1. Less Traffic, Better Places Rethinking Parking Policy Patrick Siegman Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

2. Definition: Minimum parking requirements are government regulations that specify the minimum number of parking spaces that must be provided for every land use. They are intended to ensure that cities have more parking spaces than they would if the matter was left up to the free market.

3. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements

4. Great Britain: national parking policy reform  Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport  Enacted March 2001  New policy: “Local authorities should….not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish…”  Previously: as in the US, local minimum parking requirements were common

5. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements British National Parking Policy “Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development… There should be no minimum standards for development, other than parking for disabled people.” - Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport

6. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements Background: parking policy When did California cities first adopt minimum parking requirements, and why?

7. Palo Alto, CA – parking requirements adopted in 1951

8. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements A brief history of parking requirements  1908 Henry Ford starts his first assembly line  1923 Columbus Ohio adopts first off-street parking requirement  1939 Fresno adopts first parking requirement for any use besides housing, adopting them for hotels and hospitals  1946 survey: only 17% of cities have parking requirements, 1951, 71% of these cities have parking requirements or are adopting them.

9. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements Minimum Parking Requirements Purpose  Palo Alto: “to alleviate traffic congestion”?  San Diego: “to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality”  to prevent spill-over parking problems

11. Minimum Parking Requirements - Source Example: Office Parks Peak Occupancy Rates, in spaces per 1000 sf of building area: Lowest: 0.94 spaces Average:2.52 spaces Highest: 4.25 spaces Typical requirement: 4.0 spaces/1000 sf

12. Unintended Consequences of Parking Requirements 1.Minimum requirements set to provide excess spaces even when parking is free, even at isolated locations with no transit. 2.Parking is then provided for free at most destinations and its costs hidden. 3.Bundling the cost of parking into higher prices for everything else skews travel choices toward driving.

13. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements $20,000

14. How do parking prices affect traffic?

15. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements Parking Cash Out Reduces Vehicle Trips

16. Genentech’s Parking Cash-out  $5/day for each day an employee leaves his car at home Goals:  Reduce parking demand on the South San Francisco campus  Allow business expansion  Improve employee benefits

17. Genentech’s Parking Cash-out - Results  From Feb 2006 to Oct 2008, reduced drive alone rate from 78% to 65%  A 17% decline in the drive alone rate  Saved $25-50 million on parking construction

18. Why doesn’t every employer do this? 1.Due to minimum parking requirements, employers must build enough parking to provide ample parking even when there is no parking cash-out for employees 2.Providing this much parking often costs more than $200/space/month. 3.If employers invest in providing employees with better alternatives to driving alone, the expensively built employee parking spaces will sit empty. Conclusion: it is very expensive to build ample employee parking and then pay employees to not use it.

19. Conclusion: To make it financially feasible for employers to implement sustainable transportation policies, minimum parking requirements must be removed.

20. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements Successful Precedents Reviving neighborhoods by abolishing minimum parking requirements Milwaukee, WI Olympia, WA Portland, OR San Francisco, CA Stuart, FL Seattle, WA Spokane, WA Coral Gables, FL Eugene, OR Fort Myers, FL Fort Pierce, FL Great Britain (entire nation) Los Angeles, CA

21. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements No Parking Requirements on Main Street Ventura’s Main Street – Requirements Removed 7 new restaurants opened up within months Allowed new 10-screen movie theater

22. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements Petaluma, CA: Smart Code Results Key Policies 1.Manage On-Street Parking 2.Parking requirements drastically reduced, then abolished Nov ’02: Project start June ’03: Code adopted July ’03: $75 million project (theater, retail, apartments, office) approved Today: Theater District open

23. Require the “Unbundling” of Parking Costs

24. Unbundling parking costs from commercial leases Example: Downtown Bellevue, WA  Requires building owners to include parking costs as a separate line item in leases  Minimum rate for long-term parking: ≥ twice the price of a bus pass  Minimum rate in 2003: $144/month  Maximum parking requirements: 2.4 spaces / 1000 sf GLA Results: drive alone commute rate fell by 30%, from 81% driving alone to 57%

25. Make Housing Affordable: “Unbundle” Parking Costs from Housing Costs

26. Example: The Gaia Building, Berkeley, CA

27. Parking fee: $150/month Parking costs are “unbundled”

28. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements The Gaia Building – Parking Demand  91 apartments, theater, café & office space  42 parking spaces supplied  Result: 237 adult residents with just 20 cars

29. Parking: High & Low Traffic Strategies Typical Minimum Requirements ‘Tailored’ Minimum Requirements Abolish Minimum Requirements Set Maximum Requirements Typical Tools  Requirement > Average Demand  Hide all parking costs Adjust for:  Density  Transit  Mixed Use  ‘Park Once’ District  On-street spaces  …etc.  Market decides  Garages funded by parking revenues  Manage on- street parking  Residential pkg permits allowed by vote  Limit parking to road capacity  Manage on- street parking  Market rate fees encouraged/ required Traffic High Low Housing Costs High Low PollutionHigh Low

30. Patrick Siegman: Rethinking Parking Requirements

31. For more information Patrick Siegman Nelson\Nygaard Consulting (415) 284-1544 www.nelsonnygaard.com PSiegman@nelsonnygaard.com