The hidden prices of parking David King Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University

Transcription

1 The hidden prices of parking David King Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University

2 Planning of the automobile city focuses on saving time. Planning for the accessible city, on the other hand, focuses on time well spent. Robert Cervero

3 1. Parking generation rates 6. Urban sprawl 2. Minimum parking requirements Circular Logic 5. Transportation system design 3. Ample free parking 4. Trip generation rates

4 Types of parking Curb (on-street) Metered Time restricted titd Use restricted Unrestricted Off-street (required) Commercial Residential Paid Bundled d Unbundled Unpaid Hidden in the costs of goods and services

5

6 New York City 1977

7 Beijing 2010

8 Current cities San Francisco Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Redwood City, CA Pasadena, CA Austin, TX New York City (PARK Smart)

9 Table 1: Cruising studies and data collection methodologies Share of traffic Average search Data collection Year City cruising time methodology % (minutes) 1927 Detroit 19 Personal observation 1927 Detroit 34 Personal observation 1933 Washington 8.0 Park-and-visit 1960 New Haven 17 Driver survey 1965 London 6.1 Park-and-visit 1965 London Park-and-visitand 1965 London 3.6 Park-and-visit 1977 Freiburg Vehicle tracking 1984 Los Angeles 3.3 Park-and-visit 1984 Jerusalem Driver survey 1985 Cambridge Park-and-visit 1993 Cape Town 12.2 Driver survey 1993 New York Driver survey 1993 New York 10.2 Di Driver survey 1993 New York 13.9 Driver survey 1997 San Fransisco 6.5 Personal observation 2001 Sydney 6.5 Driver survey 2007 Brooklyn 28 Driver survey 2007 Brooklyn 45 Driver survey 2008 Manhattan 3.8 Driver survey Source: Shoup (2005), Transportation Alternatives (2008)

10 The Results Urban planners neglect both the price and the cost of parking when they set parking requirements. Urban planners typically require at least enough spaces to meet the demand for free parking. Free parking drives both transportation and land use.

11 Ample free parking everywhere Transportation ti engineers define parking demand as the peak parking occupancy observed at a site. The price drivers pay for parking is ignored. Urban planners require new land uses to supply enough parking spaces to accommodate this peak demand. The developer s cost of providing the required parking is ignored.

12 Higher building costs

13 EFFECTS OF REDUCING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS (Southern California) Reduced Change Characteristic As built parking Absolute Percent (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Parking requirement (spaces/1,000 square feet) % Site size (square feet) 190, , % Number of stories % Building size (square feet) 95, ,000 40,000 42% Number of parking spaces % Parking lot area (@370 square feet/space) 133, ,060-8,510-6% Percent of site devoted to parking 70% 66% -4% -6% Floor-area ratio (building size/site size) % Land value ($/square foot) $11.00 $16.25 $ % Project cost $10,592, $14,496, $3,904, % Annual net operating income ($/year) $1,042,000 $1,440,000 $398,000 38% Project value (@ 9% capitalization rate) $11,703,000 $16,005,000 $4,302,000 37% Property tax revenue (@ 1% tax rate) $117,030 $160, $43,020 37% Source: Richard Willson (1995, Tables 2 and 3).

14 Difficulty in reusing buildings

15 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED WHEN A BUILDING'S USE CHANGES Existing parking spaces (1) Spaces required Eiti Existing New use use (2) (3) Additional spaces required for change of use Long San Beach Diego (4) (5) A B 0 2 For an existing building of 1,000 square feet

16 Improve the location of parking No parking shall be located between the building and the front property p line. On corner lots, no parking shall be located between the building and either of the two (2) front property lines. SeaTac, Washington

17

18 Reducing demand rather than increasing supply

19 Public parking in lieu of private parking spaces Developers pay a fee in lieu of each required parking space not provided Cities use the in-lieu revenue to provide public parking spaces to substitute for the private parking spaces the developer would have provided.

20 Advantages of in-lieu fees More flexibility for developers Shared parking spaces Fewer variances Historic i preservation Better urban design Consolidation

21 TABLE 9-4 PARKING IMPACT FEES FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS IN US CITIES IN 2002 In-lieu Parking Parking All other parking fee requirement impact fee impact fees Ratio (spaces per City ($/space) 1,000 square feet) ($/square foot) ($/square foot) (percent) (1) (2) (3) (4)=(2)x(3)/1,000 (5) (6)=(5)/(4) Palo Alto, CA $32, $132 $3.75 3% Carmel, CA $49, $83 $0.00 0% Mountain View, CA $26, $78 $0.00 0% Beverly Hills, CA $22, $66 $5.88 9% Hermosa Beach, CA $12, $36 $0.00 0% Mill Valley, CA $8, $37 $0.00 0% Claremont, CA $9, $36 $2.75 8% Lake Forest, IL $9, $32 $0.00 0% Chapel Hill, NC $12, $30 $0.00 0% Davis, CA $8, $20 $ % Berkeley, CA $12, $18 $0.00 0% Kirkland, WA $6, $17 $ % State College, PA $10, $13 $0.00 0% Palm Springs, CA $4, $12 $ % Concord, CA $2, $7 $ % AVERAGE $14, $41 $1.86 5% In-lieu fees, parking requirements, and impact fees are for the city center in 20

22 Eco Passes in lieu of required parking spaces Reduce parking demand rather than increase the parking supply. Allow developers to provide Eco Passes to all employees in lieu of required parking spaces.

23 Eco Passes reduce parking demand SCVTA study found that Eco Passes reduce commuter parking demand by 19% Cities can reduce their parking requirement by 19% for developers who commit to providing Eco Passes for all employees at a site.

24 Advantages Developers save money Employers save money Commuters save money Public transit gains new riders Reduces traffic congestion and air pollution Appropriate for transit-oriented development

25 Cost-effectiveness of in-lieu Eco Passes 1. Capital cost per parking space 2. Annual cost of Eco Passes 3. Reduction in parking demand

26 1. In-lieu parking fee ($/parking space) TABLE 10-2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ECO PASSES (Silicon Valley) Assumptions Conservative Optimistic i i $26,000 $50,994 (Mountain View) (Palo Alto) 2. Parking requirement (spaces/1,000 square feet of floor area) 3 (Mountain View) 4 (Palo Alto) 3. Capital cost of required parking ($/square foot of floor area) $78 (3x$26,000/1,000) $204 (4x$50,994/1,000) 4. Reduction in parking demand (%) 19% 19% 5. Capital savings on required parking ($/square foot of floor area) $15 ($78x19%) $39 ($204x19%) 6. Annual cost per employee for Eco Passes $80 $5 ($/employee/year) 7. Employees per 1,000 square feet (employees/1,000 square feet of floor area) Annual cost per square foot for Eco Passes ($/square foot of floor area/year) $0.32 ($80x4/1,000) $0.02 ($5x4/1,000) 9. Capital savings per $1 of annual cost for Eco Passes ($/year) $46 ($15/$0.32) $1,938 ($39/$0.02) 10. Annual cost of Eco Passes as % of capital savings (%/year) 2.2% 0.1% ($0.32/$15) ($0.02/$39) Conservative assumptions: Low in-lieu fee, low parking requirement, high Eco Pass cost. Optimistic assumptions: High in-lieu fee, high parking requirement, low Eco Pass cost.

27 Grants Pass, Oregon

28

29 Parking cash out in lieu of required parking spaces California s parking cash-out law Employers must provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to any parking subsidy offered The requirement applies to: Firms with 50 or more employees Only for leased parking spaces

30 TABLE 10-4 COST-EFFECTIVNESS OF PARKING CASH OUT 1. Capital cost per parking space $10, per space 2. Reduction in parking demand 0.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet 3. Capital savings on parking $4 per square foot ($10,000 x 0.4/1,000) 4. Annual cost per employee for cash out $24.23 per employee per year 5. Employees per 1,000 square feet 4 employees per 1,000 square feet 6. Annual cost per square foot for cash out $0.10 per square foot per year ($ x 4/1,000) 7. Capital savings per $1 of annual cost for parking cash out $40 per year ($4.00/$0.10) 8. Annual cost of parking cash out as % of capital savings (%/year) 2.5% per year ($0.10/$4.00)

31 Transit access discounts Paris reduces parking requirements 100% within 500m of a Metro station (all of Paris is within 500m of a Metro station) Strasbourg has a 50% discount for centrally located neighborhoods or neighborhoods less than 500 meters from a public transportation stop.

32 Using existing supply Stockholm: Developers contact Stockholm Parkering to help find available parking spaces off-site to satisfy parking regulations. Strasbourg: When building permits are granted, construction projects clustered in an area are analyzed and unused spaces nearby are shared or consolidated (as of 2010).

33 Advantages of reducing parking demand dand requirements 1. The reduced demand for parking can shift land from parking spaces to activities that employ more workers and yield higher tax revenue. 2. By reducing the number and size of parking lots, reducing the demand for parking improves urban design. 3. Employers use their savings on parking to offer new fringe benefits Eco Passes or parking cash out for commuters. This new fringe benefit resembles a wage increase that helps recruit and retain workers.

34 4. Commuters gain new fringe benefits free public transit or cash payments beyond the usual offer of free parking at work. 5. Developers and property owners save money. They can replace a high capital cost for parking with a low annual cost for public transit or parking cash out. Fewer vehicle trips reduce a project s environmental impacts, and can help developers satisfy traffic mitigation requirements. 6. Supply-side capital subsidies for required parking are converted into demand-side subsidies for public transit, and the increased transit ridership enables transit agencies to improve service. 7. Fewer vehicle trips reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption.

35 Alternatives to required parking spaces Reduced parking requirement if the developer charges separately for parking. Reduced parking requirement if the developer offers transit passes to all residents. Reduced parking requirement if the developer pays an in-lieu fee for the spaces not provided. Reduced parking requirement if the developer offers covered, secure bicycle parking spaces. Reduced parking based on location to transit. Promotion of shared and existing parking.

36 Conclusions: the economic effects of reducing parking

37

38

39

40

41