INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Rachel Weinberger, John Kaehny, Matthew Rufo
Introduction
IN THE LAST FIVE TO TEN YEARS, U.S. transportation planners have become much more aware of the effect parking has on congestion, air quality, economic development and the pedestrian environment. Historically the “parking problem” has been identified as the problem of too little supply; increasingly the problem is now seen as the poor management of the existing supply and, in cases where cities have instituted parking maximums, the problem is understood to be of too much supply. There is a growing realization that the dysfunction caused by poorly conceived parking policies is a major impediment to creating an effective and balanced urban transportation system, it is also a significant cause of traffic and air pollution. This changing perspective, combined with major technological changes, and budget pressures due to the severe recession, is propelling rapid changes in curbside parking practices in the downtown areas of some of America’s biggest and most influential cities. Off-street parking policy is in some ways more complex and more important, as it heavily influences urban land use, density, and the pedestrian environment. Indeed, one of the key issues to emerge from this report is the importance of merging these two domains of parking under one policy umbrella.
The relationships between parking infrastructure and transportation choices are as important as that between road infrastructure and transportation choices. Yet research on roads abounds while there is very little on parking.
This report describes how parking policies affect United States cities. Using research and case studies, it takes a historical, theoretical and an empirical approach to analyzing goals for parking management and regulatory policy designed to meet those goals. We include curbside (on-street) parking, which in most U.S. cities is managed and maintained by street and public works departments, and accessory off-street parking which is regulated by planning departments through zoning codes. Within curbside and off-street parking there are rules governing both commercial and residential parking. An additional category — private, for-profit parking garages typically found in dense downtowns — is treated only in the context of how parking supply affects other transportation behaviors.
Documenting examples of parking “best practices” used to manage demand and promote mobility and accessibility goals, while mitigating the negative effects of private automobile use and the over dependence on single occupant automobile trips is the focus of this report. Central cities where there is a perceived parking shortage will be at the forefront.
Part One explains historical and status quo practice in both off-street and curbside1 parking management. Part Two highlights the “business as usual parking policy” and features some recent innovations, including reducing cruising for parking, double and other examples of illegal parking, single occupant vehicle use and reducing the air pollution, traffic congestion and danger caused by unnecessary driving. Part Three systematically describes a host of parking strategies for both off- and on-street parking. Roughly, these strategies fall into the categories of: increasing supply; decreasing demand; and managing supply and / or demand. Locations where these strategies have been implemented are noted. Part Four sets out approaches to parking policy that have been taken by cities at the forefront of innovation.
This report documents parking studies, academic research, and includes comments from many planners, parking managers, parking industry executives and other experts. Not all of the interviewees were comfortable being identified. In those cases where the comments were important enough to include, they are without attribution.
…
Conclusion
Parking policy exerts great influence on mode choice and urban design. In turn these affect air and water quality; development density; the ratio of active, tax ratable land uses to accessory land uses; and the quality of street-life or pedestrian environment. Many cities take a passive approach to managing parking. They borrow strategies from neighboring jurisdictions and promote the objectives to avoid spillover effects and assist private automobile use. They fail to recognize parking policy’s wider potential to affect environmental objectives and to promote positive economic outcomes.
The unintended consequences include reinforced dependence on the automobile by concomitantly, though inadvertently, subsidizing auto use and undermining availability and effectiveness of other modes. Ironically, making auto use less costly has resulted in increased traffic and parking congestion, ultimately making auto use more costly. By undermining other modes, people are left without alternatives to the automobile. Classic parking policy also results in increasing the cost of development and discouraging development in some cases.
A few cities, including those highlighted here, are taking steps to align parking policy with the broader city goals of accessibility, economic development and better quality of life — such as clean air and water and increasing access and travel alternatives.
There are few examples and many of the experiments in alternative parking approaches are relatively new, so it is difficult to recommend a one-size-fits-all account of best practices. In spite of that concern, sufficient consistency has emerged in these practices to make the following observations:
Price Sensitivity
Even small price adjustments will induce changes in behavior. Coordinating off-street and curbside pricing is effective in eliminating excess demand at the curb while off-street parking space remains available.
Increasing prices of both off-street and curbside parking will induce mode shifts when alternatives are available.
Introduction of travel alternatives along with parking pricing can reduce demand without placing an onerous burden on travelers or diverting them to alternate destinations.
When employers offer a choice of free off-street parking or its cash equivalent, some of their workers choose the cash thus reducing demand for parking spots. Similarly, when the cost of parking is unbundled from housing and other developments, demand for off-street parking is reduced.
Time limits have been notoriously difficult to enforce, though some new technologies may make it easier. Alternatively, escalating prices with increasing duration of stay have proven effective at increasing turnover and yielding greater productivity from the same number of spaces.
Performance Standards
To the extent there are standards for curbside performance, full occupancy with high turnover is one that has been articulated. Full occupancy can only be achieved when there is a queue of vehicles waiting for curb space.
Vehicles waiting for curb space are typically cruising for parking or double parked. In both cases they are using street space that could be used for bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, smoother transit operations and / or smoother vehicular traffic flow. Vehicles unable to find space at the curb are also frequently parked illegally blocking bus stops, loading zones or access to fire hydrants, thus, impeding transit and commerce and / or creating a dangerous hazard in the event of
a fire.
Better performance standards include the elimination of illegal parking — including double parking — and elimination of wasteful cruising for free curb space. Some people have advocated vacancy targets as another way to achieve these objectives.
Without well-defined, measurable standards policy objectives are impossible to achieve.
Supply
Minimum accessory parking requirements tend to flood the market. Minimums are based on the assumption that drive trips should be accommodated with easy parking at the destination. Excess parking developed based on minimum requirements drives the price of parking to zero. Minimums are generally set without respect to the development context or reference to the total transportation system. Excessive parking induces auto trips and contributes to greater congestion.
While some jurisdictions allow shared parking among uses that have different time-of-day use profiles, the most efficient sharing is found in commercial and / or municipal lots, i.e. non-accessory lots. These lots can be centralized; they can serve multiple users minimizing excess spaces; and they concentrate and reduce pedestrian vehicle conflict points, improving opportunities for good urban design.
Without accessory parking, commercially or publicly shared parking can be priced at market clearing rates since its cost is not easily shifted to another land use. When municipally owned, parking can be priced to accomplish transportation goals including reducing parking demand by reducing automobile trips and increasing parking turnover (potentially increasing automobile trips).
In lieu fees and transfer of parking rights both facilitate central, shared parking.
Parking maximums should be set according to constraints on the entire transportation system. Transit capacity is a factor in setting maximums in at least one city. Additional transit capacity can also counter perceived need for additional off-street parking space.
Epilogue
Dysfunction will continue as long as parking policy is viewed independent of transportation policy and as long curbside and off-street parking are treated independently. Frequently, this manifests in excess auto trips, spot shortages at curb-side, an excess of empty off-street parking spots and degradation of transit service and the pedestrian environment. Failure to develop coherent policy is a missed opportunity for achieving transportation and revenue objectives.
Cities like Chicago, New York City and San Francisco are experimenting with new policies in select locations. Boulder and Portland have much more comprehensive citywide transportation policies with parking policy a prime component. While there are lessons to be gained from all of these cities, it is Portland and Boulder who have truly had the most success in achieving their objectives.
Download Full Version (PDF): U.S. Parking Policies
About Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
www.itdp.org
“The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) was founded in 1985 to promote environmentally sustainable and socially equitable transportation worldwide. We work with city governments and local advocacy groups to implement projects that reduce poverty, pollution, and oil dependence.”
Tags: Boulder, CA, California, Cambridge, Chicago, CO, colorado, IL, Illinois, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, ITDP, MA, Massachusetts, New York, NY, OR, Oregon, Parking, Portland, San Francisco
RSS Feed