City of Palo Alto (ID # 7155) City Council Staff Report

Transcription

1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7155) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 Summary Title: Accept Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide Direction Title: Receive Results of a Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Receive the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study in Attachments A and B and an overview presentation by the City s consultant, Dixon Resources; and 2. Direct staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission to refine recommendations related to the introduction of paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with a phasing and implementation plan for the Council s consideration in the fall of Executive Summary Over the last several years, the Palo Alto City Council has directed staff to approach parking and traffic congestion in Palo Alto from three different directions: by implementing programs to reduce reliance on the private automobile (i.e. transportation demand reduction), by adding supplemental parking supply where appropriate, and by better managing existing parking resources. To examine management of parking in the Downtown commercial core, the City engaged an experienced parking consultant to complete the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study. This study examined all of the City s current, planned and potential parking management strategies, including paid parking, within Downtown Palo Alto. The resulting Existing Conditions Analysis is included as Attachment A. The Recommendations are included as Attachment B. Staff recognizes these are complex subjects of great interest to the Council and the community, and that the recommendations included if ultimately adopted would result in noticeable changes for residents, employees, and visitors to downtown, as well as changes to the City s City of Palo Alto Page 1

2 internal processes and organization. For this reason, the City s parking consultant, Dixon Resources, will present an overview of the two documents, and staff is requesting direction on key next steps rather than final decisions at this time. Staff believes paid parking holds great promise as a more up to date approach to parking management for a vibrant commercial district than the current color zone time restriction system, and would provide a potential funding source for transportation demand management solutions to address the root cause of parking problems and traffic congestion, a large part of which stems from employee commute trips to downtown by single-occupant vehicle (SOV). Should the City Council direct staff to proceed with community outreach and development of an implementation plan, staff will also evaluate organizational responsibilities within the City structure and begin consultation with existing parking enforcement and operations staff to develop a plan for the effective integration of new and modified parking-related functions. Background The Parking Management Study complements many other Council-directed initiatives related to Downtown parking and traffic issues. Table 1 provides a summary of the initiatives that are planned and underway. Table 1: Downtown Parking Strategies Initiative Status Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program This program regulates neighborhood parking in the residential streets around the Downtown core. The program began with a Phase 1 pilot in September 2015 and will become permanent in April Parking Wayfinding Signs New static parking wayfinding signage for the Downtown will be installed starting in January 2018 as part of a larger utility project. Some of the signs will be designed to accommodate future automated parking guidance system information boards (see below). Automated Parking Guidance This project will provide real-time data on parking availability to drivers looking Systems (APGS) for parking downtown. The program is currently in the design phase and funding for implementation will come from parking revenues. Parking Supply Enhancements The City operates a valet assist service for permit-holders in three downtown garages. This enables the stacking of permitted vehicles, increasing the number of permits than can be issued for each garage. In addition, the City is beginning design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street (Lot D). Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) Palo Alto Free Shuttle Study Consolidated Parking Permit The City helped to establish an independent non-profit TMA in 2015 and 2016 and the PATMA has been using pilot programs to test strategies for shifting commute trips from single-occupant vehicles to other modes. With significant additional funding (potentially from parking revenues), the PATMA s programs can be scaled up to achieve the Council s stated goal of a 30% reduction in single-occupant vehicle commute trips to downtown. The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive study of the Palo Alto Free Shuttle system, and will be presenting the initial recommendations to Council in April The City is working on an RFP to secure a new parking permit sales system that City of Palo Alto Page 2

3 Initiative Sales System Parking Access and Revenue Controls (PARCS) Status could offer on-line permit sales as an option for people seeking garage and lot permits and consolidate permit sales for the garages and the RPP programs. See recommendations of the Parking Management Study for more information. Originally moving in tandem with the automated parking guidance systems initiative above, the PARCS project will address technologies needed to implement outcomes of the Downtown Parking Management Study as they apply to the City s garages. Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, March 2017 Currently, parking in Downtown Palo Alto is free for visitors for two hours in the neighborhoods and surface lots, and for three hours in the garage facilities. Most of the Downtown Commercial core is encompassed by a color zone time restriction system, where a parker is able to park for a maximum of two hours in each individual zone. However, hourly employees have been identified moving their vehicles from one color zone to another zone every two hours rather than pay for a parking permit in the garages. Charging for parking in the garages rather than onstreet spaces incentivizes employees to park on the street rather than the garages. The City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study included data collection regarding existing conditions and was envisioned as a way to ensure that the overall parking environment functions as a system to support short-term parking for customers, long term parking for employees and resident parking in neighborhoods. The City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study project scope of work included the following components: 1. Identification of City goals related to parking management in downtown Palo Alto 2. Inventory and analysis of existing on- and off-street parking demand, including mapping, user feedback, and usage trends for the streets in and around the Downtown core. 3. Evaluation of existing parking policies and regulations, including time restrictions, pricing, and relevant zoning restrictions. 4. Conducting user surveys and stakeholder interviews to assess parking issues and usage. 5. Evaluation of how to best use the City s existing parking supply and recommend comprehensive paid parking strategies in Downtown Palo Alto. 6. Development of draft findings and recommendations for review by the City Council, followed by preparation of a final report. Work on the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study began in early 2016 and involved data collection in May, September, and October of The consultants and staff met with a group of key stakeholders for input and advice as the project proceeded, with five meetings over the course of nine months. In person intercept surveys with people in downtown were also conducted. The data collection process and stakeholder/survey input are described further in the attached reports. City of Palo Alto Page 3

4 Discussion At a high level, results of the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study assessment of existing conditions show something that many regular visitors to Downtown have known for some time: parking is a problem! As the consultant will explain at this evening s meeting, the data shows that parking occupancy rates are extremely high, parking turnover is not in keeping with other, similar commercial districts, and the color zone system, which was instituted to force turnover, has probably exceeded its useful life. (See the report in Attachment A for a full review of existing conditions.) With this as background, the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study provides analysis and recommendations aimed at (1) strengthening downtown as a vibrant commercial district where the available parking supply is better managed, such that (2) customers can have improved access to retail and services, (3) employees are better able to long-term parking in area garages and lots if they need it, and (4) pricing better reflects the true cost of parking, encouraging employees and other long-term parkers to use alternatives to the single-occupant vehicles wherever possible. A lengthy list of recommendations is included in Attachment B to address these four objectives and the problems identified. The recommendations include replacement of the color zone time restriction system with paid parking on street using a combination of parking meters, pay stations, and mobile pay options. As the consultant will explain at the April 11 Council meeting, the policy decisions that would ultimately have to be made to implement the recommendations would include the threshold question regarding whether the City Council wants to remove the color zone time restriction system and replace it with paid parking, as well as the following: Desired parking pricing including the hours/days for enforcement Implementation of a consolidated permitting and customer service software system Types of revenue collection equipment (e.g. meters, pay station) and mobile pay options Needed enforcement changes, including potential use of license plate recognition technology and citation pricing and processing changes Financing method and implementation schedule Related changes to parking garage and lot permit types, costs, and hours for enforcement Related changes to RPP district employee permit costs These decisions would affect the experience of residents, employers and their employees, and visitors to downtown, and would also mean potential changes within the City organization. At a minimum, internal changes would include automation of the permitting process (i.e. the addition of on line permit sales) for downtown parking garages, the potential use of new technologies for enforcement, and the procurement and oversight of additional contracts for service such as installation and maintenance of parking meters and pay stations. The consultant has also recommended consolidating parking functions within a single division City of Palo Alto Page 4

5 or department. (Currently parking functions are split between Planning & Community Environment, Police, Revenue Collections in the Administrative Services Department, and Public Works.) Recognizing that meeting the new and modified responsibilities required for paid parking will require organizational changes, further work is needed to identify the optimal structure as well as identify and address any impacts to City employees. According to Dixon Resources, paid parking would generate net revenues (over and above costs) within a couple of years. It is important to note that these projections do not factor in any operating costs currently necessary to oversee the parking initiatives. Once the necessary operating costs are factored into the analysis, any net excess revenues could be used to support the nascent Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA). The PATMA has been implementing pilot programs testing incentives that could encourage commuters to leave their cars at home when they come to Palo Alto. A long term, stable funding stream could allow the PATMA to scale the successful pilot programs to reach more people. Policy Implications: Regulating parking is consistent with the City s three-pronged approach to reduce traffic and parking demand and to manage parking within the Downtown core. Transitioning to paid parking downtown would also be consistent with the City s sustainability goals and encourage customer turn-over for retailers. It could also improve the City s own customer service and generate revenues to fund the PATMA (in lieu of a business tax or other funding source). In addition, the project would address the following existing Comprehensive Plan policies, goals and programs: Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental and social cost issues in local transportation decisions Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto Resource Impact Implementing the staff recommendation would involve the use of current staff resources in FY 2018 for community engagement and development of a phasing and implementation plan. The resulting implementation plan would lay out a comprehensive strategy associated with parking initiatives in the Downtown core. City of Palo Alto Page 5

6 While the anticipated reorganization and scaling of parking activities necessary to implement and maintain a paid parking program will require up-front investments, including possible additional staffing, contractual services, and infrastructure, preliminary Staff forecasts show that net revenues will exceed expenses within a few years, and have the potential to generate a long term funding stream for the Palo Alto TMA. Further analysis of required expenditures during the first few years, along with cash flow financing of the required investments and anticipated changes in operating expenses will need to be determined as the program is developed. The City Manager anticipates conversations with the Finance Committee and the City Council on these subjects as these issues are explored further. Timeline If the City Council accepts staff s recommendations, the summer and fall of 2017 would be used to gather community input, work with the Planning and Transportation Commission on a phasing and implementation plan, and work with an organizational ( change management ) consultant to assess some of the possible implications for internal City departments and staff. The results of these efforts would be brought back to the City Council for input and policy decisions in late If a decision is made to proceed with paid parking at that time, it could be operational by the end of Environmental Review The requested action is not a project requiring review under the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: _Study_DowntownParkingManagement_ExistingConditionsCOUNCILDRAFT Attachment B: _Study_DowntownParkingManagement_RecommendationsCOUNCILDRAFT City of Palo Alto Page 6

7 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study: Existing Conditions Analysis 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345 San Diego, CA

8 Table of Contents I. Introduction... 5 A. Study Overview Objectives Project Methodology Prior Studies... 7 a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data... 8 b) Downtown Parking Garage Study Study Limitations and Considerations... 8 B. Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Parking Supply Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)... 9 C. Study Area II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis A. Color Zone History B. Color Zone Parking C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking Types of Parking Available Total Parking Supply by Zone Hourly On-Street Parking Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations Permits a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program 20 c) Daily Parking Permits Residential Parking Program Valet Parking E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 2

9 G. SP Plus III. Occupancy Summary A. Thursday On-Street Overall Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone B. Thursday Off-Street Overall Hourly Permit C. Saturday On-Street Overall Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone D. Saturday Off-Street Overall Hourly Permit E. Heat Maps F. Vehicle Overstay G. Changing Colored Zones H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement A. Parking Intercept Surveys Appendix A Stakeholder Meeting Notes A. Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder Meeting # Stakeholder Meeting # C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 3

10 3. Stakeholder Meeting # Stakeholder Meeting # Appendix B - Survey Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis Introduction Overview a) Paid Parking and Technology b) Parking Permits Cities a) Alameda, CA b) Berkeley, CA c) Monterey, CA d) Mountain View, CA e) Pasadena, CA f) Redwood City, CA g) San Jose, CA h) San Mateo, CA i) Santa Monica, CA j) San Rafael, CA k) Sausalito, CA l) Walnut Creek, CA C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 4

11 I. Introduction A. Study Overview The City of Palo Alto retained Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) through a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process to complete the City s Downtown Parking Management Study. The professional services included a comprehensive evaluation and plan for parking in Downtown Palo Alto, including the development of an effective pricing and management strategy to maximize the utility of existing parking and to better serve visitors, residents and employees. The Study incorporated two phases: Phase 1: Existing Parking Conditions Analysis Phase 2: Paid Parking Recommendations The Study elements include the following major efforts: Detailed inventory of parking supply Review of existing parking conditions Comprehensive parking utilization data collection over a three-month period in May, September and October 2016 Analysis of existing parking demands Distribution of parking intercept surveys Series of meetings and collaboration efforts with key stakeholders Evaluation of current parking policies and regulations Analysis of current parking management Proposed parking management strategies for Downtown parking Based on the above study elements, a series of parking issues were identified and several parking improvement approaches were developed to address the existing and future parking demand of Downtown Palo Alto. 1. Objectives For the two phases, the City outlined three (3) key objectives for the completion and success of the Study. These objectives were identified in the project kick-off meeting with the City and correlate with the goals stated in the City s RFP. The objectives are listed below: 1. To identify existing parking utilization and parking patterns including occupancy and turnover. 2. To recommend parking management strategies that maximize the supply and utilization of Downtown parking spaces, including but not limited to zone and time restrictions. 3. To develop recommendations for a parking management strategy that may include paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto for on- and off-street parking spaces. It is not the intent of the Study to advocate for paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto or to determine the exact number of spaces needed to handle peak demand periods. It is however to develop a series of viable strategies to better equip the City in its effort to manage parking demand throughout Downtown Palo C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 5

12 Alto, recognizing that managing short and long-term parking effectively is good for businesses, residents, and can help to shift long-term parkers to other modes of travel over time. 2. Project Methodology The project methodology for this study was divided into several components. Initially, all relevant data from the City was reviewed and summarized including current parking operations, permit figures (residential and employee), citations and enforcement, the SP Plus valet program, current plans for a city wayfinding and branding campaign, vendor contracts and overall City objectives for the short and longterm. This information provided the baseline for the study s existing conditions, data collection and recommendations. The Study s core team consisted of the City s Transportation Division staff and DIXON. This group was focused on managing the day-to-day aspects of the project and was responsible for meeting on a biweekly basis and coordinating the efforts of the stakeholder involvement. Other parties that were actively involved included staff from the Police, Department of Administrative Services, and Finance Departments, key stakeholders including local developers, small business owners, residents and the newly formed Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). A total of five (5) stakeholder meetings were held with an invited group during the Study. The Study s first meeting served as a project kick-off meeting to introduce the proposed Study including data collection plans, meetings, project objectives and goals. The kick-off meeting also provided stakeholders the opportunity to outline their concerns and issues related to parking in Palo Alto. The remaining three stakeholder meetings consisted of a review of data collection and initial findings, stakeholder feedback and input and an outline of proposed recommendations based on the results of the Study. In-person and online parking intercept surveys were conducted to gather additional information and input. The in-person surveys were conducted during each of the three data collection periods while the online survey portion was posted on the City s parking webpage. Survey respondents included area employees, residents, local businesses, Palo Alto visitors and stakeholders. The surveys provided further insight into individuals experiences and perceptions of parking in Palo Alto. Over 350 surveys were collected between the online and in-person surveys. The project methodology revolved heavily around the Study s data collection. As mentioned previously, a comprehensive parking utilization data collection effort was required over a three-month period. Initially the data collection was to be over three consecutive months (i.e., May, June and July). However, based upon the potential impacts of the summer months, the data collection schedule was adjusted with the first collection occurring in May and the second and third collections in September and October. The Study s area of focus was Palo Alto s downtown commercial core and the immediate side streets. All immediate public on-street and off-street parking (public surface lots and garages) was included in the Study s data collection and analysis. It s important to note that the immediate impacts of the commercial core on the surrounding neighborhoods was taken into consideration. Though this Study acknowledges that the findings and recommendations are to be considered in correlation with the RPP program in surrounding the residential areas, the primary objective was the commercial core. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 6

13 Each data collection effort took place over a two-day period, one weekday, Thursday, and one weekend day, Saturday. The days were divided into four collection time periods to capture parking occupancy and turnover throughout the day. Data was collected between 9:00am and 8:00pm during the first data collection effort in May and split into four periods as mentioned before, 9:00am (Morning), 12:00pm (Afternoon), 3:00pm (Mid-afternoon) and 6:00pm (Evening). The periods lasted an estimated ninetyminutes each. It was observed during May that the evening occupancy period was set too early, possibly missing a later peak in occupancy that results from the downtown nightlife and dining. To account for this, the September and October evening data collection periods were adjusted to begin one-hour later at 7:00pm and conclude between 8:30pm and 9:00pm. A brief table outlines the data collection below. Start/End Time Data Collection Month May September October Morning 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am Afternoon 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm Mid-afternoon 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm Evening 6:00pm - ~8:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm Table 1: Data collection periods As mentioned previously, September and October s data collections were altered slightly from May s collection. During the May data collection, the team utilized temporary capture of license plate data for all on and off-street hourly parking spaces to calculate both occupancy and turnover, both Thursday and Saturday. Occupancy is the percentage of parking spaces that are full on a street or in a facility, which is calculated by dividing the number of vehicles counted over the total number of spaces. Turnover requires license plate captures for tracking individual cars to determine length of stay and movement between spaces. During May, no data was collected for off-street permit spaces, neither in surface lots nor garages. After reviewing the initial data from May and discussing the data collection methodology with the City, the fall data collection efforts were expanded to include off-street permit spaces. Unlike the data collection of hourly spaces, which captured turnover, only occupancy counts were completed for the permit spaces. In addition, provided the City does not enforce on weekends, on and off-street time limits were no longer considered. Thus, capturing turnover on the weekends was unnecessary for this Study given that one may remain parked in a space for any amount of time. As a result, only car counts for occupancy data were captured on Saturdays for on-street and off-street, for both hourly and permit spaces. This data collection approach applied to both September and October. Following each data collection effort, the data was analyzed and shared internally with City staff and presented at subsequent stakeholder meetings. This method provided the City and stakeholder members the opportunity to monitor the project s status as it moved forward, and observe any trends or changes experienced in occupancy data for Downtown. 3. Prior Studies In speaking with the City, it was acknowledged that paid parking in the form of on-street meters did exist in Palo Alto. In 1947, City officials installed parking meters in Downtown however, in the mid-1970s the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 7

14 same meters were removed in an effort to make the shopping district around Downtown more competitive with Stanford Shopping Center. An inquiry into the City s previous parking studies and evaluations was conducted to better contextualize the history of parking in Palo Alto. Internally in 1986, the City conducted a study that examined parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. The results of the study altered Downtown zoning restrictions, making the land use and zoning regulations more restrictive. Based on a review of the study s material, the information is not pertinent to the current study. Beyond the City s internal study, no further information related to past parking studies completed by any outside firms was received. a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data Since 2011, the City has collected Downtown parking occupancy data annually during each spring and fall to measure parking trends. Data collection has occurred for on-street spaces since 2011 while off-street occupancy collection was measured from March 2014 through October The City s occupancy results are accessible through the City s website. b) Downtown Parking Garage Study In 2012 the City awarded Sandis Engineers a contract for a Garage Feasibility and Attendant Parking Study. The City identified five existing surface lot sites for the construction of new parking structures throughout Downtown, including: 1) Lot D on the corner of Hamilton Avenue & Waverly Street, 2) Lots E/G on Gilman Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue, 3) Lot O on High Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue, 4) Lot P on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, and 5) Urban Lane between Palo Alto Medical Foundation and University Avenue Circle Mall. In addition to the five locations identified, the project included the study of the City s existing garage infrastructure for the implementation of attendant parking (staffed attendant booths) to increase parking supply. As of January 2017, City Council has directed staff to move forward with the design for a new parking structure on Lot D at the corner of Hamilton Ave & Waverly Street, currently a public surface parking lot for hourly parkers. Phase 1 services which include an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as well as preliminary and schematic designs is set to take place in early In tandem with the City s solicitation for a comprehensive parking study, the City also engaged the parking technology consultant, Walker Parking, on projects to improve parking signage and branding utilizing Hunt Design, as well as address the need for automatic parking guidance systems (APGS) equipment and PARCs (Parking Access and Revenue Controls). The initial project completion date for this project is Summer Study Limitations and Considerations Because the current make up of parking operations within the City is spread across multiple departments, parking related material and documentation is also organized as such. Locating information attaining to a certain parking operation (e.g., permit revenue) may require contacting multiple departments and/or staff to retrieve accurate information about the subject. The disparity between weekday and weekend rules for off-street permitted spaces needed to be taken into consideration in this study. During weekdays (Monday Friday) the City s designated C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 8

15 Permit Parking Only spaces are specific to permit holders from 8:00am 5:00pm. After 5:00pm on weekdays and on weekends, permit parking is available to the public. As a result, the data collection methodology for the second and third data collection efforts was adjusted for the Study. During the May data collection effort, data was only collected for hourly time limit spaces and not for permitted spaces. However, for the second and third data collection rounds the study included the permitted spaces in the form of occupancy counts. This enabled the study to account for all occupancy and provide the study with more accurate data related to the number of motorists parking Downtown during the weekend and evenings. For the purposes of the study it is important to note that there were numerous on-street construction projects occurring throughout the downtown during the first data collection opportunity. The construction sites were found primarily along the 200 and 300 blocks of Lytton Ave on the north study area boundary; on the 400 block of Cowper Street; and along the 500 block of High Street. Furthermore, private lots and garages were not considered in the study, which could become a resource for the City in terms of evening or shared parking in the future. B. Demand Management Over the past two years the City has been engaged in reducing parking and traffic demand throughout the downtown core and the surrounding neighborhoods. The effort has been channeled through three different approaches, which include: 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The TDM approach has included the formation of a Transportation Management Association, maintenance of a free shuttle program, and the City s further involvement with rideshare and public transportation applications. The objective of the free shuttle program is to provide accessibility in hopes of better supporting the surrounding communities and reducing parking demand downtown. One of the Transportation Management Association s objectives is to manage and market alternative modes of transit in the Downtown areas to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as collect data on modes of travel. 2. Parking Supply The City has also been working to address the existing issues related to parking supply for both on-street and off-street parking throughout downtown Palo Alto. The City has identified three possible methods for addressing this issue including garage technology, valet-assistance and satellite parking. The City s plan regarding garage technology is to explore ways to upgrade the capabilities of its existing garages with revenue access controls and parking guidance systems. As part of the valet-assist pilot program, the City entered a contract with SP+ to provide valet operations in Lot R (Alma/High garage) to maximize the parking capacity of the garage. The program has since expanded to Lot S/L (Bryan/Lytton garage) and Lot WC (Webster/Cowper garage). 3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) The City is now more than a year into implementation of the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The RPP program is intended to preserve parking in the residential neighborhoods for residents, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 9

16 who have witnessed a significant increase in non-residential parking. The program is designed to provide residents preferential on-street parking by implementing restrictions on non-residents. The RPP district allows for two-hour parking only for those without permits and is enforced Monday through Friday, 8:00am 5:00pm. Palo Alto s program affords residents priority on-street parking within the modified district boundaries through the sale of permits. In addition, the RPP program makes a select number of permits available to Downtown and SOFA-area (small district located south of Forest Ave and north of Addison Ave between Alma St and Ramona St) commuter employees to help balance the parking demand from retail and commercial uses in each district while the City continues its efforts to create additional parking supply and shift commuters to alternate modes. C. Study Area The study area is bounded by Lytton Ave to the north, Webster Ave to the east, Forest Ave to the south, and Alma Street to the west. These boundary streets surround Palo Alto s Downtown business district. The retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses are found primarily along University Ave and Hamilton Ave but are also spread among a number of the cross streets between Alma and Waverly. The eastern-most segment of the study area is comprised of a mixture of commercial business and residential land uses. With the implementation and initial success of the City s Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, the Study did not expand into residential areas that border the immediate downtown to the north, east and south. The study area is divided into four zones which are referred to by colors: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 10

17 Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 11

18 II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis A. Color Zone History In 1997, after a two-year trial period the City Council approved the implementation of the Restrictive Parking Zone program. This program established four color zones within the Downtown Business District and prohibited re-parking within the same zone during the same business day. The program was established to address repeat parkers, the practice of employees who park in on-street spaces and move their vehicle from one parking space to another nearby when their allotted time is expired, consistently taking up the most convenient parking in one area. Additional reasons for the program were to combat long-term parking issues and to increase the number of available parking spaces for visitors traveling to the downtown area. When the color zones were initially implemented, the Coral Zone only extended to the north side of Forest Avenue. However, the Library located on the south side of Forest Avenue was not covered by the zone. Due to consistent abuse of the Library parking lot, in 2011 a request to extend the zone to include the lot as well as the adjacent on-street parking spaces along Bryant Street in front of the Library was submitted. This resolution was passed in July of 2011, and now extends the Coral Zone to include the Library lot and adjacent on-street parking. As part of the City s effort to educate the community and visitors, City staff in collaboration with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce formed the Parking Committee in An initial objective of the Committee was producing an intuitive parking brochure that clearly illustrated the locations and color zones of available parking in downtown. The brochure was also mailed to all the downtown merchants. In addition, preceding the official color zone effective date, the City replaced all parking rule signs downtown with signs that indicated the parking zone and associated rules. The Parking Committee also held special events and training sessions that educated the community, employers and employees about the new parking rules. Over the course of the first month of the program, the City s parking enforcement officers issued warnings rather than citations in a customer-friendly effort to educate the public about the new restrictions. In addition to a warning notice, officers included a copy of the parking brochure. In comparison with the number of citations issued in the same area the previous year, the color zone implementation resulted in 2,889 fewer citations in The City confirmed a compliance rate of 97.3 percent within the first nine months of the post warning-period. The initial evaluation of the program and its success was dependent on multiple factors including spillover into the surrounding neighborhoods, availability of parking spaces, availability and demand for parking permits, as well as the general feedback from merchants, visitors and the community. Overall, the program was deemed a success amongst most businesses and restaurant employers, citing that they felt it had increased the number of available parking spaces. However, in 2004, the City witnessed an increase in complaints of repeat parkers in the same zone multiple times per day. As a response, the City implemented a series of 30-minute short-term parking spaces identified with green curb paint. This would allow visitors to utilize these short-term spaces for C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 12

19 quick errands but also allow visitors to park in a 2-hour space in the same color zone later without receiving a citation. In addition to this, the City also agreed to grant a one-time dismissal per person in the event a complaint or appeal was received. B. Color Zone Parking As mentioned, the downtown business district of Palo Alto is divided into four color-coded parking zones: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. There are two- and three-hour time limits for onstreet and off-street parking within the zones. Once a motorist has parked in a zone and the time limit has expired, the motorist must move their vehicle out of that zone. A motorist s vehicle is not allowed to park in the same color zone more than once within the same enforcement day. Outside of the downtown color zones within the city s RPP zones, vehicles can park for a maximum of two-hours. However, the thirtyminute green parking zones, yellow commercial loading zones, white passenger loading zones and blue disabled designated spaces are exempt from the color zone re-parking requirement. Lastly, colored zone time limits and RPP areas are enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays, while no parking restrictions are enforced on regular City holidays or on weekends. C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking 1. Types of Parking Available Downtown Palo Alto provides multiple parking choices including: Types of Parking Available Time-Limit Non-Metered On-Street Parking Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Surface Lot) Parking Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Garage) Parking Employee Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Private Off-Street Parking Table 2: Types of parking in Downtown Palo Alto Time Limit 2-hours 2-hours 3-hours Daily Daily n/a A field audit was completed to identify the number and types of parking spaces available in Downtown for both on-street and off-street City operated parking spaces (hourly time limit and permitted). The assessment determined that there are an estimated 1,237 on-street parking spaces, 1,372 off-street hourly public parking spaces, 1,811 off-street permit parking spaces (surface lot and garage), for an estimated total of 4,389 spaces within the downtown study area. The total number of spaces included specialized spaces such as disabled spaces, motorcycle spaces, electric vehicle charging spaces, and loading zones. Figure 2 shows the parking space percentage breakdown by space type while Figure 3 shows the total parking supply on and off-street. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 13

20 2. Total Parking Supply by Zone Color Zone On-Street Off-Street Garage Off-Street Surface Lot Total Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Table 3: Total parking supply on-street, off-street garage / surface lot) by color zone Table 4 demonstrates the total number of parking spaces for each color zone within the study area. The Blue Zone, because of the prevalent number of residential streets in the zone, has a greater number of on-street parking spaces compared to the other three zones. The Purple Zone consists of the least amount of overall parking when compared to the other zones. It should be noted that the 800 High Garage resides outside the immediate study area, south of Forest Ave on High St., however is still considered part of the Purple Zone. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 14

21 Percentage of Spaces in Study Area 41% 28% 31% On-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Permit Figure 2: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking space percentage breakdown by space type Total Parking Supply On and Off-Street Garage - Hourly Garage - Permit Surface Lot- Hourly 265 Surface Lot - Permit Figure 3: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking total parking supply on and off-street On-street - Hourly More than one-third (41%) of the parking supply in downtown Palo Alto is comprised of permit parking, either in the surface lots or in the garages. The remaining 59% is a combination of on and off-street hourly parking. An estimated 72% of parking Downtown is off-street parking, whether it be garage hourly and permit parking or surface lot hourly and permit parking. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 15

22 3. Hourly On-Street Parking Tables 1 through 4 list the inventory of on-street parking spaces by street, block face number and type of parking. This is two-hour time limit parking and consists of all on-street spaces within the four-color zones. As seen in Table 1 and Table 2, on-street parking comprises 28% of the public parking available in Downtown Palo Alto. Blue Zone Street/Block Space Loading Count Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Cowper St Webster St Kipling St Tasso St Lytton Ave University Ave Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Table 4: Downtown on-street parking inventory, Blue Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 16

23 Lime Zone Street/Block Space Loading Count Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Waverley St Florence St Gilman St Lytton Ave University Ave Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Table 5: Downtown on-street inventory, Lime Zone Coral Zone Street/Block Space Loading Count Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Bryant St Ramona St Lytton St University Ave Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Table 6: Downtown on-street inventory, Coral Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 17

24 Purple Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Emerson St High St Alma St Lytton Ave University Ave Hamilton Av Forest Ave Table 7: Downtown on-street inventory, Purple Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 18

25 4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking Surface Lot/Garage Space Counts Permit Hourly Total Garages Garage B (Private garage with city hourly use) Garage CC (Civic Center) Garage CW (Cowper Webster) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) Garage R (Alma/High) Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Surface Lots Lot A Lot C Lot D Lot E Lot F Lot G Lot H Lot K Lot N Lot O Lot P Lot T Lot X Total Spaces Table 8: Downtown off-street parking, hourly and permit spaces There are a total of four off-street locations, one surface lot and three garages that are permit only lots. There are also eight locations that are hourly parking only, one garage and seven surface lots. It should be noted that Garage B is a private garage that supplies city parking on an hourly basis. The remaining lots and garages are a mixture of hourly and permit parking these permit locations allow both daily and employee permits. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 19

26 D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations 1. Permits a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones Palo Alto offers permit parking for employers and employees of businesses located in the Downtown Color Zones. The Color Zones are bounded by Alma Street to the west, Webster Street to the east, Forest Avenue to the South, and Lytton Avenue to the north. Permits may be purchased for all ten parking garages and surface lots: Garage CC (Civic Center) Garage R (High / Alma South) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Garage CW (Cowper Webster) Table 9: Eligible lots and garages with valid permit Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) Lot G (Gilman / Waverly) Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) As of October 2016, the Wait List figures for permits at Downtown permit lot locations were as follows: Garage CC (Civic Center) 105 Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) Garage R (High / Alma South) 50 Lot G (Gilman / Waverly) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) 27 Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) 14 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 59 Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) 14 Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 60 Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) 8 Table 10: Permit Wait List as of October 2016 Employee and employer Downtown off-street parking permits may be purchased for $ per year, $ per quarter, or for $17.50 per day. b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Additional on-street parking permits are available for downtown employees and employers through the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program within select RPP zones. Through the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, employers and employees are required to obtain a permit to park on-street for over two hours between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest to their workplace. However, one must park in their selected zone. The permit is not valid in any other zone. The RPP Program, as it pertains to residents, is discussed in more detail in the Residential Parking Program section of this report. Phase 2 of the RPP program, which went into effect on April 1, 2016, required the purchase of Phase 2 permits by Phase 1 permit holders. Employers and employees who had Phase 1 permits were able to use their online account to purchase Phase 2 permits as of April 1, Any new employers must create an account and provide proof of business and their business registration number. Employees purchasing a permit for the first time need to upload a photocopy of a photo ID and provide proof of their employment location. Permits are sold online only on the City s parking website, which is managed by SP+. 17 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 20

27 Employees can purchase a Phase 2 parking permit decal for $ per year that is assigned to one vehicle only. Employees will purchase zone specific permits to park in certain parking zones. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest to their workplace. There are ten different zones designated for on-street employee and employer parking permits. Each permit is eligible for one zone, and employees or employers may select any available zone. The zone boundaries are outlined below in Figure 5. Employees may park in the zone for which their permit is valid. If a Zone 2 permit is purchased, the employee is limited to parking within the bounds of Zone 2. Employers have the option to purchase a transferable hangtag for $ per year which can be shared between shift workers and only applies to RPP Business Permits. Per Chapter 4.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal code, all fixed-location business within the City of Palo Alto must be registered with the Business Registry by March 31 each year. Registration requires a flat fee of $ However, as of January 2016, Chapter 4.60 was amended to exclude small businesses and non-profits without a full-time owner, as well as religious organizations, from the Palo Alto Business Registry requirements. If an employee has an annual income equal to or less than $50, or with a pre-tax hourly wage equal to or less than twice the minimum wage, they qualify for a reduced-price permit of $ per year. These permits are valid within one of the ten designated RPP on-street zones mentioned earlier. RPP employee permits are valid only on-street and are not recognized in the City s garages or off-street surface parking lots. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 21

28 Figure 4: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones Program c) Daily Parking Permits One-day permits may be purchased for visitors who wish to park Downtown for more than the allotted color zone time limits. Daily parking permits are valid in all off-street parking garages and surface lots in all spaces. There are no daily visitor permits available for on-street parking spaces. To purchase a daily permit, visitors may go to the first floor of the Bryant Street and Cowper/Webster parking garages and make payment at the Digital Luke II pay station. It should be noted that for the extent of the study (through October 2016), the pay stations at both parking garages have been inoperable. The pay stations both have notices informing individuals to visit the Palo Alto City Hall to purchase a daily permit. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 22

29 2. Residential Parking Program Palo Alto recently implemented a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The purpose of the program is limit the number of long-term parkers in the neighborhoods close to downtown during business hours. The RPP program requires residents within the RPP District (see Figure 4) to have a permit to park for over two hours on-street. The permit is required between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Parameters of the program are currently being reevaluated for possible adjustments at the end of Phase 2 on March 31, The RPP program has been introduced in two phases. During Phase 1 the City sold roughly 1,600 annual permits to employees and businesses in addition to resident s permits (total number of resident permits not provided). Phase 2 of the RPP program expanded the boundaries to include additional streets who petitioned to be included in the program, and to include optional eligibility areas for streets that may wish to opt in in the future. As of December 22, 2016, a total of 4,854 Resident Annual permits and 825 Resident One-day Scratcher permits had been sold while a total of 1,335 Employee Annual permits were sold. A combined 164 One- and Five-day Employee Scratcher permits were sold through the same date in December. The Phase 2 zone by zone map outlined above in Figure 4. Downtown residents must apply online to receive their permit. No more than four permits in the form of stickers (one free) and two transferable hangtag permits may be granted per residential unit. The first permit is free, but each additional permit costs $ Residents may have up to 50 daily visitors permits per year, at a cost of $5.00 each. Residents creating new accounts are required to show proof of residency. 3. Valet Parking The City of Palo Alto also offers valet parking to improve off-street parking utilization and efficiency. SP+ is contracted by the City to manage the valet parking operations. The Lot R valet program is staffed by two valet attendant staffers, stationed at the third floor of the garage beginning at 9:00am on weekdays. Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and are restricted to specific locations. When the permit spaces in the garage are close to full, the attendants direct permit parkers to park in the drive aisles of the garage in a manner that still allows vehicles to enter and exit. The motorists provide their key to the attendant, and the attendant may move the vehicle during the day to accommodate other vehicles. The motorist receives their key back from the attendant when they return to the garage. Valet parking is located on the third floor and begins at 9:00am until 7:00pm on weekdays. E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones To enforce the color zones, several enforcement officers are required to manually enter each license plate into a handheld citation device. Initially parking enforcement was housed within the Police Department and consisted of seven Parking Enforcement Officers, a Parking Enforcement Lead, and a supervising Police Sergeant. Around 2006 the City altered the classification of the officers to Community Service Officers (CSOs). Seven full-time officers and one non-sworn full-time management position now compose the parking enforcement division of the Police Department, which is funded by the General Fund. The Police Department has been approved to hire an additional CSO in early 2017, making a total of eight fulltime officers. Typically, one officer is assigned to each color zone and on any given day officers may C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 23

30 manually enter between 750 to 1000 license plates. It should be noted that these figures are consistent with DIXON s data collection occupancy figures for each zone during the data collection periods. F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement The City of Palo Alto retained Serco in February of 2014 to provide enforcement services for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. Serco was responsible for enforcing Phase 1 (6 months), and is currently enforcing Phase 2 (12-months) of the RPP Program. During Phase 1, Serco s enforcement officers issued approximately 1,768 citations in the RPP zones. Of these 1,768 citations, 506 citations were processed through first-level appeals, handled by the City Clerks office. In 2016, through roughly nine-months of Phase 2, beginning in March, Serco s enforcement officers had issued approximately 4,153 citations in the RPP zones. Of the Phase 2 citations, 524 went through first-level reviews. As part of measuring program performance, Serco provides patrol routes and frequency schedules. The City must approve any changes to schedules, routes, or operations. Parking Enforcement Officers are also required to submit daily reports with any issues such as missing signs, accidents, or safety hazards. G. SP Plus In April 2015, the Palo Alto City Council approved a three-year contract with SP+ to host a new parking website with an online permit sales portal for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District. As part of the contract, T2 Systems was retained as a subcontractor for online permit sales and fulfillment. SP Plus was responsible for the building the payment portal and training City staff how to use the back-end interface. In addition, SP Plus has been contracted to provide ongoing services in the form of a valet-assist program for specific facilities Downtown. SP Plus utilizes T2 s FLEX system as the online parking permit management system, which was required to track online permit sales for the RPP District. The FLEX system is functional for both residents and employees to register, validate, pay, and renew permits. Permits are available on an annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily basis. Users can create personalized accounts to manage their permits, and corporate accounts allow businesses to pay for employee permits. Through a link provided on the City of Palo Alto Parking website, residents, employers and employees can create a user account. As part of this process, users need to provide proof of residence or work addresses within the Downtown RPP program area. Depending on whether one is a resident or employee. Residents may upload a photo ID with address or a utility bill or lease. Employers must upload documentation of employer registration with the Palo Alto Business Registry while employees must upload a recent pay stub verifying employment address (and income verification if applying for a reduced-price permit). Applicants may also log back in to confirm whether their account has been approved for a permit. Permits are mailed by SP Plus within 48 hours of purchase, and temporary permits can be printed out through the system immediately. SP Plus is also responsible for replacement permits and for providing telephone customer service support for the City between the hours of 5:00am and 5:00pm, Mondays through Fridays, as well as after-hour and weekend support for emergencies. The types of permits currently sold through the system are as follows: C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 24

31 Resident Permits (currently there is not a waitlist for residents to attain a RPP permit) Resident Annual Guest Permits Resident Daily Visitor Permits RPP Employer / Employee Permits RPP - Low-Income Employee Permits The FLEX system also can link accounts in the case that a driver has multiple addresses or vehicles. A complete audit trail of all accounts, transactions, and refunds is managed through the system, and the contract requires that the system reports on all permit sales to the City. SP Plus is responsible for hosting the website for the duration of the project. All revenue is collected by the City and is not accessible to SP Plus. The valet-assist program is currently operated at Garage R (High/Alma South), Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) and Garage WC (Webster/Cowper). Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and restricted to specific locations. SP Plus operates Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 7:00pm. Each lot is staffed by two SP Plus employees. The operator has explained that the attendants will continue to park vehicles (including double-parking or stacking of vehicles) in each lot until they reach a point that no further cars will fit. Per SP Plus however this situation has not yet occurred and on average, attendants park between 5 and 20 cars per day, depending on the lot. Lot R (Alma/High) consistently parks a greater number of vehicles than Lot SL. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 25

32 III. Occupancy Summary The Study s three-month data collection effort results yielded significant occupancy figures for the Downtown study area. The combined average occupancy in the four-color Zones for May, September and October is displayed below (Figure 5). The figure is split up by color zone, day of data collection, Thursday or Saturday, and the type of parking, hourly or permit. On Thursday, Color Zones experienced average hourly occupancy between approximately 70% to 80% while average permit occupancy varied from 55% to 75%. On Saturdays, a larger range was observed for average hourly occupancy with figures ranging from 61% to 91%. Permit occupancy figures on Saturday were far lower, ranging from 7% to 26% across the Color Zones. Figure 5: Combined On- and Off-Street Occupancy Averages (May, September and October) A. Thursday On-Street 1. Overall Over a three-month data collection period in May, September and October of 2016, the average on-street occupancy rates on Thursdays throughout the study area were consistent. As shown below in Figure 5, the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods were generally the highest occupancy times, with occupancy rates reaching over the industry standard of 80% maximum. It should be noted, once C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 26

33 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month 62% 56% 74% 84% 83% 71% 73% 75% 71% 93% 87% 84% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening May September October Figure 6: Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month occupancy reaches 85% and above, vehicle turnover appears to be minimal and available spaces decrease. As a result, vehicles searching for spaces and circling street blocks increases causing further congestion. Though block faces with an occupancy under 80% are considered optimal, the Study has highlighted these as points of concern. Below, Figure 6 examines the Thursday on-street occupancy based on the four color zones for the month of May. The Blue Zone hovered around 60-62% occupancy throughout the day, which was significantly lower than the other three color zones. The Lime and Coral Zones were identical in occupancy throughout the day, and the occupancy rates gradually increased until the evening where they peaked at 98%. While the Lime and Coral Zones were at or above 80% occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening, the Blue and Purple Zones on the periphery still had adequate levels of occupancy. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 27

34 Like May s figures, the lowest occupancy rates observed in all four colored zones in September on Thursday were during the Morning data collection period (Figure 7). Peak occupancy levels were observed during the Afternoon and Evening, where many the zones were above the 80% threshold. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% May Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 80% 80% 70% 70% 74% 74% 75% 71% 60% 62% 60% 62% 48% Blue Lime Coral Purple 98% 98% 91% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 7: May On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 66% September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 55% 55% 49% Blue Lime Coral Purple 89% 89% 81% 78% 77% 68% 68% 71% 68% 94% 86% 86% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 8: September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 28

35 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 77% 79% 79% October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 62% Blue Lime Coral Purple 87% 87% 83% 75% 71% 83% 83% 62% 100% 100% 90% 81% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 9: October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison October s on-street occupancy for Thursday, displayed above, had the highest occupancy rates during each time of day in the Lime and Coral Zones. In the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon and Evening data collection periods, these two-color zones were above the occupancy threshold and therefore considered to be full. During the Evening, all four-color zones were above the 80% occupancy threshold. The following occupancy tables show the observed percent occupancy broken down by block face during each data collection period. The cells highlighted in red are those that are at or above 80% occupancy, indicating that they are at capacity by parking industry standards these are the areas of primary concern. It is important to note that the few cells with missing occupancy percentages is due to a gap in data collection, and therefore these were not calculated as part of the overall zone occupancy averages. Additionally, blocks with an occupancy percentage over 100% were due to double-parking, most often from construction vehicles or delivery trucks. 2. Blue Zone Table 1 shows the on-street occupancy by block face within the Blue Zone on Thursday, May 19, At the bottom, the average zone occupancy for each time period is calculated. During this round of data collection, none of the averages were above 80% occupancy, indicating that there was a sufficient parking available in the Blue Zone that Thursday throughout the day. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 29

36 Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 40% 56% 40% 400 FOREST 26 31% 77% 73% 400 HAMILTON 38 47% 76% 42% 68% 400 KIPLING 25 88% 24% 80% 44% 400 LYTTON 24 50% 63% 4% 25% 400 TASSO 14 79% 71% 50% 50% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 43% 78% 89% 400 WEBSTER 15 73% 47% 53% 80% 500 COWPER 23 48% 57% 39% 87% 500 FOREST 21 33% 33% 67% 500 HAMILTON 35 66% 69% 54% 54% 500 LYTTON 6 67% 83% 100% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 70% 38% 84% 500 WEBSTER 24 88% 88% 71% 79% 600 COWPER 30 23% 57% 60% 13% 600 WEBSTER 26 65% 77% 88% 104% Average: 60% 62% 60% 62% Table 11: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) During the data collection round on Thursday in September, the average Blue Zone occupancy during the Afternoon was slightly above the occupancy threshold at 81%. The 500 block of University Avenue was consistently considered at capacity throughout all four data collection times. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 68% 76% 56% 76% 400 FOREST 26 38% 81% 96% 31% 400 HAMILTON 38 68% 68% 53% 82% 400 KIPLING 25 96% 84% 96% 100% 400 LYTTON 24 21% 33% 104% 42% 400 TASSO % 86% 79% 79% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 89% 89% 46% 95% 400 WEBSTER % 107% 80% 67% 500 COWPER 23 61% 65% 91% 500 FOREST 21 38% 81% 86% 38% 500 HAMILTON 35 37% 69% 63% 63% 500 LYTTON 6 100% 33% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 84% 89% 111% 111% 500 WEBSTER 24 71% 96% 67% 92% 600 COWPER 30 40% 57% 67% 43% 600 WEBSTER 26 65% 108% 81% 54% Average: 66% 81% 77% 68% Table 1: 2Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 30

37 Table 12 displays the occupancy figures observed during the Thursday data collection round in October. Like the other two months, the highest average occupancy rate occurred during the Afternoon. The Evening collection period also averaged at above 80% occupancy in October. There is a dip in occupancy observed before the Evening during the Mid-Afternoon, which is consistent with what was observed in the other two months as well. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 56% 68% 76% 76% 400 FOREST 26 85% 92% 85% 96% 400 HAMILTON 38 68% 76% 45% 95% 400 KIPLING 25 92% 92% 96% 100% 400 LYTTON 24 58% 83% 67% 79% 400 TASSO 14 79% 107% 43% 79% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 92% 89% 92% 84% 400 WEBSTER % 107% 107% 100% 500 COWPER 23 74% 87% 39% 104% 500 FOREST 21 62% 76% 86% 52% 500 HAMILTON 35 71% 71% 57% 46% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 67% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 68% 81% 62% 97% 500 WEBSTER 24 92% 92% 83% 88% 600 COWPER 30 57% 43% 50% 67% 600 WEBSTER 26 92% 65% 69% 62% Average: 77% 83% 71% 81% Table 13: Blue Zone, on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) Below in Figure 9, the average on-street occupancy within the Blue Zone is compared by month. During the Morning, Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods, the month of October had the highest average occupancy rates in the Blue Zone. The occupancy rates in May were consistently lower than the other two months throughout the day. In all three months, the highest occupancy rates were observed during the Afternoon. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 31

38 Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday May (5/19/2016) September (9/8/2016) October (10/6/2016) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 81% 83% 81% 77% 77% 71% 66% 68% 60% 62% 60% 62% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 10: Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday 3. Lime Zone The Lime Zone is more centrally located in Downtown Palo Alto compared with the Blue Zone, which could explain why more of the occupancy averages are above the 80% threshold. During the May data collection round on Thursday, the Lime Zone averaged above the threshold during the Afternoon and Evening periods. All blocks except the 300 block of Forest were at capacity during those times. Conversely, only one or two blocks were highlighted as above the threshold during the Morning and Mid-Afternoon collection periods in May. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 38% 52% 41% 52% 300 HAMILTON 25 48% 88% 76% 88% 300 LYTTON 32 44% 94% 72% 106% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 89% 100% 100% 400 FLORENCE 15 67% 87% 73% 93% 400 WAVERLEY 30 77% 100% 73% 107% 500 WAVERLEY 32 91% 84% 78% 97% 600 GILMAN 11 64% 91% 73% 82% 600 WAVERLEY 23 48% 96% 43% 83% Average: 63% 87% 70% 90% Table 14: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 32

39 During the Thursday data collection in the month of September, the highest occupancy averages were also during the Afternoon and Evening. The average Morning occupancy rate was only at 52% occupancy, which was the lowest out of the four time periods. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 79% 52% 100% 100% 300 HAMILTON 25 92% 68% 88% 300 LYTTON 32 19% 88% 38% 91% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 76% 97% 78% 108% 400 FLORENCE 15 27% 87% 73% 67% 400 WAVERLEY 30 50% 97% 90% 103% 500 WAVERLEY 32 53% 72% 78% 66% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 64% 73% 600 WAVERLEY 23 61% 91% 52% 91% Average: 52% 83% 71% 87% Table 15: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) Just as in May and September, the October on-street occupancy on Thursday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening. The October data collection round had the highest average Morning occupancy rates in the Lime Zone out of the three months. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 79% 86% 76% 93% 300 HAMILTON 25 64% 72% 80% 92% 300 LYTTON 32 44% 72% 31% 109% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 92% 89% 95% 400 FLORENCE 15 67% 73% 60% 60% 400 WAVERLEY 30 97% 107% 77% 110% 500 WAVERLEY 32 69% 88% 78% 94% 600 GILMAN 11 36% 73% 55% 82% 600 WAVERLEY 23 87% 87% 74% 83% Average: 70% 83% 69% 91% Table 16: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 33

40 On Average the Lime Zone had the highest occupancy during each month during the Evening data collection period, and the lowest occupancy during the Morning. At least two of the occupancy levels reach over the 80% threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods. Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% May (5/19/2016) September (9/8/2016) October (10/6/2016) 98% 100% 89% 87% 86% 79% 80% 83% 74% 70% 68% 55% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 11: Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 4. Coral Zone During the May data collection, the Coral Zone was just 2% away from full capacity during the Evening on average, with multiple of the blocks at or above 100% occupancy. The Mid-Afternoon also experienced high occupancy rates at an average of 80% occupancy. During the Morning data collection period, only three blocks were above the threshold, one of them being the 200 block of University Avenue, which was full throughout the day. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 34

41 Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 87% 78% 96% 87% 200 HAMILTON 26 85% 58% 81% 92% 200 LYTTON 24 58% 75% 100% 113% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 89% 97% 100% 114% 400 BRYANT 16 75% 69% 75% 88% 400 RAMONA 30 27% 67% 53% 93% 500 BRYANT 36 75% 81% 83% 100% 500 RAMONA 31 74% 90% 87% 113% 600 BRYANT 22 77% 100% 82% 95% 600 RAMONA 22 55% 23% 45% 82% Average: 70% 74% 80% 98% Table 17: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) In September, the two highest occupancy times in the Coral Zone were the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods. Unlike in May, there was a significant dip in occupancy rates during the Mid-Afternoon before picking up again in the Evening. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 30% 61% 52% 48% 200 HAMILTON 26 58% 92% 42% 85% 200 LYTTON 24 21% 108% 75% 108% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 47% 86% 81% 89% 400 BRYANT 16 88% 94% 75% 94% 400 RAMONA 30 43% 100% 73% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 72% 81% 78% 92% 500 RAMONA 31 84% 97% 90% 94% 600 BRYANT 22 77% 95% 55% 68% 600 RAMONA 22 27% 77% 59% 86% Average: 55% 89% 68% 86% Table 18: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) The October data collection round in the Coral Zone revealed in the highest average occupancy rates out of the three months. The Evening data collection period even had an overall average of 100% occupancy, with five of the blocks observed as over 100% occupancy. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 35

42 Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 83% 78% 70% 96% 200 HAMILTON 26 81% 69% 85% 104% 200 LYTTON 24 67% 108% 67% 117% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 72% 100% 100% 94% 400 BRYANT % 100% 88% 106% 400 RAMONA 30 57% 70% 67% 93% 500 BRYANT 36 83% 83% 83% 103% 500 RAMONA 31 84% 100% 100% 100% 600 BRYANT % 95% 109% 82% 600 RAMONA 22 64% 73% 64% 105% Average: 79% 88% 83% 100% Table 19: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) When looking at the three months data side by side in Figure 7, the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods had the highest average occupancy rates. Like the other color zones, the Morning data collection period had the lowest occupancy rates. Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% May (5/19/2016) September (9/8/2016) October (10/6/2016) 98% 100% 89% 87% 86% 79% 80% 83% 74% 70% 68% 55% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 12: Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 5. Purple Zone With a more peripheral location in Downtown, the Purple Zone experienced lower average occupancy rates throughout the day in comparison with the other color zones. During the May data collection round, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 36

43 the highest average occupancy rate was in the Evening, with 91% occupancy. The only streets full throughout the day were the Emerson and High Streets. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 21% 100% 103% 103% 100 HAMILTON 32 63% 72% 78% 88% 100 LYTTON 26 15% 38% 50% 104% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 63% 54% 63% 400 EMERSON 32 28% 59% 69% 69% 400 HIGH 21 29% 90% 67% 110% 500 ALMA 11 0% 55% 55% 73% 500 EMERSON 29 90% 93% 93% 103% 500 HIGH 23 30% 65% 43% 96% 600 ALMA 16 81% 88% 69% 94% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 89% 93% 96% 600 HIGH 27 81% 85% 81% 100% Average: 48% 75% 71% 91% Table 20: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) During the Evening data collection round in September, all the blocks were above the 80% occupancy threshold. However, there were sufficient levels of available parking on many blocks during the other three data collection periods earlier in the day. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 47% 44% 47% 53% 100 HAMILTON 32 66% 56% 59% 84% 100 LYTTON 26 35% 88% 77% 104% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 46% 79% 83% 96% 400 EMERSON 32 41% 91% 81% 88% 400 HIGH 21 33% 57% 62% 105% 500 ALMA 11 36% 55% 36% 100% 500 EMERSON % 93% 90% 100% 500 HIGH 23 52% 113% 78% 109% 600 ALMA 16 38% 81% 94% 600 EMERSON 28 46% 100% 96% 104% 600 HIGH 27 52% 78% 74% 96% Average: 49% 78% 71% 94% Table 21: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 37

44 Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 88% 88% 76% 94% 100 HAMILTON 32 50% 72% 44% 84% 100 LYTTON 26 69% 73% 50% 92% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 54% 58% 67% 67% 400 EMERSON 32 44% 91% 69% 81% 400 HIGH 21 33% 52% 62% 90% 500 ALMA 11 64% 100% 36% 91% 500 EMERSON 29 86% 83% 97% 103% 500 HIGH 23 35% 17% 17% 104% 600 ALMA 16 56% 81% 75% 81% 600 EMERSON 28 89% 104% 93% 111% 600 HIGH 27 70% 78% 63% 78% Average: 62% 75% 62% 90% Table 22: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) The occupancy averages were consistent throughout the three months in the Purple Zone, with the occupancy rates peaking during the Evening data collection periods. Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016) September (9/8/2016) October (10/6/2016) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 91% 94% 90% 78% 75% 75% 71% 71% 62% 62% 48% 49% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 13: Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 38

45 B. Thursday Off-Street 1. Overall During May, September, and October, occupancy rates were recorded for the hourly spaces in the offstreet locations listed in the following tables. After a review of the May data collection round, it was decided to collect occupancy rates for the off-street permit spaces during the September and October data collection rounds for a more comprehensive understanding of parking occupancy in Downtown Palo Alto. The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots including hourly and permit spaces for Thursday s data collection are displayed in Figure 13 below. Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter P while average hourly occupancy is identified by the letter H. The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage. Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the threemonth data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80% while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above. Figure 14: Combined average Thursday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot locations C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 39

46 Figure 14 below shows the average Thursday off-street occupancy for the hourly spaces collected in each of the three months. The occupancy averages were consistent between the three months, with the highest occupancy rates occurring during the Afternoon and Evening collection times. Additionally, the Mid-Afternoon was above the 80% occupancy threshold in September only. Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% May September October 94% 91% 92% 91% 92% 85% 83% 74% 73% 54% 52% 46% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 15: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month Next in Figure 15, the average Thursday off-street occupancy is compared for the permitted spaces in September and October. Unlike the high occupancy rates in the off-street hourly spaces, the permitted spaces were only observed over the 80% occupancy threshold during the Afternoon in September. The other dates and times were all averaging at below 80%. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 40

47 Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month September October 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 87% 75% 68% 67% 61% 55% 55% 52% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 16: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month 2. Hourly During the May data collection round, on Thursday the off-street hourly spaces in almost every garage and surface lot were essentially full during the Afternoon and Evening. The hourly spaces in Garage R, Lot C, and Lot N were above 80% occupancy throughout the day. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/19/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Mornin g Afternoo n Mid- Afternoon Evenin g Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 89% 74% 90% Garage CC (Civic Center) % 101% 73% 91% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 81% 99% 86% 103% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 99% 65% 84% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 95% 73% 65% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 38% 96% 90% 100% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 84% 96% 88% 96% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 37% 87% 65% 97% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 39% 96% 67% 100% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 53% 91% 42% 99% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 67% 100% 42% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 91% 96% 93% 96% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 100% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 45% 88% 90% 98% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 57% 89% 68% 93% Average: 54% 94% 74% 92% Table 23: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 41

48 In September, the average occupancy rates were above the threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. There is significantly more red-highlighted location during this month in comparison to the May data. Once again, the hourly spaces in Garage R and Lot N were full throughout the day. Lots D and K were underutilized until the Evening data collection period. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/8/2016 Location Hourly Mid- Morning Afternoon Inventory Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 90% 82% 84% Garage CC (Civic Center) % 94% 79% 94% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 84% 100% 92% 94% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 95% 67% 94% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 98% 70% 61% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 31% 88% 90% 94% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 60% 104% 112% 100% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 42% 73% 77% 93% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 9% 96% 104% 93% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 44% 95% 93% 95% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 58% 75% 17% 83% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 96% 93% 102% 104% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 37% 90% 90% 94% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 33% 94% 90% 94% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 25% 86% 86% 89% Average: 46% 91% 83% 91% Table 24: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Thursday) During the October round of data collection on a Thursday, the Afternoon and Evening times were the busiest like in May. Garage WC was the only off-street location in October were the hourly spaces were below the 80% occupancy threshold throughout the day. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 42

49 Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/6/2016 Location Hourly Mid- Morning Afternoon Inventory Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 61% 84% 97% 102% Garage CC (Civic Center) % 88% 36% 98% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 88% 92% 90% 101% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 84% 55% 89% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 78% 63% 28% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 34% 85% 75% 90% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 92% 84% 108% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 44% 87% 67% 102% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 13% 96% 39% 89% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 37% 87% 63% 87% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 92% 58% 83% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 98% 98% 109% 109% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 32% 90% 77% 108% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 47% 75% 88% 102% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 89% 75% 89% Average: 52% 85% 73% 92% Table 25: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Thursday) 3. Permit During the Thursday September data collection round, the off-street permitted spaces were on average below the occupancy threshold during the day except for in the Afternoon. Garage R was significantly above the threshold starting in the Morning up until the Mid-Afternoon. Lot C and Lot T were the only offstreet locations were the permitted spaces were above the threshold during the Evening. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/8/2016 Location Permit Mid- Morning Afternoon Inventory Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) % 95% 78% 69% Garage Q (High/Alma) % 70% 62% 48% Garage R (High/Alma) % 127% 96% 62% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 92% 82% 36% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 85% 83% 14% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 74% 85% 19% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 83% 80% 71% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 64% 38% 53% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 86% 94% 60% 57% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 40% 96% 88% 92% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 61% 65% 48% 13% Average: 68% 87% 67% 55% Table 26: Off-street permit occupancy, May (Thursday) In October, there were no times during the day on Thursday that averaged above the 80% occupancy threshold. The permitted spaces in Garage R had the highest occupancy rate out of the off-street locations during the Afternoon. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 43

50 Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/6/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) % 65% 49% 67% Garage Q (High/Alma) % 73% 56% 24% Garage R (High/Alma) % 93% 77% 74% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 81% 70% 54% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 77% 74% 13% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 85% 85% 37% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 80% 80% 43% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 60% 72% 45% 36% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 51% 80% 60% 57% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 28% 68% 76% 96% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 45% 55% 45% 19% Average: 55% 75% 61% 52% Table 27: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Thursday) C. Saturday On-Street 1. Overall Saturday occupancy data was also collected during May, September and October. During the three months, the on-street occupancy averages on Saturday were the highest during the Afternoon and Evening. The Mid-Afternoon data collection period also had average on-street occupancy rates above the 80% threshold in both May and October. Similarly, to the Thursday data collection, the Saturday on-street occupancy rates were low in the Morning. Overall Average On-Street Saturday Occupancy by Time of Day by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% May September October 96% 83% 86% 85% 80% 81% 84% 80% 74% 61% 58% 61% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 17: Overall Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 44

51 When comparing the four-color zones during the month of May, the Lime and Coral Zones often had the highest occupancy rates throughout the day. The only exception to this was in the Mid-Afternoon where the Purple Zone had the highest average occupancy. May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Blue Lime Coral Purple 96% 96% 88% 88% 88% 84% 84% 79% 69% 69% 69% 69% 64% 60% 60% 46% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 18: May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison On the Saturday in September the Purple Zone had the highest occupancy rate in both the Mid-afternoon and Evening. The Evening occupancy rate for the Purple Zone was at exactly 100%. Additionally, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon and Evening. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 45

52 September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Blue Lime Coral Purple 100% 89% 89% 87% 86% 86% 81% 74% 72% 68% 68% 68% 64% 64% 53% 53% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 19: September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison During October, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the threshold during the Afternoon until through the Evening, where they were above 100% occupancy. There were no zones with adequate parking availability during the Evening data collection period, and the Blue Zone was the only zone below the threshold in the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 91% 91% 88% 86% 86% 87% 82% 78% 74% 67% 67% 64% 46% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 94% Figure 20: October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 46

53 2. Blue Zone Taking a closer look at the Blue Zone Saturday on-street parking occupancy in May reveals that the 500 block of Lytton was the only block that was above the occupancy threshold consistently throughout the day. This was also the only street that ever reached 100% occupancy at any point during the day. None of the time periods averaged at above 80% occupancy, indicating that there were adequate on-street occupancy levels in the Blue Zone on Saturday in May. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 20% 40% 400 FOREST 26 58% 54% 81% 81% 400 HAMILTON 38 42% 42% 82% 400 KIPLING 25 36% 76% 68% 400 LYTTON 24 17% 88% 46% 67% 400 TASSO 14 57% 57% 64% 57% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 54% 89% 78% 400 WEBSTER 15 67% 87% 80% 40% 500 COWPER 23 26% 57% 78% 500 FOREST 21 57% 48% 76% 86% 500 HAMILTON 35 17% 54% 40% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 83% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 41% 73% 81% 500 WEBSTER 24 63% 75% 79% 75% 600 COWPER 30 23% 70% 77% 600 WEBSTER 26 50% 38% 62% 69% Average: 46% 64% 69% 69% Table 28: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) On Saturday in September the average occupancy levels in the Blue Zone were higher overall than observed during the May data collection. However, there were still none of the overall averages exceeding the 80% occupancy threshold. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 47

54 Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 76% 76% 84% 84% 400 FOREST 26 35% 35% 35% 42% 400 HAMILTON 38 39% 82% 92% 61% 400 KIPLING 25 84% 100% 100% 96% 400 LYTTON 24 29% 92% 92% 79% 400 TASSO 14 71% 107% 79% 43% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 97% 97% 97% 400 WEBSTER 15 93% 100% 100% 87% 500 COWPER 23 61% 96% 100% 500 FOREST 21 24% 33% 38% 24% 500 HAMILTON 35 20% 49% 40% 46% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 81% 97% 108% 500 WEBSTER 24 42% 63% 54% 75% 600 COWPER 30 27% 50% 67% 37% 600 WEBSTER 26 58% 42% 38% 62% Average: 53% 74% 72% 68% Table 29: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) The October data has the highest amount of red highlighted cells in comparison with May and September. The Evening data collection round on Saturday in October was the only instance that the average onstreet occupancy reached above the threshold out of the three months and four data collection time periods. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 44% 68% 80% 88% 400 FOREST 26 12% 88% 88% 81% 400 HAMILTON 38 26% 97% 84% 61% 400 KIPLING 25 76% 104% 96% 104% 400 LYTTON 24 25% 79% 83% 83% 400 TASSO 14 71% 86% 71% 86% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 103% 95% 97% 400 WEBSTER % 93% 87% 93% 500 COWPER 23 57% 87% 96% 96% 500 FOREST 21 57% 71% 76% 62% 500 HAMILTON 35 17% 46% 49% 80% 500 LYTTON 6 17% 33% 67% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 16% 84% 89% 103% 500 WEBSTER 24 67% 75% 83% 96% 600 COWPER 30 17% 30% 67% 53% 600 WEBSTER 26 54% 42% 38% 85% Average: 46% 74% 78% 82% Table 30: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 48

55 The three months are combined below in Figure 20. This chart reveals that there was in general an increase in the on-street occupancy averages from May through October on Saturday. The highest overall occupancy average was during the Evening in October, while the lowest was in the Morning in October and May. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016) September (9/10/2016) October (10/8/2016) 53% 46% 46% 82% 78% 74% 74% 72% 69% 69% 68% 64% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 21: Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 3. Lime Zone On-Street occupancy in the Lime Zone on Saturday in May was extremely high throughout the day. All four data collection periods averaged at or above the 80% occupancy threshold. This is in contrast with the Blue Zone occupancies on the same day, which were significantly low. This is likely due to the convenience of the Lime Zone on-street parking spaces to Downtown shops and restaurants. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 83% 93% 83% 72% 300 HAMILTON % 96% 88% 104% 300 LYTTON 32 53% 97% 69% 106% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 95% 97% 100% 400 FLORENCE 15 80% 93% 80% 100% 400 WAVERLEY % 103% 107% 100% 500 WAVERLEY 32 94% 103% 103% 103% 600 GILMAN 11 64% 45% 55% 100% 600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 87% 65% Average: 80% 90% 85% 95% Table 31: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 49

56 The Morning data collection time was the only time in September on Saturday that was below the occupancy threshold, however it was just 1% away. Like in May, the occupancy rates were high in the Lime Zone throughout the day. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 59% 59% 45% 55% 300 HAMILTON 25 88% 92% 88% 80% 300 LYTTON 32 56% 103% 100% 103% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 95% 97% 97% 400 FLORENCE 15 73% 73% 80% 100% 400 WAVERLEY % 110% 90% 107% 500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 91% 100% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 91% 600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 74% 61% Average: 79% 88% 82% 88% Table 32: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) The October round of data collection was like the September round in that the morning was at an average of 79% occupancy. The other three times averaged above the threshold. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST % 100% 90% 103% 300 HAMILTON 25 80% 132% 88% 100% 300 LYTTON 32 47% 97% 56% 94% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 95% 92% 97% 400 FLORENCE 15 40% 33% 60% 87% 400 WAVERLEY % 103% 110% 110% 500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 88% 103% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 91% 600 WAVERLEY 23 91% 91% 78% 87% Average: 79% 93% 82% 97% Table 33: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) As shown in Figure 21, the average on-street occupancy rates on Saturday in the three months were well above the 80% occupancy threshold in many instances. The Morning was the only time in the three months that had average occupancies below the threshold except for in the Mid-Afternoon in September. The Afternoon and Evening data collections times were the busiest for all three months. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 50

57 Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% May (5/21/2016) September (9/10/2016) October (10/8/2016) 96% 88% 89% 91% 84% 86% 86% 69% 67% 64% 68% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 22: Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 4. Coral Zone The Coral Zone had consistently high occupancy rates throughout Saturday in May with the lowest average occupancy at 69% in the Morning. 200 Forest, 500 Ramona, and 500 Bryant were each over the occupancy threshold throughout the day. The 600 block of Bryant was the only street that did not reach the threshold at any point during that day. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 83% 87% 83% 91% 200 HAMILTON 26 81% 81% 77% 88% 200 LYTTON 24 33% 58% 83% 113% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 56% 103% 92% 100% 400 BRYANT 16 69% 100% 69% 100% 400 RAMONA 30 40% 97% 97% 100% 500 BRYANT % 100% 97% 108% 500 RAMONA 31 87% 100% 100% 106% 600 BRYANT 22 73% 73% 68% 73% 600 RAMONA 22 73% 77% 73% 82% Average: 69% 88% 84% 96% Table 34: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) In September, the on-street occupancy on Saturday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening time periods. Unlike in May, there was a dip in occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon, where there were only C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 51

58 two blocks observed over 80% occupancy. There were no streets in September that did not reach the occupancy threshold at some point during the day on Saturday. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 61% 83% 52% 48% 200 HAMILTON 26 77% 100% 42% 85% 200 LYTTON 24 25% 63% 75% 108% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 67% 97% 81% 89% 400 BRYANT 16 63% 81% 75% 94% 400 RAMONA 30 40% 90% 73% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 67% 89% 78% 92% 500 RAMONA 31 90% 103% 90% 94% 600 BRYANT 22 95% 95% 55% 68% 600 RAMONA 22 55% 86% 59% 86% Average: 64% 89% 68% 86% Table 35: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) In October, the on-street occupancy on a Saturday was averaging at over 100% during the Evening, and above the threshold during the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. Almost every block in the Coral Zone during these times were full. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 65% 61% 91% 100% 200 HAMILTON 26 62% 96% 88% 119% 200 LYTTON 24 29% 88% 67% 125% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 92% 100% 100% 100% 400 BRYANT 16 50% 81% 81% 100% 400 RAMONA 30 37% 93% 73% 87% 500 BRYANT 36 89% 97% 83% 106% 500 RAMONA 31 94% 100% 97% 103% 600 BRYANT 22 91% 109% 100% 105% 600 RAMONA 22 59% 82% 77% 100% Average: 67% 91% 86% 104% Table 36: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday When comparing the Coral Zone averages side by side for each month, it shows that the Afternoon and Evening times were the busiest consistently. One anomaly was that the September Mid-Afternoon occupancy was over 15% lower than the other two months. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 52

59 Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% May (5/21/2016) September (9/10/2016) October (10/8/2016) 96% 88% 89% 91% 84% 86% 86% 69% 67% 64% 68% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 23: Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 5. Purple Zone When data was collected on a Saturday in May in the Purple Zone, the time of day with the highest average occupancy was the Mid-Afternoon. Typically for the other color zones the busiest times were during the Afternoon and Evening instead. 100 Forest, 500 Emerson, and 600 High were the three blocks in the Purple Zone that were consistently over the 80% occupancy threshold for the entire day. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 91% 91% 97% 91% 100 HAMILTON 32 72% 75% 81% 72% 100 LYTTON 26 50% 73% 81% 50% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 58% 83% 83% 58% 400 EMERSON 32 9% 69% 84% 9% 400 HIGH 21 67% 62% 76% 67% 500 ALMA 11 9% 45% 64% 9% 500 EMERSON 29 93% 100% 103% 93% 500 HIGH 23 13% 61% 96% 13% 600 ALMA 16 69% 88% 94% 69% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 100% 93% 93% 600 HIGH 27 96% 100% 100% 96% Average: 60% 79% 88% 60% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 53

60 Table 37: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday Unlike in May, the September data shows that the Afternoon and Evening were above the occupancy threshold on average in addition to the Mid-Afternoon. The Evening period had an average overall occupancy of 100% for the Purple Zone on a Saturday. The rise in Evening occupancy from May is likely due to the shift in data collection time to 7:00pm from 6:00pm for the Evening round. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 88% 94% 94% 100% 100 HAMILTON 32 66% 81% 94% 94% 100 LYTTON 26 38% 62% 73% 92% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 67% 75% 79% 400 EMERSON 32 13% 78% 91% 97% 400 HIGH 21 33% 38% 67% 110% 500 ALMA 11 0% 82% 82% 118% 500 EMERSON 29 86% 107% 100% 97% 500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 96% 109% 600 ALMA 16 44% 81% 106% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 104% 100% 107% 600 HIGH % 96% 89% 89% Average: 53% 81% 87% 100% Table 38: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday In October, the on-street spaces in the Purple Zone on Saturday were on average above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. These averages are similar to those observed in September. Once again, the Morning data collection period did not exceed the 80% threshold on average. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 76% 100% 100% 97% 100 HAMILTON 32 72% 84% 75% 91% 100 LYTTON 26 38% 73% 77% 58% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 63% 75% 88% 83% 400 EMERSON 32 34% 91% 88% 88% 400 HIGH 21 67% 76% 76% 105% 500 ALMA 11 36% 100% 82% 109% 500 EMERSON 29 97% 90% 90% 103% 500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 83% 91% 600 ALMA 16 63% 88% 88% 100% 600 EMERSON 28 96% 104% 107% 100% 600 HIGH 27 93% 96% 96% 100% Average: 64% 88% 87% 94% Table 39: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 54

61 The main variance that can be seen when viewing the data side by side is that in May the Evening average occupancy was significantly lower than the occupancy in September and October. All three months were within 1% of each other regarding the average occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon period. Additionally, the Evening period was the busiest time for both the September and October data collection rounds on Saturdays. Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% May (5/21/2016) September (9/10/2016) October (10/8/2016) 100% 94% 88% 88% 87% 87% 79% 81% 60% 64% 60% 53% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 24: Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 55

62 D. Saturday Off-Street 1. Overall The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots including hourly and permit spaces for Saturday s data collection are displayed in Figure 24 below. Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter P while average hourly occupancy is identified by the letter H. The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage. Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the threemonth data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80% while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above. Figure 25: Combined average Saturday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot locations Figure 25 compares the average off-street hourly occupancy between the three months for Saturday. The hourly spaces were consistently full during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection times, with the Evening being the most. The Morning occupancy averaged hovered around 50% on the three Saturdays. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 56

63 Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month May September October 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90% 94% 90% 86% 84% 85% 85% 78% 79% 52% 53% 43% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 26: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month The average off-street permit occupancy was significantly lower than the hourly spaces on Saturday in both months it was collected. The highest average occupancy observed was just 46%, which was during the Evening in September. Because there are high occupancy rates in the hourly spaces while there are low rates in the permitted spaces, this could indicate that many drivers do not realize that a permit is not required to park in the permit spaces on the weekend. Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month September October 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 46% 42% 31% 32% 21% 30% 27% 13% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Figure 27: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month 2. Hourly The off-street hourly spaces stayed at a consistent occupancy level between the Afternoon and Mid- Afternoon data collection times in May. In almost every location that was above the threshold during the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 57

64 Afternoon, it was also during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening. Lot H and Lot N were the two locations were the hourly spaces were full throughout the day. Only Garage WC and Lot A did not have an occupancy at or above 80% at any point during the day. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/21/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 87% 79% 90% 92% Garage CC (Civic Center) % 69% 54% 82% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 23% 90% 83% 97% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 65% 70% 87% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 53% 52% 49% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 9% 63% 79% 72% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 64% 100% 100% 104% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 47% 86% 91% 81% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 26% 91% 85% 91% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 96% 89% 88% 84% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 8% 58% 42% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 93% 87% 89% 91% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 41% 83% 86% 85% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 55% 86% 94% 100% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 75% 79% 82% Average: 43% 78% 79% 85% Table 40: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Saturday) In September, the hourly off-street spaces were on average above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods on Saturday. The only off-street location in September that did not reach 80% occupancy was Garage WC. Every other location was above the threshold during the Evening. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 58

65 Like in September, the October off-street hourly occupancy averages were above the threshold in the Afternoon through the Evening. Additionally, Garage WC did not reach the threshold at any point during the day again. Both the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods averaged at 90% occupancy. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/10/2016 Location Hourly Mid- Morning Afternoon Inventory Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 40% 92% 85% 97% Garage CC (Civic Center) % 57% 55% 92% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 31% 95% 99% 103% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 76% 77% 92% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 54% 61% 58% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 10% 88% 85% 96% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 80% 100% 100% 96% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 92% 95% 98% 103% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 85% 96% 72% 87% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 95% 98% 97% 97% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 42% 67% 58% 92% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 41% 98% 100% 100% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 49% 85% 90% 100% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 49% 96% 90% 104% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 86% 93% 93% 89% Average: 52% 86% 84% 94% Table 41: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Saturday) Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/8/2016 Location Hourly Mid- Morning Afternoon Inventory Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 65% 98% 90% 95% Garage CC (Civic Center) % 90% 65% 96% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 62% 99% 100% 61% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) % 69% 76% 107% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) % 42% 59% 57% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 22% 78% 84% 78% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 100% 96% 92% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 74% 98% 92% 94% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 41% 100% 100% 100% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 86% 95% 96% 91% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 17% 100% 33% 83% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) % 98% 100% 104% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 95% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 73% 100% 94% 96% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 46% 93% 96% 96% Average: 53% 90% 85% 90% Table 42: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 59

66 3. Permit On the other hand, the permit spaces in off-street locations had significantly lower average occupancies on the Saturday in September. The only location where permit spaces filled up throughout the day was Lot T, and Lot C also filled up during the Afternoon and Evening. Many locations did not reach 80% occupancy at any point. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/10/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 9% 16% 13% 45% Garage Q (High/Alma) % 13% 15% 20% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 4% 3% 20% 88% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 4% 14% 11% 26% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 2% 3% 3% 4% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 37% 89% 70% 100% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) * 35 20% 46% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 23% 15% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 23% 31% 49% 63% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 92% 104% 92% 92% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 3% 6% 13% 13% Average: 21% 31% 30% 46% Table 43: Off-street permit occupancy, September (Saturday) *Note: No available parking in Lot E or Lot G on Saturday Morning/Afternoon because of Farmer s Market Consistent with September, the October off-street permit occupancy rates remained very low throughout the day. Once again, the only locations that experienced high occupancy rates throughout the day were Lots C and T. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/8/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) % 17% 18% 44% Garage Q (High/Alma) % 15% 20% 16% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 5% 27% 16% 49% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 6% 10% 15% 15% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 3% 5% 4% 4% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 41% 85% 78% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 6% 34% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 13% 36% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 17% 17% 23% 34% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 12% 96% 84% 96% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 6% 19% 16% 35% Average: 13% 32% 27% 42% Table 44: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Saturday) E. Heat Maps The following heat maps show the overall occupancy averages for each block based on occupancy data collected in May, September, and October combined. The average daily occupancy for each block is made C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 60

67 up of the Morning, Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening occupancies from May, September, and October. The blocks that are highlighted in red are those that had an overall daily occupancy average of 80% or higher. The yellow blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy between 70% and 79%. These are the areas that have not yet reached the occupancy threshold, but are areas of concern. Finally, the green blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy below 70%, meaning that they had sufficient levels of parking supply throughout the day on average. Maps 1 and 4 show the overall daily occupancy average for each block face and the hourly off-street spaces between the three months on Thursday and Saturday. Because the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods tended to have the highest average occupancies, Maps 2, 3, 5, and 6 show the Afternoon and Evening occupancy averages from the three months for Thursday and Saturday. The purpose of these maps is to show the typical occupancy distributions as well as peak occupancy distributions. Figure 28: Thursday Three Month Daily Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 61

68 Figure 29: Thursday Afternoon Three Month Average Figure 30: Thursday Evening Three Month Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 62

69 Figure 31: Saturday Three Month Average Figure 32: Saturday Afternoon Three Month Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 63

70 Figure 33: Saturday Evening Three Month Average The heat maps show that the blocks with the highest occupancy rates are in general clustered around the center, with some high occupancy areas in the bottom left and top right corners. The Evening occupancy maps in general show that many high occupancy blocks are towards the left, with some green highlighted pockets in the right-side corners of the map. F. Vehicle Overstay The following charts show the observed vehicle frequency for each zone. This is the percentage of cars that are observed within the same zone during different data collection periods cars that are only observed once in a zone are following the color zone rules, while those that are observed multiple times are not following the required time limits. The purpose of this data is to get a rough understanding of how many drivers are obeying the color zone rules. On May 19, 2016, the majority of cars are following the color zone rules. 83 to 86% of cars were only observed once in their respective zone. The Blue and Lime Zones only had 11% of cars observed in two data collection periods, and the Coral and Purple Zones had 14% observed twice. Only 1% of cars in each colored zone were observed during all four data collection times. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 64

71 100% 80% 60% 40% 85% Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/ % 84% 83% 20% 0% 11% 11% 14% 14% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Figure 34: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016 The frequencies observed in September were very like those in May, with the cars only observed once hovering between 83 and 87%. This round 0% of cars were observed four times in the Lime and Purple Zones. 100% 80% 60% 40% 83% Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/ % 85% 87% 20% 0% 12% 11% 13% 11% 4% 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Figure 35: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016 Finally, in October the data remained consistent with the observed frequencies in May and September. The Coral Zone in October had the highest overall rate of cars observed once, at 88%, which means that a significant number of drivers are following the color zone rules. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 65

72 100% 80% 60% 40% 86% Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/ % 88% 87% 20% 0% 9% 11% 9% 11% 3% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Figure 36: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016 Due to the fact, there is an estimated total of 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, depending on the hourly occupancy rates, having a rate of around 15% of cars breaking the rules could mean that approximately cars are breaking the color zone rules per day. G. Changing Colored Zones The next series of charts displays the percentage of vehicles that were observed changing color zones throughout the day. The purpose of this data is to understand how many cars are being moved from zone to zone to stay Downtown longer than the individual color zone allotment. In May, almost 92% of cars were only observed in one zone and just 7.2% were observed in two. 0% of cars were parked the entire day Downtown by utilizing each zone. Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/ % 7.2% 0.0% Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones 91.8% Figure 37: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 66

73 Almost the exact same frequencies were observed in September, indicating that there is a consistent base of around 8% of drivers who move their cars around. All the other cars were parked in one zone only that day. Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/ % 0.7% 0.0% Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones 91.9% Figure 38: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016 Finally, in October there were slightly more cars observed in one zone than in the other two months, however the data remains generally consistent. Only around 6% of drivers in this case were observed in multiple colored zones. Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/ % 0.5% 0.0% Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones 93.5% Figure 39: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 67

74 When considering that there are approximately 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, the 6 to 8% of vehicles changing color zones could be a significant number of cars. Depending on the hourly occupancy rates, it is estimated that between cars are moving between the zones to stay parked downtown for longer than 2-3 hours without a permit. H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Thursday Average Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Permit Location Garage CC (Civic Center) Garage Q (High/Alma) Garage R (High/Alma) Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) Permit Spaces Avg. Sept. Occu Avg. Oct. Occu Avg. Overall Occu Average Spaces Taken Active Permits Permit Cap Usage Rate Average % of permit holders parked Current Wait List % 57% 68% % % 52% 58% % % 83% 92% % % 64% 68% % % 52% 56% % % 75% 72% 19 no data 35 69% 61% 65% % 53% 52% % 62% 68% % 67% 73% 18 no data no data no data % % 23 Lot X (Sheraton) 31 47% 41% 44% % 12 Table 46: Thursday Average Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales Table 46, displayed above, outlines the average permit occupancy during the September and October data collections compared to the total permit sales for each garage or surface lot. Based on information provided by the City including active permits for each facility and permit caps for each facility combined with the occupancy data collected, the Study determines that on average, between 25% and 40% of permit holders are actively using their permits. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 68

75 Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Permit Location Garage CC (Civic Center) Garage Q (High/Alma) Garage R (High/Alma) Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) Permit Spaces Peak Sept. Occu Peak Oct. Occu Avg. Peak Occu Average Spaces Taken During Peak Occupancy Active Permits Permit Cap Usage Rate Average % of permit holders parked during peak occupancy Current Wait List % 67% 81% % % 73% 72% % % 93% 110% % % 81% 87% % % 77% 81% % % 93% 93% 25 no data no data no data no data 35 83% 80% 82% % 72% 68% % 80% 87% % 96% 96% % % 23 Lot X (Sheraton) 31 65% 55% 60% % 12 Table 47: Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales Whereas Table 46 outlines the overall average permit occupancy observed in September and October, Table 47 above summarizes the average peak permit occupancy during the same time periods. The purpose of presenting the peak occupancy is to observe the highest quantity of active permits parked at one time and how that figure compares to the current number of active permits. From the data above, one can infer that at peak occupancy periods, the average percentage of permit holders parking is between 30% and 50%. In locations, such as Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) and Lot C (Ramona/Lytton), the peak occupancy captured for those lots is near capacity, with only one or two available spaces vacant. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 69

76 IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement Intercept surveys and a series of key stakeholder meetings were conducted to obtain direct input from the City, residents, visitors, business owners, property owners, and other key members in Palo Alto. Inperson surveys and paper surveys were distributed throughout Downtown Palo Alto during each of DIXON s three data collection efforts as well as distributed online via a webpage link on the City s website for the month of November. The study s five stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January of The involvement from these groups aimed to acquire opinions related to parking in Palo Alto and potential solutions. A. Parking Intercept Surveys To further expand the study s data collection, the City and DIXON worked together to compose an intercept survey that gathered information about the parking and transportation habits of visitors, employees, employers, and members of the community. The Study s intercept surveys coincided with the study s data collection, occurring on the Friday s during DIXON s data collection visits to Palo Alto. Intercept surveys were collected in May, September and October. The Efforts to capture residents in the outlying study area were met with difficulty. Locating residents on-street during typical work hours when residents are often not home may have attributed to this issue. Over the course of the three data collections, over 300 survey responses were gathered. In addition, as part of an effort to expand the survey population and variety of responses, an online survey was developed that was aimed at gathering responses from individuals who may reside in Palo Alto or have recently visited the Downtown. The online weblink created for the survey was then posted to the City s newly developed Downtown Parking Management Study webpage as well as distributed to the study s key stakeholder group. The online survey was posted throughout the month of November and received nearly 100 responses in addition to the 300 in-person surveys. Several important themes were gathered from the surveys having to do with individual s feelings and perspectives towards parking in Downtown Palo Alto. Many of the common themes to evolve from the suggestions or thought to improve parking downtown included: Additional parking needed (more garages and off-street parking) Increased employee parking and provide easier parking for employees Extend parking time limits in the garages Find a solution for the current permit wait-list (e.g., monthly permits; more permits for individuals and reduce the number permits provided to companies ; expand the permit zone perimeter) Do not implement paid parking Improved public transportation 80 % of respondents indicated that they had driven a vehicle Downtown that day More than half of the respondents indicated that they had parking in color zone while a combined 25% of responded that they had parking in residential or another area. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 70

77 Approximately 30% of those surveyed specified that they parked on-street versus 51% who answered they had parked off-street. 60% of respondents indicated they were in Palo Alto that day for work or something work related A combined 58% of respondents were able to find parking in 5 minutes or less More than 50% of respondents felt they parked as close as they had anticipated to their destination Nearly 60% of considered it easy to find a space to park Over 60% parked for free while 11% paid to park and 7% had parking either validated or subsidized. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 71

78 Appendix A Stakeholder Meeting Notes A. Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January All stakeholder meetings were organized by DIXON and City staff and lead by DIXON. These meetings included key city staff from parking, transportation, development and finance. In addition, community stakeholders attended, including business owners, developers, downtown organizations. Meetings also received contributions from Palo Alto residents and the public. Each meeting was designed to discuss different elements of the project. Attendees were invited to share their feedback, comments and suggestions toward the short and long-term parking strategies in Palo Alto. Complete meeting minutes from each stakeholder meeting can be found in Appendix Stakeholder Meeting #1 The Study s initial stakeholder meeting took place on April 26 th, 2016 and was intended to be a project kick-off for those not directly involved in the study. This meeting allowed for the introductions of DIXON, the City of Palo Alto staff, as well as the stakeholder and community members. DIXON reviewed the project s scope of work and key objectives that the Study would work to address both short and long-term parking management strategies for Palo Alto. Stakeholders were asked to provide brief comments and thoughts regarding the existing conditions in Palo Alto. Participants were asked to suggest their best-case solution for addressing those conditions. Stakeholders clearly indicated that providing adequate parking supply in the form of space inventory is vital to being able to comfortably find parking Downtown. Added comments by stakeholders highlight an issue facing Palo Alto today as the overflow of parking demand into the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown and felt it important for the City to mitigate this issue and ensure that customers and visitors can find parking close to their destinations. This includes the consideration of constructing additional parking upon further data collection and analysis. Key stakeholders have been working with the City in identifying viable locations for the potential of building an additional parking structure in the Downtown. There have been several locations identified including existing public surface lots. Today, many stakeholders feel that people often tend to avoid Downtown at peak times because of the lack of convenient parking. The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program was developed to help mitigate the issue of parking overflow in the residential neighborhoods, however stakeholder s feel that the City did not consider the supply of permits in the development of the program. This has resulted in overselling, long waitlists, and low turnover. These issues contribute to the ineffectiveness of the program. The City has recently decided to issue 200 fewer permits per year moving forward to help reduce this issue and are considering raising the permit cost. Similarly, City staff also agree that increasing permit costs and creating designated parking spaces may be important for the employee permit system. Paid on-street parking and wayfinding signage were aspects considered by the stakeholders to mitigate parking space turnover concerns Downtown. They discussed how allowing visitors and customers to stay longer should come at a premium, and that the majority of long-term parking should be pushed to offstreet locations. Part of ensuring the effectiveness of this system is adequate enforcement. Additionally, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 72

79 patrons must be able to be directed to available parking Downtown using wayfinding. Many stakeholders feel that the current signage is difficult to read and may be causing increased congestion. The City staff expressed significant concern during the meeting that the color zone system used for parking in Downtown Palo Alto is outdated and inefficient. This same feeling was also echoed by stakeholders. This system may be a source of further congestion due to cars shifting to a new zone to find new parking every two to three-hours. During the meeting the City also discussed the administrative side of parking management and their various political goals. Some of the ideas considered were implementing a comprehensive parking management system, a City smartphone application for permits, and relying more on alternative modes of transportation. The City wants to focus on incentive programs rather than penalties to promote public transit use, biking, and walking. In order to get a better understanding of parking uses and attitudes in Palo Alto, DIXON discussed developing a parking survey to hand out throughout the City. Some issues that the City requested to be covered in the survey were drivers thoughts on free parking versus paid parking, how often people visit Downtown, and how long customers or employees park for at a time. 2. Stakeholder Meeting #2 The second stakeholder meeting, held on July 6, 2016, was an opportunity to review the May data collection including initial observations, results of initial data analysis and intercept surveys responses. Stakeholders were solicited for initial feedback and discussion of the findings. The ensuing discussion among stakeholders, the City and DIXON provided valuable points for the second and third data collection efforts. To conclude the meeting, DIXON and the City provided the stakeholders with a summer assignment, to consider the downtown area and bring to the third stakeholder meeting, any options for shared or alternative parking that may be applicable to the future parking availability in Palo Alto. Furthermore, the group was challenged to consider other cities and parking programs they considered to be representative examples for what Palo Alto should strive for. The goal of the third meeting being to plot these potential locations on aerial maps of Palo Alto to bring further visibility to downtown s parking availability. Despite the current functionality of the color zone system, stakeholders were concerned about the future of the system. They continued to advocate for a change in parking management, especially with the permit systems. One issue that came up related to this was the lack of data in permit areas, especially after-hours when the permit regulations do not currently apply. It was suggested that data collection in September and October be expanded to include permit occupancy. Many stakeholders agreed that there is currently a lack of employee parking, and that the colored zones pose a problem for employees trying to park longer-term. Stakeholders were quite surprised at the figure of vehicles moving between zones throughout the day, many of them likely to be employees of downtown businesses who have not purchased a permit. Some methods to combat this issue were discussed alternative transportation programs including carpool incentives and transit passes. Due to the forced high turnover rate for employee parking, some stakeholders want to push employee parking to the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 73

80 upper levels of parking garages. This parking would also potentially be free of charge. Stakeholders also expressed that permit programs in Palo Alto could benefit from a more progressive rate scale. As for on-street parking, introducing paid parking with meters is an option being considered. However, one concern that the stakeholders shared is that residents will be dissuaded from traveling Downtown once paid parking is introduced. This feeling stems from the City s history of fairness when it comes to parking throughout the community. Parking to this point has always been free and not something that many in the community feel they should have to pay for. One concession mentioned by stakeholders to minimize backlash may be to introduce paid parking with the first hour free. Stakeholders critiques were considered when developing plans for the next stages of data collection. Additionally, their main concerns were considered to develop relevant and suitable solutions for the City. 3. Stakeholder Meeting #3 The study s third stakeholder meeting on October 5, 2016, reviewed the September data collection results. Much like the previous two meetings, the results and analyses were presented followed by comments and feedback from the City and stakeholders. The second data collection s results and the occupancy trends associated were highly consistent with the first data collection in back in May. As part of the October s stakeholder meeting DIXON organized an interactive activity that included participation from stakeholders and City staff. The interactive session was a two-part activity that dealt with issues related to parking in Palo Alto. First, DIXON created posters (Figure 39) that outlined issues that had been identified through the previous two meetings including paid parking, additional facilities, permits, automation of parking garages, time restrictions, and the colored zones. Stakeholders and staff were asked to Figure 40: Stakeholder Parking Issue Comment Board approach each issue as though they were assigned to making a change or improvement towards the issue and then identify with a colored (green, yellow, red) sticker, the level of priority that the issue has in relation to the other parking issues in Palo Alto. The second part of the activity utilized large maps of Downtown Palo Alto and participants were asked to identify with stickers (Figure 40), locations or areas on the map that would be ideal for additional parking supply and alternative parking locations. The activity provided stakeholders an opportunity to be actively involved in the study and provide an added level of participation beyond general commentary. The activity was useful in opening further discussion and justifications for changes that the stakeholders considered necessary for Palo Alto. Outcomes of the first part of the activity, changes or improvements to current Palo Alto parking issues, included addressing the current employee permit costs, finding methods to improve the RPP program, eliminating the colored zone, and introducing paid parking. Through the second activity, the group identified several potential parking structure and Figure 41: Stakeholder Plotting Map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 74

81 locations that may be feasible in adding additional parking supply, including Lot D, which is currently an hourly public parking lot on the corner of Hamilton and Waverly. Several stakeholders identified Lot D as being a viable location and mentioned the City s expressed interest in the lot as well. Other possible locations included Garage Q (High/Alma North), Lot O (Emerson /High), Lot K (Lytton/Waverly), and Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton). DIXON has taken into consideration many of the comments and locations identified by participants in the proposed recommendations for Palo Alto. The fourth meeting concluded with a brief synopsis of what would be presented in Stakeholder Meeting #4 in which the full summary of data collection and outline of proposed recommendations would be discussed. 4. Stakeholder Meeting #4 November 17, 2016 marked the study s fourth stakeholder meeting, following DIXON s final data collection effort in early October. The fourth meeting focused on the summary and overall analysis of the study s overall data collection efforts and introduced the preliminary recommendations that DIXON proposed for the City of Palo Alto. The recommendations were composed based upon the DIXON s data collection, observations, assessment of Palo Alto s parking operations, and the previous three stakeholder meetings. Based on the early recommendations made by DIXON, the reaction from City staff and stakeholders was generally positive. Several of DIXON s early recommendations had been discussed at length in the previous stakeholder meetings as overall issues of concern for Palo Alto. These issues included removing the color program completely, paid parking in Downtown, the need for additional parking supply in the future, and the restructuring of the City s current permit program. The City and stakeholders were also in agreement that the current employee permit program should be improved and reacted positively towards the recommendation of allowing low-wage employees to purchase monthly permits rather than biannually or annually. Furthermore, there was a level of support for tiered pricing structures for hourly parking on-street as well as payment tiers between potential on-street meters and off-street rates. In general, stakeholders were amenable to the prospect of time of day or demand-based pricing in the future, proceeding a period in which the City has adequately introduced paid parking Downtown. The recommendations spurred constructive discussion among the City, stakeholders and DIXON, and the group conversed over certain issues that may result from the implementation of the recommendations. For example, one recommendation was to extend paid parking hours into the early evening. It was concluded though that because of the current structure of the Downtown RPP program, extended parking hours in Downtown may push vehicles into the RPP zones and result in frustration from residents. The group agreed that this recommendation is one that will be needed but that may be better fit as a more long-term solution. In addition, drawing on the topic of pricing mentioned in the previous paragraph, the group noted that the pricing introduced with potential paid parking would have to be implemented in a way that permit-holders and other customers are enticed to park in garages and not to deter customers with rates or an increased permit cost. A method to increase parking in garages and not deter based on rates or increased costs was received clearly by DIXON and taken into consideration in the recommendations. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 75

82 In summary, the fourth stakeholder meeting was able to reinforce that Palo Alto has parking issues related to on- and off-street parking in Downtown based on the data collection results from May, September and October. Based on the current state of Palo Alto s parking, DIXON put forth several recommendations including the introduction of paid parking. Overwhelmingly, the City and stakeholders agreed that paid parking is necessary and that the other recommendations outlined are worth considering. A bulletized list outlines the initial recommendations introduced by DIXON at the stakeholder meeting are outlined below. Permits Recommend that the City increase its annual employee permit prices o Set employee permit price as part of tiered pricing strategy that correlates with on-street and off-street hourly parking rates o Provide employees (incl. low-wage) the opportunity to pay for permits an on annual, biannual and monthly basis Recommend the City eliminate its daily permit option and replace with daily hourly maximum as part of paid parking implementation o Automation of off-street garage facilities Continue to support current TMA efforts to provide alternative modes of transportation and reduce SOV figures Paid Parking Remove Color Zones o Implement tiered zones related to pricing Recommend the City implement paid parking throughout Downtown o Single-space/multi-space/mobile payments Implement a Time of Day pricing strategy to begin o Paid parking and enforcement on Saturdays Wayfinding Implement City s design plans for wayfinding campaign which includes signage and branding Implement parking guidance system with transmission of real-time facility occupancy information Consider creation of paid parking signs to inform motorists where potential value and premium parking is located New Facilities and Alternative Strategies Recommend the City pursue its considerations to construct parking structure on Lot D at Hamilton Ave and Waverly St. Encourage shared-parking opportunities with local business and establishments Trial Uber/Lyft discount programs Enforcement The City recently upgraded enforcement handhelds to Android-based devices. DIXON supports this decision by the City as many municipalities are switching to smartphone devices for enforcement. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 76

83 Recommend the City implement enforcement on the weekends, including Sunday (even if enforcement is light) Suggest the City review its citation fee rates and consider higher penalties associated with parking Administrative With implementation of paid parking, suggest the City create a parking specific department to provide oversight on paid parking, permits (employee and residential), enforcement, revenue collection, and meter maintenance C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 77

84 Appendix B - Survey A complete list of multiple choice survey questions and results from May, September, and October is listed below: Did you drive here today? What color zone did you park in? Did you park on-street or off-street? What is the primary purpose of your visit? MAY SURVEYS Yes 80% No 20% Blue Zone 11% Coral Zone 28% Lime Zone 13% Purple Zone 17% Residential 8% Other 23% On-Street 37% Off-Street 63% Shopping 10% Dining 8% Entertainment 1% Work or work related 74% I live here 1% Pick-up passengers 2% Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0% Personal care appointment 3% Visiting family/friends 0% Other 0% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 78

85 How long did it take to find a space? <1 minute 35% 1-5 minutes 30% 5-10 minutes 22% >10 minutes 13% How did you pay for parking today? Parking was free 77% I paid the cost to park 13% Parking was subsidized/validated 9% Do you consider the space you parked in close enough to your destination? Yes 66% No, I parked farther than anticipated 19% I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 15% How easy was it to find a parking space today (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard) Very easy 41% 2 18% Neutral 23% 4 9% Very hard 8% How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling) Very willing 9% 2 21% Neutral 16% 4 21% Very unwilling 33% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 79

86 What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? How many people were in your car including yourself? In which range does your age fall? What is your gender? In what range does your household income fall? Very willing 23% 2 21% Neutral 13% 4 17% Very unwilling 26% 1 70% 2 25% 3 4% 4 0% 5+ 2% % % % % % 65+ 0% Male 40% Female 60% $15,000 - $24,999 20% $25,000 - $49,999 27% $50,000 - $74,999 15% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 80

87 $75,000 - $99,999 13% $100,000 - $149,000 16% $150,000 - $200,000 5% $200, % Which category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 2% Construction/Maintenance 2% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 2% Healthcare 5% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 38% Production/Manufacturing 2% Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 14% Retail 21% Other 7% IT 5% Student 2% SEPTEMBER SURVEYS Did you drive here today? Yes 74% No 26% If you did not drive, how did you get Downtown today? Bus 12% Caltrain 31% Carpool 15% Ride-Share 3% Bike 15% Walk 24% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 81

88 Where did you park your car? On-Street 38% Off-Street - Garage 54% Off-Street - Surface Lot 8% What are the primary purposes of your visit today? Shopping 3% Dining 6% Entertainment 3% Work or work related 85% I live here 1% Pick-up passengers 0% Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0% Personal care appointment 1% Visiting family/friends 0% Other 0% How long did it take to find a space? <1 minute 31% 1-5 minutes 35% 5-10 minutes 14% >10 minutes 20% How did you pay for parking today? Parking was free 83% I paid the cost to park 10% Parking was subsidized/validated - Employer 2% Parking was subsidized/validated - Client 5% Parking was subsidized/validated - Merchant 0% Do you consider the space your vehicle is parked in close enough to your destination? C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 82

89 Yes 51% No, I parked farther than anticipated 32% I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 17% How easy was it to find a parking space today? (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard) 1 - Very Easy 22% 2 12% 3 - Neutral 24% 4 22% 5 - Very Hard 20% How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling) Very willing 3% 2 8% Neutral 26% 4 13% Very unwilling 51% What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker? How often do you visit Downtown? Very willing 8% 2 13% Neutral 45% 4 10% Very unwilling 25% Yes 31% No 69% Everyday 67% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 83

90 A couple times a week 30% Once a week 0% Once every couple weeks 2% Once a month 0% Less than once a month 0% What is the most important factor in determining where you park? Location 36% Ease of finding a space 26% Price 14% Safety/security 14% Other 10% Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking (permit) Program? Yes 48% No 52% Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto? Yes 16% No 84% If you drove, how many people were in your car? 1 90% 2 10% 3 0% 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% In which range does your age fall? % % C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 84

91 % % % 65+ 2% What is your gender? Male 31% Female 69% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 38% $25,000 - $49,999 24% $50,000 - $74,999 11% $75,000 - $99,999 8% $100,000 - $149,000 16% $150,000 - $200,000 3% $200, % Which category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 2% Construction/Maintenance 2% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 0% Healthcare 0% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 63% Production/Manufacturing 0% Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 2% Retail 29% Other 0% IT 0% Student 0% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 85

92 OCTOBER SURVEYS Based upon your most recent visit to Downtown, did you drive a car? Yes 66% No 34% Where did you park your car? On-street 44% Off-street - Garage 27% Off-street - Surface Lot 19% Off-street - Private lot/space 10% If you did not drive, what form of transportation did you use to get Downtown? Bus 0% Caltrain 10% Carpool 7% Ride-share 8% Bike 20% Walk 55% Do you consider the space you parked your vehicle close enough to your destination or farther than you anticipated? Close enough 62% Farther than anticipated 26% I parked farther than I anticipated but I don't mind walking 12% How long did it take you to find a parking space? Did you pay for parking? < 1 minute 36% 1-5 minutes 33% 5-10 minutes 15% >10 minutes 15% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 86

93 Parking was free 91% I paid the cost to park 9% Parking was subsidized/validated 0% How many people were in your car including yourself? 1 51% 2 33% 3 11% 4 6% 5+ 0% What were the primary purposes of your visit Downtown? (select all that apply) Shopping 28% Dining 51% Entertainment 7% Work related meeting/event 16% I work here 14% Pick-up passengers 0% Pick-up/Deliver goods 4% Personal care appointments 11% Visiting family/friends 10% Other 14% Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking Program? (Permit) Yes 70% No 10% Yes but the price of the permit is too expensive 20% Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker? Yes 23% No 53% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 87

94 Yes but the price has to be reasonable 24% What is the most important factor in determining where you park? (Select all that apply) Location 32% Ease of finding a space 45% Price 8% Safety/Security 14% Other 1% Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto? Yes 38% No 62% How often do you visit Downtown? Everyday 34% A couple of times per week 35% Once a week 11% Once every couple of weeks 10% Once a month 5% Less than once a month 5% When driving Downtown, how willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be more likely to find a spot close to your destination? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling) Very willing 23% 2 23% Neutral 12% 4 19% Very unwilling 21% I already paid for parking 1% What if that parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 88

95 Very willing 9% 2 29% Neutral 24% 4 18% Very unwilling 20% What is your gender? Male 38% Female 58% Prefer not to answer 4% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 0% $25,000 - $49,999 5% $50,000 - $74,999 5% $75,000 - $99,999 10% $100,000 - $149,000 10% $150,000 - $200,000 30% $200, % What category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 3% Construction/Maintenance 0% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 13% Healthcare 6% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 1% Profession Services (legal, financial, etc.) 36% Retail 0% Other 41% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 89

96 Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis 5. Introduction Assessing the parking strategies utilized in various comparable cities to Palo Alto is important in developing an effective parking program for the City. Similar cities can offer insight into whether strategies will be feasible and successful in Palo Alto. The City provided a list of thirteen comparable cities options, which were then narrowed down to eight, based on the available data and responses from the cities. Each city was solicited for information about their paid parking, technology, and permit programs. The eight California cities selected for analysis were Alameda, Berkeley, Monterey, Mountain View, Pasadena, San Mateo, Santa Monica, and Sausalito. While these cities are not analogous to Palo Alto in every way, their parking programs are considered in this study on a comparative basis because they offer insight into potential parking solutions that may be applied to the City. 6. Overview a) Paid Parking and Technology While Palo Alto does not currently charge for on- or off-street hourly parking (off-street daily permits are sold), valuable lessons can be learned from comparable cities about the potential benefits or drawbacks of paid parking. Understanding the impact of paid parking can help the City of Palo Alto make informed decisions about managing its parking program moving forward. Like Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View currently offers free on- and off-street parking, regulated by time limits, for downtown visitors. However, the Mountain View City Council recently agreed to explore the possibility of paid parking to combat their high occupancy rates. Paid parking can generate a significant amount of revenue for a city, and it can also be a tactic to regulate parking supply by promoting or dissuading parking in certain locations. Alameda and San Mateo for example each offer on-street parking for $1.00 per hour in their downtown cores, and a lower rate of $0.50 per hour for fringe locations. This method helps make parking in the downtown core a premium. Out of the eight cities, Berkeley has the most expensive on-street parking with a rate at $3.25 per hour. However, the City of Berkeley offers a lower rate in its off-street parking facilities, which can be a method of promoting longer-term parking in the garages to free up the more convenient parking on-street for customers and visitors. In addition to the range of parking rates, the selected cities use a variety of single-space and multi-space meter technologies. Should the City of Palo Alto considers implementing paid parking in the future, looking at the use of different technologies in nearby cities can help city planners determine what could best fit the City s needs. The below table shows a comparison of on- and off-street parking rates, as well as the types of single- and multi-space meters used in the eight comparable cities. A more detailed explanation of parking rates and technology is outlined in the individual city sections. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 90

97 City Parking Rates Meters On-Street Off-Street Single-Space Multi-Space Palo Alto Free (2-hr.) Free (3-hr.) None None Alameda $0.50-$1.00/hr. $0.75/hr. Yes Yes Berkeley $3.25/hr. $2.00/hr. $20.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes Monterey $1.50/hr. $0.50-$1.00/hr. Yes Yes Mountain View Free Free None None Pasadena $1.00-$1.25/hr. $0.75-$2.00/hr. Yes Yes San Mateo $0.50-$1.00/hr. $1.00/hr. Yes Yes First 90 Minutes Free Santa Monica $1.00-$2.00/hr. $1.25: First Hour $3.70/hr. Yes Yes $17.50 Daily Max. Sausalito $1.00/hr. $3.00/hr. $25.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes Table 48: Parking Rates and Technology Comparison b) Parking Permits Comparing Palo Alto s employee and residential permit programs to those in various comparable cities can highlight potential program deficiencies or successes to be considered if the City makes changes to its programs. This report summarizes price structures, permit regulations, and program features amongst the cities to learn about the various forms a permit program can take on. Throughout the Downtown Color Zones, an employee can park daily in any of the off-street parking lots and garages. Employees who do not purchase a permit are required to move their vehicles per posted time limits throughout the day. Unfortunately, the popularity of this program has resulted in a long waitlist for the downtown garages, which can make it hard for employees to find sufficient parking downtown. Considering a higher permit rate may potentially be beneficial to Palo Alto s employee permit program because a higher rate could dissuade more employees from driving downtown, and instead more people may rely on alternative modes of transportation like public transit or biking. It is important to note that a raise in in downtown employee permits would also result in raising the employee permits in the RPP district as well. The City of Berkeley has an employee permit rate priced at $1, annually as well as the City of Sausalito, which offers a SmartCard at $4.00 per day, amounting to approximately $1, annually. The City of Santa Monica charges even more than Berkeley and Sausalito, with an annual rate of over $2, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 91

98 The table below shows a comparison between the annual cost for both employee and residential permits in the different comparable cities. A more detailed description of the city permit programs is covered in the individual city sections below. City Downtown Employee Permit Palo Alto $ Alameda $ $ Berkeley $1,800 (public permit) Monterey $ Mountain View $ Pasadena San Mateo Santa Monica N/A $ $ (residents or employees) $2,112 (public permit) Sausalito $1, Table 49: Annual Permit Cost Comparison* *Note: monthly and bi-annual permit costs were converted to into annual costs for comparison. 7. Cities a) Alameda, CA The City of Alameda is located across the bay from San Francisco, and is known for its vibrant business district as well as its unique retail shops and restaurants downtown. The city is approximately 23 square miles, with a population of 78,360 per the 2010 Census. In Alameda, the City manages parking, including street parking, three surface lots, and one parking structure: Lot A Lot B West End Lot Civic Center Parking Structure Both on-street and off-street parking is metered in Alameda. There is a total of 640 on-street and 523 offstreet metered spaces. The City uses single-space IPS meters as well as Cale and T2 multi-space pay stations. On average, there are 750 transactions per day with the single-space meters compared to an average of 200 per day with the multi-space pay stations. Currently there is no pay-by-phone option in Alameda. On-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.00 per hour, and the off-street parking in Alameda costs $0.75 per hour. The City is not currently considering raising their parking rates. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 92

99 There is an employee parking permit program offered for the top floor of the Civic Center Parking Structure that can be obtained from the Human Resources Department. These permit spaces are enforced between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on Monday Thursday. Image 1: Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure Alameda is currently in the process of implementing a residential preferential permit parking program for the first time. Through this program, short-term guest permits will be valid for one day and longer-term guest permits will be valid for one to four weeks. These permit zones will be effective between 4:00am and 6:00pm. b) Berkeley, CA Berkeley is located near San Francisco in Alameda County, California. Its urban downtown has a mix of different art, culture, and food for residents and visitors to enjoy. Per the 2010 census, there are approximately 120,972 residents in the City, and Berkeley is made up of 17.7 square miles. The Transportation Division along with their parking operator, LAZ Parking, manages on- and off-street parking. Specifically, LAZ manages daily operations at the City s garages and the Berkeley Way Lot. Berkeley is easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation such as the BART and the bus, which helps relieve some parking demands. The City has both paid on- and off-street parking. There is a total of approximately 4,000 on-street parking spaces downtown, many of which are metered. On-street meters apply between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm on weekdays, Saturdays, and even some holidays. Berkeley has introduced Rate Zones downtown where prices differ depending on location and demand. Rate Zones are identified using color-coded signs and display either Premium or Value with a corresponding rate and time limit. Premium spaces enforce a two-hour maximum parking time while Value spaces allow for eight-hour maximum parking time. Downtown on-street parking rates range from $2.00 per hour in Value zones to $3.25 per hour in Premium zones. There are two metered parking lots owned by the City, the Berkeley Way Lot and the Elmwood District Lot. These lots are metered Monday through Saturday, starting at 7:00am and ending between 6:00pm and 10:00pm. There are a total of 510 off-street spaces. Off-street parking costs $2.00 per hour with a $20.00 daily maximum. The IPS single-space meters and multi-space pay stations account for a combined total of 19,950 transactions on average per day. The City does not currently offer a mobile payment options. Berkeley currently does not have an employee permit parking program, however there are monthly permits available for purchase for $ per month to be used in the garages and lots. These permit locations are enforced between the hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm. The Residential Preferential Parking program in Berkeley costs $55.00 per year per car. Additionally, residents may purchase up to twentyone-day visitor permits per year at a price of $2.75 each. Up to three fourteen-day visitor permits can be C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 93

100 purchased per year for $28.50 each. The zones eligible for a residential permit have been determined by the City s Traffic Engineer s Office. Figure 42: City of Berkeley Residential Permit Map c) Monterey, CA The City of Monterey is known for its coastal charm, and Monterey s thriving old town has numerous shops, restaurants, and a farmers market that attract residents and visitors downtown. Per the 2010 Census, there are approximately 27,810 residents in the 11.8 square mile city. Parking in Monterey can get quite busy especially during the summer months, as many tourists are attracted to the City. Both onand off-street parking in managed by the City. Public parking in in the City of Monterey is managed by the Parking Division, which is a standalone division under the Community Services Department. None of the parking related tasks in Monterey are outsourced. The Parking Division is an enterprise fund, in which the Division is responsible for its own expenses. This allows the City to exhibit to the public the total service costs as well as how revenues and fees are factored into the budget. Monterey s Parking Division runs all aspects of parking including meter maintenance, collections, enforcement and administration. They pay their Parks Division to provide landscaping for their facilities, and they pay the Streets Division for street pavement and sign maintenance. The Parking Division also pays $550, annually into the General Fund for City services from Human Resources, the City Attorney, the Finance Department, etc. In the Parking Division, there are twenty-five full-time and twenty-eight part-time employees. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 94

101 Street parking in downtown Monterey has time limits ranging from 20 minutes to two-hours, and many of the off-street spaces are limited to two-hours as well. There are an estimated 3000 on-street spaces, 510 of which are metered. Out of the 3,940 off-street spaces, 2,258 of those are metered. The majority of meters in Monterey are IPS single-space meters, but there are a small amount of POM meters scattered throughout City. As for pay stations, the City uses both Ventek and MacKay. The City does not currently provide a mobile payment functions. The rate for on-street parking is $1.50 per hour, and off-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.50 per hour. Monterey was able to provide average transactions per day data for the winter and summer. The average number of transactions per day in January and July for both on- and off-street meters and pay stations are as follows: January: 1,184 single-space meter transactions per day 975 multi-space pay station transactions per day July: 2,156 single-space meter transactions per day 2,173 multi-space pay station transactions per day Monthly permit parking is offered for the Downtown West Garage, Downtown East Garage, and the Cannery Row Garage. The access card cost varies by garage and has an additional $5.00 deposit, however there is a discount for quarterly and annual permits. There are also monthly surface lot permits available for Lots B, 4, 6, 14, 18, 21, the Depot Lot, and the Waterfront Lot. These require a paper permit that is displayed on the dash. These permits have a $10.00 deposit, and generally cost $42.50 per month with some variation depending on the lot. See Figure 38 for a schedule of permit fees. Figure 43: City of Monterey Permit Rates C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y 95

102 There are employee parking permit and residential parking permit programs in Monterey. The employee permits are offered on either a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis to be used between the hours of 9:00am and 8:00pm. These permits are available on a quarterly or monthly basis, and cost $21.50 per month or $57.00 per quarter. The New Monterey Employee permit is outlined for the New Monterey Business District and one must supply a pay stub, business card, or sign letter from employer on business letterhead to qualify. The residential permit program requires that a majority (50% + 1) of the households on that block(s) sign a petition requesting the program. At which time, the designated block(s) must be approved by the Parking Division through parking studies that determine if the blocks have at least 70% average occupancy. This program also allows two guest permits per residence, free, and it is the responsibility of the resident to see that the guest permit is returned to him/her for re-use. The City Monterey s Parking department is handled completely by the City. The department is structured as an enterprise find. The department pays approximately $850,000 for services with other departments (e.g., Finance, City Attorney, Public Work). The Parking Fund pays one-hundred percent of all its expenses to include loans and capital projects. Monterey does not outsource any operations to private third-party vendors. Parking pays for services from other City Departments. For example, Parking pays the Parks Division for landscape services, building maintenance for janitorial services and minor repairs. Furthermore, the Streets Division is paid by Parking to perform maintenance of on-street pavement around metered spaces as well as sign services. d) Mountain View, CA The City of Mountain View is in Santa Clara County near Palo Alto and within the Silicon Valley. Mountain View is known for its many major technology companies as well as its downtown core around the Castro and Mercy Streets. The City is made up of around 12.3 square miles, and has a population of approximately 80,435 people. The City of Mountain View Community Development Department manages parking within the downtown commercial area, while the Public Works Department is responsible for parking outside of the downtown core. The Police Department provides citywide enforcement and citation management, and citations are processed through a third party. Currently, Mountain View does not have any members dedicated to parking full-time. Instead, the responsibility is shared across the three departments with four staff members involved in some aspects of parking. Mountain View currently does not have paid on- or off-street parking downtown. Instead, there are various time limit restrictions depending on the location. Where time limits are enforced, parking is

103 restricted to two-hours, with some 1-hour, 3-hour, and 5-hours. Additionally, there is no overnight parking allowed in the parking garages between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am. While parking is currently free, the City currently faces extremely high occupancy rates downtown, making it difficult for drivers to find parking during the peak lunch and evening hours. The Mountain View City Council recently agreed to begin exploring the possibility of paid parking to potentially free up more parking spaces. Mountain View offers downtown parking permits that may be purchased by downtown residents, employers, or employees for long-term parking. Drivers can purchase these permits on a monthly or annual basis, or as a booklet of 25 one-day permits. The annual purchase price is $240.00, and the monthly and booklet prices are $40.00 each. The purpose of the booklets is for business owners to purchase and distribute to their customers. Those with downtown permits may park for up to 72-hours in select parking garages and lots. As for a residential permit program, the City does offer parking permits for those who reside within the parking permit program boundaries which has been created in response to game-day parking issues spurned from the Levi s football stadium. The structure of this permit program is unique because it is modeled around the San Francisco 49ers schedule. Two permits per household are provided for free for those residents within the program boundaries pictured below. The permits are only valid on game days because of the influx of traffic to the area on those days. Permit holders are permitted to park without restriction between 5:00pm and 10:00pm on weekday game days, and between 8:00am and 10:00pm on weekend game days.

104 Figure 44: Mountain View Residential Permit Program Boundaries e) Pasadena, CA Downtown Pasadena, known as Old Town Pasadena, is a business district with many restaurants, shops, and events as well as a Sunday farmers market. There are approximately 142,250 people residing in the City per the 2010 census report. The City of Pasadena is made up of just over 23 square miles and it is located ten miles northeast of Los Angeles. The Parking Services Division in the City of Pasadena falls under the Department of Transportation. This Division is responsible for aspects of the City s parking program including enforcement and permit and citation processing. The meter mechanics are part of the Department of Transportation, and some facility maintenance is handled by the Public Works Department. Additionally, some garage and surface lot management is contracted out. Garage operations including customer service calls, custodial and maintenance is contracted out. Pasadena also relies partly on a private security company that can issue citations on behalf of the City, on City ticket stock, as part of their enforcement. There are a total of twenty-one City employees that deal with parking, and there are fifteen contracted parking enforcement officers. While most on-street spaces in Pasadena do not have daily time limits, there are 2,267 metered spaces downtown. These meters are enforced every day of the week downtown, and either six or seven day per

105 week by the Civic Center, Playhouse, and South Lake areas of the City. There is no street parking allowed overnight between 2:00am and 6:00am. The City uses Duncan single-space meters throughout downtown. On-street parking in Pasadena costs between $1.00 and $1.25 per hour depending on the location. As for off-street parking, the City has a total number of 6,469 spaces, 904 of which are mall paid. There are eleven different off-street parking locations throughout downtown that are convenient to restaurants and shopping. Pasadena uses the Cale multi-space pay stations for off-street parking. There are on average 24 transactions per day on average at the pay stations, and the City does not offer a mobile payment option. Off-street parking costs between $0.75 and $2.00. While there is no employee permit program in Pasadena, there is an annual residential permit option for on-street parking. Residents can register for an annual overnight on-street parking permit or an annual daytime on-street permit. To qualify, residents must own more vehicles than they have space to park offstreet at their residence. Residents can only have a maximum of two permits at a time. These permits have an application fee of $43.00 each, and they require a photocopy of the vehicle registration for every vehicle they own. Annual permits currently expire on December 31 of each year and are prorated quarterly. The fee for an overnight parking permit or a daytime parking permit is outlined below. January 1, 2016 March 31, 2016 April 1, 2016 June 30, 2016 July 1, 2016 September 30, 2016 October 1, 2016 December 31, 2016 Table 50: City of Pasadena fee schedule for overnight and daytime parking permits $71.32 each $53.49 each $35.66 each $17.83 each One of the main issues that Pasadena has run into with their residential permit parking program is the lack of regulations with guest permits. Currently, the program does not have a restricted number of guest permits allowed per year. Additionally, the City does all the permit fulfillment, which can be very time consuming. Because of this, they are considering having a 3 rd -party company handle this program in the future. f) Redwood City, CA Redwood City, utilizes one engineer in the Engineering and Transportation Services Division that is responsible for overseeing the entire parking program. The Engineering and Transportation Services Division falls under the Community Development Department. Many of the parking tasks are split between multiple departments. The Revenue Services Department handles cash collections and credit card processing, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance, signs and curbs, and the

106 Police Department handles enforcement. Additionally, the City Manager Communications Division is responsible for any parking advertising and outreach, and the Information Technology (IT) Department provides meter and garage technology support services. Parking garage staffing and management is outsourced to ABM. Coordination between the departments parking goals can be very difficult with the tasks split among so many departments, which is why the oversight from the engineer is critical. In addition to the engineer, there are three employees that deal with parking in the Public Works Department, two in Community Development, three in Revenue Services, open in IT, and three in the Police Department. A total of twelve staff in Redwood City total who deal with some aspect of parking. g) San Jose, CA The Parking Division in San Jose is within the Department of Transportation and manages most parkingrelated tasks. SP+ is the City s parking operator and provides garage security. Additionally, all citation processing is done by Turbo Data. Within the Parking Division there is a Transportation and Parking Operations Division manager and three Parking Managers. There is an Off-Street Parking Manager, an On- Street Parking Manager, and a Program Manager. The Parking and Transportation Control Officers fall under the management of the On-Street Manager. There are a total of sixty-seven full-time and eight parttime Parking Division employees in the City of San Jose. h) San Mateo, CA San Mateo is located between San Francisco and Palo Alto, known for its awardwinning restaurants, startup companies, and unique arts. The City is dense and walkable, with easy access to public transit. San Mateo is almost 16 square miles and has a population of 103,356 people. The City, along with their parking operator, SP+, manage the 3,000 parking spaces (on and off-street) downtown including the City s permit application system, like Palo Alto. Public Parking in the City of San Mateo is managed by the Public Works Department through the City Manager s Office. The City Manager s Office commissioned a Downtown Parking Management Plan through CDM Smith in 2013, which recommended the creation of a dedicated Parking Manager position. They recently hired their first Parking Manger to oversee the program. Public Works handles all customer service and permit distribution in-house at City Hall. Enforcement is also completely managed by the City through the Police Department. The City retains SP+ as an on-call consultant, primarily for parking operations, meter maintenance and collections, as well as some technical consulting. Data collection is also outsourced, like it is done in Palo Alto. In addition to the Parking Manager, there is one full-time Parking Administrative Technician, a varying number of Parking Enforcement Officers, two Traffic

107 Sergeants who work on some parking programs, a Community Service Officer who oversees the enforcement officers, and a Technician at the counter who works partially on permit distribution. There are 1,200 on-street metered spaces in downtown San Mateo, which each cost $1.00 per hour in the Central Area (highlighted by Orange Area in Figure 40 below). Time limits vary depending on, on-street or off-street parking. For example, parking in the Central Garage enforces a 3-hour time limit on the street level while all other levels are no time limit. The Perimeter Area parking (highlighted by Green Area in Figure 40 below) is $0.50 per hour with varying time limits similar to the Central Area. Street level offstreet garage parking and surface lots enforce a 3-hour time limit while there is no time limit for the other garage levels. On-street spaces have varying time limits. There areas highlighted on the below map in orange are considered the core, and the green are those areas that are considered the perimeter. There are some POM, IPS, and MacKay single-space meters throughout the downtown. Parking is enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. Parking is free after 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. Figure 45: San Mateo Parking Zone Map The striped areas on the above map indicate the off-street garage parking locations downtown. The street level of the central garage (in orange) is $1.00 per hour with a three-hour time limit. The other floors cost $0.50 per hour and do not have a time limit. This system helps increase turnover on the most convenient floor and keeps the all-day parkers on the upper floors. The street level of the other garages as well as the surface lots cost $0.50 per hour, also with a three-hour time limit. The other levels are the same price but without a time limit. The City uses Amano and MacKay multi-space pay stations.

108 San Mateo offers a mobile payment option through PayByPhone. This is available at two of the off-street parking lots currently, but the City will likely expand this program to all the off-street lot locations in the upcoming months. PaybyPhone provides customers with an alternative way to pay for downtown parking and if a customer is nearing the expiration of their parking time, one can add additional time, up to the time limit for that space. Mobile payment is a convenient payment option for a City like San Mateo. There are on average around 500 transactions per month through PayByPhone at each lot, equating to an average of 8-10 transactions per day. The City has a monthly permit that is available for residents or for employees. Permit sales are processed online through the San Mateo Parking website. Each permit is linked to an individual license plate number and is a physical hangtag that is printed by permit holder. Permits are purchased for specific zones. The different zones have varied costs. The downtown core costs $80.00 per month, while the perimeter is $50.00 and outside of downtown is $30.00 per month. This tiered rate structure makes parking in the core of downtown a premium, and encourages drivers to park further away to save money and free up the more valuable spaces. There is also a residential parking permit program in San Mateo which is currently free. Parking permits are issued as stickers and are affixed to the resident s vehicle. Residential permits are valid for two calendar years. These permits are available for neighborhoods that are impacted by heavy traffic from nearby businesses for example. There is no fee for these permits, but residents must fill out an application. The number of permits that may be issued to a single or multi-family residence is unlimited. Each household is also eligible for a transferable visitor hangtag. i) Santa Monica, CA Santa Monica is located on the coast in western Los Angeles County. It is home to many boutique shops, high-end restaurants, and landmark attractions. The City is a tourist destination, and is home to an estimated 93,220 people per the 2010 census. The City is comprised of around just 8.4 square miles. On-street parking is managed by the City, while their parking operation, SP Plus manages the offstreet parking facilities. There are approximately 5,000 on-street metered spaces in Santa Monica. The City uses IPS single-space meters, and the rate is between $1.00 and $2.00 per hour. These meters accept credit card and coin, but there is no mobile payment option at this time. Most meters, such as those along Ocean Avenue, 4 th Street, and 2 nd Street have a 3-hour time limit, which is enforced between 8:00am and 2:00am every day. The downtown meters along 5 th Street and near the Civic Center also have a 3-hour time limit, but these are enforced between 8:00am and 9:00pm. The downtown parking structures in Santa Monica offer the first 90-minutes of parking free. The next hour is $1.25, with each additional 30-minutes costing $1.85. There is a daily maximum of $ There

109 are a total of twelve parking structures and four lots that make up parking for the downtown, Third Street Promenade and the Civic Center. There are multiple types of monthly permits that the public can choose to purchase for the off-street parking structures. A regular monthly permit to be used anytime is $ There are also two options to either park on weekdays from 6:00am to 7:00pm or on weeknights from 4:00pm to 6:00am. These time-limited permits cost $ for the day and $82.50 for the night option. The employee permit parking program in Santa Monica allows employees to park with keycard access to an assigned parking structure with the purchase of their monthly permit. There are also exempt streetparking permit available. These are only valid during the employment period, and applications are reviewed by the City to ensure eligibility. There are also five options for monthly permits available for employees that permit access into different parking structures: Option1 Lots 1N, 3N-9N, 2S-5S $27.00 per month Option 2 Civic Center $ per month Option 3 Civic Center between 3:30pm-6:00am $75.00 per month Option 4 Main Library $82.50 per month Option 5 Downtown structures 1-9 $ per month Table 51: City of Santa Monica permit schedule for Downtown, Third Street Promenade and Civic Center parking Employee parking permits are issued only to employees of businesses and must provide proof of employment, current California registration reflecting employees name and address, as well as proof of California residency (driver s license or ID card). The residential Preferential Parking Permit program limits certain on-street zones to residents to make it easier for residents to find parking in impacted areas. Residents permits are only valid within a two-block radius of their address, and only residents that live on an approved block may purchase a visitor permit. Applicants must show proof of residency, and pay a fee of $25.00 to apply. One permit per vehicle is allowed, and up to two visitor permits are allowed per year. A maximum of 25 one-day permits can be issued per year for events. The red zones on the below map currently have residential preferential parking permit programs, and the blue streets are pre-approved for eligibility.

110 Figure 46: City of Santa Monica Preferential Parking Map One issue that Santa Monica is facing today is that, despite having a residential preferential permit program, many residents still have trouble finding adequate parking due to the two-block radius rule. This is also considered unfair in some situations where, because of the geography, residents don t always have a full two block radius to choose from. Additionally, the program allows residents to self-generate daily temporary permits for free. This system is vulnerable to abuse, and not easily regulated by the police department. The City is considering a way to make the system more regulated and less susceptible to abuse. j) San Rafael, CA The parking program in the City of San Rafael is managed by the Parking Services Division, which reports to the City Manager s Office. The only aspects of the parking program that are outsourced are equipment

111 repair for garage maintenance and citation processing and noticing. There is a total of sixteen staff members that deal with parking, including 6 parking enforcement officers. k) Sausalito, CA The City of Sausalito is made up of just 2.3 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it has a population of approximately 7,156 people. It is known for its quaint and picturesque downtown area, made up of around three blocks of shops and cafes. On- and off-street parking is managed by the City s Parking Authority. Sausalito has 174 on-street metered spaces with single space IPS parking meters. There are approximately 150 transactions per day at these single space meters. The on-street parking meters in Sausalito operate between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm daily. Additionally, there is often a three-hour time limit restriction for the meters. The meters also allow drivers to prepay for time during the day if they park before 9:00am. With this system, the payment would apply beginning at 9:00am. All parking meters have a rate of $1.00 per hour in the City. The City has 520 off-street metered spaces, which use the T2 Digital pay stations. The multi-space pay stations have on average 900 total transactions per day. Sausalito also offers mobile payment through Parkmobile for the off-street metered locations. Mobile payments account for approximately an additional 60 transactions per day. There are five city public parking lots in Sausalito. These lots require payment between 7:00am and 10:00pm, with some variation depending on the lot. Lots 1 and 2 each cost $1.00 per 20 minutes, with a daily maximum of $ Parking Lot 3 costs $1.00 per 30 minutes, but with the same daily maximum. Additionally, Lot 4 costs $1.00 per hour with a $5.00 daily max. Three hours of free parking are provided at Lot 5. Overnight parking is allowed in Lots 1-4, but Lot 5 requires an overnight Area L permit. For employees, there are a few options for longer term parking downtown. Sausalito offers a Commuter Parking SmartCard, which allows employees to park in Lot 3 or 4 for a reduced flat rate of just $4.00 per day. These permits are preloaded with a balance to cover parking. Around 56 SmartCards are used per day downtown. Employees can also choose to use the Parkmobile mobile payment option to park in the off-street locations for $4.35 per day. Around 43 vehicles utilize this option for daily parking. Finally, there is a premium D Permit which costs $ per quarter and allows unlimited parking in Lots 3 and 4. This permit is currently used by around 21 vehicles per quarter. The off-street long term parking permits are valid between 8:00am and 10:00pm. There is also a residential permit-parking program in Sausalito for various neighborhoods labeled with Area B, C, D, and H signage. Each area costs $35.00 per vehicle per year for a permit, except for Area D, which costs $ per vehicle per quarter. Around 500 of these residential permits are purchased per year. These permits are not valid at parking meters, and they do not allow drivers to park for more than 72 hours in the same space. Two guest permits may be requested per address for no extra charge. Additionally, residents can apply for a Resident Parking Passcard for a $10.00 application fee. The Passcard

112 allows residents to park in Lots 1-4 for up to three hours free per day between 7:00am and 6:00pm. This time can be used incrementally if desired. Any additional time used gets billed to the cardholder. It also allows permits free overnight parking in those locations between 6:00pm and 7:00am. This program is managed by the Sausalito Parking Authority and its enforcement officers. Officers can recognize valid resident Passcards via their handheld enforcement devices at which time the spaces will display as green, meaning paid. l) Walnut Creek, CA Parking management in the City of Walnut Creek falls under the City Manager s Office. The Parking Manager is responsible for overseeing on- and off-street parking policy, the parking enterprise fund, parking garage operations, private parking ordinances, etc., the Public Works Department handles onstreet meter maintenance and facility maintenance, and Transportation Engineering handles the residential parking permits. The Police Department is responsible for parking enforcement. Parking garage day-to-day operations is outsourced to LAZ Parking.

113 City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study: Draft Recommendations 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345 San Diego, CA

114 Table of Contents I. Paid Parking... 4 A. Occupancy and Turnover... 4 B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations Overview Single-Space Meters Multi-Space Pay Stations... 8 C. Mobile Payment D. Comprehensive Parking Management System E. Active Monitoring Occupancy Rates Sensors F. Sales Tax G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits On-Street Rates and Time Limits Off-Street Rates H. Off Street Infrastructure I. Special Events J. Distribution Model K. Community Outreach II. Permits III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding A. Wayfinding B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems C. Current Wayfinding D. Parking Guidance Systems E. Digital Wayfinding IV. Enforcement V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations... Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Proposed Organizational Structure... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Outsourcing of Parking Operations... Error! Bookmark not defined.

115 VI. Alternative Strategies A. Secure Existing Parking Supply B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program... 48

116 I. Paid Parking A. Occupancy and Turnover Recommendation: Implement a dynamic paid parking program in Downtown and replace the existing color zone system. Parking occupancy rates have reached a point in Downtown Palo Alto that visitors cannot easily find convenient parking, forcing drivers to circle slowly around the streets and parking facilities looking for a space. This creates further congestion and can also deter customers from visiting the downtown. As an industry standard, cities aim for a parking space vacancy rate of 10-15% (assuming ten spaces per block face), which translates to one to two spaces on an average block face. It s important to note that this 10-15% ratio is relative to the number of spaces per block. However, the afternoon and evening data collection periods revealed that many of the on- and off-street parking locations were over 80% occupied. The recommendation of paid parking is being introduced to support the City s occupancy and sustainability goals. Reducing congestion with a paid parking solution will ultimately save drivers time and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, there is an unrealized value of parking in Palo Alto Paid parking has the potential to help fund the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) in their efforts to encourage alternative modes of transportation and reduce singleoccupant vehicle trips. While the time limits set by the color zone rules facilitate parking space turnover, the color zones are no longer effective in helping Palo Alto reach an efficient occupancy rate. Data analysis revealed that many drivers are in fact following the color zones rules, with only a small number of drivers overstaying their allotted time. Additionally, most downtown time limit parking was only observed in one color zone during the day, meaning that much of parking downtown lasted just two to three hours. There was a small segment of drivers (6-8%) that were observed jumping between multiple zones to extend their stay downtown. While the number may not seem significant, there are still a few hundred vehicles hopping between color zones throughout the day causing further congestion and impacting parking availability. The color zones do create turnover, but because the same rule blankets the entire downtown, the zones are ineffective at encouraging drivers to steer away from high occupancy areas. Drivers likely circle the block looking for a convenient space, without an incentive to park a few blocks away where the occupancy may be lower. This creates an issue with congestion and does not help free up spaces in the highest occupancy areas downtown. Provided there are various ways to adjust parking rates, paid parking can be an effective tool to help alleviate high occupancy rates, making the parking experience downtown more efficient and convenient for drivers. Some business owners have expressed their concern that paid parking may discourage people

117 from visiting downtown because there are other nearby shopping destinations with free parking. While this may be true for some consumers, there is a segment of the population that may be more likely to go downtown and pay for parking if it means that parking is easier and quicker to find. It is important to recognize that parking is a limited and expensive resource, especially in a vibrant downtown like Palo Alto, and paid parking can help maximize this resource through strategic rate structures and technology enhancements. B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations Recommendations: Implement an on-street and off-street (surface lots only) paid parking solution. Evaluate parking technology equipment to address community needs and system capabilities. Distribute a parking technology solicitation by, including performance measures and maintenance requirements. Select parking technology vendor(s) by 6-8 months prior to projected implementation. 1. Overview The City should evaluate the variety of single-space meter and pay station options available and consider piloting equipment to determine the needs of Palo Alto and the community s preferences for the features offered by the parking technology providers. This assessment should serve as the baseline for a citywide solicitation that should be issued, and the vendor should be selected by six to eight months prior to when the City intends on having paid parking implemented and live. Per the City s CIP, this project is likely to begin in late 2017 and proceed through There are varied opinions in the parking industry on when to choose single-space meters or multi-space meters (pay stations) but ultimately the choice is dependent on the unique needs and desires of the community that they will serve. Below is a list of considerations to have when comparing the two types of meters: Ease of use: Single-space meters are generally simpler and easier to use. Signage: Single-space meters do not require as much signage because drivers see the meter when they park and know that they are required to pay. Pay stations require signage with arrows directing drivers to the pay station. Fees: There are typically higher credit card transaction fees with single-space meters to afford the technology required in every meter. Aesthetics: Pay stations reduce the amount of street furniture. Collections: Single-space meters have smaller coin vaults, meaning that they must be collected more frequently.

118 Revenue: Drivers can park at single-space meters with time left on it from a previous parker and save money, while pay stations typically do not allow for this. This means that pay stations can potentially increase revenue by around 10%. Meter reset sensors can be installed with singlespace meters that may increase revenue, but that is an added cost and it decreases hardware battery life. It is important to note that sensors are typically associated with single-space meters. Though multi-space pay stations can be integrated with sensors, the process becomes more complex. Whereas with single-space meters the ratio of meter to sensor is 1:1, the multi-space to sensor ratio range may be much greater depending on the number of spaces a multi-space pay station is configured to accept payment from. Enforcement: Paying by space or by license plate at pay stations can be more efficient and less labor intensive to enforce because each meter does not need to be inspected. In terms of payment security for the City and customers, most vendors today are annual certified from a third-party Qualified Security Assessor (QSAs), recognized by the PCI Security Council for Level 1 Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) and Payment Application Data Security Standard (PA-DSS). When considering a potential vendor however, the City should verify and ensure these certifications are current. When soliciting meter vendors, it is important to include performance measures and maintenance requirements in the solicitation specifications. By binding financial penalties to hardware and software support services and requirements, it will ensure that the City receives assistance in a timely manner. This is critical because any downtime in the system is potential lost revenue for the City. 2. Single-Space Meters The convenience and ease of use of single-space meters is what makes them effective for dense commercial areas. Along main streets such as University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, it is recommended that the City install single-space meters. Thus, visitors will be able to quickly and easily pay the meter nearest their vehicle and proceed in the direction they are going. Also, given these commercial areas attract many visitors, single-space meters will avoid lines forming at pay stations during peak hours. Variations of single-space meters Smart-meters, or single-space meters that accept credit card payments, will provide the City with a backoffice dashboard and real-time access to parking information and data related to its meters. This can allow Palo Alto to monitor the meters and be notified of any maintenance issues. These meters must meet the Payment Card Industry (PCI) security standards for credit card transactions. Additionally, all payment information can be tracked and audited to ensure proper revenue reconciliation during collections. Most single-space meter vendors offer back-office management systems that allow staff to edit the display screen, manage rate structures, and run a variety of reports. Smart single-space meters are estimated in

119 price near $750 per meter (including pole and housing), with an additional $9 per meter per month approximately for data management in addition to transaction fees. Below is a map of proposed single-space meters. Given on the location of single-space meters in the core of the Downtown and based on DIXON s recommendation of three-tiered pricing zones, Tier 1 will be comprised of majority single-space meters. Figure 1: Recommended On-Street Single-Space Meter Coverage

120 3. Multi-Space Pay Stations Multi-space meters or pay stations normally serve as the payment terminal for roughly 6-7 on-street parking spaces or more when installed in off-street locations or angled parking. Like the smart singlespace meters, the pay stations offer back-office and real time access for meter information. Pay stations can be configured to accept multiple forms of payment such as credit card, coin, and bills. Pay stations, depending on their features, may cost between $6,000 and $10,000 per unit with monthly data management fees between $45 and $75 per unit per month. There are three main operational configurations pay stations: pay and display, pay by space, and pay by plate Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time at the pay station, and then returns to their vehicle to display the receipt on their dashboard. Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, and then pays at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver does not have to return to their vehicle because their payment is electronically tied to their space number. Pay by Plate: The driver enters their license plate number at the pay station to record their payment. This method does not require drivers to return to their car as well. Multi-space pay stations Outlined below is table highlighting important efficiencies and limitations with each of the three payment configurations on pay stations. Pay and Display Pay by Space Pay by Plate Display permit Spaces numbered Marking optional Unable to assign rates to spaces Ability to assign rates to spaces Can assign rates to zones/area Increased potential for revenue leakage via pass-back Visual inspection enforcement Least integrated with mobile payment solutions Least user-friendly (return to vehicle) Less opportunity for revenue leakage Enforcement using wireless handheld units Easily integrates with mobile payment solutions User-friendly Table 1: Efficiencies and limitations associated with pay station payment configurations No opportunity for revenue leakage Mobile-LPR enforcement Easily integrates with mobile payment solutions User-friendly Many municipalities tend to favor pay by space and pay by plate over pay and display because they do not require drivers to return to their car with a receipt after purchasing time. These methods are not only more convenient and efficient for patrons, but they are also easier to enforce because they don t require enforcement officers to look at each individual dashboard for proof of payment.

121 One advantage for the driver of pay by space is that the driver is not expected to remember and enter in their license plate number at the pay station. However, pay by plate payment is increasing in popularity with the advancements in mobile LPR technology, the preferred enforcement method when utilizing pay by plate technology. The negative connotation around pay by plate and customers not knowing or remembering their license plate number is subsiding. Additionally, as an added convenience, subject to City policy, pay by space and pay by plate systems allow the driver to pay for and add additional parking time onto their existing parking session from any pay station or from their cellphone if the time limit has not been reached. To make the parking experience in Palo Alto as simple for visitors as possible, it is recommended that the City implement pay stations with the pay by space configuration. These pay stations should be located onstreet in the peripheral areas of the downtown to avoid the infrastructure cost of installing single-space meters for every parking space. Ideally there should be a pay station located on both ends of each block face so drivers can park, walk in the direction of their destination, pay for parking as they pass the pay station, and proceed on. It is recommended that the City install them facing parallel to the streets because lines may form at the pay stations. This will prevent any lines from blocking the walkways. Regarding the off-street surface lots, it is recommended that the City place at a minimum, one pay station in each surface lot that provide any hourly-parking. Much like on-street spaces, off-street surface lots configured with multi-space pay stations will be intended for motorists with relatively short-stay periods in hopes of redirecting long-term parkers to the garage facilities. It is imperative with the implementation of paid hourly parking that the pay stations are in working order. Also, with pay stations it is important to ensure that there is adequate signage to direct patrons to the meters. Given Palo Alto does not get snowfall, space numbers may be painted on the pavement or on the curb instead of using pole mounted signage. The map below shows the recommended on-street blocks (highlighted in yellow) for the installation of pay stations. Additionally, it is recommended that the City utilize pay stations in all surface lots and, like single-space meter placement in Tier 1, pay stations should be the primary technology utilized off-street in Tier Zone 2 and 3. Currently, off-street hourly surface lots are treated much like on-street spaces in terms of time limits. For consistency and to minimize costs, the installation of pay stations in surface lots in lieu of gate access should be sufficient. Furthermore, many motorists are accustomed to paying for parking at a pay station in surface lots and a similar configuration in Palo Alto would not be confusing. If the City determines that an access control or LPR-based garage solution is not viable, pay stations should be installed within the garage locations to manage garage payments for hourly parking. Additionally, it is suggested that when the City reaches the procurement and vendor selection phase of paid parking technology it utilize the opportunity to run a pilot and trial period of multiple meters and pay stations throughout the Downtown. Doing so will provide staff, community and visitors to test the proposed equipment options and assist the City in determining the ideal paid parking technology solution for Palo Alto. The City of Sausalito successfully implemented a similar pilot in spring 2015 with upwards of 7 different pay station and meter vendors. The trial lasted roughly 60-days and invited the community test the numerous technologies and provide feedback to City staff. The City subsequently chose a combination of both single-space and multi-space pay stations for its Downtown.

122 Figure 2: Recommended On-Street Multi-Space Pay Station Coverage C. Mobile Payment Recommendation: Integrate a mobile payment application with any paid parking technology solution. It will be important to consider the mobile payment providers currently integrated at Stanford University and in other surrounding cities. Doing so provides with an ease of use based on consistency and familiarity. Ultimately however, the City should choose the provider that best fits the needs of Palo Alto.

123 Mobile payment display Many cities choose to implement mobile payment or pay by web as an option to improve customer service by giving drivers more payment options. Patrons can create an account through a phone app or website to pay for parking, which also allows a driver to pay for their parking time without accessing the parking hardware. Depending upon city policy, drivers can be provided the option to extend their time remotely. Mobile payment services require drivers to enter in their license plate number (or space number), which serves as the payment identifier for enforcement officers. In the case of a pay and display configuration as the hardware form of payment, a mobile payment remains simple. The driver would open their mobile application and make a payment in the same method as a pay by plate or pay by space configuration. The mobile payment application would request the driver input their license plate number as well. Provided the mobile payment system may be integrated with enforcement handhelds, the enforcement officer would run a query through the mobile application to verify payment has been made for any vehicle without a receipt displayed. Mobile payment technology can to be utilized with both single-space meter and multi-space pay stations, regardless of payment configuration on the meter. Typically, the mobile payment vendor offers a turnkey solution for implementing their system, which includes signage and promotions without an additional cost to the municipality. Some vendors also offer a while label service, which allows cities to utilize their own branding for the service. This allows cities to promote mobile payment through a city-owned website. Utilization of mobile payment falls between 3% and 10% in most cities, and users pay a small transaction fee, usually between $0.10 and $0.35. Mobile payment can be integrated with both single-space and pay stations. While the current utilization figures may seem low, with the continued widespread use of smart phone technology, it is recommended that Palo Alto implement a mobile payment system with all parking meter technology solutions. D. Comprehensive Parking Management System Recommendations: With the potential implementation of paid parking and re-structuring of the City s current permit program including employee permits, it is recommended that the City solicit a comprehensive parking management system. This management system shall allow for integration with other management and payment platforms such as Clipper 2.0 The comprehensive system should enable the City to monitor its permit program, allowing customers to create user accounts, apply and renew current parking permits. The comprehensive system should allow the City to monitor issued citations and provide customers the opportunity to pay citations online, in real-time.

124 As part of the comprehensive management system, the City should ensure that the selected system allows for intuitive reporting features for both revenue and performance measures. Along with a centralized parking department, the City also should anticipate implementing a unified citation and permit management system (CPMS). The CPMS would offer act as an integrated solution allowing users to establish an online account with the City and manage all permit requests. This would include all employee parking permits and residential parking permits. Customers would have the opportunity to submit any required documentation via a web portal and the City or the designated vendor could efficiently verify the application and permit fulfillment process. The CPMS would also provide online renewal capabilities and perform customer payment processes. In addition, utilizing the CPMS would automate the City s current permit waitlist process providing the ability to manage and adjust capacity thresholds utilizing CPMS management tools. Most importantly, all permit data, including financial reconciliation details, would be immediately available via the CPMS in real-time. The system can also be integrated to transmit data to the designated City administrative management systems. With a proposed permit management solution, the City should also plan to implement an integrated citation management system, a necessary and efficient tool as the City considers the installation of paid parking technology. A turnkey CPMS solution will provide updated handheld technology hardware for the enforcement officers which if needed, can be incorporated to integrate with a potential LPR system. In addition, the CPMS will be integrated with the paid parking infrastructure to provide the parking enforcement officers with real-time paid parking status as well as valid permit status. The CPMS will allow an enforcement officer to be more effective and efficient will working their downtown beats. Like permits, the CPMS will provide the City will real-time access to parking citation data, delinquent collection details and financial analysis tools. The City should not only consider implementing the CPMS, they should also consider a turnkey CPMS solution that includes a private contractor to provide the customer support service and delinquent collection processes necessary to proactively manage a citation and permit management solution. The CPMS will be an important tool for the City to effectively and efficiently manage their parking program. E. Active Monitoring Recommendations: Conduct bi-annual downtown occupancy studies to determine parking rates and time limits adjustments, as needed. Consider integrating parking space sensors with the meters for real-time occupancy, enforcement data and the ability for meter time resets. Monitor quarterly sales tax revenue to assess the overall impact of paid parking. 1. Occupancy Rates Active monitoring can help ensure program efficiency by keeping the parking rate structure up to date with current occupancy statistics. It is recommended that the City evaluate on- and off-street parking occupancy on a Thursday and a Saturday on a bi-annual basis to understand how parking rates and time

125 limits are impacting occupancy rates. Ideally, occupancy rates by block face should be collected during the morning (9:00am), afternoon (12:00pm), mid-afternoon (3:00pm), and evening (7:00pm). Based on the City s findings, appropriate adjustments can be made. Areas downtown with an average occupancy rate over 80% should be priced the highest with the lowest time limits because the industry standard is that 80% occupancy and above is considered full. Below is list of potential adjustments to make from bi-annual evaluation results based on average daily occupancy rates: Clusters of blocks that increased from below 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to at or above 80% occupancy should have the price increased by $0.25 per hour or have the time limit lowered by 30 minutes. Clusters of blocks that decreased from at or above 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to below 80% occupancy should have the price lowered by $0.25 per hour or the time limit extended by 30 minutes. The off-street lots and garages that have the highest average occupancies during the most recent evaluation should cost more per hour than the locations with lower average occupancies. Off-street parking should cost less and/or have longer time limits than on-street parking. For the bi-annual evaluations, there are two main methods for monitoring occupancy. The first option is that the City can choose to have data collectors manually count cars, and the second method is to install meter sensors. Manually counting will likely provide the most accurate information because it does not rely on the efficacy of sensor technology. This method also costs significantly less because it does not require any additional hardware, software, installations, or upkeep. However, with manually counting it is harder to provide a snapshot of the data instead data is collected within certain time periods. With sensors, data can be collected in real-time 24 hours per day, seven-days per week. 2. Sensors Meters can be integrated with parking space sensor technology to monitor the spaces 24 hours per day. This data can be integrated with parking guidance systems, websites, and mobile apps to provide realtime information to visitors. There are currently several application providers that can post parking data at no charge. Sensors are typically embedded in the pavement in the center of each parking space and, most recently, vendors have introduced pole mounted sensors. Sensor batteries often last around three years. Parking space sensors can cost approximately $250 per unit from leading parking technology vendors including installation in addition to ongoing monthly monitoring fees that vary from $6 to $10 per installed space. There have been several new sensor-based technology companies who have recently introduced themselves into the marketplace at significantly lower costs however, many of these technologies are not as proven across the industry. Example of an in-ground parking sensor

126 Using meter sensors to monitor occupancy rates can be an efficient way for the City to access real-time data. However, it is important to realize that sensors may not always be completely accurate. Some cities choose to tie in performance standards when soliciting vendors to ensure that the data they are paying for is usable. The City is currently managing a sensor pilot program with VIMOC Technologies. VIMOC has installed including series of surface-level sensors throughout several on-street parking spaces throughout Downtown. Many of VIMOC s on-street sensors are installed in the downtown core where occupancy figures from DIXON s data collected were highest. The City may be able to utilize this infrastructure to monitor ongoing occupancy rates. Some of the parking meter vendors offer an integrated sensor that provides the opportunity to reset the meter. A meter reset occurs when a vehicle pulls out of the space it was parked in, the sensor determines there is no longer an object parked there and then automatically resets the meter to zero time. It is estimated that this can increase revenue by up to 10%. The City of Santa Monica has implemented the meter reset technology and increased their annual parking revenue by nearly $1 million as a result. Sensors also assist with parking enforcement by identifying violators who don t pay to park within a set amount of time. Without a sensor, the meter will report that the time is expired, but there is no way of knowing if a car is still parked in the space without an enforcement officer checking. The sensor can also work with the meter to prevent people from going back and feeding the meters for more time in locations with time limits. The sensor can report that the vehicle has parked for more than the allotted time, even if the meter has been paid. Sensors also provide the opportunity to provide a designated grace period in a parking space. The City can opt to provide a courtesy period to allow a driver to park prior to requiring payment at the meter. Sensor solutions can become an expensive resource. It is important to also consider advancements in technologies beyond the parking industry. As the smart cities movement and the technologies associated continue to gain momentum, there may be an opportunity to multi-purpose new street light and smart city technology and integrate with parking as well. Thus, eliminating the need for standalone sensors. To determine the best sensor solution for the Palo Alto, staff will need to define the overall objective associated with any sensor installation. Whether a sensor system will be used to monitor occupancy for forecasting purposes, to distribute real-time on street availability or to provide a meter reset capability, these features will determine not only the overall investment required by the City but will also mandate the type of equipment needed for a sensor installation in the City. F. Sales Tax As the City of Palo Alto considers the implementation of paid parking through smart-parking technology, the primary goal of the paid parking program should be to improve the availability of parking for residents, employees, visitors and the surrounding community through increased turnover. It is recommended that the City monitor monthly sales tax revenues overtime to see the impact of paid parking. This was a similar approach taken by the City and County of San Francisco and its creation of SFpark. Much like Palo Alto, SFpark s goal was to deliver transportation, social, and environmental benefits as well as to improve parking availability and customer access to commercial districts. SFpark not only achieved these goals but also increased the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) parking revenue by nearly $

127 million per year. Through the installation of smart-parking meters and the management of time limits in pilot areas, SFpark management increased its net annual revenue from meters by approximately $3.3 million from FY2011 to FY2013. Furthermore, SFpark also significantly improved the utilization of the city s garages, helping them to return them to their original purpose: making it easier to find parking for short-term parkers and increasing the economic vitality of the city rather than just places for commuters to park. As part of San Francisco s effort, all publicly available parking facilities pay a 0.25% parking tax. This has been a process instituted by the City Assessor to help evaluate changes in parking demand in private parking garages or lots. To prevent identification of individual facilities the city has aggregated parking tax receipts. San Francisco has been successful in its parking tax implementation thus far in public facilities. Annual parking tax collected in pilot areas increased by $6.5 million, or 43%, during the same period, compared to a 3% increase in the rest of the city, however it is unclear what portion of that is attributable to SFpark. For the City and County of San Francisco, the upgrade of paid parking in the form of smart credit cardenabled meters has aided the city and indirectly increased the economic viability. Parking has become more readily available for short-term parkers who are visiting the city s commercial districts. In addition, rather than having spaces occupied by commuters that park all day, parking space availability has increased short-term turnover. Given Palo Alto s vibrant Downtown business district, paid on-street parking should allow short-term parkers to visit Downtown and find increased availability with an increase in parking space turnover and providing more efficient infrastructure to enforce parking policies. G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits Recommendations: Implement a tiered zone parking rate with time limits for on-street parking. Implement a tiered zone parking rate without time limits for off-street parking. Currently the City of Palo Alto offers both on- and off-street time limited parking for free with the color zone parking system. On-street two-hour and off-street three-hour time limits are enforced between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. There is no parking enforcement on weekends or holidays. With parking meters is will be simple for the City to make changes to the parking program. Parking meter backend software will allow the City of Palo Alto to customize and modify meter display screens and rate structures. This provides the City with the flexibility to change meter rates overtime based on occupancy rates and evaluations, without being locked in to a certain system. 1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits Varied parking rates can be an effective tool for encouraging higher utilization of historically lowoccupancy areas. The goal is to free up parking in the highest occupancy areas to reach between a maximum of 80% and 85% occupancy. Doing so, this will make parking a more convenient experience for downtown visitors, and may also reduce congestion from drivers circling for a parking space. Additionally, having lower rates in off-street locations can encourage longer-term parkers to park off-street, thus freeing up the convenient parking spaces outside of store fronts for people making quick trips downtown.

128 There are two main types of rate structures that may be considered by the City. The first is a tiered rate model, and the second is a pay-to-stay model. For the tiered rate model, hourly parking rates would vary by location based on convenience and historical occupancy rates. For example, lower prices on the periphery of downtown can encourage drivers to park further away and walk a few blocks to their destination. On the other hand, the higher demand spaces would be priced at a premium. This model can be coupled with time limits to ensure adequate turnover. In contrast, a pay-to-stay model is based on the amount of time spent parking. Therefore, drivers may pay a lower hourly rate to begin with, but as their length of stay increases, the hourly rate gradually increases as well. The purpose of this model is to deter patrons from parking long-term on-street, but it still gives them the option to if they are willing to pay premium pricing for convenience. While this method may work for some cities, it is not recommended for on-street parking in the City of Palo Alto because of the particularly high occupancy rates downtown. The implementation of a pay-to-stay model may be difficult on-street because, without time limits, it is not expected that there will be enough turnover downtown. Due to the affluence of the surrounding communities, there may be a significant portion of drivers who are willing to pay to park in a convenient space for the entire day downtown with this premium pricing model. This could potentially exacerbate the parking occupancy rates for the most convenient spaces downtown instead of relieve them. Based on the occupancy data collected in Palo Alto, it is recommended that the City implement a tiered rate structure with time limits. Demand for parking varies across the downtown, so by implementing a zonal rate structure, on-street and surface lot spaces will be more accurately priced based on their demand.

129 This will in turn help to distribute demand more evenly throughout the downtown. The following map outlines the proposed locations for three recommended tiers: Figure 3: Recommended Tiered Rate Zones Tier 1 is applied to part of Hamilton Avenue, University Avenue, and side streets. Tier 2 is applied to two separate areas of downtown between Hamilton Avenue to Forest Avenue as well as Parts of Webster Street, Cowper Street, and Tasso Street. Finally, Tier 3 is applied to the outer corners of the downtown along with all of Lytton Avenue. The placement of these zones is based on the Thursday and Saturday daily average occupancy rates for each block face over the course of the three data collection months. The next two maps show the tiered zones overlaid onto the heat map data to show how the zones relate to the average occupancy rates. Tier 1 was meant to encompass the highest occupancy areas, Tier 2 captures the mid-range occupancy rates, and Tier 3 is for the lower occupancy areas for both Thursday and Saturday.

130 Figure 4: Thursday Daily Average Occupancy

131 Figure 5: Saturday Daily Average Occupancy When determining appropriate hourly rates, it is important to consider nearby comparable cities to understand the current market rate for parking. Of the comparable cities with paid parking, the lowest downtown rates were $0.50-$1.00 per hour in Alameda, San Mateo, and Sausalito. On the other side of the spectrum, Santa Monica has on-street rates reaching $2.00 per hour and Berkeley has the highest rates at $3.25 per hour. Because areas of downtown Palo Alto experience extremely high occupancy rates, it is recommended that the Tier 1 zone should be priced on the higher end of the rate spectrum to effectively mitigate congestion. Tiers 2 and 3 should be priced mid-spectrum to be on par with the rates in the comparable cities in the area. The City will need to ensure that they have an enforceable policy in place that prevents vehicles from parking on the space block for more than the designated time limit. Additionally, the proposed time limits were applied to the tier zones to ensure sufficient turnover rates and encourage longer-term onstreet parking towards the periphery. The recommended rate structure and time limits for the three tiers is outlined in the table below:

132 Tier Hourly Rate Max Time Limit 1 $ hour 2 $ hour 3 $ hour Table 2: On-street Tiered Rates and Time Limits The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City is in loss of parking inventory and any associated revenue. The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto s current cost of $79 per week. The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City will lose the parking inventory and any associated revenue. The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto s current cost of $79 per week differs when compared to other cities. Some cities have a rate structures, dependent on size of space or type of space, metered or non-metered, while others have administrative fees associated with the permit. For example, the City of Berkeley charges $79 per week or $15.80 per day per space plus the $15 per temporary No Parking sign. The City of San Francisco charges a tiered rate structure that escalates in cost as approximate footage increases and the quantity of temporary No Parking signs increases. Permit costs start at $239 week and range up to roughly $800 per week. Metered locations incur a fee of $10 per space per day as well. The City of Santa Monica permit fees are similar to San Francisco in terms of rate increases. The city charges $79 per day for a meter space and $76 per non-metered space for a standard 20-foot parking space but the cost increases as the size of the space increases. If one was to purchase a permit for a 100-foot, the cost is roughly $154 for a metered space and approximately $100 for a non-metered space. The City of San Jose s permit structure is a bit different. The city uses a Tow Away Permit to authorize the closure of a metered space for temporary work. The cost is $30 per permit, $0.53 for each tow-away sign

133 placed at each meter, and either $8 (for a smart meter) or $4 (coin meter) per day. An example would be the closure of three meters for two days, totaling roughly $56. For the City of Palo Alto, it is encouraged that the City review the current price of its closed/rented onstreet permit cost. Based on surrounding municipalities, Palo Alto s current price per permit is lower in comparison. It is apparent that other cities may charge a similar base cost for a permit but utilize other factors effected by the permit to increase the total cost, such as parking space footage lost or the need for temporary signage to be installed by City. It is recommended that the total cost for a weekly space permit (in a metered space), including any administrative fees associated, be equal to or greater than the potential total revenue per metered space during paid parking hours. Therefore, if a space is $1 per hour and paid parking is enforced for ten hours, then the cost to rent that space is at least $10 per day prior to any per space footage fees or administrative costs that may be associated with temporarily deactivating that parking space. For a non-metered space, it is suggested the City maintain the current cost of $79 however the City should ensure that any additional costs related to the space closures are recovered. 2. Off-Street Rates It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement the tiered rate model without time limits for offstreet hourly parking. Essentially, the off-street locations that generally have lower occupancy rates should be more affordable than the higher demand locations. This can encourage drivers to park in garages that are otherwise underutilized, thus freeing up space in the higher demand locations. No matter what on- and off-street time limits are chosen, it is imperative that the City offers longer time limits in the off-street locations in comparison to on-street parking. Therefore, we are recommending that the City eliminate time limits in the garages and surface lots. The purpose of this is to encourage short term on street parking with higher turnover rates and long term affordable pricing for off street locations. After implementation, with further evaluation and the bi-annual occupancy studies, the City can assess the need for time limits, however, it will be more efficient to control access to the garages and promote turnover and vehicle transition through the use automation and the proposed hourly rate model rather than manually monitor vehicle activity with parking enforcement officers. The next two heat maps show the average daily occupancy of off-street hourly spaces for the Thursday and Saturday data collection periods.

134 Figure 7: Saturday Daily Average: Off-street Hourly Spaces There are a variety of paid off-street parking rates offered by the comparable cities ranging from $0.50 per hour in Monterey to $3.70 per hour in Santa Monica. While Berkeley has the highest on-street rates ($3.25/hr.), the Berkeley off-street rate is $2.00 per hour. Berkeley, Monterey, Santa Monica, and Sausalito all offer off-street parking at a reduced rate compared to on-street parking.

135 Based on the initial on-street tiered map, the off-street locations are located in the following tiers: Location Tier B (Ramona/University) 1 C (Ramona/Lytton) 1 D (Hamilton/Waverley) 1 F (Florence/Lytton) 1 H (Cowper/Hamilton) 1 S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 1 T (Lytton/Kipling) 1 CC (Civic Center) 2 N (Emerson/Ramona) 2 WC (Webster/Cowper) 2 A (Emerson/Lytton) 3 K (Lytton/Waverley) 3 O (Emerson/High) 3 P (High/Hamilton) 3 R (High/Alma) 3 Table 3: Off-Street It is recommended that free parking should be eliminated from the garages and an hourly rate should be implemented. Based upon the tier zone, the City can establish a lower hourly rate for the initial 1 to 4 hours, however, the rate should be escalated once the vehicle exceeds the initial time limit. This shortterm rate band should be established with a higher daily maximum to encourage alternative transportation opportunities. The current cost for an All-Day Permit is $17.50 and this rate is not consistent with the surrounding markets and the current demand for parking in Palo Alto. There should be a twenty-four-hour maximum with a daily start time for the new day. The new off-street rate also needs to be affordable compared to parking on street but also slightly higher in price when compared to an employee parking permit (expanded on in Section 2). The cost of parking off-street for an employee or someone frequenting downtown daily for an extended period should be more expensive than the cost of an employee permit or an alternative mode of transportation such as public transit. Therefore, the following off-street rates would be consistent with other similar downtown markets and coincide with the proposed on-street rates: Tier Hourly Rate Fee Escalation Daily Maximum Escalation Time to Daily Max 1 $1.25/hr. (First 3 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 3 hrs.) $ hrs.

136 2 $1.00/hr. (First 4 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 4 hrs.) $ hrs. 3 $1.00/hr. (First 4 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 4 hrs.) $ hrs. Table 4: Proposed Off-street Rates The escalation timeframe to achieve the daily maximum rate can vary by tier zone, however, this proposed rate structure is meant to encourage vehicle turnover and discourage long term non-permit parking. H. Off Street Infrastructure Recommendations: Install access control systems (gate arms) at all city-owned parking garages. (Note: Off-street surface lots will utilize multi-space pay stations) Eliminate off-street time limits and implement an off-street hourly rate that encourages vehicle turnover after a designated time (3 or 4 hours), depending upon the facility location. To more efficiently manage off-street parking, it is recommended that the City install revenue control equipment at the garage locations. There are several equipment options that can be considered by the City and a traditional gate system would be the simplest solution to implement. It s important to highlight that a traditional gate system supported by pay-onfoot technology for hourly parking costs on Parking access revenue control system average $30,000 per lane not including any civil work that might be required. A gated system could allow for automated access for permitted vehicle and provide many efficiencies to manage the proposed hourly pay rates, minimize backups and traffic flow and, most importantly, eliminate the need for parking enforcement officers to check each vehicle for proper permits and daily passes. Some of the stakeholders expressed a concern about gating the garages and suggested an automated system that would be managed by license plate recognition (LPR) technology. This advanced solution costs approximately $17,500 per lane and allows for free flow access to the garage locations. The system requires at least two fixed mounted cameras per dedicated lane. Speed inhibitors are typically installed to slow vehicle access to ensure plate capture. One of the cameras utilizes infrared technology to illuminate the license plate characters thus ensuring they can be read in any type of weather condition. The second camera physically reads the license plate characters and the software validates the information to the permit management database and business rule requirements for that specific garage entrance. Like the traditional gated system, pay-on-foot technology is used for non-permitted vehicles and drivers must input their license plate in order to pay for their parking time. The LPR solution provides a fully integration parking management system that would incorporate the garage permit database and

137 citations would be mailed to vehicles that exit the facility without paying for their parking time and fees would be collected along with any associated penalties designated by the City (like parking citation collections). This solution is fully automated, however, like parking citation collections, it is not full proof, but it is an option that the City should consider. Regardless of the type of access control technology implemented, the efficiencies and automation will reduce the burden of enforcement and promote a more customer friendly, pro-active garage management approach to parking. Combining the implementation of the proposed overhead sensors along with paid parking and access control technology will promote a clear understanding of the Palo Alto parking regulation and payment requirements. This should have a substantial impact on revenue to fund ongoing facility maintenance needs along with funding the overall objectives of the TMA. In addition, the access control technology and proposed overhead sensors will have the ability to integrate into the City s comprehensive parking management system and allow the City to oversee permit status and real-time occupancy data. This type of integration is important in the continual monitoring of payments transaction data and occupancy history enabling the City to make informed, data-driven decisions as it relates to pricing and availability. I. Special Events Recommendations: Establish a special event parking rate model and the criteria requirements for utilization. Coordinate and promote alternative transportation solutions for special events that impact downtown Consider applying special event rates to all paid parking locations (on and off-street). A tiered rate model can be easily modified using the meters for special events that impact downtown parking. Special event rates may help motivate drivers to park farther away or seek alternative modes of transportation. A special event flat-rate can be integrated and implemented for both on- and off-street parking utilizing the recommended parking technology. Any flat rate should be commensurate with the value of the existing rates for on- and off-street parking locations. Promoting alternative transportation options should be encouraged throughout all levels of special event planning and promotions. For example, there are several cross promotions occurring with services such as Lyft and Uber that both promote a City event and their services to encourage other transportation sources and reduce parking demand. Uber has created UberEVENTS, which allows those planning an event to enter the event through Uber s website and request guest passes. Uber then sends those passes to the event planner for distribution. Each pass has a code

138 attached which is entered into Uber app, for a discounted ride. Municipalities across the country are coordinating directly with these resources to encourage alternative transportation. The City of Coral Gables, Fla. has partnered with Uber as well, to help citizens bypass traffic through designated drop-off and pick-up zones and provide promotional codes for rides. Coral Gables is also utilizing Uber s promotional codes for city events. Special event planning should incorporate an accessible location for the drop-off and pick-up of passengers and a designated location for bus parking. To apply a special event rate, the City will need to establish criteria for when the rate would apply, the cost amount and the advanced notification requirements. Based upon these criteria, the City will have the option to increase special event pricing for any downtown special events, depending upon need. The proposed garage technology and on-street parking infrastructure can also support customizable event rates. Approved special event pricing would override all other rate models, including the proposed evening rate model for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It is important to keep in mind that special event rates will require increased hours of enforcement for any additional times and any policies relating to evening or special event parking regulations will have likely have an impact on the residential parking zones. J. Distribution Model Recommendations: Upon implementation of a paid parking solution, establish a revenue distribution model that allocates monies to finance parking technology equipment and software, to support the existing operation and for parking structure maintenance and potential future parking developments. Based upon the suggested on and off-street rate models, the City should establish a distribution model for the anticipated increase in revenue. It is recommended that revenues are initially allocated to the capital costs of the paid parking technology (hardware), as well as both planned CIP projects, wayfinding and APGS/PARCS systems. In addition, a portion of parking revenues should be allocated to the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) to support mode shift and single-occupancy vehicle trip reductions, to a City-operated shuttle program, and to supporting the existing parking operation as whole. This model could potentially absolve the current parking assessment district program that business owners pay into. A Financial Modeling Workbook has been developed for Palo Alto (included in Section 3) to help the City with projections and financial modeling of the various parking and permit rate structures. The Workbook also includes estimated hardware costs to implement an on street paid parking solution, including permit rate adjustments, single-space meters, multi-space pay stations and PARCS infrastructure. There are a variety of cost proposals offered to municipalities to acquire parking infrastructure and technology. Vendors offer turnkey and a la carte options. Many cities consider a municipal lease program to acquire parking infrastructure and technology as a method to expedite the process of installing new parking equipment. Municipal lease programs often do not require a down payment, and they are not subject to future balloon payments. These advantages can make leasing a more consistent and affordable option for many cities, and by the end of the lease the municipality can negotiate the option to buy the

139 infrastructure. Alternatively, bond issue referendums can be a costly and lengthy process, and there is no guarantee that the public will support it. Bonds are not commonly used to acquire parking infrastructure. K. Community Outreach Recommendation: Launch a proactive education campaign to promote changes to the downtown parking program. The City of Palo Alto should launch a proactive education campaign to educate the public about the new zones, rates, time limits, hours of operation, and technologies. The education campaign should focus on the unrealized value of parking and the effort to provide continues funding for the TMA, as well as the environmental benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The City may engage the efforts of the TMA to coordinate community workshops and visits to local businesses to assist in education the community about changes related to parking and transportation. Recently, the City of Boise, ID undertook a similar parking education campaign last year, creating a parking brand for the city, termed PARKBOI. PARKBOI is Boise s integrated parking system that aims to deliver more convenient was to help one find and pay for public parking in Downtown Boise. This includes better use of on-street, short-term parking in core locations Downtown, long-term parking information in garages and surface lots, and flexible payment choices and information related to parking rates around Downtown. In addition, PARKBOI provides information about special event pricing, the ability for one to pay a parking citation, and locate alternative modes of transportation offered through the City. The campaign is customer-friendly and intuitive, educating those traveling to the downtown about how and where to park.

140 II. Permits Recommendations: Promote alternative modes of transportation by increasing the cost of the downtown employee parking permit to be consistent with the cost of the subsidized transit pass. Ensure that annual parking permit costs are less expensive than on- and off-street hourly parking and equal to or less than RPP employee permits Consider permit pricing in comparable cities when determining permit rates. Offer a reduced-price permit for low-income employees, similar to the RPP program and offer more payment options, including monthly and quarterly purchase. Permit revenues are derived from long -term parking subscriptions, most often purchased by drivers that frequent the area for work or other daily commitments. Based on a review of the City s current employee permit cost and to assist in the City s effort to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips to Downtown, it is suggested that the City both increase the annual price of downtown parking permit and reduce the overall number of permits sold, at the same time that more options (e.g., monthly and quarterly permits) are available When determining the actual permit rate increase value, the City should consider the following factors: Current Subsidized Transit Passes: Currently, employers can subsidize the total cost of a transit pass for their employees through the GoPass and EcoPass programs, part of Caltrain and VTA. To encourage employees, who are a large population of those traveling to Palo Alto each day, to choose public transit, the price of an annual employee permit must be correspond more evenly to the cost of a transit pass. It is recommended that the City implement an incremental increase the Downtown annual garage and lot permits as well as the full-price RPP employee permit, to $800 annually. The $800 figure parallels to the current price of an annual transit pass. Annual Permit Cost vs. On & Off-Street Hourly Parking: The City must ensure that the price of a downtown parking permit is more affordable than commuting to the City and paying daily to park either on-street or off, for the duration of the work day. As such, the permit price must be less expensive than parking eight or nine hours per day, at the posted rate per hour, for an estimated 20 days per month. Based on the paid parking recommendations, on-street parking would cost between $1.50 and $2.50 per hour and off-street would have a daily maximum rate of $24-25 per day. The annual permit cost should calculate to a price below either of those combined totals (on & off-street), on an overall basis. Furthermore, just as it is recommended that the downtown employee parking permits are increased, the City should correlate changes to the RPP employee permit as well, to ensure that there is not an immediate increase in demand throughout the RPP. The City will need to make sure that motorists do not operate under the assumption that cheaper permit parking is available in the RPP. Coordinate in concurrent increase in permits in both the RPP and downtown areas will be important and will help avoid confusion.

141 Comparable Cities Analysis: As part of this study, the comparable cities analysis included the cost of an annual downtown parking permit. Results of the analysis showcased that the cost of Palo Alto s annual employee permit is far below neighboring cities within the region. In several cases, the City s current cost is less than half of other cities of similar size and structure. For example, the City of Berkeley s annual public permit is $1,800; the City of San Mateo s annual employee permit can cost up to $960 per year; and the City of Sausalito s employee permit is priced at $1,044 annually. It is important to remember that parking is often recognized as a commodity. Much like other commodities, the price of parking is derived from the function of the market. Therefore, the pricing of parking is related closely to the supply and demand of available spaces. In many cities parking on-street is not in significant demand. Parking in Palo Alto, on- and off-street is starkly the opposite however. Demand for parking is constant in both arenas. Thus, to manage parking in Palo Alto, including the cost of an employee permit, the price must not only consider the demand for parking but surrounding pricing among other cities. Currently, the cost for an annual employee parking permit in Palo Alto is enticing to many of those who commute Downtown, even for those who travel short distances, provided the $466 annual cost equates to roughly $39 per month, less than $2 a work day. The demand for employee permits far outweighs the supply and therefore steps need to be taken to regulate the permit market in Palo Alto and adjust the cost of permits to be equitable to other permit prices in the region. Reduced-Price Permit: Currently, many downtown employees are circumventing the purchase of an annual permit by continuously moving their vehicles around Downtown each day to avoid the time-limits. In the RPP area, the City offers a reduced-price permit that is based on annual income. Employees qualify if their salary is exactly or less than $50,000; or make a pre-tax hourly wage exactly or less than twice the governing city or state minimum wage. However, even a reduced permit price of $100 annually can be overwhelming to a worker living paycheck to paycheck. Furthermore, low-income workers, often in service industry positions, may find it difficult to afford the purchase price for the annual permit when there may be uncertainty in the security of their job and, therefore, a permit is not worth the $100 cost. It is suggested that the City offer the ability for employees to purchase reduced-price permits on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for garages and lots as well as RPP. This will provide the employee greater opportunities to purchase a permit at an affordable rate and the approach may increase the likelihood that an employee will elect to purchase a reduced-price permit rather than jockey their car around Downtown each day, in spaces ideally meant for short-term parkers. A less expensive month option is more likely to be bearable than one lump sum of $100. However, it is recommended that they total annual cost of a reduced-price permit be increased incrementally as the full-price permits are increase. The increase in price should not be raised

142 above $200 per year and is recommended that they month-to-month permit option remain in effect as permit price increases. Ideally, promoting alternative modes of transportation and encouraging TMA objectives is the goal, however, an affordable permit option must be available to those in need and providing a monthly purchase opportunity rather than an annual commitment would make the program more viable and practical. The implementation of a comprehensive permit management system will provide the City with better oversight on issued permits and make the issuance of quarterly and/or monthly permits more manageable.

143 III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding Recommendations: As part of the City s approved capital wayfinding project for 2017, ensure that a public parking brand is incorporated into wayfinding signage with an easily identifiable logo and color palette. Signage should be easy to understand and direct patrons where to park and how to pay. Display real-time off-street occupancy data on digital signage at the main entrances to downtown to allow drivers the ability to determine their parking destination. Real-time parking availability information should be accessible by a parking website and/or a smartphone application. The growth of a city s downtown and central business district is partially reliant on the ability of attracting outside visitors. Whether they are first time visitors to a city or from nearby communities, it is important to ensure they can properly navigate and locate parking when visiting downtown for shopping, dining, or business. An important aspect of enabling drivers to park and arrive at their destination is the way that they are informed about parking. The clear communication of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions and parking rates can help ensure that a city is offering an efficient and understandable parking system. Without properly educating visitors about parking, it can create the perception that a downtown is challenging to navigate and an unfavorable place to visit. With a proposed tiered rate structure, whether initially or in the near future, it will be especially important to upgrade the City s wayfinding to effectively communicate regulations, pricing, and availability. A. Wayfinding In 2015 the City retained Hunt Design for a downtown parking wayfinding study and design in tandem with an Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) project by Walker Parking Consultants. Hunt Design reviewed existing parking signage and developed a new parking brand and plan for the City. The collaboration between Hunt Design and Walker Parking Consultants helped produce a consistent and integrated approach to wayfinding. Hunt Design created mockup designs for the Architectural Review Board (ARB), stakeholders, and City staff for feedback, and ultimately the ARB unanimously decided to proceed with the blue color scheme detailed below for the best visibility. Designs included direction signs, lot and garage ID banners, pylons and regulatory signage. The blue wayfinding signage designs are pictured in the mockup drawings below.

144 Figure 8: Hunt Design Wayfinding Signage As part of the wayfinding study, Hunt Design also assessed the naming structure of the downtown parking facilities and lots. They recommended an alphanumeric naming system with the lots named numerically from east to west and the garages alphabetically from east to west. Hunt Design also recommended the installation locations for each type of signage throughout the downtown to best guide visitors to available parking In December 2016, City Council approved the capital improvement project for wayfinding and is funded to move forward in 2017 and projected completion in B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems In conjunction with the wayfinding study, Walker Parking Consultants assessed potential Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) for Downtown Palo Alto to provide real-time parking availability and occupancy numbers for the off-street facilities. Three types of APGS were considered: Faculty Count APGS: provides the total count of vehicles in a facility or an Open/Full status using sensors at the entrances and exits. Level and Zone Count APGS: displays the count by garage level using additional sensors. Single Space Detection APGS: tracks the occupancy of each space using mounted sensors and LED lights. After evaluating the various options, Walker Parking Consultants recommended the Single Space Detection APGS to Palo Alto for Garages CC, CW, R, and S. While this system has the highest overall cost, it provides the most flexibility and accuracy. Various colors of mounted LED lights can indicate space types such as available, occupied, handicapped, permit, public, valet, etc. The colors can be changed manually or automatically when necessary to ensure that the parking facilities are being utilized to their maximum potential. The management system can be locally or cloud-hosted, and signage would be connected to the City s downtown fiber network.

145 Real-time and highly accurate (up to 99%) occupancy data will be available from this system to display on parking guidance wayfinding signage throughout downtown. The occupancy data can also be displayed on the City s websites and phone applications. As the City moves forward with the recently approved and funded project, the City should ensure that the APGS indicates the number of available spaces at the entrance of the facilities, and the overall solution should be coupled with digital wayfinding signage throughout Downtown. Additionally, the APGS space availability data should be integrated with the City s website and/or a parking application. C. Current Wayfinding The following outlines the Study s observations as it relates to the current wayfinding downtown. DIXON s observations are directly related to the City s initiative with Hunt Design and Walker. The current wayfinding includes signage at the entrances of lots and garages, banners in the parking lots, and green direction signage at intersections. Additionally, the on-street signage conveys the color zone parking rules. Currently there is no consistent City parking/mobility branding used throughout Downtown. Images 1 thru 3: Palo Alto wayfinding signage for off-street surface lot locations. The signage at the garage/lot entrances indicates whether there are time limit spaces, permit spaces, or both, however, there is not a significant signage distinction to identify a public versus private parking garage/lots. Images 4 5: Palo Alto signage for off-street public garages; often difficult to determine public vs. private parking or both

146 Another issue identified was the lack of clarity regarding the daily permit parking information. The signage in the garages did not adequately direct patrons to the kiosks and it did not clearly indicate whether daily permit holders should park in the public parking or the designated permit parking spaces. Currently the City does not utilize occupancy sensors or parking guidance systems. There are no digital counters or displays indicating whether a facility is full. During high occupancy periods, this can worsen congestion due to people entering facilities and circling for a space when the facility may already be near capacity or completely full. The following sections describe the various automated technology options that may be used to improve program efficiency and the overall parking experience. Images 6: S/L Bryant/Lytton garage entrance. The facility is not conducive for how to pay to park D. Parking Guidance Systems Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the masses park today. These systems, along with their integration to everyday phone and mapping applications, have provided motorists with the ability to plan their parking before leaving their home. The ability to do so can enable motorists to make more informed decisions about how to get to their destination, evaluate alternative modes of transit, and, if they choose to drive, reduce traffic congestion by letting drivers know where they will park. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion around and within parking facilities. To improve the Palo Alto parking experience, the City must have an accurate tool to count vehicle entries to provide accurate parking availability that can be integrated with an APGS sign and available parking applications. The dynamic signage allows the City to redirect patrons toward alternative, underutilized parking locations. The APGS/wayfinding signage should indicate parking lot status (open/closed), space availability (Full/Available or the number of spaces available), event parking details (as applicable), alternative parking areas, and targeted messaging. This methodology would allow many patrons to prepare their direction of travel upon approach thereby possibly reducing the traffic flow impact, discouraging backups, and addressing maximum capacity concerns. DIXON often refers to the concept of First mile, last mile, the security of one knowing before leaving their origin, where he or she will be parking at their destination and when reaching the last mile, the ability to rely on wayfinding to guide him or her to their arrival location. Another benefit to the wayfinding signage and the real-time parking information is parking availability and the ability to be linked to a variety of publicly available, free parking applications. This information can be monitored both remotely and on site by parking operations personnel to anticipate traffic flow impacts and capacity levels, especially for special event management. If the City adjusts pricing or

147 implements demand-based rates, this information can be promoted using these online tools and equipment. DIXON recommends that this information be distributed for public access via an application programming interface (API) in addition to transmitting the data to additional APGS signs placed at the primary entrances to the downtown, especially at major arterial roads. This recommendation is consistent with the City s current CIPs for an APGS system and downtown wayfinding campaign. If the City prefers to develop a basic integrated independent mobile application (provided by the APGS system provider). The overall cost of the mobile application development does vary depending on the type of information to be displayed, any specific branding / graphics requirements, and additional features such as find my car, directions, 511 traffic information, parking reservations, or 3 rd party integrations. While the City may potentially invest in an interactive City-developed website or application, for which the cost can be significant based upon your overall web design, there are several existing, free parking availability/guidance applications, like ParkMe and Parkopedia, that leverage available public parking information using their interactive parking application. A useful example of clear directional wayfinding that has been successfully implemented is in the City of San Jose, displayed in Image 7: San Jose on-street district wayfinding signage Image 7. Though the City put less emphasis on branding or a specific theme, it has unmistakably highlighted parking, the direction in which this parking is located, and the available parking spaces at each location. In addition, positioning of the signage is equally as important. Motorists entering the downtown district off the major interstate highway are met with this sign immediately, providing motorists a knowledge of where available parking opportunities are located before entering the downtown district. A critical component of any technology installation, especially an APGS solution, is maintenance and upkeep. If an APGS is installed, it is recommended that a responsible party (i.e., subcontractor) be designated and held accountable for the system upkeep. If this support is to be a subcontracted service, performance standards should be defined and incorporated into the vendor service agreement with performance penalties for system support failures. Wayfinding is an integral part of any parking operation. Patrons need to be informed of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions, and parking rates. Navigation from place to place within a parking facility is often overlooked and undervalued. Knowing where one is in a facility, where there are available spaces and knowing how to navigate to those spaces is one of the most fundamental aspects of a successful parking program. The addition of wayfinding signage may significantly improve the ability of a patron to enter, leave and return to a facility.

148 E. Digital Wayfinding Parking should be easy. As many trips begin and end with parking, providing patrons with the direction and information on best parking options is imperative in any successful parking program. Providing accurate information on parking destination and availability can significantly impact a patron s experience when visiting an event or Downtown area. Static wayfinding offers an opportunity to lead patrons in the direction of available parking while also being aesthetically pleasing to the Downtown Image 8: Overhead space indicators area. However, digital wayfinding has truly taken parking guidance to a new level with the ability to display real-time parking space occupancy data while directing patrons to available spots in the City s parking garage. The City has already approved the installation of overhead space indicators (sensors) for the garage facilities. The space indicators will provide color notification to identify real-time parking space availability (Image 8). The City has an opportunity to manage the business rules for parking spaces throughout the day however, this will require on site oversight to maximize the opportunity to adjust parking space regulations, i.e. increasing/decreasing the number of Permit Only spaces based upon demand will provide a convenience that was not easily managed previously. Space indicators provide in-depth data with the ability to show parking occupancy by level and by row within each level. The solution that will be implemented by the City will allow for a true comprehensive guidance system throughout the entire facility (Image 9 right). This type of system will not only mitigate congestion at the entrance of the garage but also throughout each level and row. Image 9: Wayfinding signage - Space Counts The City should consider including a digital wayfinding option with the space indicator implementation that provides patrons a breakdown, by level, of parking availability (Image 10 left). The occupancy count accuracy of this solution is typically about 95% based on the speed of vehicles entering and exiting and the space between each vehicle. This solution is best suited for garages that allow travel up and down on the outside of the actual parking spaces as opposed to having to drive through every spot on every level to travel up and down. Image 10: Level-by-level space count The simplest and most cost-efficient method to provide real-time occupancy is to show one aggregate count for available spaces throughout the entire garage (Image 11 top of next page). Once the real-time occupancy data is collected, transmitting it to digital wayfinding signage located throughout the garage, the surrounding City

149 and/or a website/application is relatively simple. Most vendors that provide the counting hardware described above will be able to provide both additional digital signage and an API that will allow the data to be used in websites and applications. In addition to basic signage that comes with the pricing breakdowns above, supplementary signage can typically be purchased. The pricing on this signage depends on the sign and the application for it, hence the significant price range. For signage placed in areas outside the garage, there are potential costs associated with transmitting information to the digital display signs. In most cases, wireless transmissions are possible for a small monthly data fee or signs can be hardwired direct and the costs will vary significantly depending on the distance of the fiber line to the sign. Image 11: Wayfinding signage Digital Counts It is important to note that DIXON s paid parking section recommends the City implement PARCS systems (gated access) in the Downtown garage facilities. PARCS systems will help to improve counts at each facility and accurately distribute this information to the public.

150 IV. Enforcement Recommendations: Implement vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) units to improve efficiency. Expand parking enforcement staffing coverage to include evening and weekend coverage (if feasible). Evaluate existing enforcement handhelds to ensure real-time integration capabilities with selected parking meters and mobile payment vendor. Whether the City proceeds with a paid parking solution or considers installing a parking access control system at the garage entrances, these are decisions that will impact the enforcement of the downtown parking policies. The color zones are currently monitored by Police Department Community Service Officers (CSOs) utilizing enforcement handhelds to manually track each vehicle license plates throughout their assigned color zone. Typically, a CSO can input between 750 to 1,000 license plate per shift. This is a time-consuming effort that requires a substantial time commitment to enforce the daily time limit requirements of the existing color zone policies. In addition to the color zone time limits, the CSOS also monitor permit compliance in the surface lots and parking garages. If the City elects to maintain the current color zone time limit policies, vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) technology should be implemented to more efficiently maximize personnel resources and to ensure consistent enforcement of the time limit and permit management policies. In addition, if there are no changes to the existing color zone policies, with the implementation of at least two (2) LPR vehicle mounted units, the CSOs will no longer be required to manually track license plates and the City should consider redeploying the CSO schedule and extending enforcement coverage to include weekday evening hours and weekend coverage to ensure compliance with general parking policies, including red curb and double-parking violations. With the implementation of at least two (2) LPR units, there should be an opportunity to redeploy rather than expand staff. This will require ongoing assessment to ensure adequate and consistent coverage of the downtown parking policies. LPR increases efficiency in several ways, including the automation of vehicle location and time occupied monitoring to enforce the color zone time limits that are currently being tracked manually. Furthermore, LPR technology provides an ability to validate parking permit status when permits are attached to license plates. Again, if the City elects not to make any changes to the current color zone policies or to the management of the off-street locations, the vehicle mounted LPR units can efficiently patrol the garage and surface lot locations to verify that the permit registered license plate is valid. Rather than physically verifying permit status using the enforcement handheld, the CSOs will be enabled to swiftly monitor the permit parking areas. The LPR technology would be integrated with the City s parking permit management system and real-time updates can be received to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date database. The LPR system also provides the opportunity for CSOs to more efficiently manage the City s scofflaw records and vehicles with five (5) or more unpaid delinquent parking citations.

151 LPR cameras can be mounted to a CSO vehicle or attached to a stationary structure such as a toll booth or entry gate (described in more detail in the Garage Recommendations Section). In recent years, however, LPR has grown into the parking industry to help cities with their enforcement, permit management and scofflaw mitigation. Many cities have successfully supplemented their enforcement resources with the implementation of LPR technology. As an enforcement device, LPR cameras are attached to enforcement vehicles that patrol both streets and off street parking locations and can be used to manage parking violations, occupancy limits, scofflaw capture and paid parking payment status. LPR vendors provide specialized technology for parking enforcement purposes and have developed the software to integrate with the variety of citation, permit management and technology hardware vendors which will provide the City with a comprehensive program customized specifically for Palo Alto. The LPR solution includes visual evidence of an infraction when it occurs and further when a citation is issued. This is invaluable for adjudication purposes. For time limit management, many of the LPR vendors offer a digital chalking feature that uses software technology to track the location of a vehicle, how long the vehicle was Image 12: Example of mobile-lpr parking enforcement parked at a specific location or within a designated zone/area and simultaneously compares that to the time limit posted in that area. Digital chalking has helped several cities provide a more accountable and consistent approach to time limit management without having to invest in additional labor and provides an additional level of visual evidence that tends to reduce adjudication efforts. As automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems become more prevalent across the country and in the State of California, Agencies must take the proper steps in accordance with federal and state laws. Existing law currently authorizes law enforcement agencies and departments to use LPR for the purpose of locating vehicles or persons reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. Senate Bill 34, Section , effective January 1, 2016 imposes specific requirements on an ALPR operator as defined to protect ALPR information and implementing a usage privacy policy with respect to that information, as specified. Among several requirements and propositions incorporated in Senate Bill 34, a specific requirement is found in Section / , and states that an APLR end-user shall do the following: (b) (1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. Therefore, DIXON recommends the City of Palo Alto and with its potential implementation of LPR in the future, refer to the City s use of ALPR on the City s web site. DIXON recommends that Palo Alto provide a statement informing the public of the usage and privacy policy surrounding its use of the system.

152 Per Senate Bill 34, the City s posting of information to the public on the City s web site must be completed as follows: (B) Conspicuous posting, for a minimum of 30 days, of the notice on the agency s Internet Web site page, if the agency maintains one. For purposes of this subparagraph, conspicuous posting on the agency s Internet Web site means providing a link to the notice on the home page or first significant page after entering the Internet Web site that is in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the link. The approximate cost to support the installation of LPR equipment on an existing vehicle is approximately $50,000-$60,000 including the training and infrastructure needed. This will include the installation of the cameras on the outside of the vehicle, the processing unit in the trunk along with the in-vehicle PC and navigator set up in the front seat. It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement a vehicle mounted LPR solution regardless of the other recommendations considered. The technology will directly benefit the downtown area and provide the CSOs with a resource tool to become more efficient and consistent in the management of downtown parking policies. If the City proceeds with a paid parking solution, the existing enforcement handhelds need to be evaluated to ensure the integration capabilities with the implementation of the various parking technologies. If the City opts to install parking meter technology, the decision to proceed with a Pay-by-Plate or Pay-by-Space approach will be relevant to the enforcement handheld equipment (See Paid Parking Recommendations Section for more detail). A real-time interface with the parking technology provider and the CSO enforcement handheld will ensure that the CSO receive the most current vehicle payment status. The same integration requirement will be necessary for a mobile payment vendor, especially if the City elected to proceed with a Pay & Display solution. Real-time integration requirements must be clearly defined in any vendor solicitation for citation, permit or paid parking technology support to provide the CSO with the accurate status of a parking space in Palo Alto. Integration requirements and the cost of any software development should be the burden of the parking technology vendors. Data integration must be addressed during the solicitation and contracting stage with each vendor and the City should have a standard application programming interface (API) requirement that is included with any parking solicitation. Integration with Image 13: Example smartphone handheld enforcement device the enforcement handheld is imperative to maximize the efficiency of the CSOs and minimize the burden of equipment that they are required to carry. Regardless of the downtown parking policy decisions and outcomes, the combination of vehicle mounted LPR technology and integrated enforcement handhelds will provide the CSO staff the tools necessary to

153 effectively manage and monitor the downtown parking policies without changes to the existing staffing resources.

154 V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations Recommendations: The City should create a Parking Department/Division to provide full-time management of the parking operation including oversight of any outsourced services and vendor technology agreements. Through work with different with different municipalities and agencies, DIXON has found that parking operations can become a convoluted task. Often overlooked, many fail to realize the number of duties and responsibilities that are associated with parking, even if only loosely. These responsibilities are further increased when an agency has paid parking operations. Often, a municipality s departments that have some form of a parking related role include transit, finance, police department, public works, planning, and even community and economic development. Thus, there are several hands involved and the clarity of those roles and responsibilities from one department to the next may become blurred or lost. It was difficult to obtain documents and information from staff related to the current Palo Alto parking operation. Through those requests and coordination with City staff, it has become apparent that there is a lack of internal structure within the City when it comes to parking. Currently there are multiple departments handling support services related to parking. Outlined below are the current parking tasks and the department responsible within the City. Parking Task Citation Hearings Construction (Garage/Lots) Daily Permit Sales (Pay Stations) Daily Permit Sales (City Hall) Employee/Employer Permits (Garages/Lots) Enforcement RPP Enforcement (Garages, Lots, Color Zones) Maintenance (Garages/Lots) Planning Residential Parking Permit Program (RPP) Revenues Revenues Employee/Employer Permits (Downtown) Valet Permitting (Garage/Lots) Valet Program (Garage/Lots) Website Police Public Works Department Responsible Planning & Community Development Administrative Services Administrative Services Planning & Community Environment/Downtown Parking Assessment District/Administrative Services Police Public Works Planning & Community Development Planning & Community Development Administrative Services Finance Police Planning & Community Environment (via subcontractor SP Plus) Planning & Community Environment (SP+) Based on current internal organization of tasks related to parking there are too many departments involved without a reliable source of collaboration to ensure all roles and responsibilities are being fulfilled to the best ability. Many of the recommendations set forth in this report will require significant coordination by multiple city resources. Therefore, the City should create an internal parking department

155 that will act as the direct point of contact for all parking related issues. Many cities have a parking department that provides turnkey support for much of the support services outlines in the table above. In other cities, one primary contact may serve as the oversight of the various departments handling parking related responsibilities and management of parking related issues. The City should move the parking operation responsibilities under the umbrella of a centralized parking department. These operations include enforcement and management of both Downtown Palo Alto as well as the RPP district; the downtown parking assessment permits for employees; and RPP permits for both residents and employees. In addition, with the potential of paid parking, the parking department would manage all aspects of the parking technology required to support the operation, including, but not limited to, parking hardware management, maintenance, as well as revenue collection and reconciliation. The proposed department should be considered an extension of the City s Parking and Transportation Committee to assist in the facilitation of coordinated policy-making and implementation across the entire parking and transportation system. The following is the proposed organizational structure based on the current and potential services:

156 *Solid blue line indicates direct and central report structure

157 A. Proposed Figure 9 on the previous page outlines a proposed organizational structure for the City s centralization of parking roles and responsibilities as part of the newly created Central Parking Department. The outline of the structure incorporates current departments and their responsibilities as well as created tasks that may result from the implementation of paid parking technology and other parking technology infrastructure. As it is proposed, the Parking Department would be headed by a Parking Manager. The Parking Manager would oversee four Supervisors in parking related roles including On-Street, Off-Street, Enforcement and Permit Management services. Current departments that are tasked with parking related roles today such as Public Works, Police and Administrative Services would continue to operate indirectly with the Parking Department via the Parking Manager or a Supervisor. In the case of Police and Administrative Services a line of communication would be established with both the Parking Manager and an operations related Supervisor. A. Outsourcing of Parking Operations Based on DIXON s review of the City s current parking related operations and feedback through working with City staff, outsourcing of parking operations is a viable alternative in the event a centralized parking department is unable to be organized. The outsourcing of parking operations is a support service that has been implemented by several agencies throughout California. It is important to know that regardless of the degree the parking operation is contracted to a private vendor, the municipality always maintains oversight. As previously mentioned, with the recommendation implementation of paid parking, the added services that will required will further the current parking responsibilities of the City. These added services include ongoing upkeep and preventative maintenance of parking equipment, weekly parking meter collections, and the revenue reconciliation process. Many cities, like Palo Alto, contract private parking operators to support their parking operations. Palo Alto is already engaging two of these vendors in the support of permit management software, garage valet services and RPP supplement enforcement services. Parking facility operations is commonly outsourced by municipalities; however, many cities have also allocated parking maintenance services and revenue reconciliation to private operators. For example, Newport Beach selected a private vendor to not only collect meter revenue, but also contracts the vendor to provide maintenance support, including preventative maintenance services. San Francisco and Los Angeles contract operators to support their parking meter revenue operations. Accounting for these added daily operations and responsibilities is import for Palo Alto to understand as it makes these changes. There are many examples of cities with successful parking programs that have either chose to manage parking internally or have had success outsourcing parking operations. The City of Sausalito has had success with a hybrid approach, outsourcing revenue collection and maintenance while handling permits and other daily administrative operations internally. However, for Palo Alto, the current state of parking operations needs to be altered. Today, parking functions spread across several departments. Thus, implementing parking related changes or improvements is less effective.

158 The common operations that are typically outsourced by municipalities include collections and Level 1 Maintenance of parking meters and pay stations, revenue reconciliation, and enforcement. Each of these operations are fulfilled by the City s current third-party vendors as well as additional vendors.

159 VI. Alternative Strategies Recommendations: Identify remote parking supply and solicit shared parking agreements to reduce the parking demand in the Downtown core. Implement a Downtown Employee Mobility Program to encourage mode shift and reduce SOV trips in synch with the TMA s objectives. While the various parking program recommendations throughout this report will help improve program efficiency and overall parking experience, ultimately the City should take a sustainable approach to managing Downtown parking and mobility. As the City evolves, Palo Alto will continue to face increase pressure to utilize space more efficiently, especially as available development space becomes even more valuable than today. The City s parking resources should be managed to preserve the walkability of Downtown, and alternative modes of transportation should be encouraged to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A. Secure Existing Parking Supply Securing the existing parking supply can help reduce parking demand in the Downtown core, especially during peak periods of the day. The City should utilize any additional remote parking supply during the short-term. More remote parking coupled with the addition of paid parking Downtown can be an opportunity to provide a cheaper alternative for those willing to park further outside of the core. This may assist in reducing Downtown congestion and alleviate some parking demand. There are three main areas the City may look to for existing parking supply opportunities: city-owned parking locations outside of the downtown core, lots such as high-school parking lots, and private parking facilities and lots for shared-parking agreements. Underutilized lots throughout Palo Alto can be opportunities for acquiring additional existing parking supply for Downtown employees or visitors. This tactic is useful for providing remote parking locations to improve public transit and bike access to Downtown without having to invest in expanding parking supply. Shared parking agreements with property owners are required when securing privately owned parking locations for public use. Private parking lots, which are only used during certain hours of the day, can be a parking opportunity for the downtown area. Shared parking negotiations are often the most successful with cost/revenue sharing, insurance, enforcement and/or infrastructure improvement agreements. It is important to consider the following when developing shared parking agreements: Term length: providing return on investment Facility Use: user base and flexibility; number of available spaces Educating the community on alternative transit needs to continue to be a priority for Palo Alto