An Economic View of Parking Structures as Land Uses Richard Willson, Ph.D. FAICP Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Affordable-Accessible Housing for Perth Presentation to AITPM – Affordable Housing and Transport Seminar Emma de Jager, Executive Officer WA and NT.
Advertisements

Mass Transit OSullivan Chapter 11. Outline of the Chapter Analyze some empirical facts about public transit in the United States Analyze the commuters.
Module 3 SMART PARKING. Module 3 Smart Parking Introduction This is one of seven Transit Oriented Development training modules developed by the Regional.
Tacoma Link Expansion Infrastructure, Planning and Sustainability Committee Tacoma City Council--Nov. 13, 2013.
Urban Sprawl. What is Sprawl? Sprawl is dispersed, auto- dependent development outside of compact urban and village centers, along highways, and in rural.
GIS and Transportation Planning
Equitable Transit Oriented Development the Denver perspective.
The book that answers the “how much parking?” question Island Press Washington DC islandpress.org.
Urban Land Rent Chapter 6 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Using HIA on Climate Change Policy: A Training Course for Public Health Professionals Chapter 4: Scoping.
The Transit Metropolis. What is a Transit Metropolis? Transit metropolis is a region where a ‘workable fit’ exists between transit services and urban.
Tom Fairchild The R&D initiative of Arlington County Commuter Services.
Chapter 6 Urban Land Rent.
OSG Analysis on the Gloucester County Rail Line Study State Planning Commission December 3, 2008.
RET565 – Construction Technology & Infrastructure Dr AHMAD HILMY ABDUL HAMID School of Housing, Building & Planning.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood TODs & Complete Streets Unit 6: Station Design & Access.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin ©2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved Chapter 6 Urban Land Rent.
UrbanFootprint Module 3: Analysis Modules Materials prepared with funding support from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the.
Alain Bertaud Urbanist The Spatial Structure of Cities: Practical Decisions Facing Urban Planners Module 2: Spatial Analysis and Urban Land Planning.
1 Using Transit Market Analysis Tools to Evaluate Transit Service Improvements for a Regional Transportation Plan TRB Transportation Applications May 20,
1. 2 VIA Long Range Plan  Vision for High-Capacity Transit across VIA service area by 2035  From extensive public and stakeholder input  Prioritization.
SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL STATION AREA PLANNING City of Seattle Station Area Planning in Seattle SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL STATION AREA PLANNING.
Module 3 SMART PARKING 1. Module 3 Smart Parking Goals for Smart Parking Balance parking supply and demand Consider innovative parking management policies.
SB 360 and Multi-Modal Impact Fees & Efficiently Managing a Street Lightning System.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. TOPICS 1.ROADS AND PUBLIC GOODS 2.RATIONALE TO JUSTIFY ROAD BUILDING 3.URBAN PLANNING AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION (UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES)
CBJ Project Manager: Heather Marlow Consultant Team: Sheinberg Associates With team members: – Walker Macy – Northwind Architects – Kittelson & Associates.
1 Module 8 STATION AREA PLANNING. 2 Module 8 Station Area Planning Key Concepts and Definitions Station Area Planning Process 1.Define the Station Area.
10 Myths and Mistakes of First Generation TOD presentation to Prince George’s County Planning Staff Alia Anderson, ULI Washington June 29, 2012.
ENVISION TOMORROW UPDATES AND INDICATORS. What is Envision Tomorrow?  Suite of planning tools:  GIS Analysis Tools  Prototype Builder  Return on Investment.
Planning & Implementing Transportation Alternatives for Energy Efficiency and the Future Is Now Foundation October 4, 2011 Debbie Griner, Environmental.
1 The Technical Decision for Transportation Management System The Technical Decision for Transportation Management System by KUANG YANG KOU ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR.
Presentation Template Creating Sustainable Places Planning Tools for Creating Sustainable Places.
Land Use Study for the Community of Winchester July 9, 2012.
Parking & Parking Policy. What is Parking Providing access to land uses (not an end) Vehicle storage Crucial to meeting many federal, state and regional.
Effective Transportation Planning City of Seattle, WA.
PTIS Project Update October 26 – 28, PTIS Project Objective Recommend transit investments and land use strategies for urban and rural Fresno County.
Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Montgomery County, MD Fact Sheet More about Smart Growth at Preliminary Project.
Jeff’s slides. Transportation Kitchener Transportation Master Plan Define and prioritize a transportation network that is supportive of all modes of.
 City of Hamilton – Transportation Sustainable Mobility Summit – October 27, 2013.
Green Transport Dr Lina Shbeeb Minister of Transport. Jordan.
1.Identify regional strategic areas for infill and investment 2.Develop “complete communities” 3.Develop nodes on a corridor 4.Plan for a changing demand.
IZABELLA K. LENTINO JORGE MARTINS MILENA BODMER presents Joint development feasibility.
Healthy Places: The Community of Tomorrow. USA Population 2000 –275 million people –Median age: 35.8 yrs 2030 –351 million people –Median age: 39 yrs.
Scenario S: Preferred Alternative. Scenario S: Creating Mixed-use Centers Around Major Transportation Areas Is The Primary Driver Of Improved Transportation.
2004 State of the Commute Survey: Assessing the Impacts of Regional Transportation Demand Management National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board.
Rebecca Long November 9, Why is MTC interested in parking policies? 1.Land Use Impacts 2.Transportation Impacts 3.Other Regional Impacts.
Urban Sprawl.
JUNE 27, 2013 ARB INFORMATIONAL UPDATE: ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS’/ METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S DRAFT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY.
Environmental Justice: Context Sensitive Planning Grant Program California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning Office of Community.
Ch. 8 Choosing a Place to Live Journal: Do you think a neighborhood in which someone lives is as important as the home in which they live? Explain your.
Transit Pricing Programs Value Pricing for Transportation in the Washington Region June 4, 2003 Richard F. Stevens Washington Metropolitan Area Transit.
Baseline Scenario Quality Growth Strategy.
Urban Design and Transportation Creating options and opportunities.
Shaping our Future Transportation Transportation trends Influencing trends through land use decisions Alternative futures: Base Case and Scenario Complementary.
Smart Growth and Air Quality: Design Concepts to Protect Human Health David B. Goldstein, Ph.D. Natural Resources Defense Council San Francisco, CA
Malls Presentation May 23 rd, THE NEED FOR MALLS Life is rather hectic. Time has become a valuable factor. People are looking for more convenience.
From Here to There: Transportation Demand Strategies to Support the Grounds Plan at the University of Virginia Presented by Chris Conklin, P.E.
Housing Density & Design Density: A means to the end Accessibility, Population thresholds, Vibrancy Debra Just General Manager City Strategy Adelaide City.
Form & Function of Metropolitan America WALKABLE URBAN DRIVABLE SUB-URBAN WALKUPS: (Walkable Urban Places) DRVABLE EDGE CITIES WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
Overview of Sustainability Policy Issues CMAP Board of Directors October 10, 2007.
Transit Oriented Development: Prospects for action on climate change February 16, 2011 Presented to NYMTC David King Columbia University.
The Gauteng Economic Indaba Transport and Logistics Mr Piet Sebola Group Executive Strategic Asset Development Date: 09 th June 2016.
Calculating the benefits of Transit in North Carolina
Greater Toronto Transportation System
Regional Roads Committee
Integrating Travel Demand Management into the Long-Range Planning Process 2017 AMPO October 19, 2017.
Chapter 4 Markets in Action
Transportation Task Force Mission and Vision
Presentation transcript:

An Economic View of Parking Structures as Land Uses Richard Willson, Ph.D. FAICP Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Parking economics is weird economics Codes distort market-based evaluation of parking supply Parking is not a separate economic decision Plentiful supply frequently ensures that no market price can be established Minimum parking requirements Capital cost of parking may not be separately analyzed in pro forma Operating costs of parking may be blended Lease structures hide costs, which are embedded in rents, prices, lower land values, etc. Parking costs are hidden Density and associated land value Project cost and affordability Adapting to tight sites Indirect effects on land uses Space search behavior Space preferences Alternative perceptions of costs Parker behavior

Why parking economics are distorted…. Drive alone mode share Code requirements Single use parking facilities Market norms Lack of parking management and pricing Undersupply anxiety

Air photo IE

Benefits of parking structures Surface spaces ~ 350 sf per space Parking deck ~ 175 sf per spaces 4 story structure ~ 87 sf per space Land use efficiency Reduce walking distance from parking to destination Strategic locations for sharing Scale justifies active parking management Shared parking Ground floor retail and wraps; façade treatments Use of roofs for energy production, sides for urban agriculture Less runoff, urban heat island effects than surface parking Design integration Structures allow higher project density, increasing ROI Preserve land for open space, bio swales, etc. Enabling density

Problems with parking structures… $12,000 – $41,000 + per space, rising as enhancements added Net space added metric Operating costs Cost Bulky single use structures (usually) More land area used per access even than other modes Impacts on streetscape, pedestrian and bicycle safety Monolithic land use Prioritizes vehicle access over other kinds of access Expense of structures may exhaust access resources Fewer equirements for other access modes Modal bias The “empty top deck” syndrome Complex space search Use efficiency

Impact of construction and operation…

Cost issues Land Structure Impact of layout on efficiency Capital Utilities Maintenance Labor Operating Tax revenues from other land uses Local employment foregone Synergistic effects Opportunity cost of land use foregone

Wilbur Smith/MTC capital cost analysis Parking typeSpacesConstruction cost per space Construction cost per space w/ $500,000 Construction cost per space w/ $2,500,000 Surface125$7,000$9,000$25,000 Deck250$13,000$14,000$22,000 4 levels above ground 500$24,400$24,900$28,900 3 levels underground 375$38,500$39,883$45,167

Wilbur Smith conclusions Single level $2 million per acre $5 million per acre $10 million per acre When are structures justified by land costs? $205 - $500,000 per acre $858 - $2.5 million per acre What are the net annualized costs per year? Transit enhancements Bicycle improvements and programs Pedestrian improvements and programs Transportation opportunity costs

Alternative pricing notions Where market price is zero Good first step, easy to explain Fairness to non drivers Operating costs Where site costs are not born by parking developer Magnitude surprising to many stakeholders Annualized capital cost + operating cost The price if a parking structure was to “pencil” on its own Annualized capital cost (w/ land cost) + operating cost Driven by supply and demand conditions Distorted by minimum requirements, which artificially inflate supply, zero in many suburban locations Market price

Case study: parking versus TOD in BART system Few projects penciled out Low ground lease revenue to BART 1:1 replacement of surface parking when TOD developed Developer “owes” parking rather than access No tool to assess replacement parking Conceptual blocks Revenues – fares, parking, ground rent Costs – parking, train, other access Other goals – context, other BART goals Analytic tool

MacArthur case study 0.1 spaces per rider 51% non-auto access 9,500 people w/in ½ mile; 5,600 jobs Parking free and 100% occupied Context Medium density TOD, status quo parking Medium density TOD, 50% replacement, $1 per day (half of spaces) Higher density TOD, 50% replacement, $3 per day charge (all spaces), bus access improvements Scenarios Willson, R. and V. Menotti (2007) “Commuter Parking Versus Transit-Oriented Development: Evaluation Methodology.” (2007) Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No (pp )

Evaluation of MacArthur Alternatives ScenarioMedium density TOD, status quo parking Same TOD, 50% replacement, $1/day for ½ spaces Higher density, 50% replacement, $3/day, + bus access Net boardings (daily) ,411 Net revenues (annual) $495,910$763,000$1,316,791 Net costs (annual)$111,301-$50,522$229,478

Many places have enough parking for the next 25 years, right now Parking construction as the exception rather than the norm “We will build no parking before its time” Parking structures when: shared, priced, and support densification, economic development, and good design Compare parking structure costs with market for other access modes and their cost…