Plaza Pasadena) that offered free parking. Meter proponents countered that anyone who left because they couldn't park free would make room for others who were willing to pay for parking and who would probably spend more money while they were in Old Pasadena.
Debates about the meters dragged on for two years before the city compromised with the merchants and property owners by offering to spend all meter revenue to pay for public investments in the district. The desire for public improvements soon outweighed the fear of driving customers away. They agreed to an unusually high rate of $1 an hour for curb parking, and to the unusual policy of operating the meters in the evenings and on Sunday.
The city installed the parking meters in 1993, and immediately borrowed $5 million to finance the "Old Pasadena Streetscape and Alleyways Project," with the meter revenue dedicated to repaying the debt. The bond proceeds paid for street furniture, trees, tree grates, and historic lighting fixtures throughout the area. Dilapidated alleys were turned into safe, functional pedestrian spaces with access to shops and restaurants.
Old Pasadena's 690 parking meters yielded $1.3 million ($1,826 per meter) in 2001. Additional revenue from valet parking services at meter spaces, and investment earnings on the meter fund balance brought total 2001 revenue to $1.4 million ($2,096 per meter). The total capital and operating expenses for collecting the revenue amounted to $383 per
Page A-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
meter (18 percent of total meter revenue). Old Pasadena therefore received $1.2 million of net parking revenue ($1,712 per meter) to fund additional public services.
More information at http://www.sonomatlc.org/Parking/PBDs/BusinessPBD/SmallChange-1.htm
In-Lieu Fees
Pasadena, CA The city’s “Parking Credit Program” allows property owners in Old Pasadena to pay a small fee in lieu of satisfying minimum parking requirements on-site. The fee is annual, rather than the lump sum common for similar fees in many other cities, allowing developers to avoid financing problems. (On the downside, this has created some revenue collection issues, particularly where property has changed owners.) The fee is set at an extremely low rate ($127 per year per space in 2004).
The in-lieu fee revenue has helped to fund two public parking structures, which total 1,567 spaces, and provided a public contribution to a private structure that is open to the public. (One space has been built for every 1.5 parking credits awarded; fewer spaces are required since the spaces are shared between different uses.) These in-lieu fees provide only a small portion – 5% – of the funding needed to build and operate the garages, but they do provide the link between the waiver in minimum parking requirements, and the provision of public parking.
More information at http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/planning/deptorg/curplng/pkgcredit.asp
Payment Options
New York, NY The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey offers subscribers to its E-ZPass (debit account/ mounted payment device system for toll payments) who replenish their accounts with a major credit card the ability to pay for parking at the three Port Authority airports and at Albany International Airport in Albany, New York with their E-ZPass device. The Port Authority reports that drivers save an average of 15 seconds by opting to pay for airport parking using E-ZPass.
More information at http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/ind ex.php?id=298
Page A-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Aspen, CO The City of Aspen provides several parking payment options in downtown areas including tokens, pre-paid "smart cards", and pre-paid in-car meters.
Vancouver, BC, Canada All City of Vancouver parking meters accept payment by mobile phone as an alternative to paying at the meter with coins.
Washington, DC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority from April 2007 is piloting credit card/ smart crd payment options for parking at six Metrorail stations. Each facility will have one exit lane that accepts credit card or "SmarTrip" card payments.
More information at http://www.wmata.com/about/MET_NEWS/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1586
Wayfinding
San Jose, CA Visitors will soon be able to receive information on availability at city-owned downtown lots and garages by sending a text message from their cell phone. Users will get a response in minutes.
More information at http://www.sjdowntownparking.com/text_msgs.php
Chicago, IL Metra, the city’s commuter rail provider, has installed a comprehensive system at its park- and-ride facilities that allows users to know, not only the number of spaces available in the parking garage, but the amount of available spaces at other station parking garages up and down the line. The dynamic message signs provide the available number of spaces at each lot and static directional arrows direct the drivers to these lots.
More information at http://www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14318_files/study_site_desc.htm
Page A-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Valet Parking
Manhattan Beach, CA The City, lacking sufficient short-term parking capacity especially during evenings and on the weekends, to support downtown restaurants and merchants, worked with the business district to create a parking management program that included valet parking. A valet service provider uses ten designated spaces as valet stands where cars are dropped off or picked up. According to an article in Parking Today (1999), the program successfully increased the parking capacity by 210 spaces. Customers are charged $2.50 for the first two hours and $1 for each subsequent 20 minutes, with a cap at $12.50 for the total charge.
More information at http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/publications/parkingstudy.pdf
Pasadena, CA The City of Pasadena implemented a valet parking program that regulates valet parking in the historic 20-block Old Pasadena area. Restaurants are the most common business that uses valet parking. One operation is allowed per block. As a result, one operator might serve four restaurants. Parking demand for prime spaces is high and restaurant customers are willing to pay for valet parking services.
More information at http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/publications/parkingstudy.pdf
Zoning Excerpts of recent changes to the City of San Francisco’s zoning ordinances are presented below, as applicable to some of the recommendations contained within the preceding memo. All changes are related to the creation of an overlay zoning district – The Mid- Market Special Use District
Sec. 249.27. Mid-Market Special Use District.
Purposes. The Mid-Market Special Use District promotes the development of a mix of uses in the Mid-Market Redevelopment Project Area, including new housing of a range of types and affordable to a variety of income levels. These controls support the development of arts, cultural, and entertainment uses and encourages the adaptive reuse of historic resources in the district. Design controls ensure that uses at the lower floors enhance public safety and encourage active uses along Market Street and other public rights-of-way. In accordance with the City’s Transit First Policy and in recognition of the district’s accessibility by means other than private automobile, accessory parking is limited, long-
Page A-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
term parking is discouraged, and additional short-term parking to support arts, cultural and entertainment uses is permitted subject to a Conditional Use review.
Above-Grade Parking. Parking accessory to a permitted use or in replacement of surface parking lots shall be limited to no more than three levels above grade with a total maximum height not to exceed 35 feet above street grade. Variance from this requirement shall not be permitted under if such parking is accessory to a permitted use.
Street-Facing Use Requirements. Frontages of newly constructed buildings which face a public street or a public alley shall be lined with active uses for a minimum depth of 25 feet on the ground floor and 15 feet on all floors above. Active uses shall be provided along the length of the building frontage between all parking and the public right-of-way.
General Exceptions. This street-facing use requirement may be reduced provided the following criteria are met:
z It can be demonstrated that adherence to the street-facing use requirements described above is not possible given the constraints of the project site. z Active uses as defined above occupy the ground floor for an average depth of 20 feet from the street-facing property line and the ground floor has a ceiling height of no less than 16 feet for the full depth of the required active uses. z Parking on upper floors is entirely screened from public rights-of-way in a manner that accentuates ground floor retail and other uses, minimizes louvers and other mechanical features, and is in keeping with the overall massing and architectural vocabulary of the building’s lower floors. z The project sponsor has incorporated space-saving parking technologies and practices such as valet and tandem parking, mechanical parking stackers and other available techniques.
Separating Parking Costs From Housing Costs.. Residential units shall be made available for rent or purchase at a price separate from the price of a parking space
Above-Grade Parking Setback. Any parking built above street grade must be set back at least 25 feet on the ground floor and 15 feet at all other levels from any façade facing a public right-of-way. Space for active uses shall be provided along the frontages for the above-mentioned setback depths.
Ground Floor Commercial Uses. Active, pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are a required ground floor use on street-facing building frontages in the locations listed in this subsection. Where these uses are required, they shall occupy no less than 75 percent of the building frontage and shall be open at the pedestrian eye-level allowing visibility to the inside of the building. Such openings shall use clear, un-tinted glass, except for decorative or architectural accent. Any decorative railings or decorative grille work, other than wire mesh, which is placed in front of or behind such windows, shall be at least 75 percent open to perpendicular view and no more than six feet in height above grade.
Page A-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Definition of Active Uses.
z Ground Floor. Active uses at the ground floor shall include those that are oriented to public access and walk-up pedestrian activity, and generate human-oriented activity. These uses shall not include any use whose primary function is the storage of goods or vehicles, utility installations, any office use, any use oriented toward motorized vehicles, or any use or portion of a use which by its nature requires non- transparent walls facing a public street. Some uses are restricted as follows: − Non-Auto Vehicle Sales and Rental are only considered as active uses if their use is limited to the sales and rental of bicycles, or the sales of scooters or motorcycles, and no curb-cuts, garage doors, or loading access are required on streets where such are restricted in this Code, and pedestrian movement on abutting sidewalks is not infringed. − Public Uses considered active uses except utility installations. − Residential Uses are considered active uses only if a majority of residential uses at the ground level have direct, individual pedestrian access to a public sidewalk or street. Spaces accessory to residential uses, such as fitness or community rooms, are considered active uses only if they meet the intent of this section and have access directly to the public sidewalk or street.
z Floors Above the Ground Floor. Active uses on floors above the ground floor shall include all office uses, all residential uses, hotels, and any industrial or light industrial use that is permitted in the district and meets the intent of this Section.
Sec. 155.5 Bicycle Parking Required For Residential Uses For buildings of 4 dwelling units or more, bicycle parking shall be provided in the minimum quantities specified in the table below, regardless of whether off-street car parking is available. The maximum requirement is 400 spaces.
Figure 1 - Bicycle Parking Requirements
Housing Type Minimum Bike Parking Space Required 1 Space/ 2 Dwelling Units for up to 50 Units. Dwelling Units 1 Space/ 4 Dwelling Units over 50 Group-Housing 1 Space/ 3 Bedrooms Senior Housing None Required Disabled Housing None Required
Layout. Above a requirement of 100 spaces, up to one-third of the spaces may require the bicycle to be parked in a vertical position. Large developments with multiple buildings are encouraged to site required bicycle parking in smaller facilities located close to residential entries for each building, rather than in one large centralized garage space. Required bicycle parking spaces shall not be provided within dwelling units, balconies, or required open space.
Page A-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Sec. 166. CAR SHARING.
Definitions. For purposes of this Code, the following definitions apply:
z A "car-share service" is a mobility enhancement service that provides an integrated citywide network of neighborhood-based motor vehicles available to members by reservation on an hourly basis, or in smaller intervals, and at variable rates. Car sharing is designed to complement existing transit and bicycle transportation systems by providing a practical alternative to private motor vehicle ownership, with the goal of reducing over-dependency on individually owned motor vehicles. z A "car-share organization" is any public or private entity that provides a membership based car-share service to the public and manages, maintains and insures motor vehicles for shared use by individual and group members. The Planning Department shall maintain a list of recognized car-share organizations meeting the standards and intent of this Section. z An “off-street car-share parking space” is any parking space generally complying with the standards set forth for the district in which it is located and dedicated for current or future use by any car share organization through a deed restriction, condition of approval or license agreement. Such deed restriction, condition of approval or license agreement must grant priority use to any car-share organization that can make use of the space, although such spaces may be occupied by other vehicles so long as no car-share organization can make use of the dedicated car- share spaces. z A “car-share vehicle” is a vehicle provided by a car share organization for the purpose of providing a car share-service. z A “property owner” refers to the owner of a property at the time of project approval and its successors and assigns.
Requirements for Provision of Car-Share Parking Spaces In newly constructed buildings in DTR districts and in the Mid-Market Special Use District containing residential uses or existing buildings being converted to residential uses, car-share parking spaces shall be provided as follows:
Number of Residential Units Number of Required Car Share Parking Spaces 0-49 0 50-200 1 201 or More 1, plus 1 for every 200 dwelling units over 200
In all other newly constructed buildings, one car-share parking space shall be provided for each increment of parking permitted, as follows:
Number of Residential Units Number of Required Car Share Parking Spaces 0-24 0 25-75 1 76-125 2, plus 1 for every 50 dwelling units over 125
Page A-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
The required car-share spaces shall be made available, at no cost, to a car-share organization for purposes of providing car-share services for its car-share service subscribers. At the election of the property owner, the car-share spaces may be provided:
z On the building site, z On another off-street site within 800 feet of the building site, or z If approved by the Board of Supervisors, at a curbside site on a public street within 800 feet of the building site.
The parking areas of the building shall be designed in a manner that will make the car- share parking spaces accessible to non-resident subscribers from outside the building as well as building occupants.
Prior to Planning Department approval of the first building or site permit for a building subject to the car share requirement, a Notice of Special Restriction on the property shall be recorded indicating the nature of requirements of this Section and identifying the number and location of the required car-share parking spaces. The form of the notice and the location or locations of the car-share parking spaces shall be approved by the Planning Department.
All car-share parking spaces shall be constructed and provided concurrently with the construction and sale of units.
If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that no car-share organization can make use of the dedicated car-share parking spaces, the spaces may be occupied by non-car-share vehicles; provided, however, that upon ninety (90) days of advance written notice to the property owner from a car-sharing organization, the property owner shall terminate any non cars-haring leases for such spaces and shall make the spaces available to the car-share organization for its use of such spaces.
Sec.167. Separating Parking Costs from Housing Costs in New Residential Buildings
All off-street parking spaces accessory to residential uses in new structures of 10 dwelling units or more, or in new conversions of non-residential buildings to residential use of 10 dwelling units or more, shall be leased or sold separately from the rental or purchase fees for dwelling units for the life of the dwelling units, such that potential renters or buyers have the option of renting or buying a residential unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single price for both the residential unit and the parking space. Renters or buyers of on-site inclusionary affordable unitsshall have an equal opportunity to rent or buy a parking space on the same terms and conditions as offered to renters or buyers of other dwelling units.
Page A-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Exception. The Zoning Administrator may grant an administrative exception from this requirement for projects for which low-income housing tax credit financing requires that costs for parking and housing be bundled.
Page A-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
APPENDIX B COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW
APPENDIX B – COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW
The following pages are excerpts from a DRAFT-version Fare Analysis report conducted by Nelson\Nygaard for the City of Colorado Springs Front Range Express (FREX) commuter bus service. Draft February 2007
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS FREX Fare Analysis FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
FrontRange Express (FREX) is a commuter bus service that has been operating between Colorado Springs and Denver since October 2004. This service is a popular alternative to driving along this congested corridor, with strong ridership projections, and high customer satisfaction. It is the first and only public transit connection between the Pikes Peak Region and the Denver Metro Area, the two largest employment markets in Colorado.
Funding over the past two years has been provided by a Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) grant. This demonstration funding ends in September 2007, with local funding identified to maintain and expand the program. In September 2006, the CDOT Transportation Commission recommended $7.9 million in Senate Bill 1 (SB1) dollars be awarded to FREX. On November 8, 2006, the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) awarded $1.4 million in additional CMAQ money to continue FREX through its demonstration period. This funding will be used to both subsidize operations and to purchase a new fleet of vehicles dedicated to the FREX service.
FREX service operates between 3:45 am and 9:40 pm, with 15 minute headways and stops in Fountain, Colorado Springs, Monument, Castle Rock, Arapahoe and Denver. The predominant travel pattern of commuters is north towards Denver in the AM Peak, and south towards Colorado Springs in the PM peak, but reverse-commute service is available as well. Scheduled travel time between Colorado Springs and Denver is approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes, covering almost 70 miles. FREX is administered by the Transit Services Division of the City of Colorado Springs and operated by Mountain Metropolitan Transit, the local transit provider in Colorado Springs.
FREX buses have been 45-passenger coaches with high-back cushion seats. Wireless internet service was available on the buses, at no additional cost to passengers. Mechanical difficulties have forced FREX to temporarily replace these coaches with fixed- route buses. New 40-passenger coach buses, with restored internet service, will be put into service in mid-2007. Because it is a commute service, parallel paratransit service is not required, and not provided.
The fare structure has been relatively simple, ranging from $2 one-way for the shortest-trips to $6 one-way for the full length of the route. This fare structure is shown in Figure 1-1. Volume discounts are available in 10, 20 and 40-ride increments. A 50% discount is offered to seniors, Medicare and disabled passengers during off-peak hours (10 am – 3 pm). These fares were consistent during the duration of the two-year pilot project, but FREX wished to reconsider them as the program has become more firmly established and funding shifts from CMAQ to the local agencies (CDOT and PPRTA).
Page 1-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Figure 1-1 Existing Fare Structure
One-Way 10 Ride 20 Ride 40 Ride Cash Fare Ticket Ticket Ticket Fountain Colorado Springs $2 - $35 - Colorado Springs/Fountain Denver $6 $55 $95 $180 Monument Colorado Springs $3 $27 $50 $90 Denver $4 $35 $65 $120 Castle Rock $2 - - - Castle Rock Colorado Springs $4 $35 $65 $120 Denver $3 $27 $50 $90 Monument $2 - - - *Cash fare for Senior Citizens (60 & over), Medicare and Disabled passengers during Non-Peak Hours (10 a.m. - 3 p.m.) is 50% of the one-way cash fare. No discount is available on multi-ride tickets.
Key considerations when establishing a new fare structure for the service were increasing costs, especially fuel costs, and the stated goal of meeting 50% of operating costs with farebox revenues. Ridership is expected to be sensitive to a fare increase; the analysis therefore considered estimated fare revenues given a projected temporary drop in ridership. Other considerations included: inflation (especially of costs directly related to transit service provision), life-cycle capital costs, new marketing initiatives, and expectations of continued growth in ridership as the FREX service becomes more well- known in the region.
Several basic fare options were explored, including an across the board increase in fares, or different fare levels for different route segments, time-periods, and/or passenger categories. The elasticity of demand for the service was estimated to evaluate the potential impact on ridership due to changes in the fares.
Page 1-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Chapter 4. Peer Review
This chapter presents the results of a peer review of similar commute services elsewhere in the United States. The primary objective of the review was to compare and contrast characteristics between agencies and to understand their fare structure and policies. This information provides a good benchmark for FREX, to assist in its fare restructuring and development of fare policies.
Five similar commute services were reviewed:
z Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) – service from the Antelope Valley to Los Angeles, California
z Clear Air Express – service from Lompoc and Santa Maria to Santa Barbara and Goleta, California
z Roseville Transit – service from Roseville to Sacramento, California
z Santa Clarita Transit – service from Santa Clarita to Los Angeles
z Sound Transit Express – comprehensive service throughout the Seattle, Washington metropolitan region, including service to and from Tacoma and Everett.
Some agencies provide both commuter and local service. This peer review specifically examines their commute services. Comprehensive data on operating characteristics was gathered to compare services, performance, and costs. Most peer agencies reviewed have similar services as FREX, with at most a few commute routes and less than 500,000 annual boardings and less than $3 million in annual operating costs. Sound Transit is an exception, with almost 9 million annual boardings and almost $60 million in annual operating costs. Their express bus network is much larger than FREX and the other peers, but might represent a longer-term service goal of the Front Range region. Also, Sound Transit currently charges fares based upon a zone system, which is a potential future fare structure option for FREX.
The peer review consisted of a three-step process. First, a questionnaire was developed to gather information about service area, operating characteristics, fare structure and policy (a copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix A). To minimize the burden on peer agencies, some data was gathered in advance from the National Transit Database and respective transit agency websites. The questionnaire was then sent to a contact at each agency who filled in the remaining data. In some cases, a follow-up phone call helped clarify information, and provided an opportunity to gather more qualitative information about fare policy and agency experiences.
Page 4-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Peer Agency Operating Characteristics All five agencies are located on the west coast, either in California or in the case of Sound Transit, the State of Washington. The service area populations of smaller commute services range from 210,000 (Santa Clarita) up to 400,000 (Antelope Valley), with 2.6 million in the Sound Transit service area. The service area population for FREX is almost 1 million, including over 500,000 in the City of Denver. Figure 4-1 presents operating characteristics and transit data on the peer agencies.
Hours of operation vary. All agencies provide commute service during AM and PM peak hours. Some operate all day Monday through Friday and/or have weekend service. Peak hour headways range from 10 minutes up to an hour. FREX service is currently available all day Monday-Friday, from 3:45 am - 9:40 pm, with 15 minute peak hour headways.
Annual boardings in 2005 ranged from 86,170 (Roseville Transit) up to 314,647 (Santa Clarita Transit), with Sound Transit Express having 8.8 million annual boardings. FREX had 118,389 boardings in 2005 and 154,861 boardings in 2006.
Page 4-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Figure 4-1 Comparison of Commuter Service Operating Statistics
Transit Agency AVTA Clean Air Express Roseville Transit Santa Clarita Transit Sound Transit FREX Colorado Springs, Location Antelope Valley, CA Santa Barbara, CA Roseville, CA Santa Clarita, CA Seattle, WA CO Service Area Population 400,000 277,449 108,848 210,000 2,653,000 414,000 Service Area Size (sq. mi.) 1,200 2,737 33 60 1,086 100 Primary Destination Los Angeles Goleta & Santa Barbara Sacramento Los Angeles Seattle Denver Population 3.7 million 147,529 445,287 3.7 million 572,600 554,636 Service Characteristics # of Routes 3 4 7 10 25 1 Average Route Length (approx) 67 60 21 35 25 89 Peak Hour Headways (approx.) 20-40 min 30-40 min 16 min 10 min 15-30 min 15 min
Service Days Monday-Friday Monday-Friday Monday-Friday Monday-Friday 7 days a week Monday-Friday 3:45-8:50 am, 5:15-8:00 am, 5:00 am-9:00 am, Service Hours 3:45 am - 8:45 pm 6:00 am - midnight 3:45 am - 9:40 pm 3:00-7:40 pm 3:30-6:30 pm 3:20-7:00 pm Operating Statistics Annual Revenue Hours 20,176 6,512 6,463 32,644 418,167 23,608
Annual Revenue Miles 657,863 296,422 160,520 826,850 10,254,710 795,456
Annual Boardings 289,022 127,435 86,170 314,647 8,815,793 154,861 Annual Operating Cost $ 1,523,731 $ 948,000 $359,600 $ 2,988,932 $ 57,151,186 $ 1,427,939 Annual Passenger Fares $ 1,392,302 $ 602,173 $288,842 $ 962,788 $ 13,429,855 $ 555,156
Farebox Recovery Ratio 91% 64% 80% 32% 23% 39%
Year for which operating statistics given FY 05 2005 FY 05-06 FY 05-06 2005 2006 Data Sources: 2005 National Transit Database, US Census American Community Survey (2005), local service implementation plans and annual reports, and information provided by transit agency staff. Note: FREX - Service Area Population is sum population of cities served except Denver (Fountain, Colorado Springs, Monument and Castle Rock). Clean Air Express -- Population is Census 2005 combined for cities served: Santa Maria, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, and Goleta.
Page 4-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Operating Cost per Revenue Hour
The cost per revenue hour ranges from $55.64 (Roseville Transit) up to $145.58 (Clean Air Express), with an average of $101 (excluding FREX). FREX had an operating cost of $60.49 per revenue hour in 2006, significantly lower than most other agencies.
Figure 4-2 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour
$160 $160.00
$145.58
$140 $136.67 $140.00
$120 $120.00
Average = $101 $100 $100.00 $91.56
$80 $75.52 $80.00
$60.49 $60 $55.64 $60.00
$40 $40.00
$20 $20.00
$- $- AVTA Clean Air Express Roseville Transit Santa Clarita Transit Sound Transit FREX
Note: Average excludes FREX
Page 4-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Operating Cost per Passenger The operating cost per boarding ranges from $4.17 (Roseville Transit) up to $9.50 (Santa Clarita Transit), with an average passenger cost of $6.57. FREX had an operating cost of $9.22 per passenger in 2006, relatively high compared to most other agencies. The operating cost per passenger is expected to drop as FREX ridership continues to climb.
Figure 4-3 Operating Cost per Boarding
$10.00 $12.00 $9.50 $9.22 $9.00
$10.00 $8.00 $7.44 $7.00 $6.48 $8.00
$6.00 $5.27 Average = $6.57
$5.00 $6.00 $4.17 $4.00
$4.00 $3.00
$2.00 $2.00
$1.00
$- $- AVTA Clean Air Express Roseville Transit Santa Clarita Transit Sound Transit FREX Note: Average excludes FREX
Passengers per Revenue Hour The number of passengers per revenue hour ranges from 9.6 (Santa Clarita Transit) up to 21.1 (Sound Transit), with an average of 15.6 passengers per revenue hour. FREX had 6.6 passengers per revenue hour, significantly lower than the other agencies. As with per passenger operating costs, productivity is expected to improve with an increase in ridership.
Page 4-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Figure 4-4 Passenger per Revenue Hour
25.0 25.00
21.1 20.0 19.6 20.00
Average = 15.6 15.0 14.3 15.00 13.3
9.6 10.0 10.00
6.6
5.0 5.00
- - AVTA Clean Air Express Roseville Transit Santa Clarita Transit Sound Transit FREX
Note: Average excludes FREX
Farebox Recovery Ratio There is significant variation in the farebox recovery ratio between agencies, ranging from a low of 23% for Sound Transit up to 91% for AVTA. The farebox recovery ratio for FREX was 39% in 2006. This information is summarized in Figure 4-5.
Targets vary as well – Sound Transit has a low target recovery ratio of 20%, whereas targets for Antelope Valley and Clean Air Express are 90% and 100%, respectively. Targets are set based upon a variety of factors, including political support for public subsidies. One peer agency noted that commute express service caters to “choice-riders” who can afford higher fares.
Figure 4-5 Farebox Recovery Ratio
Agency Percent AVTA 91% Clean Air Express 64% Roseville Transit 80% Santa Clarita Transit 32% Sound Transit 23% Average for all peer agencies 58% FREX 39%
Page 4-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Average Fare per Passenger As shown in Figure 4-6 below, the average fare per passenger ranges from $1.52 (Sound Transit) up to $4.73 (Clean Air Express). In 2006, FREX had an average fare per passenger of $3.45, very similar to the average of $3.50 for the other agencies. However, Sound Transit is a much larger agency with different operating characteristics. The average fare for the other transit agencies is $4.00, excluding Sound Transit. Note that this figure is for all fare types, calculated by dividing the total annual farebox revenue by total number of passengers.
Figure 4-6 Average Fare per Passenger
Agency Average Fare AVTA $ 4.82 Clean Air Express $ 4.73 Roseville Transit $ 3.35 Santa Clarita Transit $ 3.06 Sound Transit $ 1.52 Average $ 3.50 Average (Sound Transit excluded) $ 4.00 FREX $ 3.45
Peer Agency Fare Structure and Passenger Discounts Figure 4-7 shows the fare structure for commute service among the peer agencies and FREX. It lists the cash fare and all pre-paid fare instruments including multi-ride tickets and monthly passes as well as other special features of each agency’s fare structure.
Adult cash fares range from $1.50 (Sound Transit) up to $10 (AVTA). The cash fare for some agencies varies depending on distance traveled and other agencies have a flat fare. Sound Transit has a zone-system for fares, with three zones.
Page 4-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Figure 4-7 Fixed Route Fare Structure for Commuter Bus Services
AVTA Clean Air Express Santa Clarita Transit Roseville Transit Sound Transit FREX
Antelope Valley, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Clarita, CA Roseville, CA Seattle, WA Colorado Springs Cash $10 $6 $3.50 - $4.00 $2.75 - $3.80 $1.50 one-zone $2.00 - $6.00 $2.50 two-zone Monthly Pass $206-$247 $135 $118 - $133 $95 - $130 $54.00 one-zone N/A $228-$268 EZ Pass $60 - $67 for Seniors, $125 pass includes local $90 two-zone (all MTA) Disabled, Students transfers ($110 for Seniors and Disabled) $108 three-zone Tickets 10-ride $75 $45 N/A N/A N/A $27 - $55 20-ride N/A N/A $70 - $80 $55 - $76 N/A $35 - $95 40-ride N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $90 - $180 Transfers FREE to Local Service FREE to Local Service FREE for SCT, $0.25 FREE with Cash Fare FREE No for MTA Other Seniors and Disabled 50% discount for Lower fares for residents Seniors and Disabled: Seniors, Disabled 50% 50% Discount Seniors, Disabled, and and reverse commute, approx. 50% Discount; discount 10 am - 3 pm Students. higher fares for non- Students approx. 1/3 off residents
Page 4-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
All agencies offer a monthly pass and/or multi-ride tickets. None offer day, weekly, or 31- day rolling passes. AVTA and Clean Air Express both offer a 25% per-ride discount on 10- ride tickets. Santa Clarita Transit and Roseville Transit offer 20-ride tickets but only as a convenience, at the same per-ride cost as one-way cash fares. Comparatively, FREX offers multi-ride tickets, with a 25% discount on 40-ride tickets and lesser discounts on 10- and 20-ride tickets.
Figure 4-8 Discounts on Multi-Ride Tickets
Agency Ticket Type Cost Cost per Ride Cash Fare % Discount over Cash Fare AVTA 10-Ride $75 $7.50 $10.00 25% Clean Air Express 10-Ride $45 $4.50 $6.00 25% Roseville Transit 20-Ride $55 $2.75 $2.75 0% Santa Clarita Transit 20-Ride $75 $3.75 $3.75 0%
FREX 10-Ride $27-$55 $2.70-$5.50 $2 - $6 8.3-12.5% 20-Ride $35-$95 $1.75-$4.75 $2 - $6 17-21% 40-Ride $90-$180 $2.25-$4.50 $2 - $6 25% Note: Sound Transit does not offer multi-ride passes
The multiplier on monthly passes ranges from 21 up to 36 (see Figure 4-9). The multiplier is the number that is multiplied by the cash fare to determine the price of the monthly pass.
Figure 4-9 Multiplier on Monthly Pass
Multiplier on Monthly Pass AVTA 21-25 Clean Air Express 23 Roseville Transit 35 Santa Clarita Transit 34 Sound Transit 36 FREX n/a
Fare per Mile Figure 4-10 compares the approximate fare per mile for each peer agency. The fare is for travel along the full length of the route. Cash fares are about $0.10 per mile for most agencies, though Roseville Transit and AVTA are higher. Before FREX fares increased in February 2007, the average fare per mile was about $0.09.
Page 4-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
Figure 4-10 Fare per Mile
Approx. Route One-Way Approx. Fare Agency Length (miles) Cash Fare per Mile AVTA 67 $ 10.00 $ 0.15 Clean Air Express 60 $ 6.00 $ 0.10 Roseville Transit 21 $ 2.75 $ 0.13 Santa Clarita Transit 35 $ 3.50 $ 0.10 Sound Transit 25 $ 2.50 $ 0.10 AVERAGE (excluding FREX) 42 $ 4.95 $ 0.12 FREX 68 $ 6.00 $ 0.09
Transfers Transfer policy varies between agencies. Those with both local and commuter service generally offer free transfers to their own local fixed-route service, though Roseville Transit offers free transfers only to cash-fare passengers or those whom have purchased a higher- cost monthly pass ($125, compared to $90 for commute-route only pass. This pass is available only to residents of the City of Roseville). FREX does not currently offer free transfers to the local fixed-route service in Colorado Springs (Mountain Metropolitan Transit).
Transfers are generally not offered to local fixed-route service provided by other neighboring agencies, though Santa Clarita Transit riders can obtain an MTA (Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Agency) local-bus transfer for $0.25. AVTA riders can purchase a higher cost “EZ Pass” from MTA that includes unlimited rides on AVTA buses and all services within the MTA system.
Sound Transit Express tickets are accepted as a free transfer to local service on Pierce Transit (serving the City of Tacoma and surrounding Pierce County, Washington) and Community Transit (Southwest Snohomish County, Washington). Sound Transit Express tickets are also accepted as a free one-zone transfer on the King County Metro system. Likewise, local passes from these three systems are accepted as a one-zone transfer on Sound Transit Express buses.
Discounts Tickets Consistent with Federal requirements, all agencies offer a discount to seniors and disabled passengers, typically about 50% of full fare for cash-fares, multi-ride passes and monthly passes. FREX offers a 50% discount to seniors and disabled passengers during off-peak hours (10 am – 3 pm). Two agencies offer a student discount: Santa Clarita offers a 50% discount and Sound Transit provides an approximately 33% discount to students. FREX does not offer a student discount, nor is it typical for commute services to offer student discounts.
Page 4-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates FREX Fare Analysis CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
None of the peer agencies offer a discount during off-peak hours. Roseville Transit offers a lower price to residents and reverse-commuters (living in Sacramento and working in Roseville). AVTA offers a 10% discount for passes purchased online
Innovative Fare Policies Sound Transit has developed two programs in coordination with the community to reduce commute costs:
1. A “FlexPass” is available for employers to offer to their employees, costing $285 per year (or $341 with unlimited use of multiple systems in the region, including Community Transit and Metro VanPool). The program requires that a pass be purchased for every regular, full-time employee regardless of their current commute behavior. Currently 119,000 FlexPasses are in circulation.
2. The “U-Pass,” available to students, staff and faculty of the University of Washington, is accepted as full fare on all Metro Transit, Community Transit, and Sounder Commuter Rail services. The cost per-quarter is $44 for students and $61.80 for faculty and staff. Currently about 44,000 U-Passes are in circulation.
Conclusions The peer review examined a broad range of agencies and their experiences with fare structure and policy, leading to some conclusions about FREX’s fares and some suggested strategies for successfully implementing a new fare structure.
Overall, FREX has a somewhat lower average fare per passenger compared to other commute services. It is expected that the average fare per passenger will increase and become more inline with other agencies when the fare increase adopted in 2007 and potential fare increase in 2008.
Other agencies generally offer free transfers to local service, whereas FREX does not offer free transfers. Free transfers can lead to reduced fares per passenger, but also have the potential to increase ridership and overall revenue.
FREX appears to be providing cost-effective service and if ridership and revenue continue to climb, operating costs per passenger and passengers per revenue hour are expected to approach those of other similar services.
Page 4-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
APPENDIX C IN LIEU FEES
Appendix C - In Lieu Fees
In Lieu of Required Parking
Donald C. Shoup
No version of the system ever quite withstood the test of additional r e ned observations. - Thomas Kuhn ABS TRACT
Americans learn about free parking early, when they play Monopoly. Players buy Some cities allow developers to pay a fee in property, build houses and hotels, payrent, or go to jail at a toss of the dice – but in lieu of providing the parking spaces one toss out of 40 they land on "Fre Parking."1 When they grow up and drive cars, the required by zoning ordinances, and use this revenue to nance public parking spaces to odds of landing on free parking increase dramaically;t American motorists park free for replace the private parking spaces the 99 percent of all their trips.2 developers would have provided. This If motorists don't pay for parking, who does? Initially, developers pay for parking. paper presents a survey of in-lieu programs Providing all the spaces necessary to meet minimum parking requirement ins zoning in 46 cities in the U nited States, Canada, ordinances raises the cost and reduces the density of development. The cos oft parking the United Kingdom, South Africa, is then shifted into higher prices or lower values for everything else – so everyone pays Germany, and Iceland. These in-lieu for parking indirectly. Residents pay for parking through higher prices for housing. programs reduce the cost of development, Consumers pay for parking through higher prices for goods and services. Employers encourage shared parking, improve urban design, and support historic preservation. pay for parking through higher o ice rents. Worker s pay for parking through lower The in -lieu fees also reveal that the cost of cash wages. Property owners pay for parking through lower land values. Because complying with minimum parking require- motorists park fr ee for 99 percent of all trips, only in our role as motorists do we not rncnts is more than four times the cost of pay for parking. Everyone but the motoistr pays for parking. the impact fees that ciiest levy for all other Minimum parking requirements in zoning ordinances collectivizehe t cost of public purposes combined. The high cost of parking, while market prices for parking individualize this cost. Unless the price of required parking suggests another parking gives motorists an incentive to economize, the cost o parkingf does not promising in-lieu policy: allow developers in uence decisions on whether to own or drive a car. With the cost of parking hidden in to reduce parking demand rather than increase the parking supply. Examination the prices of other goods and services, people cannot choose to pay less for parking by of an Ec o Pass program in California using less of it. shows that reducing parking demand can Parking requirements generally hide the cost of parking within the cost of devel- cost far less than increasing the parking opment, bu tin one case this cost is explicit : Some cities o er developers the option of supply. paying a fee in lieu of providing the required parking .For example, Palo Alto, Calif ornia, allows developers to pay the city a fee of $17,848 for each required parking space that is not provided. The city then uses the revenue for public pakinr g spaces to replace the private parking spaces that developers would have provided. In this paper, I use cities' in-lieu fees to estimate the developers' cots of complying with parking requirements. I then examine another promsingi in-lieu option: allow developers to reduce parking demand atherr than increase the parking supply. Donald C. Shoup is a professor of urban Examination of an Eco Pass program in California shows that paying the transit fare planning and the director of the Institute for commuters who arrive by bus costs far less than providing the parking required for of Transportation Studies at the School of commuters who arrive by car. Public Policy and Social Research, University of Ca lifornia, Lo s Angeles; Journal of Plan ning Education and Research 18:30 7-320. [email protected]. © 1999 Ass ociation of Collegiate Schools of Planning. In Lieu of Free Parking - 2 - Shoup
# A SURVEY OF IN-LIEU PARKING PROGRAMS architects have greater freedom to design better buildings. 4. Fewer variances. Developers often request parking I have surveyed the in-lieu parking programs in 46 cities: 24 variances when providing the required parking would be in the United States, seven in Canada, six in the United King- difficult. These variances create unearned economic dom, six in Germany, two in South Africa, and one in Iceland windfalls, granted to some but denied to others. If 3 (see Table 1) . The ordinances and supporting documents for developers can pay cash rather than provide the required the in-lieu programs were examined, and officials who parking, cities do not have to grant parking variances and administer the programs were interviewed. The survey results can therefore treat all developers consistently. are summarized in three sections: (1) the advantages and 5. Historic preservation. In-lieu fees allow adaptive reuse of disadvantages of in-lieu fees, (2) how cities set the fees, and historic buildings where the new use requires additional (3) issues that arise in administering the programs. parking that is difficult to provide. The in-lieu policy Advantages of In-Lieu Fees therefore makes it easier to preserve historic buildings and rehabilitate historic areas. Officials in the surveyed cities reported that in-lieu fees have five major advantages for both cities and developers. Disadvantages of In-Lieu Fees 1. A new option. In-lieu fees give developers an alternative to Officials in all the surveyed cities recommended in-lieu fees, meeting the parking requirements on sites where providing but some reported that developers were at first skeptical of all the required parking spaces would be difficult or ex- them. The following four points summarize the potential dis- tremely expensive. advantages mentioned by developers. 2. Shared parking. Public parking spaces allow shared use 1. Lack of on-site parking. Parking is a valuable asset for among different sites where the peak parking demands occur at different times. Shared public parking is more efficient any development. A lack of on-site, owner- controlled than single-use private parking because fewer spaces are parking can reduce a development's attractiveness to needed to meet the total peak parking demand. Shared tenants and customers. While a lack of on-site parking is a parking also allows visitors to leave their cars parked while real disadvantage, developers who are concerned about making multiple trips on foot, and is one of the easiest ways this problem can always provide the parking rather than pay the fee. to make better use of scarce urban land. 2. High fees. Cities may not construct and operate parking 3. Better urban design. Cities can put public parking lots and facilities as efficiently as the private sector. For example, structures where they have the lowest impact on vehicle and cities may pay extra to improve the architectural design of pedestrian circulation. Less on-site parking allows continu- parking lots and structures. The resulting in-lieu fees may ous storefronts without "dead" gaps for adjacent surface parking lots. To improve the streetscape, some cities dedi- be high. Although some cities charge high in-lieu fees, cate the first floor of the public parking structures to retail most set their in-lieu fees lower than the cost of providing uses. Developers can undertake infill projects without a public parking space. Because the fixed cost for ramps, assembling large sites to accommodate on-site parking, and elevators, stairwells, and curb cuts can be spread among more spaces in large public parking structures, economies of scale in building these structures can further UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM Berkeley, Calif. Palo Alto, Calif. Brent reduce the in-lieu fees. Beverly Hills, Calif. Pasadena, Calif. Harrow 3. No guarantees. Cities may Carmel,Calif. San Francisco, Calif. Kingston upon Tham es intend to use the in-lieu fee Chapel Hill, N.C. San Rafael, Calif. Redbridge Claremont, Calif. State College, Penn. Sutton revenue to finance public Concord,Calif. Walnut Creek, Calif. Waltham Forest parking, but they do not CulverCity, Calif. guarantee when or where the Davis, Calif. CANADA GERMANY parking spaces will be provided. Hermosa Beach, Calif. Burnaby, B.C. Dresden Kirkland,W ash. Calgary,Alberta Frankfurt To address this concern, some Lafayette, Calif. Ham ilton, Ontario Ham burg cities build public parking Lake Forest, III. Kitchener, Ontario Munich structures before receiving the Manhattan Beach, Calif. Ottawa, Ontario Nuremberg Montgomery County, Md. Toronto, Ontario Würzburg in-lieu fees. The in-lieu fees are Mountain View, Calif. Vancouver, B.C. then used to retire the debt Mill Valley, Calif. SOUTH AFRICA incurred to finance the Orlando, Fla. ICELAND Johannesburg structures. Other cities return the Palm Springs, Calif. Reykjavik Port Elizabeth in-lieu fees if they do not provide the parking within a Table I Surveyed cities with in-lieu parking fees. certain time. A city can also In Lieu of Free Parking - 3 - Shoup
delay collecting the in-lieu fees until the revenue is needed to to pay for public parking, yet low enough to attract construct the public parking. development. Most cities have no explicit policy, regarding 4. Fewer parking spaces. In-lieu fees will reduce the parking how often to revise their fees, and some cities' fees have not supply if cities provide fewer than one public parking space changed for many years. A few cities automatically link their for each in-lieu fee paid. A smaller parking supply can put an fees to an index of construction costs. For example, Beverly area at a competitive disadvantage. Cities may not provide Hills and Palo Alto adjust their fees annually by the ENR one public parking space for each in-lieu fee paid, but if a Construction Cost Index, a measure of cost inflation in the city uses in-lieu fees to build public parking spaces rather construction industry. than grant variances to reduce parking requirements, the Kirkland has two unusual in-lieu options. Developers can in-lieu policy will increase rather than decrease the parking pay $6,000 per parking space not provided, and the subse- supply. Even if an in-lieu policy does reduce the parking quent owners must purchase one parking permit in a public supply, shared public parking reduces the parking supply lot for every three spaces not provided (because the city esti- needed to meet the sum of all individual peak parking mates that employees use one-third of the required parking demands. spaces). Alternatively, developers pay no initial in-lieu fee While the developers' concerns cannot be ignored, officials in but subsequent owners must purchase a parking permit in a most of the surveyed cities said that the fees had become a form public lot for each space not provided. This annual option of administrative relief for developers who do not want to reduces the capital cost of development and encourages the provide the required parking spaces. In practice, the in-lieu fees use of public parking. A property owner may cancel the have benefitted developers by offering them an alternative to annual agreement at any time by providing the required building expensive parking spaces. on-site parking. German cities often have a graduated schedule of in-lieu How Cities Set the Fees fees (Ablösebeträge). The fees are highest in the city center and decline with distance from the center. For example, Ham- Cities use two basic approaches to set their in-lieu fees. The burg's fee is $20,705 per parking space in the city center, and first is to calculate the appropriate fee per space on a case-by- $11,300 in the area surrounding the center. case basis for each project. The second is to have a uniform fee Vancouver has the most sophisticated method for calculat- per space for all projects. ing its in-lieu fee ($9,708 per space). This fee is the parking One city has employed both methods. Until 1994, Beverly subsidy implicit in constructing a new public parking space, Hills used the first approach – a specific fee for each project. as measured by: (1) the land-and-construction cost per space The in-lieu fee for a project was the estimated land-and-con- in a public parking structure, minus (2) the present struction cost per space to build a nearby public parking struc- discounted value of the net operating income per space during ture. Between 1978 and 1992, developers paid in-lieu fees for 52 the expected 30-year life of the structure, minus (3) the parking spaces. The per-space fee set for each project was the present discounted value of the residual property value of the sum of (1) the value of 60 square feet of land within a 300foot structure, per space, after 30 years. The in-lieu fee is thus the radius of the site, and (2) the average construction cost per space expected net present cost per space – all parking costs minus in municipal parking structures. The average fee was $37,000 all parking revenues – over the structure's life. Developers per space, and the highest was $53,000 per space. Therefore, in who pay the fees do not subsidize the city, and the city does the extreme case, a developer was willing to pay the city $53,000 not subsidize developers. Instead, developers subsidize for the right not to provide a parking space (Beverly Hills 1992). parking. This case-by-case procedure required a land-value appraisal to To summarize, some cities set the fees on a case-by-case estimate the cost of public parking near each project that applied basis, but most set uniform fees for all development. Cities to pay the fee. After waiting four to six months to be notified of use a wide variety of methods to set their in-lieu fees, which the fee, applicants usually appealed to the City Council to reduce range from $2,000 to $27,520 per parking space not it. Developers complained that not knowing the fee until after the provided. appraisal created uncertainty in project planning. The case-by- case approach was complicated, time-consuming, and expensive. Who Decides Whether to Provide Parking or Pay Fee? To address these problems, Beverly Hills adopted the second approach in 1994 – it set uniform fees for all projects. These Most cities allow developers to choose whether to pay the fee new fees are easier for the city to administer and for developers or provide the parking, but a few cities require developers to to use. Developers can easily incorporate the fee in a financial pay the fee rather than provide the parking. Officials in these analysis and decide whether to provide the required parking or latter cities cited several reasons for requiring developers to pay the fee. Thirty-seven of the 46 surveyed cities set uniform pay the fees: to centralize parking facilities, put more of the 4 fees, probably because of their certainty, simplicity, and equity. parking supply under public management, encourage shared Most cities' in-lieu fees do not cover the full cost of providing parking, discourage the proliferation of surface parking lots, 5 a public parking space. Cities aim to set their fees high enough emphasize continuous shopfronts, improve pedestrian In Lieu of Free Parking - 4 - Shoup
circulation, reduce traffic congestion, and improve urban design.6 Some cities allow property owners to remove existing re- Impact Fees for Office Buildings quired spaces by paying in-lieu fees. This option consolidates The parking impact fee for a land use depends on (1) the scattered parking spaces, facilitates reinvestment in older parking requirement and (2) the in-lieu fee. Table 2 presents buildings, and encourages more efficient use of scarce land the in-lieu fees and parking requirements for one land use – previously committed to surface parking. office buildings in the CBD – for 29 cities in the United Most American cities reduce their parking requirements in States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Africa, the central business district (CBD). In contrast, German cities and Iceland.7 The last column shows the parking impact fees often have uniform parking requirements throughout the city, but implicit in the parking requirements for office buildings in allow developers in the CBD to provide only part of the required these cities.8 parking, and require them to pay fees for the rest. For example, The first row shows that Palo Alto's in-lieu fee is $17,848 developers may provide at most 25 percent of the parking per required parking space not provided. Palo Alto requires required for land uses in the center of Hamburg, and must pay four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area fees in lieu of providing the rest of the parking. for office buildings, so the in-lieu fee is equivalent to an im- In-lieu fees in the United States are legally justified by the pact fee of $71 per square foot of office space (4x $17,848 nexus between the fees and the cost of providing public parking ÷1,000). A developer who does not provide any parking spaces. American cities therefore offer the in-lieu option only must pay the city a parking impact fee of $71 per square foot where they are prepared to spend the fee revenue to provide new of office space. public parking facilities. The nexus argument does not The parking impact fees range from $71 per square foot in necessarily imply that the in-lieu revenue must be used to Palo Alto to $2 per square foot in Waltham Forest. The provide public parking, however, because a variety of median parking impact fee is $25 per square foot of office transportation improvements can substitute for more parking. space in the U.S. cities and $10 per square foot in the Cana- For example, British and German cities often use the in-lieu dian cities. U.S. cities have higher parking impact fees be- revenue to improve public transportation. cause they require more parking, not because they have higher in-lieu fees. The median parking requirement is 2.9 # THE IMPACT FEES IMPLICIT IN MINIMUM PARKING spaces per 1,000 square feet in the U.S. cities but only one REQUIREMENTS space per 1,000 square feet in the Canadian cities. The me- dian in-lieu fee is $9,125 per space in the U.S. cities and $9,781 per space in the Canadian cities. Parking requirements resemble impact fees. Many cities The parking impact fees outside North America range require developers to pay impact fees to finance public infra- widely. Three British cities have high impact fees ($33 to structure – such as roads and schools – that development makes $48 per square foot) because their in-lieu fees are high. An- necessary. In Regulation for Revenue, Alan Altshuler and José other British city has the lowest impact fee in the table ($2 Gómez-Ibáñez (1993) define these impact fees as "mandated per square foot) because both its in-lieu fee and its parking expenditures by private land developers, required as a price for requirement are low.9 The impact fees in Germany ($32 per their obtaining regulatory permits, in support of infrastructure square foot) and Iceland ($28 per square foot) are high be- and other public services" (vii). cause their in-lieu fees are high. The parking impact fee in Parking requirements resemble impact fees because devel- South Africa ($4 per square foot) is low because its in-lieu opers provide the required infrastructure – parking spaces – to fee is low. obtain building permits. In-lieu parking fees also resemble Do planners consider the cost of a parking space when they impact fees because developers pay the fees to obtain building decide how many spaces to require? If they do, cities with permits, and cities then use the revenue to pay for public higher in-lieu fees should require fewer parking spaces. But infrastructure – parking spaces– that the development makes the coefficient of correlation between in-lieu fees and parking necessary. When cities require developers to pay the fees rather requirements in Table 2 is only 0.06, which suggests a than provide the parking, the in-lieu fees are impact fees. random relationship between the cost of a parking space and We can use the in-lieu fees to estimate the impact fees the number of spaces required. Cost is no concern, it seems, implicit in parking requirements. Impact fees are usually levied when planners set parking requirements. per square foot of building area, while in-lieu fees are levied per The average parking impact fee for the U.S. cities in Table required parking space not provided. To compare in-lieu fees 2 is $31 per square foot, which dwarfs the impact fees levied with impact fees, we must first convert the in-lieu fees into a cost for all other public purposes. A 1991 survey of 100 U.S. per square foot of building area. We can do this because cities cities found that the impact fees for all purposes (roads, usually require parking spaces in proportion to building area (on schools, parks, water, sewers, flood control, and the like) the assumption that building area determines parking demand). averaged $6.97 per square foot of office buildings (see The in-lieu parking fees per square foot of building area reveal Altshuler and José Gómez-Ibáñez 1993, 40).10 The average the impact fees implicit in the parking requirements themselves. In Lieu of Free Parking - 5 - Shoup
IN-LIEU PARKING PARKING CITY PARKING FEE LAND USE REQUIREMENT IMPACT FEE ($/space) (spaces per ($/square foot) 1,000 square feet) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(2)X(4)/1,000
Palo Alto, Calif. $17,848 Offices 4.0 $71 Beverly Hills, Calif. $20,180 Offices 2.9 $59 Walnut Creek, Calif. $16,373 Offices 3.3 $55 Kingston upon Thames, U.K. $20,800 Offices 2.3 $48 Carmel, Calif. $27,520 Offices 1.7 $46 Mountain View, Calif. $13,000 Offices 3.0 $39 Sutton, UK $13,360 Offices 2.7 $36 Harrow, UK $14,352 Offices 2.3 $33 Hamburg, Germany $20,705 Offices 1.5 $32 Lake Forest, III. $ 9,000 Offices 3.5 $32 Mill Valley, Calif. $ 6,751 Offices 4.4 $30 Palm Springs, Calif. $ 9,250 Offices 3.1 $28 Reykjavik, Iceland $13,000 Offices 2.2 $28 Claremont,Calif. $ 9,000 Offices 2.9 $26 Concord, Calif. $ 8,500 Offices 2.9 $24 Davis, Calif. $ 8,000 Offices 2.5 $20 Orlando, Fla. $ 9,883 Offices 2.0 $20 Kitchener, Ontario $14,599 Offices 1.3 $19 Chapel Hill, N.C. $ 7,200 Offices 2.5 $18 Kirkland, Wash. $ 6,000 Offices 2.9 $17 Hermosa Beach, Calif. $ 6,000 Offices 2.6 $16 Berkeley, Calif. $10,000 Offices 1.5 $15 Burnaby, British Columbia $ 7,299 Offices 2.0 $15 Vancouver, British Columbia $ 9,708 Offices 1.0 $10 State College, Penn. $ 5,850 Offices 1.3 $ 8 Ottawa, Ontario $10,043 Offices 0.7 $ 7 Calgary, Alberta $ 9,781 Offices 0.7 $ 7 Port Elizabeth, South Africa $ 1,846 Offices 2.3 $ 4 Waltham Forest, U.K. $ 2,000 Offices 0.9 $ 2 MEAN $11,305 2.3 $26 MEDIAN $ 9,781 2.3 $24
In-lieu fees and parking requirements are for the city center in 1996. In-lieu fees and impact fees are expressed in US$. To obtain the parking requirement in spaces per 100 square meters, multiply the required spaces in Column 4 by 1.076. To obtain the parking impact fee in dollars per square meter, multiply the impact fee in Column 5 by 10.76.
Table 2. Minimum parking requirements considered as impact fees (for office buildings). In Lieu of Free Parking - 6 - Shoup
IN-LIEU PARKING PARKING CITY PARKING FEE LAND USE REQUIREMENT IMPACT FEE
( spaces per ( $/square foot) ($/space) 1,000 square feet)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(2)x(4)/1,000
Beverly Hills, Calif. $20,180 Restaurant 22.2 $448 Palm Springs, Calif. $ 9,250 Cabaret 28.6 $264 Mountain View, Calif. $13,000 Assembly Hall 18.0 $234 Kingston upon Thames, U.K. $20,800 Food Superstore 7.7 $160 Davis, Calif. $ 8,000 Funeral Home 20.0 $160 Sutton, U.K. $13,360 Food Superstore 8.5 $114 Kitchener, Ontario $14,599 Manufacturing 7.7 $112 Calgary, Alberta $ 9,781 Billiard Parlor 10.3 $101 Ottawa, Ontario $10,043 Church 9.8 $ 98 Claremont, Calif. $ 9,000 Theater 10.0 $ 90 Hermosa Beach, Calif. $ 6,000 Theater 13.0 $ 78 Burnaby, British Columbia $ 7,299 ArtGallery 10.3 $ 75 Palo Alto, Calif. $17,848 All Uses 4.0 $ 71 Mill Valley, Calif. $ 6,751 Assembly Hall 10.0 $ 68 Harrow, U.K. $14,352 Garden Center 4.6 $ 67 Hamburg, Germany $20,705 Garden Center 3.1 $ 64 Walnut Creek, Calif. $16,373 Nonresidential 3.3 $ 55 Kirkland, Wash. $ 6,000 Restaurant 8.0 $ 48 Carmel, Calif. $27,520 Commercial 1.7 $ 47 Concord, Calif. $ 8,500 Restaurant 4.0 $ 34 Port Elizabeth, South Africa $ 1,846 Recreation Hall 18.6 $ 34 Reykjavik, Iceland $13,000 Nonresidential 2.2 $ 28 Lake Forest, Ill. $ 9,000 Restaurant 2.5 $ 23 Orlando, Fla. $ 9,883 Nonresidential 2.0 $ 20 Chapel Hill, N.C. $ 7,200 Offices 2.5 $ 18 Berkeley, Calif. $10,000 Nonresidential 1.5 $ 15 Vancouver, British Columbia $ 9,708 Nonresidential 1.0 $ 10 Waltham Forest, U.K. $ 2,000 Shops 4.5 $9 State College, Penn. $ 5,850 All Uses 1.3 $8 MEAN $11,305 8.3 $ 88 MEDIAN $ 9,781 7.7 $ 67
In-lieu fees and parking requirements are forthe city center in 1996. In-lieu fees and impact fees are expressed in US$. To obtain the parking requirement in spaces per 100 square meters, multiplythe required spaces in Column 4 by 1.076. To obtain the parking impact fee in dollars per square meter, multiply the numbers in Column 5 by 10.76. The land uses are those with the highest minimum parking requirements in each city.
Table 3 Minimum parking requirements considered as impact fees (for land uses with the highest parking requirements).
parking impact fee for office buildings is thus 4.4 times the in the average new car consumed 0.81 gallons of gasoline a average impact fee for all other public purposes combined. If day, or 17.8 gallons a month for commuting 22 days a month. impact fees reveal a city's priorities for public services, many The average price of gasoline in the United States was $1.21 a cities' highest priority is free parking. 11 gallon in 1995.13 At this combination of commute distance, fuel efficiency, and fuel price, the fuel cost of commuting by car is $22 a month. In this case, a parking subsidy of more The 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey than $22 a month is worth more than free gasoline for found that the average round-trip distance traveled to work in commuting. the United States was 23.2 miles.12 Because new cars averaged The average in-lieu parking fee in the United States in 28.6 miles per gallon of gasoline in 1995, the average commute Table 2 is $11,305 per space. At an interest rate of 4 percent In Lieu of Free Parking - 7 - Shoup
amortized over 30 years, this in-lieu fee is equivalent to a In-lieu fees do not impose a cost on developers. Minimum capital cost of $54 per parking space per month. This cost parking requirements impose the cost, and in-lieu fees merely estimate is conservative because the interest rate is low and give developers an alternative to providing the required operating expenses are ignored. Nevertheless, it shows that parking. If the in-lieu fee equals the cost of providing a parking requirements based on the demand for free parking parking space, the parking impact fee shows the cost of double the cost of the gasoline used for driving to and from the complying with the parking requirement. required parking.
Parking requirements would not impose a cost if developers Impact Fees for Land Uses with the Highest Minimum voluntarily provided all the parking that zoning requires. But Parking Requirements if developers voluntarily provided all the parking that zoning Table 3 shows each city's parking impact fee for the land requires, parking requirements would be pointless. Some use with the highest parking requirement. The in-lieu fees in developers may provide more parking than required, but Table 3 are the same as those in Table 2 for office buildings studies in the Los Angeles and Chicago regions have found because each city uses the same in-lieu fee for all land uses. The that developers generally provide only enough parking to first row shows that Beverly Hills' in-lieu fee is $20,180 per satisfy the zoning requirements. City officials, developers, required parking space not provided, and that Beverly Hills lenders, leasing agents, and tenants all assume that planners requires 22.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant know how much parking each land use needs (see Willson space (one space per 45 square feet). Therefore, the parking 1995; Chicago Regional Transportation Authority 1998). requirement and the in-lieu fee together impose a parking In my own experience as a member of a Design Review impact fee of $448 per square foot of restaurant space (22.2 x Board in Los Angeles, I have reviewed the plans for all $20,180÷1,000). A developer who does not provide any development projects in one part of the city, Westwood, for parking must pay the city an impact fee of $448 per square foot the past six years. I have seen many cases where the required of restaurant space. parking limited a project's density or disfigured its design, but I have never seen a project that provided more parking than 16 The impact fees in Table 3 are higher than in Table 2 because required. the parking requirements for the land uses in Table 3 are higher. The impact fees in Tables 2 and 3 underestimate the cost of For example, Mountain View's highest parking requirement (for complying with parking requirements because developers who assembly halls) is six times its parking requirement for office provide the required parking must also pay property taxes and buildings, so its parking impact fee increases from $39 per operating costs for the privately owned spaces. The impact square foot in Table 2 to $234 per square foot in Table 3. fees also understate the cost of complying with parking requirements if cities set their in-lieu fees below the cost of The parking impact fees range from $448 per square foot of providing a parking space. Hamilton, Lake Forest, and restaurant space in Beverly Hills to $8 per square foot for any Toronto set their fees at half the estimated land-and- 17 land use in State College, Pennsylvania. The great variation in construction cost of providing parking spaces. Mountain the cities' minimum parking requirements explains most of this View, Orlando, and Walnut Creek set their fees at the con- variation in the parking impact fees.14 For example, Palm struction cost per space in parking structures, excluding land 18 Springs and Vancouver have similar in-lieu fees, but Palm cost. Springs' parking impact fee is 27.1 times Vancouver's because When asked why they set the in-lieu fee below the cost of Palm Springs' highest parking requirement is 28.6 times providing a parking space, city officials typically answered Vancouver's highest parking requirement. that the fee would be "too high" if the city charged the If a parking requirement is high, reducing the in-lieu fee full cost. When the cost of required parking is hidden in the cost of development, cost does not seem to matter, But when does not make the parking impact fee low. For example, to encourage the expansion of restaurants that have been in busi- the cost of required parking is made explicit in cash, everyone ness for at least two years, Beverly Hills offers a reduced in-lieu can see that it is "too high." fee of $6,265 per space, which is 35 percent of the construction cost per space for municipal parking structures, excluding land Parking Requirements, In-Lieu Fees, and Impact Fees cost. Beverly Hills requires one parking space per 45 square We can use the data in Tables 2 and 3 to show the feet of restaurant area, so this reduced in-lieu fee is equivalent relationships among parking requirements, the cost of parking to an impact fee of $139 per square foot of restaurant area spaces, and impact fees, as seen in Figure 1, which uses the ($6,265÷45). The in-lieu fee is far below the cost of providing a data for office buildings. The horizontal axis shows the 15 public parking space; but the parking impact fee is still high. parking requirement in spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross Do In-Lieu Fees Impose a Cost on Developers? floor area, and the vertical axis shows the fee per parking space not provided. Each equal-impact-fee (isocost) curve In Lieu of Free Parking - 8 - Shoup
Figure 1. Parking impact fees as a function of parking requirements and in-lieu fees (for office buildings). shows combinations of parking requirements and in-lieu fees parking requirements in Table 3 (i.e., for land uses with the that produce the same impact fee. For example, the lowest highest parking requirements). Because the coefficient of curve shows that a requirement of one space per 1,000 square correlation between the cities' impact fees in Tables 2 and 3 is feet and an in-lieu fee of $10,000 per space together create an only 0.43, the cities' relative positions shift substantially from impact fee of $10 per square foot of floor area, as do all other Figure 1 to Figure 2. In more ways than one, parking impact combinations of parking requirements and in-lieu fees along the fees are all over the map. same curve.19 This all-over-the-map aspect of parking impact fees A horizontal band of cities have similar in-lieu fees ranging should not surprise us, given the haphazard nature of parking from $6,000 to $10,000 per parking space, but their parking require-ments. Explaining how planners set parking impact fees differ greatly because their parking requirements requirements, Robert Weant and Herbert Levinson (1990) say: differ greatly. For example, Lake Forest and Calgary have Most local governments, through their zoning or- similar in-lieu fees, but Lake Forest's parking impact fee is dinances, have a parking supply policy that requires more than four times Calgary's because Lake Forest land uses to provide sufficient off-street parking requires 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet while Calgary re- space to allow easy, convenient access to activities quires only 0.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. while maintaining free traffic flow. The objective is Cities with dissimilar in-lieu fees can have similar parking to provide enough parking space to accommodate impact fees. For example, Mill Valley's in-lieu fee is less than a recurrent peak-parking demands .... For the purpose third of Hamburg's; but its parking impact fee is similar to of zoning ordinance applications, parking demand Hamburg's because Mill Valley requires 4.4 spaces per 1,000 is defined as the accumulation of vehicles parked at square feet while Hamburg requires only 1.5 spaces per 1,000 a given time as the result of activity at a given site square feet. (35-37).
That is, planners count the cars parked at existing land Figure 2 arrays cities according to their in-lieu fees and uses, define the maximum number of parked cars as parking In Lieu of Free Parking - 9 - Shoup
demand, and then require new land uses to supply at least # AN ANALOGY: PTOLEMAIC enough parking spaces to satisfy, this demand. Without consid- ASTRONOMY ering either the cost or the price of parking, urban planners set minimum parking requirements to satisfy the peak parking As experience has accumulated, planners have made demand. progress in predicting the peak demand for parking at different Because high parking requirements increase development land uses. This progress in planning resembles the progress costs, they might be interpreted as a tacit way for cities to con- made in astronomy from the time of Ptolemy through the me- trol growth. But if the goal is growth control, high parking dieval period. Astronomers gradually became more accurate in requirements have a serious unintended consequence. All new predicting the motion of stars and planets, but they funda- development will have plenty of free parking, which will in- mentally misunderstood what they were trying to explain. crease trip generation and the associated traffic. If growth con- Thomas Kuhn (1957) says: trol is intended to limit traffic, high parking requirements are a accuracy was invariably achieved at the price of perverse way to control growth. complexity ... and the increased complexity gave High parking requirements might also be explained as a only a better approximation to planetary motion, response to high parking demand. But demand depends on not finality. No version of the system ever quite price, and the high cost of providing parking should cause with-stood the test of additional refined observa- planners to ask, "At what price is demand being estimated'" tions (74). Parking requirements based on the observed demand for park- Ptolemaic astronomers believed that the earth was at the ing typically require enough parking spaces to satisfy the de- center of the universe, and that everything else rotated about mand for free parking. the earth. This theory explained the motion of stars, but the motion of planets was a puzzle. The word planet stems
Figure 2 Parking impact fees as a function of parking requirements and in-lieu fees (for land uses with the highest parking requirements). In Lieu of Free Parking - 10 - Shoup
from the Greek word meaning wanderer, and astronomers Parking requirements stem from a belief that urban developed complex mathematical devices-such as epicycles-to planners know how many parking spaces every land use explain the planets' wandering behavior. But the fundamental needs, Planners can rationally regulate many dimensions of theory was faulty, and more accurate observations of planetary parking that affect the public, such as curb cuts, guidance, motion always showed that the theory's predictions were wrong. handicapped access, landscaping, layout, location, pedestrian Similarly, many planners seem to believe that parking is at amenity, setback, signage, stormwater runoff, and urban the center of urban development. Planners have gradually be- design. Planners can and should regulate the quality of come more accurate in predicting parking demand as a function parking. But planners cannot rationally, regulate the number of land use, but this greater accuracy has invariably been of parking spaces without considering the price and cost of achieved at the price of complexity. For example, the Planning parking and the wider consequences for transportation and Advisory Service of the American Planning Association has land use. published three surveys of parking requirements in American By comparing urban planners to Ptolemaic astronomers, 1 cities. The 1964 survey reported 368 different requirements for am not questioning planners' abilities. Ptolemaic astronomers 30 different land uses. The 1971 survey reported 609 different were diligent scientists, but in considering the earth to be the requirements for 83 different land uses. The 1991 survey center of the universe they were making a fundamental reported 648 different requirements for 179 different land mistake. Similarly, in requiring a minimum number of off- uses.20 Despite this growing complexity, no one can accurately street parking spaces for all land uses, urban planners are predict how many parking spaces any land use needs without making a fundamental mistake. The high impact fees implicit considering the price of parking. For the same land use, the in minimum parking requirements reveal the high cost of this parking requirements in Table 3 vary between one and 28.6 mistake. parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.21 The growing complexity extends well beyond more require- # AN ALTERNATIVE: REDUCE DEMAND RATHER ments for more land uses. Some cities allow shared parking for THAN INCREASE SUPPLY a combination of land uses when the peak parking demands occur at different times. Some cities allow valet and tandem Minimum parking requirements lack a theoretical basis, parking to increase parking capacity. All cities grant variances and even their empirical basis is weak, But reform will be from parking requirements to accommodate special circum- difficult because parking requirements are entrenched in stances. Adding to the complexity, urban planners have in- planning practice and legislated in zoning ordinances, vented many pseudo-scientific terms to describe observed but Nevertheless, the emergence of in-lieu fees suggests that poorly understood phenomena: parking deficit, parking gen- change is possible. In-lieu fees also suggest another promising eration, parking need, parking overflow, parking ratio, parking option: allow developers to reduce parking demand rather spillover, parking turnover, peak parking factor, shared park- than increase the parking supply. ing, and underparked. Confusion reigns, and planners cannot even agree on An Example: Transit Passes in Lieu of Parking Spaces whether to require or restrict parking. Consider the diametri- cally opposed approaches in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Offering free transit passes to commuters will reduce the Los Angeles requires a minimum number of spaces, while San demand for parking at work. Therefore, a city could reduce the Francisco restricts the maximum number of spaces. For an parking requirements for developments where the developer auditorium in the CBD, Los Angeles requires as a minimum 50 commits to provide transit passes far commuters who do not times more parking spaces than Sara Francisco allows as the drive to work. rnaximum.22 These minimums and maximums exemplify the Suppose that providing free transit passes to the Soviet planning slogan, "What is not made compulsory must be employees at a site would reduce parking demand at the site prohibited." by one parking space per 1,000 square feet, In this case, a Planners usually require a minimum number of parking covenant to provide free transit passes to employees at the site spaces, and they sometimes restrict the maximum number of is an appropriate alternative to providing one required parking parking spaces, but they almost never take a hands-off ap- space per 1,000 square feet.23 proach to the number of parking spaces. Perhaps some planners The in-lieu transit option would be simplest where firms unconsciously fear that critics may ask, "If planners don't even can buy a blanket transit pass for all employees, For example, know how many parking spaces to require, what do they some transit agencies offer employers the option to buy "Eco know?" Or perhaps parking requirements are simply a profes- Passes" that allow all their employees to ride free on all local sional confidence trick that planners have played not only on transit lines, A city could therefore reduce the parking require- others but also on themselves, ments for a building where all employees are offered Eco In Lieu of Free Parking - 11 - Shoup
ply at the site that pays the subsidy. ANNUAL PRICE PER EMPLOYEE Providing Eco Passes instead of required parking spaces 1-99 100-4,999 5,000+ converts a supply-side subsidy for parking into a demand-side LOCATION Employees Employees Employees subsidy for transit. The appropriate rate of substitution be- Downtown San Jose $80 $60 $40 tween Eco Passes and parking spaces depends on how shifting Areas with bus & light rail $60 $40 $20 subsidies from parking to transit will reduce parking demand. Areas with bus only $40 $20 $10 Cities can offer a greater reduction in parking requirements in the CBD) and other transit-oriented districts because Eco Table 4. Eco Pass price schedule, Santa Clara Valley Passes will reduce parking demand more at sites that have Transportation Authority. better transit service. Providing Eco Passes instead of parking spaces will benefit these transit-oriented districts by allowing Passes. The Eco Pass is a tax-deductible expense for employers higher density without more vehicle traffic. and a tax-free benefit for employees. Transit agencies price Eco Passes according to probability The Cost of Reducing Parking Demand of use. The price per employee is low because many employees Reducing parking demand can cost much less than do not ride transit even when it is free. Employers can therefore increasing the parking supply. Employers in Silicon Valley buy transit passes for all employees at a low cost. For example, pay $10 to $80 per employee per year for Eco Passes. If there as shown in Table 4, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation are four employees per 1,000 square feet of office space, Eco Authority (SCVTA) in California's Silicon Valley charges from Passes would cost from 4 cents to 32 cents per square foot of $10 to S80 per employee per year for the Eco Passes, office space per year.26 How does this cost of offering Eco depending on an employer's location and number of Passes to all employees compare with the resulting reduction employees.24 in the capital cost of providing the required parking spaces? An example can explain Eco Pass pricing. Suppose (1) the A survey of commuters whose employers offer Eco Passes price of a conventional transit pass is $400 a year, (2) employ- found that the solo-driver share fell from 76 percent before ers offer free passes to commuters who ride transit, and (3) 20 the passes were offered to 60 percent afterward (Santa Clara percent of commuters ride transit. Per 100 employees, em- Valley Transportation Authority 1997). The transit mode ployers would pay $8,000 a year for 20 conventional transit share for commuting increased from 11 percent to 27 percent. passes (20 x $400), or $80 per employee per year ($8,000÷ These mode shifts reduced commuter parking demand by 100). The transit agency can therefore sell Eco Passes for 100 approximately 19 percent. employees at a price of only $80 per employee per year, carry The SCVTA serves two of the surveyed cities that have in- the same number of riders, and receive the same $8,000 a year lieu parking fees (Mountain View and Palo Alto). As Table 2 in total revenue that it would receive from the sale of conven- shows, the parking impact fee for office buildings is $39 per tional transit passes at $400 a year for 20 employees. square foot of office space in Mountain View and $71 per Because frequent riders often buy transit passes, transit square foot of office space in Palo Alto. If the Eco Passes agencies must price these passes on the assumption of frequent reduce parking demand by 19 percent, they will reduce the use. And because transit agencies price transit passes to cover capital cost of providing the required parking spaces by $7.41 the cost imposed by frequent riders, infrequent riders will not per square foot of office space in Mountain View and by buy them. In contrast, Eco Passes are priced like employer paid $13.49 per square foot of office space in Palo Alto.27 insurance that covers every member of a defined population. If spending between 4 cents and 32 cents a year to provide Adverse selection does not occur when all employees receive Eco Passes will reduce the capital cost of required parking by Eco Passes, and the price of an Eco Pass is therefore much between $7.41 and $13.49, the annual cost of the Eco Passes lower than the price of a conventional transit pass.25 For ranges from 0.3 percent to 4.3 percent of the reduction in the example, the SCVTA's price for its Eco Pass ($10 to $80 per capital cost of parking. That is, spending $1 every year for employee per year) is only 2 percent to 19 percent of the price transit will save between $23 and $337 for the initial capital for its conventional transit pass ($420 a year). cost of parking. Eco Passes will also reduce the operating and Providing Eco Passes for employees – a demand-side sub- maintenance costs for parking because fewer spaces are sidy – is different from subsidizing the transit system as a required. The low cost of reducing parking demand compared whole – a supply-side subsidy. Providing Eco Passes for all with the high cost of increasing the parking supply shows that employees at a site increases transit use to that site and reduces Eco Passes are a cost-effective fringe benefit. Eco Passes can parking demand at that specific site. This reduction in parking greatly reduce the high cost of offering free parking. demand justifies a smaller parking supply at the site that pro- Administering the Eco Pass option should be simpler than vides the Eco Passes. In contrast, subsidizing the system as a administering conventional in-lieu fees because cities would whole would improve transit service but would not significantly not need to construct, operate, and maintain parking reduce parking demand at any specific site, Therefore, structures. A property's transit-pass obligation could be subsidizing the system would not justify a smaller parking sup- In Lieu of Free Parking - 12 - Shoup
enforced by a covenant or conditional use permit for as long as either-or commitment. the required parking is not provided. Monitoring compliance Employees can also use their Eco Passes for non-work should be simple because public transit operators would have a trips. In the Silicon Valley survey, 60 percent of employees strong financial incentive to ensure that property owners pay reported using their Eco Passes for trips other than commut- for the required transit passes. ing, with an average of four non-work trips a month.
Benefits to Transit Operators The Benefits of Reducing Parking Demand Using unbuilt parking spaces to finance Eco Passes would Providing Eco Passes instead of parking spaces can yield increase transit ridership and transit revenue. Although Eco benefits for developers, property owners, employers, Pass programs are new, in 1997 employers purchased Eco commuters, and cities. Passes for 38,000 employees in Denver and 40,000 employees in Silicon Valley. If developers could provide Eco Benefits to Developers and Property Owners Passes instead of parking spaces, Eco Pass sales would undoubtedly increase. Permanent demand-side subsidies for Developers who pay conventional in-lieu parking fees transit financed by a reduction in the capital cost of receive no individual benefit beyond permission to build supply-side subsidies for parking would provide a reliable without providing the required parking. But developers who revenue source for transit agencies. provide in-lieu Eco Passes also receive the individual benefit of If developers make long-term commitments to purchase free public transit for all tenants. If a developer provides fewer Eco Passes, transit planners can improve service to the sites than the required number of parking spaces, the compensating where they know transit demand will be strong. This service amenity of free transit should increase a project's marketability. improvement will benefit all riders, not just Eco Pass holders, Providing Eco Passes in lieu of parking spaces can also and it can attract additional riders who pay a full fare. reduce the risk and improve the feasibility of project finance. The capital cost of parking is fixed regardless of building Benefits to Cities occupancy, and it is a heavy burden for a new building that is As with conventional in-lieu fees, providing Eco Passes in not fully leased. In contrast, the cost of Eco Passes varies lieu of parking spaces will improve urban design, reduce the according to the number of employees in the building, and the need for variances, and help to preserve historic buildings and cost will be low if the building is not fully leased. Providing rehabilitate historic areas. Beyond these advantages, reducing Eco Passes instead of parking spaces converts an up-front the demand for parking rather than increasing the supply of capital cost for parking into an annual cost for transit, and parking will reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and en- many developers may want to make this trade if offered the ergy consumption – all at no cost if the existing transit has option. excess capacity. Benefits to Employers Other In-Lieu Options to Reduce Parking Demand Eco Passes will save employers some of the money they Cities could also allow in-lieu options for land uses other now spend to subsidize parking. Suppose that Eco Passes cost than employment sites. For example, some universities con- $40 per employee per year and that they reduce the demand for tract with their local transit agencies so their student identi- commuter parking by 19 percent (as found in the Silicon Val- fication cards serve as public transit passes, and these transit ley). The Eco Passes will save more than $40 per employee per pass programs reduce the demand for parking on campus year on parking subsidies if the employer had been spending (Brown, Hess, and Shoup 1998). Cities could therefore allow more than $211 per employee per year to subsidize parking, a university to offer a transit pass program instead of required because reducing a parking subsidy of $211 a year by 19 per- parking spaces. cent saves $40 a year. Many employers spend far more than A city could allow theaters and stadiums to offer free $211 per year ($17.60 per month) per employee to subsidize transit to all ticket holders instead of providing required parking.28 These employers can therefore offer free transit parking spaces. For example, the University of Washington passes, continue to offer free parking, and save money. contracts with Seattle Metro so that ticket holders can show their game tickets to ride on any Metro transit service on the Benefits to Commuters day of a game The share of ticket holders arriving at Husky Eco Passes clearly benefit commuters who ride transit to Stadium by transit increased from 4.2 percent in 1984 (the work, and they can also benefit commuters who usually drive to year before the transit agreement) to 20.6 percent in 1997 work. Drivers can consider the Eco Passes a form of insurance (University of Washington Transportation Office 1997). for days when their cars are not available. Eco passes offer A city could allow apartment developers to offer free commuters day-to-day flexibility in commuting and the choice transit passes for residents instead of providing some required between riding transit or driving to work is not a long-term parking spaces. In State College, Pennsylvania, one of the In Lieu of Free Parking - 13 - Shoup
cities with in-lieu fees, the Centre Area Transportation impact fees should make it hard for planners to ignore the cost Authority contracts with apartment developers and owners to of parking requirements. Given the high cost of providing the give all residents passes for the transit lines that serve the required parking, planners should not uncritically assume that apartments. The passes are priced at approximately $100 per the demand for parking automatically justifies parking apartment per year. Participating developers are encouraged to requirements. Viewed skeptically, minimum parking build transit amenities into their site designs (bus shelters and requirements subsidize cars and distort urban form. bus pull-off lanes). Apartment owners advertise these transit In-lieu fees mitigate the damage caused by parking passes as a benefit they offer to tenants. The apartment transit requirements. The in-lieu fees assist development on difficult passes should attract a niche market of those who are less likely sites, encourage shared parking, reduce the demand for to own cars, and should be especially appropriate for variances, improve urban design, and support historic transit-oriented districts with good transit service and a reduced preservation. Beyond allowing developers to finance public parking supply. parking spaces in lieu of private parking spaces, cities can A city could allow hotels to offer free transit for guests in- allow developers to reduce parking demand rather than stead of providing some required parking spaces. Beyond sav- increase the parking supply. This further development of ing money on constructing parking spaces, offering free transit in-lieu fees will reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and could help a hotel to attract a niche market of guests without energy consumption. The option to reduce parking demand cars. If hotels that offer free transit attract guests without cars, rather than increase the parking supply will benefit this would justify the smaller parking supply. Some hotels al- developers, property owners, employers, commuters, transit ready offer free shuttles to popular destinations, or offer guests agencies, cities, and the environment. free tokens on public transit, and cities could reduce parking requirements in exchange for these policies. Author's Note: I would like to thank Ellison Alegre, Steven Bass Beyond offering transit passes, a city could allow develop- Aaron Bernardin, JeffreyBrown, Leland Burns, Eric Carlson, Peter ers and employers to take other measures to reduce parking de- Clark, Daniel Dermitzel Gregg Doyle, Elke Daugherty, Simon mand. For example, offering employees the option to cash out Fraser, Kay Gilbert, Genevieve Giuliano, Daniel Hess, Thomas Higgins, Kathleen Hiyaki, Eugene Kim, Nick Lester, Trent Lethco, employer-paid parking has been found to reduce parking de- Kristen Massey, Douglas Miller, Andrew Mondschein, Virginia mand by an average of 11 percent, at almost no added cost to Parks, William Pitkin, Paul Pinsker, Joshua Polston, Thomas Rice, 29 employers. Therefore, a city could reduce the parking re- Neal Richman, Jan Riel, Patricia Shoup, Seth Stark, Jay Sundu, quirement for sites where developers commit to a parking Brian Taylor, Richard Willson, and Matthew Zisman for their many cash-out program. helpful suggestions. I am grateful to the United States Department Some cities allow property owners to remove existing park- of Transportation and the University o f California Transportation ing spaces if they pay an in-lieu fee per required space re- Center for financial support. moved. Cities could also allow owners to remove existing parking spaces if they offer transit passes and/or a parking cashout program. This in-lieu option would assist infill devel- # NOTES opment, improve urban design, and increase urban density without increasing traffic. 1. Monopoly® is the trademark of Hasbro, Inc. for its real estate Finally, a city could require the provision of transit passes trading game. "Free Parking" is one of 40 spaces on the game and/or parking cash out at a site if the developer wished to board. provide more than the required number of parking spaces. That 2. In 1990, the U.S. Department of Transportation conducted the is, a developer would have to take steps to reduce parking Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. For all automobile demand in order to receive permission to increase the parking trips made on the previous day, the survey asked 48,000 respondents, "Did you pay for parking during any part of this supply above what the zoning requires. trip?" Ninety-nine percent of the 56,733 responses to this Allowing developers to reduce parking demand instead of question were "no." The responses outnumbered the increasing the parking supply is a logical extension of in-lieu respondents because some respondents made more than one fee programs. Nevertheless, none of the surveyed cities allows automobile trip per day (Shoup 1995, 15). parking demand management as an alternative to providing 3. The survey includes every in-lieu parking fee program found parking spaces. after searching the literature on parking requirements, sending e-mail requests to parking listservers, and asking the representatives of each city with in-lieu fees for additional leads CONCLUSION: THE HIGH COST OF MINIMUM # (a "snowball" sample). Additional cities in Germany have PARKING REQUIREMENTS in-lieu fees (Ablösebeträge), but as explained later most of these cities' fees are calculated on a case-by-case basis and In-lieu fees unveil the high cost of parking requirements. The therefore could not be used to calculate the parking impact fees impact fees implicit in parking requirements dwarf the impact shown in Tables 1 and 2. Planners in several of the surveyed fees for all other public purposes combined. These high parking cities were unaware that any other cities had in-lieu fees, and only four brief published references to in-lieu fees were found: In Lieu of Free Parking - 14 - Shoup
Public Technology (1982), Higgins (1985), Weant and Levinson indexed to the Consumer Price Index) per parking space not (1990), and Topp (1993). provided. 4. Among the nine cities that set fees on a case-by-case basis, 8. The fees and parking requirements for each city are their values Culver City's fee is the assessed value of 300 square feet of land in 1996. Unless otherwise noted, the fees and parking under the development. Hamilton's and Toronto's fees are halfthe requirements apply only in the downtown area of each city. land-and-construction cost of providing a new,parking space near Fees are converted into US$ at 1996 rates of exchange: U.S. the development site. Johannesburg's fee is the land value of a $1 = 1.37 Canadian Dollars; 1.56 German Marks; 66.57 surface parking space at the development site. Frankfurt's fee Icelandic Kronur; 3.84 South African Rands; and 0.60 British depends on the land-and-construction cost of a parking space, Pounds. with a maximum fee of $16,025. San Rafael's fee is the fair 9. The British term for an in-lieu fee is "commuted payment." All market value of the land that would otherwise have been devoted the British cities in the survey are boroughs of outer London. to the required off-street parking, plus the cost of paving and The inner London boroughs no longer use commuted payments other improvements. M ontgomery County allows developers to because then have replaced their minimum parking pay a property tax surcharge instead of providing the required requirements with restrictions on the maximum number of parking. parking spaces allowed. 5. The method of setting the fees varies greatly among cities. Lake 10. The average impact fee has been converted to dollars of 1996 Forest's fee ($9,0 00 per space) is half th e cit y's purchasing power, the year in which all the in-lieu fees were land-and-construction cost per space in surface lots. The fees in measured. Mountain View ($13,000 per space) and Orlando ($9,883 per 11. The impact fees in Table 2 refer to one specific land use space) are the cities' construction cost per space in parking (offices). Montgomery County, Maryland, has a unique in-lieu structures, excluding land cost. Palo Alto's fee ($17,848 per arrangement that is independent of land use. In one community space) is the construction cost per space added by a parking (Bethesda), for example, developers can pay a property tax structure, after deducting the number of surface spaces lost when surcharge of 0.7 percent of a property's assessed value instead the structure is built. Walnut Creek's fee ($16,373 per space) is of providing the required parking; the revenue is used to 75 percent of the construction cost per space in a public parking construct and maintain public parking facilities. Montgomery structure, excluding land cost. The fees in Kingston upon Thames County's general property tax rate to fund education, health, ($20,800) and Sutton ($12,800) are the land and construction libraries, police, social services, and transportation is 2 percent cost per space in parking structures on the fringe of the town of assessed property value. The special property tax rate for center. Port Elizabeth's fee ($1,846 per space) is the land and parking is thus more than one third of the general property tax construction cost per space in surface lots. rate for education, health, libraries, police, social services, and 6. Berkeley requires developers of lots under 30,000 square feet to transportation. pay fees instead of providing the parking. Calgary requires 12. See NPTS Web site at http://www.cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/ developers to provide half the required parking and to pay fees EarlyResults.shtml for the average distance to work in 1995. for the other half. Orlando requires developers to pay fees instead 13. See American Automobile Manufacturers Association (1998) of providing the first required parking space per 1,000 square for the average fuel efficiency and the average price of gasoline feet, and allows them to choose whether to provide parking or in 1995. pay fees for the rest. Waltham Forest requires developers to 14. The r2 for the correlation between minimum Parking provide the first 0.2 required parking spaces per 1,000 square requirements and impact fees is 0.60, and the r2 for the feet and to pay fees for the rest. Carmel and Lake Forest require correlation between in-lieu fees and impact fees is 0.12. developers to pay fees in lieu of all the required parking. 15. New restaurants in Beverly Hills are not eligible for the reduced 7. Office buildings were chosen for Table 2 because they are the fee. They must pay the full fee, which ranges from $15,135 to most uniformly defined land use among cities. All of the cities in $25,225 per space, depending on the restaurant's location. The Tables 2 and 3 require parking spaces in proportion to gross floor Parking requirement of one space per 45 square feet of area. Gross floor area is the building's total floor area, including restaurant area and the in-lieu fees are together equivalent to cellars, basements, corridors, lobbies, stairways, elevators, and impact fees ranging from $336 to $561 per square foot of storage. Gross floor area is measured from the building's outside restaurant area. wall faces. Seventeen of the 46 surveyed cities do not appear in 16. As one example of high parking requirements, the North Tables 2 and 3 because either their in-lieu fees or their minimum Westwood Village Specific Plan requires 3.5 parking spaces parking requirements are not comparable with the other cities. for each dwelling unit that contains more than four habitable Brent, Culver City, Dresden Frankfürt, Hamilton, Johannesburg, rooms, and even kitchens count as habitable rooms (Los Nuremberg, San Rafael, and Toronto do not have fixed fees; Angeles Ordinance 163,202). instead these cities establish the fee for each specific case, 17. "Since the payment of the $9,000 per space ‘in lieu of ’ fee only usually taking into account the appraised land value at the site. allows for a property owner to establish a business, the fee has Montgomery County's fee is based on the property tax. never been intended to cover the full cost of providing a parking Manhattan Beach ($25,169 per space) requires parking only for space... Historically, the ‘in lieu of’ fee has been placed at a the building area that exceeds a floor-area ratio of 1:l. Lafayette level that is roughly equivalent to fifty percent of the cost of ($8,500 per space), Munich ($16,025 per space), Redbridge providing a parking space" (Memo to Lake Forest Plan $8,624 per space), and Würzburg ($12,820 per space) require Commission, February 1, 1993, page 2). parking on the basis of net rather than gross floor area. San 18. In-lieu fees may underestimate the cost of complying with Francisco ($17,135 per space) does not require parking spaces in minimum parking requirements for another reason. Developers the CBD. Pasadena allows developers to pay an annual fee who pay fees merely receive permission to develop without ($100 per parking space per year in 1992 and subsequently providing the required parking. Developers who provide the In Lieu of Free Parking - 15 - Shoup
required parking not only receive permission to develop, but they 28. Shoup and Breinholt (1997) found that employers in the United also own the resulting parking spaces, a valuable asset. States provide 85 million free parking spaces for commuters. Developers who pay the fees instead of providing the required 29. Shoup (1997) presents eight case studies in which cashing out parking would presumably have to pay even more to provide the employer paid parking reduced parking demand by 11 percent. required parking itself. Suppose the in-lieu fee is $10,000 per Because cashing out reduces parking demand, logically it space, and that each on-site parking space adds $5,000 to a should also reduce parking requirements. California legislation development's value. In this case the developer will pay the fee addresses this issue in the following way: "The city or county in only if on-site parking costs more than $15,000 per space. which a commercial development will implement a parking Therefore, payment of the fee suggests that (1) providing the cash-out program ... shall grant to that development an required parking would cost much more, or (2) a parking space appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise in does not add much to the development's value. effect for new commercial development" (California Health and 19. Minimum parking requirements impose no burden if developers Safety Code Section 65089). would voluntarily provide the required number of parking spaces. Developers would therefore presumably prefer a low parking # REFERENCES requirement with a high in-lieu fee to a high parking requirement with a low in-lieu fee, even if the parking impact fee is the same Altshuler, A., and J. Gómez-Ibáñez. 1993. Regulation for Revenue. in both cases. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 20. See Planning Advisory Service (1964, 1971, 1991). These data American Automobile Manufacturers Association. 1998. greatly understate the growth in the number of different parking AAMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures. Detroit, requirements. While the 1964 survey reported every parking Mich. requirement found for each of 30 land uses, and the 1971 survey Beverly Hills Planning Commission. 1992. Staff report. April 22. reported every parking requirement found for each of 83 land Beverly Hills, Calif. uses, the 1991 survey reported only a few of the many different Brown, J., D. Hess, and D. Shoup. 1998. Unlimited access. Working parking requirements found for each of 179 land uses. Paper, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of 21. Palm Springs requires 28.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet for a California, Los Angeles. cabaret, while Vancouver requires one space per 1,000 square Chicago Regional Transportation Authority. 1998. Opportunity feet for all nonresidential uses, including cabarets. Costs of Municipal Parking Requirements. Prepared by Fish & 22. For auditoriums in the CBD, Los Angeles requires a minimum of Associates, K.T. Analytics, and Vlecides-Schroeder Associates, ten parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, with no maximum. San Final Report, April 1998. Chicago, Ill. Francisco allows parking spaces equal to a maximum of 7 Higgins, T. 1985. Flexible parking requirements for office percent of building area (0.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet if a developments: New support for Public parking and ridesharing. parking space occupies 350 square feet), with no minimum. Transportation 12:343-359. 23. As an administrative precedent for purchasing transit passes in Hu, P., and J. Young. 1992. Summary of Travel Trends, 1990 lieu of providing the required parking, some cities allow property Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. Washington, D.C.: owners to purchase parking permits in public garages in lieu of U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWAPL-92-027. providing the required on-site parking. For example, Kirkland Kuhn, T. 1957. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge, allows a property owner to pay an annual in-lieu fee of $1,020 Mass.: Harvard University Press. per required parking space not provided, and the owner receives Planning Advisory Service. 1964. Off-Street Parking Requirements. a parking pass to a public garage for each fee paid. This Report # 182. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association. obligation runs with the land, and commits future property Planning Advisory Service. 1971. An Approach to determining owners either to pay the annual fee or to provide the required Parking Demand. Report # 270. Chicago, Ill.: American parking. Planning Association. 24. This price includes a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. On any Planning Advisory Service. 1991. Off-Street Parking Requirements. day they ride transit to work, employees are entitled to a free taxi Report # 432. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association. ride home in the event of illness, emergency, or unscheduled Public Technology, Inc. 1982. Flexible Parking Requirements. overtime. The public transit systems in Boulder and Denver, Urban Consortium Information Bulletin, DOT-1-82-57. Colorado, and Salt Lake City, Utah, offer similar Eco Pass Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Fransportation. programs. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 1997. Eco Pass Pilot 25. There can still be adverse selection among employers. Firms with Program Survey Summary of Findings. San Jose, Calif. many employees who ride transit will have an incentive to buy Shoup, D. 1995. An opportunity to reduce minimum parking the Eco Passes, and this will tend to increase the transit requirements. Journal of the American Planning Association operators' cost. 61(1):14-28. 26. Suppose the Eco Pass costs $80 per employee per year. If there Shoup, D. 1997. Evaluating the effects of cashing out employer-paid are four employees per 1,000 square feet of office space, the Eco parking: Eight case studies. Transport Policy 4(4):201-216. Passes would cost $320 per year per 1,000 square feet of office Shoup, D., and M.J. Breinholt. 1997. Employer-paid parking: A space (4 x $80), or 32 cents per year per square foot of office nationwid e survey of employers' parking subsid y policies. In space ($320 ÷ 1,000). The Full Social Costs and Benefits of Transportation, eds. 27. If satisfying the parking requirement costs $55 per square foot of D. Greene, D. Jones, and M. Delucchi, 371-385. Berlin, office space, and if Eco Passes reduce the parking requirement by Germany: Springer-Verlag. 19 percent, the Eco Passes would reduce the capital cost of Topp, H. 1993. Parking policies to reduce car traffic in German required parking by $10.45 per square foot of office space ($55 x cities. Transport Reviews 13(1):83-95. 0.19). In Lieu of Free Parking - 16 - Shoup
University of Washington Transportation Office. 1997.. Stadium Expansion Parking Plan and Transportation Management Program: Draft 1997 Data Collection Summary. December 19. Seattle, Wash. Weant, R., and H. Levinson. 1990. Parking. Westport, Conn.: Eno Foundation. Willson, R. 1995. Suburban parking requirements: A tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl. Journal of the American Planning Association 61(1):29-42.
APPENDIX D DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PARKING FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWNS
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Appendix D Design Guidelines for Parking Facilities in Downtowns
Edges Parking garages should not present blank walls to the street. The best solution is to wrap the garage with commercial or residential uses. An alternative is to locate retail on the ground floor of the garage.
Driveways Sidewalks should take priority over driveways as drivers are legally required to yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. The driveway should ramp up to sidewalk level at the curb; the sidewalk should not ramp down to meet the driveway.
Figure 1 Kansas City, MO – Note how the walls limit visibility.
Page D-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 2 Washington, D.C. – Note the yellow curb across the sidewalk – a trip hazard.
Figure 3 Colorado Springs, CO – Curb extension with driveway - the design provides a place for drivers to wait for a gap in traffic without blocking pedestrians.
Page D-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Figure 4 Arlington County, VA – Note the double stop signs, one at the sidewalk and one at the street.
Through Passage Parking garages and lots should not block through passage. In fact, garages and lots can enhance pedestrian mobility by providing mid-block access and allow people to shorten their journey. The routes can be enhanced by trees, retail, arcades and other features.
Bicycle Parking Parking for cyclists should be included in all garages and lots. This is an inexpensive way to increase use, as one can fit about 10 bikes for every one car. Bike parking should be located near the entrance in a visible location. Cyclists will ride through the vehicle entrance and then walk out as pedestrians, similar to other garage users.
Figure 5 Arlington County, VA – Bicycle parking facilities inside a parking garage. Note the additional security offered by the chain link fence. It is also located near the attendant’s booth.
Page D-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Wayfinding After parking, people need direction to destinations. Wayfinding for those on foot includes a variety of information options: directional signage, maps and kiosks. We recommend signs which give not only distance information, but also travel time.
Figure 6 Alexandria, VA – Wayfinding sign for pedestrians with number of blocks to destination.
Figure 7 Wayfinding sign for pedestrians with walking time to destination (Studio L’Image)
Page D-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
APPENDIX E CASE STUDY – BOULDER, CO
Best Practices of Parking Management Appendix E Case Study – Boulder, CO e program was set up in conjunction with the design of the Pearl e intention was to provide parking on a district-wide basis on the periphery of the mall, avoiding the need to provide on-site parking for each business. It was seen as a tool for economic revitalization and promoting a good pedestrian environ- ment, with the two going hand in hand.
Key characteristics include a desire to create a walkable, vibrant community, with a focus on a high quality of life. In addition, Boul- der (at least at present) is dependent on bus transit to meet its pub- lic transportation needs. It should be noted that Boulder had very little transit at the time that CAGID was established; bus service e City of Boulder has a population of around 96,000 people.
Parking Tools
Boulder’s public garage wrapped in retail and o ce Boulder is most notable for its integrated approach, that allows CAGID to invest in the optimum mix of transit, demand manage- Introduction e follow- ing specifi c parking strategies have been employed in Boulder: Boulder’s downtown business district, having recovered from near- death in the 1970’s, today comprises some 700 businesses and more • No parking requirements. e City has no parking require- than 7,500 employees. Faced with a shortage of parking for cus- ments for non-residential uses within the CAGID area. tomers, the city developed a program that combines restrictions on Developers are allowed to build as much or as little parking ese ini- as they choose, subject to design standards in the zoning tiatives have been introduced through a special district – the Central code, and to manage it as they see fi t. If they choose to build Area General Improvement District (CAGID), which was established less parking, they can purchase permits for public lots and e Board of CAGID, which makes the fi nal decisions is is on issues such as new parking construction, is comprised of the City usually a much cheaper strategy than building parking on- Council. However, considerable power over decisions such as park- site. Public garage permits cost $213 per quarter ($852 per ing charges is held by the Downtown Management Commission year), and surface lot permits (for which there is a waiting (DMC), which is made up of local businesses and property owners, list) $134 ($536 per year). Residential minimum parking re- although its actions are subject to City Council review.1 quirements are set at one space per unit, although these have had little impacts since developers have tended to provide two spaces per unit given market demands. 1. For more details, see Boulder Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 3-5.
Page 6 NelsonNygaard Downtown Ventura Specifi c Plan Best Practices of Parking Management
• Funding of public parking. Shared public parking facili- lots, and transition to structured parking as downtown grew. ties are constructed and operated by CAGID, and funded All DMC-run garages are mixed-use. For example, the new through CAGID’s general obligation bonds. Th is debt is garage at 15th and Pearl Streets is wrapped in street-level supported primarily by revenue from parking charges (in- retail and second-fl oor offi ces on two sides. Th e garage has cluding meters), and secondarily by property and other taxes received several design awards from architectural, planning paid by property owners (providing 16% of revenue). Th e and parking institutes, including a Charter Award from the DMC currently manages 202 spaces in non-metered surface Congress for the New Urbanism. Th e Zoning Code also has lots, 2,209 spaces in fi ve structures, and 871 metered spaces, specifi c design requirements for downtown parking, which 61 of which are in a surface lot (2004 fi gures). must be wrapped in retail, restaurant or other pedestrian-ori- • Demand management. On-street meter revenue is used to ented uses for a depth of 20-30 feet on the fi rst fl oor. Parking must also be wrapped on the second fl oor, although this may provide all employees with benefi ts such as a free universal 3 transit pass (called an Eco-Pass); Guaranteed Ride Home; be with any permitted use and the required depth is lower. ride-matching services; bicycle parking; and a number of • Reduced parking requirements. Outside of the CAGID other benefi ts. In 2002, these programs cost just under area, the City has also experimented with lower, more fl ex- $325,000 (Figure 1).2 Th is focus was prompted by the reality ible parking requirements in mixed-use districts. A single of limited street capacity to handle more traffi c, and simple parking requirement for all non-residential uses allows the economics. “CAGID realized that the economics of park- use to change freely. For example, an offi ce use can be con- ing garages are dismal,” according to James Bailey, a former verted into a restaurant, without the barrier of having to add planner who helped establish the system. Th e DMC deter- new parking. Th ere are also low parking requirements for mined that demand management was a cheaper strategy than residential uses in many parts of the city. building new parking alone. Th ese TDM programs are not • Residential Permit Parking. Neighborhood Permit Parking directly managed by CAGID, but through the City’s Down- initiatives have been introduced to prevent overspill park- town and University Hill Management Division. ing from commuters trying to avoid parking restrictions and • Curb parking. All downtown parking meter revenue – more charges downtown. Commuters are eligible, however, to than $1 million per year – is transferred to CAGID from the buy on-street parking permits for $60 per quarter – another City’s General Fund. Th is responsibility, together with the example of the integration of on-street and off -street man- fact that local businesses and property owners comprise the agement. Commuter permits are limited to four per block DMC, gives it a strong incentive to create new curb parking. face, on blocks where average occupancy is lower than 75%. One of its fi rst moves was to create more curbside, metered Th is RPP program is designed to be revenue neutral, and so parking through converting parallel spaces to diagonal. commuter fees cross-subsidize low annual resident fees of • Parking garage design. Boulder’s original concept, which $12 per year (Figure 2). Sophisticated enforcement is used, has largely been implemented, was to begin with surface with license plates entered into a handheld commuter, mean- ing that motorists cannot evade the restrictions by simply 2. Eco-Pass costs were projected to rise signifi cantly from $257,550 in FY2002 moving their cars every few hours. to $320,000 in FY 2003 and 2004. 3. See Boulder Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 3.4-21. Nelson Nygaard Page 7 Downtown Ventura Specifi c Plan Best Practices of Parking Management
• Discounted validated parking. Downtown businesses can Figure 2 Boulder Neighborhood Permit Parking Program Revenue bulk-purchase meter tokens or validated stamps, in order to and Expenditure, 2002 off er free parking to their customers. A common practice in Residential Permit Sales $26,395 many downtowns with parking charges, it avoids the risk Commuter Permit Sales $69,936 of customers turning to other retail destinations in order to avoid parking charges. Citation Revenue $239,231 Administrative Costs (excluding enforcement) $70,027 Figure 1 CAGID Revenue and Expenditure, 2002 Source: City of Boulder. Staff estimate that Neighborhood Parking Program enforcement Revenue accounts for 60% of the City’s enforcement resources (11 officers) while generating 13% Taxation (inc. property/owner/TIF tax) $775,293 of citation revenue. Short Term Fees $925,757 Long Term Fees $1,302,507 Impacts of Parking Policies Meter Revenue1 $1,026,820 Development Feasibility Meterhood and Tokens2 $106,777 Interest $70,751 Initially, developers and property owners were skeptical of the pro- Rental Income $380,766 posals to create CAGID, but according to local planners and devel- Mobility Center Grant $84,969 opers, they have been convinced by its success in catalyzing economic Miscellaneous $25,779 development. According to James Bailey: “In the 1970s, downtown Total Revenue $4,699,419 was dying. Th ey had to do something. Th is was a pretty pragmatic Expenditures approach.” Parking Operations $737,928 Already, rapid growth has brought Boulder close to the popula- Major Parking Maintenance $50,569 tion and employment levels that in 1996 were projected for 2020. 3 Downtown & University Hill Management Division $924,565 Th e downtown pedestrian-oriented “Pearl Street Mall” has tripled Eco-Pass Program $257,550 in length in the past decade, as automobile-oriented parcels at ei- Major Maintenance to Pearl Street Mall $942,158 ther end have been redeveloped. Th ere are numerous examples of Debt Service $1,964,028 new developments that have taken place in recent years, such as the Other Expenditure $159,560 300,000 square foot One Boulder Plaza under construction at pres- Total Expenditure $5,036,358 ent. Pearl Street is one of the only examples of a successful pedestrian 1. Meter revenue is transferred from the City’s General Fund. mall in the United States. 2. Meterhoods are paid for by contractors, special events, utility companies, etc. to use a curb parking space. Tokens are purchased by businesses to provide parking validation for their customers, or others who prefer tokens to quarters. According to local planners, a small mixed-use zone on East Pearl 3. Includes all costs that are not directly related to parking facility and meter maintenance Street, close to the city’s downtown, was established in the 1980s but and revenue collection. Includes $392,000 for personnel, $65,000 for Transportation barely used for more than a decade, at least partly due to high park- Demand Management, and $62,000 for planning for a new structure. ing requirements. A reduction in requirements adopted in 1997 to Source: City of Boulder one space per 400 square feet of non-residential development (one
Page 8 Nelson Nygaard Downtown Ventura Specifi c Plan Best Practices of Parking Management
space per 500 square feet if commercial makes up less than 50% of Council control), and/or the adoption of strong guidelines that can the development) has been a key to encouraging recent develop- be used to determine when new parking is needed. ment. According to City staff , the Neighborhood Permit Parking program Traffi c and Parking has also had success in preventing spillover, and ensuring space is available for residents. At the same time, the sale of commuter per- According to the Downtown Management Commission, there has mits has contributed to the effi cient use of curb space. been an increase in available parking, partly due to the construction of new garages, but also due to more employees taking transit. Com- References muting in multiple occupancy vehicles increased from 35% in 1993 to 47% in 1997. Th e Eco Pass program alone has reduced commuter Interviews and e-mail correspondence with local developers, plan- parking demand by 850 spaces, the DMC states. ners, and CAGID staff .
While new development is not required to incorporate on-site park- City of Boulder (2003), Transportation Master Plan. Approved by ing, some projects have done so due to market demands – but only City Council September 16, 2003. to the point where it is economic. At the 400,000 square foot One Boulder Plaza, for example, two stories of underground parking are City of Boulder (2003), Neighborhood Parking Program 2002. An- provided, equivalent to 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. However, nual Update. Staff Report to City Council, February 24, 2003. site constraints meant that about half the parking for employees is City of Boulder (2004), 2004-05 Approved Budget. provided off -site through CAGID. Th e cost to the individual of these off -site permits is about $50 per month cheaper per employee. Steuteville, Robert (2003), “Boulder: a model for excellence in mixed-use design,” New Urban News, December 2003. According to one local developer, the biggest problem with CAGID has been the historical reluctance of City Council (which comprises US Environmental Protection Agency (undated), Downtown Boul- CAGID’s Board) to build more parking, largely due to traffi c con- der. Best Workplaces for Commuters District. www.commuterchoice. cerns. However, this has recently been addressed after long pressure gov/campaign/boulder.htm from local businesses, and has led to new garages such as 15th and Pearl, and the 10th and Walnut structure opening in summer 2004. US Environmental Protection Agency (forthcoming), Parking Spac- Th e decision to build new parking is based both on feasibility stud- es/Community Places. ies demonstrating the need for additional supply, and the fi nancial viability of a bond election.
Th e developer suggests that this may be largely a political problem unique to Boulder. However, he suggests it shows the need for strong business representation when making these decisions (for example, through the creation of a separate parking district not under City
Nelson Nygaard Page 9
APPENDIX F THE 511 TRAVEL INFORMATION SYSTEM
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Appendix F: The 511 Travel Information System
In 1999, The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) requested that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) designate a nationwide three-digit telephone number for traveler information. The 511 system was inaugurated in 2000. The system is an integral component of the nation’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), which is designed to enhance mobility, improve safety, and increase the efficient distribution of freight. The 511 system relies on one of the most basic forms of communication, the telephone, to provide nationwide access to the wealth of information collected through the ITS system.
There are no federal requirements or mandated method to pay for the implementation of the 511. States and local agencies are responsible for the implementation of the program. Recognizing the opportunities and challenges inherent in implementing a cohesive 511 program, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in conjunction with many other organizations has established a 511 Deployment Coalition. 1 The coalition has established a national vision for 511 which states that: 511 will be a customer-driven, multi-modal travel information service, available across the United States, accessed via telephones, and other personal communications devices, realized through locally deployed interoperable systems, enabling a safer, more reliable and efficient transportation system. 2
A Working Group of practitioners has been formed to support the Policy Committee. The Working Group has identified three major issues that need to be addressed by the Policy Committee. First, the working group is determining whether there should be a minimal level of content and quality of content in the 511 system. Secondly, the group is determining the level of consistency that should be in place among 511 services throughout the country. Finally, there is the issues of cost, namely should the 511 system be free to the end user, and if so, how should the system be financed.
Continued leadership and active participation from: the Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) industry; the USDOT; related industry associations; state, regional and local
1 http://www.its.dot.gov/511/511_Deployment_Coalition.htm
2 http://www.its.dot.gov/511/PDF/511ver2.pdf
Page F-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
government agencies; and private firms will be essential in making the vision a reality and achieve the current and future goals. 3
511.orgs Many states and local and regional areas have also developed websites to coincide with their 511 phone service implementation. Some of the better examples of such websites are reviewed below.
San Francisco Bay Area - www.511.org The San Francisco Bay area has one of the most comprehensive 511 systems in the country, an interconnected network of 511 systems serving the entire Bay area (nine- county area). The Bay area’s 511 service is a free phone and web service that consolidates Bay Area transportation into a one-stop resource.
Timely information on driving conditions, traffic incidents, travel times, scheduling and other information for area public transportation services, non-motorized information, and car- and vanpool information are all included on this site.
The site is managed by a partnership of public agencies led by Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the California Highway Patrol, and the California Department of Transportation.
Sacramento Region - www.sacregion511.org 511 provides access to information about all modes of travel: traffic conditions for commuters, bus and light rail information for more than 20 transit agencies, paratransit services for the elderly and disabled, ridesharing information and information on commuting by bike. The telephone service is available in English and Spanish.
Sacramento Region 511 serves El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties. The number also links callers to 511 services in the Bay Area, Nevada and Oregon, as well as Butte and Glenn counties.
In conjunction with the phone service, this Web site can help users plan their daily commute, access transit providers, find a carpool partner, and learn about bicycling as a commute option. With the traffic information on this site, you can check your commute options and know the road before you go. Once behind the wheel, you can call 511 for traffic updates.
3 http://www.deploy511.org/
Page F-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Washington State - www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/511 By dialing 511, Washington State 511 users can get a variety of information on:
z Puget Sound traffic conditions z Statewide construction & incident information z Mountain pass conditions z State's ferry system information z 800 numbers for passenger rail and airlines z Weather z Connection to Oregon's 511 system
Washington’s system is quite successful, with over 42,000 individuals calling 511 in April 2007. The system is very simple to operate. A user would dial 5-1-1 and say "traffic" to receive customized traffic information. Next say the road number, such as "5," and receive up-to-the-minute updates on the road segment the user plans to use.
Speech recognition technology permits callers to verbally tell the system what they want, The requested information is then "spoken" back to the user. Callers can use key words to quickly navigate the system to the specific road segment for the information sought.
Central Florida – www.fl511.com Called “My Florida 511”, Florida’s 511 service is a free service of the Florida Department of Transportation which offers travel information along personalized profiles the user chooses throughout the central Florida region. The user can create up to 10 different routes (profiles) that he or she regularly drives. The user can then get travel information along those routes by dialing 511 from a cell or landline phone. When calling 511, the system will recognize the user’s phone number through Caller ID technology. The user will first hear about their profiles and will then be given full access to 511’s full range of services in Central Florida. The user will then be given the opportunity to transfer to the statewide system.
Tennessee - http://www.tn511.com The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) has implemented 511 as a resource for travelers wanting information about road and travel conditions, incidents, and construction on state highways. 511 is part of the TDOT SmartWay program. Travelers have the option of accessing road and travel conditions using the Web at www.TN511.com or through the 511 phone service.
Tennessee 511 uses an automated voice response system, meaning callers are guided
Page F-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
through the menu through a series of requests. Callers can ask for specific roadways or regions, and the system will provide information about traffic incidents, closures and other important roadway conditions.
The Tennessee Department of Transportation provides Tennessee 511 as a public service to commuters and travelers in Tennessee.
New Hampshire - www.511nh.com Sponsored by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, the New Hampshire 511 system allows commuters and travelers to access information regarding traffic incidents, road construction and weather-related travel conditions, via the Internet or by dialing 511 from any phone. Eventually, the system will include services such as Highway Advisory Radio and Dynamic Message Signs.
Highway Advisory Radio Highway advisory radio (HAR) or traveler’s information systems (TIS) are low-power AM radio stations set up by local transportation agencies to provide traffic delay, parking, and other information to motorists.4 They are often used in conjunction with variable message signs, which tell drivers where or when to tune to HAR.
HAR provides information on detours, vehicular operating restrictions, warnings about hazards, traffic conditions along short roadway segments, such as work zones, parking availability, public transit alternatives, and notices of events.
Although evaluations show that travelers are unlikely to switch off their normal radio stations to listen to traffic information reports, those who do tune in express high levels of satisfaction.5
One of the benefits of a HAR is that such a system can include more specific information than a commercial traffic report or a variable message sign. Its other advantage is that it can be available 24 hours a day. No additional equipment is needed to receive highway advisory radio broadcasts since most cars have AM radios.
However, keeping the information current is time and labor intensive. Placing, installing and maintaining antennas can be costly, as can staffing and equipping a central control facility to coordinate information from multiple agencies.
There are other challenges in implementing a HAR system. These include making travelers aware of the service since frequencies change frequently and cover small areas. Also, a message must be designed that is concise but also relays the necessary information.
4 www.wikipedia.org 5 ITS Decision, http://www.calccit.org/itsdecision
Page F-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Many turnpikes, toll facilities (tunnels, bridges) and other systems such as airports, causeways and national parks use HAR. It is also used to broadcast changing conditions in long-term construction sites that have a large share of repeat visitors.
Page F-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
APPENDIX G REAL-TIME ON-STREET OCCUPANCY TECHNOLOGY
Appendix G Real-Time On-Street Occupancy Technology
Reality-Based Parking Management™
Streetline™ raises the standard for professional parking management with reliable, real-time data on occupancy and turnover at every parking space in your operation.
On-street or in structured parking, Streetline gives you an accurate, up-to-the-minute picture of your total parking inventory, along with a record of every arrival and departure, 24 hours a day.
Streetline helps public agencies and private operators optimize All Streetline parking data is geo-coded and can be linked with any GIS enforcement, increase revenue, and plan improvements with real system. This screenshot shows real-time parking data in San Francisco displayed in Google Earth. data.
? Real-time Occupancy, Duration, and Turnover Data ™ connects Streetline’s revolutionary data ? A Complete History of all Parking Sessions Streetlink API ? Demand Statistics for Pricing and Policy Management quality with payment, enforcement and public information ? Optimized Enforcement Routes systems to deliver a complete parking solution years ahead ? GIS-ready datasets of any other.
From pavement to management.
Streetline data is accurate for billing and enforcement, and completely eliminates the need for clipboard surveys.
Streetline sensors come in a tough 4” by 4” package that secures to the pavement surface in minutes. They blend in with the streetscape, and provide reliable information for years. Streetline™ & Streetlink API™ Data Sheet
Our Technology … Our Company Streetline & Partner Applications
Streetline’s sensor networking technology was originally Streetlink API & Data Exchange Interface developed for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by researchers at UC Berkeley. Over Network Application Data the past decade, it has been field tested in some of the Management Management Management world’s most demanding environments.
Wide Area Network Streetline was founded by members of the team that first Gateways commercialized this remarkable technology. Our mission is to build networked solutions to the problems of ordinary Wireless Sensor Mesh city life – starting with parking management.
Sensor Bumps System
Dimensions 4” x 4” x 0.8” Networking ISM Band 900MHz or 2.4GHz fully Standard RPM size and shape redundant wireless mesh.
Mechanical Completely sealed and filled, with no Minimum Deployment Size Recommended minimum for cost user serviceable parts. Lab and field effectiveness is 25 parking spaces tested for exceptional durability.
Streetline is completely modular and 5 to 10 years of normal operation Scalability Battery Life expands to support any size deployment. Cost effectiveness Environmental Tolerance Industrial Grade. continues to increase with size of the (-40o C to +85o C) operation.
Deployment Surface mount on any pavement Upgrade All software and firmware is remotely surface using standard adhesives. upgradeable. Updates and feature additions are achieved without the need to modify deployed sensors. Accuracy Streetline has been tested to 98% accurate detection of arrival and departure, with 100% reliable API Flexible to support XML, SOAP and enforcement and billing data. other common interface protocols.
Frequently Asked Questions This seems like a big decision. Is it? Streetline can be cost effective in installations as small as 25 spaces, and can be rolled out incrementally – one block or parking lot at a time. You can even let the system pay for itself by installing Streetline in part of your operation first, and using new revenue and reduced operating costs to fund expansion.
Does this lock me into yet another proprietary system? Definitely not. Streetline is committed to maintaining an open interface. That means that you can connect your 995 Market Street, 16th Floor operating data to any other system you want. In fact, we’ll help you do it. Streetline will connect to virtually any San Francisco, CA 94103 modern payment system, including paystations, single space meters, cell phone systems and the web. We can talk to [email protected] most enforcement and signage systems too. With Streetlink API, upgrading features and services is like putting lego (415) 869-8639 pieces together.
How do I get started? The easiest way to get started is to contact us to arrange for a pilot. We can host your system on our own servers and arrange for quick installation.
APPENDIX H ORDINANCE EXAMPLE: DEMAND-RESPONSIVE ON-STREET PRICING
Appendix H - Ordinance Example: Demand-Responsive On-Street Pricing
APPENDIX I OPEN HOUSE SURVEY FEEDBACK
Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Appendix I
Open House Survey Feedback At the conclusion of the March 29th Open House, participants were given a short written survey. Responses are summarized below.
Are you a regular parker in downtown Ann Arbor? If so, where do you usually park? z No - I walk my errands, I live downtown z Private space z In an underground structure z Yes - 4th and Williams Parking Structure z Yes - Maynard Street Garage z Not during the day - park in 1st and Washington, Ann Ashley and 4th and William z 4th and Williams Lot or Street z Post Office (etc.), Courthouse (etc.), 4th and Washington, on street (when free) z Drive 1/2 the time and park in Tally Hall or ISR Lot or County Lot on 4th/Catherine. z Yes - on street or lot z No. z No. I live downtown and usually walk z Yes - Sloan Plaza z No z Near stores on Main Street in Winter and many town lots in Winter. z Yes - street and parking structures z Yes - bank lots, on street, library lot, post office lot, residential areas, city lot, 5th Avenue surface lot. z Monthly - at First and William z I live downtown and have a parking space, but I also parking downtown on streets, seldom structures. z Main, State, Kerrytown
Page I-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
If you are not a regular parker, do you regularly come downtown without driving? If so, how do you travel (walk, bike, bus, other)? z Walk z Walk z No z No z I ride into town at least 3 days/week as long as temperature is above 20 degrees F (12 mile round trip) z Bike/take bus 1/2 the time. We (wife and I) have one car so one of us is biking or taking the bus daily. z Yes - bus, cab, walk z Walk z Bus or Walk z Walk, bus z I live downtown and walk and bike a lot z Also walk extensively
What (if any) ideas did you hear tonight do you think could help Ann Arbor the most? z Use the Meters at night - money would be used to park z Pricing to even demand z Building on your existing structures. Building more structures for parking z Commuter Bus, Building more parking structures with business on the ground level z Extending meters into evening z Evening valet z Have free parking for the first 15 minutes to give access to customers looking to do quick business z Demand management - adjust rates to promote 85% utilization of all parking (15% available). z More bike paths and commuter buses, especially Friday and Saturday night z Use multiple approaches to reduce demand for parking, increase use of alternative transportation and don't do anything that will hurt businesses from staying or locating downtown z Realistic price parking and enforcement z Mandatory underground parking for new development - both residential and commercial
Page I-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study–Phase II • Final CITY OF ANN ARBOR
z We need signs directing drivers to lots! z Building parking structures on impervious surface lots at Malls on the edge of town as Park and Ride structures with express shuttle buses to and from them. z Transportation coordinator z Bike lanes in downtown / w/covered parking RR to AA z More pedestrian/bike incentives. Park/ride reserved spaced z More park and ride, changing meter times, opening lots in PM for free parking z Developers provide parking solutions, valet parking, public transportation links, no more above ground structures. z Better data, more frequently
Page I-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.