JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Transcription

1 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS JOHNSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE OLATHE, KANSAS Prepared for: MARSHA HOFFMAN SFS Architecture MARCH 2016

2 Walker Parking Consultants 850 West Jackson Suite 310 Chicago, Illinois March 8, 2016 Voice: Fax: Ms. Marsha Hoffman SFS Architecture 2100 Central Street Suite 31 Kansas City, Missouri Re: Parking Supply/Demand Analysis Johnson County Courthouse Olathe, Kansas Walker Project Number: Dear Ms. Hoffman: Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to submit the enclosed Parking Supply/Demand Analysis report completed for SFS Architecture with regard to the Johnson County Courthouse in Olathe, Kansas. The enclosed report summarizes Walker s findings, which are based upon our review of the parking system that serves courthouse staff members, judges and county constituents. In the report, we discuss our on-site observations and the projected impact of the proposed future program changes associated with the new Courthouse planned for an alternative site. We also provide our assessment of the system s ability to handle the daily parking demand both now and in the future. In closing, we sincerely appreciate the continued working relationship with SFS Architecture, and hope to be included as your parking consultant of choice on future projects. Respectfully submitted, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Phill Schragal Director of Operations Consulting Brad Navarro, P.E. Director of Operations c:\users\schragal\documents\assigned walker projects\johnson county courthouse\report\final_2016 johnson co courthouse parking supply_demand docx

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... II INTRODUCTION... 1 Overview... 1 Study Area... 2 METHODOLOGY... 2 Definition of Terms... 3 Design Day... 3 SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS... 5 Parking Supply - Current... 5 Effective Parking Supply... 7 Parking Demand - Survey Day... 8 Parking Demand Ratios... 9 Parking Demand - Design Day... 9 Parking Adequacy FUTURE CONDITIONS Parking Demand - Future Parking Adequacy - Future WALKING DISTANCES LEVEL OF SERVICE APPENDIX SCOPE OF SERVICES PARKING CONSULTING Statement of Limiting Conditions... 18

4 FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area... 2 Figure 2: Parking Supply Distribution (2014)... 5 Figure 3: Walking Distance Level of Service...15 Figure 4: Parking Demand Generators & Demand (projected)...16 TABLES Table 1: Parking Supply (Current)... 6 Table 2: Parking Demand by Block Survey Day... 8 Table 3: Parking Demand Ratio Survey Day... 9 Table 4: Parking Demand Design Day...10 Table 5: Parking Adequacy Design Day...10 Table 6: Parking Demand Future (projected)...11 Table 7: Parking Adequacy Future Design Day (projected)...12 Table 8: Walking Distance Level of Service (General Standards)...14

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current on-street and off-street parking supply that surrounds the Johnson County Courthouse (JCC) in the designated study area is 2,013 ± parking spaces; 1,608 ± off-street in several surface parking lots and one parking structure, and 405 ± on-street. When adjusted to reflect a cushion necessary for efficient operation (the Effective Supply ) the supply is reduced to 1,973 ± spaces (1,576 in the structure and lots, and 397 on-street); about a 2% cushion of spaces. To determine the peak-hour parking demand within the designated survey area, Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) visited the site on Monday January 11 th and conducted parking occupancy counts between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM respectively. This in an effort to determine the number of vehicles parked within the designated survey area. Walker used the data collected to develop a parking demand ratio that depicts the peak-hour parking demand for the Survey Day information gathered. Based upon the Survey Day demand statistics, peak occupancy occurred between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM when 1,084 ± vehicles were observed as parked within the survey area (222 ± on-street and 862 ± in the structure and surface parking lots). Based upon discussions with SFS Architecture (SFS), the parking demand data collected on the Survey Day is representative of average levels of Courthouse activity; as peak activity typically occurs on either Wednesday or Thursday during a normal week. Given this fact, we reviewed security screening information provided by JCC for each day of the week and we adjusted the statistical data to reflect Design Day levels of activity, which typically reflect approximately the 95 th percentile level of demand and is normally equivalent to a busy day that occurs once or twice monthly. We used the projected Design Day level of demand to determine both the current and future parking demand and adequacy of the parking system that serves the JCC. Based upon Walker s analysis, when the observed peak-hour Survey Day parking demand (1,084 ± occupied spaces) is compared to the effective parking supply (1,973 ± spaces), the resulting difference is a surplus of 889 ± spaces. Therefore, the parking system that serves the JCC can effectively accommodate the peak-hour parking demand observed on the Survey Day. The observed Survey Day demand utilizes only 55% of the available effective supply. However, we did note that the surface parking lots located in Blocks 7 and 8 both were observed greater than 90% occupied. Moreover, when occupancy exceeds an optimum level of about 90% there can be delays and frustration in finding a parking space, and users may be forced to park in an undesirable space at an uncomfortable walking distance. When these conditions are presented within a system, the parking supply is often perceived as inadequate, even though space is readily available at other locations throughout the system. Since the Survey Day parking demand represented a typical day at the JCC, we developed Design Day statistics to project parking adequacy for a busier day that will occur during some weeks throughout the year. For the Design Day comparison we assume 700 security screenings in the peak-hour at the JCC compared to 460 screenings in the peak-hour on the Survey Day. ii

6 When we assume the greater number of screenings, the projected parking demand increases to 1,319 ± spaces (22% increase over the Survey Day). When the Design Day projected peakhour parking demand is compared to the effective supply (1,973 ± spaces), the resulting difference is a surplus of 654 ± spaces. Given this fact, we project that the parking system that serves the JCC can effectively accommodate the projected peak-hour Design Day parking demand. Finally, Walker developed a future Design Day model that assumes 350 JCC employees (37% increase over today), 855 Courthouse screening in the peak hour (22% increase over the Design Day peak-hour screenings) and a 2% increase in the other area parking demand generators identified for the study. Additionally, we increased the available parking supply by 44 spaces, which are planned for construction beneath the proposed new JCC building. Assuming added staffing attributed to the construction of five new courtrooms, as well as the increased screening demand and projected growth in the other area parking demand generators, the projected future peak-hour Design Day parking demand will increase to 1,564 ± spaces. When the projected future Design Day peak-hour parking demand is compared to the future effective parking supply (2,017 ± spaces), the resulting difference is a surplus of 453 ± spaces. Based upon Walker s analysis, the future effective parking supply appears sufficient to support the future Design Day parking demand projection. The results of Walker s Survey, Design and future Design Day parking demand projections are summarized in the following table. Parking Adequacy (projected) Survey Day Design Day Future On-Street E. Supply Off-Street E. Supply 1,576 1,576 1,620 Total - E. Supply 1,973 1,973 2,017 Demand (1,084) (1,319) (1,564) Surplus/(Deficit) Finally, the new Courthouse will be constructed between Blocks 1 and 2 depicted on Walker s survey of the designated study area. On the Survey Day, the surface parking lot that resides in Block 1 was observed as 11% occupied (23 of 218 spaces parked) in the peak hour. Given the fact that the new Courthouse will reside directly across the street from this underutilized surface parking lot, any projected additional demand attributed to the new JCC will likely be spread more efficiently throughout the available parking system. Moreover, the surface lots located in Blocks 7 and 8, which were observed as greater than 90% occupied on the Survey Day, should ultimately prove more efficient, as the demand for parking is more widely spread throughout the parking system that serves the new JCC. iii

7 INTRODUCTION SFA Architecture ( SFS ) engaged Walker Parking Consultants ( Walker ) to complete a parking supply and parking demand analysis with regard to the on and off-street parking system that currently serves the Johnson County Courthouse ( JCC ) in Olathe, Kansas. Walker s analysis is intended to assess current conditions with regard to parking adequacy, also to project the future parking demand requirements and parking adequacy associated with plans to construct a new courthouse building, adjacent to Olathe s City Hall building, on the site bound by Santa Fe Street, Poplar Street, Kansas Avenue and Chestnut Street. OVERVIEW Johnson County is planning a new courthouse project near the intersection of Santa Fe Street and Kansas Avenue in Olathe, Kansas. The project consists of constructing a new courthouse building (the Courthouse ) on the north side of Santa Fe Street; the Courthouse will replace the JCC that resides directly across the street from the proposed site. The Courthouse will contain 28 courtrooms, or five additional courtrooms when compared to the JCC. The Courthouse will also be constructed to possibly accommodate a total of 36 courtrooms in the future. The area surrounding the Courthouse project is bound by additional governmental buildings and retail establishments. The parking system that serves this area (the System ) is comprised of on-street public parking, public and private off-street surface parking, and one public parking structure. SFS engaged Walker to project the future parking demand requirements for the Courthouse. Utilizing data obtained from SFS, JCC and Walker s on-site observations, Walker developed a supply/demand model to assess the current parking demand conditions for the Survey Day and project the Design Day and future Design Day parking demand conditions for the System. To complete the engagement, Walker completed the following primary objectives; i) surveyed existing conditions within a 2 to 4 block radius of the Courthouse project, ii) projected how the current parking demand will impact future parking requirements within the designated study area, and iii) developed a written report that documents the findings and conclusions that resulted from Walker s analysis of the System that serves the Courthouse. To complete the analysis, Walker developed parking demand models that depict both Survey and Design day conditions, as well as a future Design Day model that assumes increased Courthouse staffing and daily visitor screenings, as well as 2% growth in the other area parking demand generators that exist within the area surveyed for this analysis. The models developed are intended to project possibilities with regard to future parking demand and adequacy within the System that will serve the Courthouse. 1

8 STUDY AREA The study area designated for analysis is bound by Poplar Street on the north, Cedar Street on the south, railroad tracks on the west and Water Street to the east. To complete the supply/demand analysis, Walker numbered each block within the study area, as shown on the following figure. Figure 1: Study Area Source: Google Earth, Walker Parking Consultants METHODOLOGY For this engagement Walker completed the following: 1) reviewed background information and program data supplied by SFS and JCC; 2) visited the Courthouse site and conducted a parking supply/demand survey on Monday January 11 th within the designated study area; and 3) developed parking supply/demand a parking adequacy projections (surplus or deficit) for the Survey and Design days, as well as for a future Design Day. This in an effort to determine the future parking adequacy of the System once the Courthouse is constructed and fully functional. 2

9 DEFINITION OF TERMS Some terminology used throughout this report has a unique meaning within the context of our analysis. To clarify these terms the following definitions are provided: o Design Day - A day that best represents the level of demand the parking system is designed to accommodate; typically the 95 th percentile of demand levels. o Effective Supply - The total supply of spaces adjusted to reflect a cushion of spaces needed to accommodate vehicles moving in and out, or spaces unavailable due to maintenance or snow cover; also to reduce the time required for parkers to find the last available spaces. The effective supply can differ based upon user group and type of parking; however, the effective supply typically represents anywhere from 90% to 98% of the total parking supply. The adjustment factor is known as the Effective Supply Factor. o Parking Adequacy - The difference between either the full supply or effective parking supply of spaces and the actual or projected parking demand. o Parking Demand - The number of spaces required by various user groups. The observed demand is compared to the calculated effective supply to determine adequacy within the designated parking system. o Parking Demand Ratio - The ratio of the number of vehicles observed that occupy parking spaces compared to a reference number. For example, if a site employs 1,000 full-time employees and the observed peak occupancy is 400 vehicles in an employee lot, the employee parking demand ratio is calculated as 0.40 or 400 vehicles per 1,000 employees. o Patron, Employee or Visitor - Individual parkers that utilizes an available space within the designated study area. o Peak Hour - The busiest hour of parking demand observed on the Survey Day. o Supply - The total number of marked parking spaces contained within the study area. o Survey Day - The day that occupancy counts are recorded; typically representative of a busy day, but not necessarily representative of peak demand conditions. DESIGN DAY When assessing the adequacy of any parking system, it s vital to define the conditions for which the system is designed. Some organizations intend to provide adequate parking for every potential user every day of the year. Consequently, a substantial number of spaces remain vacant throughout the year. The benefit of such a system is that patrons, whether employees or visitors, always find an adequate supply of parking. More commonly, organizations would rather have fewer of their assets utilized for parking. Therefore, these organizations plan a system that comfortably meets the needs of its end users on most days, but less than every day. The disadvantage of this type system is that from time to time parking demand may exceed the actual supply. 3

10 The level at which parking demand is accommodated is a policy decision that will ultimately be made by the County and City of Olathe in conjunction with SFS. However, for analysis purposes, Walker defines adequate parking conditions as those that satisfy the projected Design Day parking demand, which is typically representative of the 95 th percentile of parking activity within the System. Since it s almost impossible to identify in advance a day that perfectly represents Design Day conditions, the methodology used to project parking demand for this analysis consisted of the following: o Parking occupancy data was collected between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM on Monday January 11th (the Survey Day ). The data collected was used to determine parking utilization and identify and document parking patterns within the System. o SFS and JCC provided demographic statistics and data (e.g. number of JCC staff members and security screening information representative of visitors to JCC that passed through a secure area before entering the JCC) for June, July and August o We utilized the staffing and security screening data to develop parking demand ratios that reflect the number of spaces required per unit statistic (e.g. number of spaces needed per employee and visitors) during the peak-hour of parking demand. o The demand ratio for the end-users was adjusted to model the observed peak-hour parking demand observed on the Survey Day. o The projected parking demand ratio was then used to calibrate the peak number of spaces needed to accommodate the peak-hour Design Day parking demand. o For this analysis, we assume the Design Day projected peak-hour demand is best represented using the JCC staffing information (255 employees) provided by SFS, and 40% of the average number of security screenings (1,151 visitors) reported by JCC for an average Wednesday and Thursday, which JCC designated as the two busiest days weekly. o The future Design Day demand was projected assuming 350 Courthouse employees (37% increase over today), 855 Courthouse security screenings in the peak hour (22% increase over the Design Day peak-hour screenings) and a 2% increase in the other area parking demand generators identified for the study. o Finally, we increased the available parking supply by 44 spaces, which are planned for construction beneath the proposed Courthouse building. 4

11 SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS In the following sections we discuss the current and effective parking supply within the designated study area, parking demand ratios, the Survey and Design Day parking demand and parking adequacy, and the future Design Day projected parking demand and adequacy. PARKING SUPPLY - CURRENT Walker verified the number of parking spaces and restrictions that pertain to the entire System intended to serve the JCC. The parking inventory includes all on-street and off-street spaces designated for public parking within the designated study area. Based upon Walker s observation, it s difficult to precisely determine how the overall parking supply is divided between employee and visitor parking within the System. The exception being the 21 on-street spaces located on Kansas Avenue adjacent to the JCC building, which are designated as reserved. The parking spaces within the one existing parking structure are not signed as reserved and therefore are all available for public parking; additionally a few on-street spaces are controlled with designated time-limited restrictions. This fact allows for shared parking use between employees and visitors at various times throughout a normal business day. In the following figure and table we identify the percentage of on-street and off-street parking spaces, as well as the number of spaces within each individual block identified for analysis. Figure 2: Parking Supply Distribution (2014) Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 field survey 5

12 Table 1: Parking Supply (Current) Parking Supply (Current) Parking Supply (Current) Parking Supply (Current) Block Location Capacity Block Location Capacity Block Location Capacity Off-Street (Total) 218 Off-Street (Total) 135 Off-Street (Total) 121 Private - Private - Private - Permit - Permit - Permit - Public 218 Public 135 Public On-Street (Total) - On-Street (Total) 54 On-Street (Total) North Side - North Side - North Side 10 South Side - South Side 10 South Side 7 East Side - East Side 33 East Side 6 West Side - West Side 11 Hubbell 2 Total 218 Total 189 Total 146 Off-Street (Total) 158 Off-Street (Total) 97 Off-Street (Total) 120 Private - Private - Private - Permit 20 Permit - Permit - Public 138 Public 97 Public On-Street (Total) - On-Street (Total) 19 On-Street (Total) North Side - North Side - North Side 4 South Side - South Side 7 South Side - East Side - East Side 2 East Side 24 West Side - West Side 10 West Side - Total 158 Total 116 Total 148 Off-Street (Total) - Off-Street (Total) 144 Off-Street (Total) - Private - Private - Private - Permit - Permit - Permit - Public - Public 144 Public - 3 On-Street (Total) 10 On-Street (Total) 39 On-Street (Total) North Side - North Side - North Side 4 South Side - South Side 8 South Side - East Side 10 East Side - East Side 17 West Side - West Side 31 West Side - Total 10 Total 183 Total 21 Off-Street (Total) - Off-Street (Total) - Off-Street (Total) - Private - Private - Private - Permit - Permit - Permit - Public - Public - Public - 4 On-Street (Total) 34 On-Street (Total) 54 On-Street (Total) North Side 7 North Side - North Side 4 South Side - South Side 4 South Side - East Side 27 East Side 30 East Side 7 West Side - West Side 20 West Side - Total 34 Total 54 Total 11 Off-Street (Total) - Off-Street (Total) 615 Off-Street (Total) - Private - Private - Private - Permit - Permit - Permit - Public - Public 615 Public - 5 On-Street (Total) 50 On-Street (Total) 40 On-Street (Total) North Side 8 North Side 10 North Side 6 South Side - South Side 10 South Side - East Side 21 East Side 6 East Side 14 West Side 21 West Side 14 West Side - Total 50 Total 655 Total 20 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 field survey 6

13 The System that serves the JCC is comprised of one parking structure and seven surface parking lots with 1,608 ± off-street spaces, plus on-street parking comprised of 405 ± total spaces. In total, Walker field verified approximately 2,013 combined parking spaces, as shown in the inset table. EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY Parking Supply (Current) Off-Street On-Street Combined Type Spaces Location Spaces Spaces North Side 53 Permit 20 South Side 46 Public 1,588 East Side 197 West Side 109 Total 1, ,013 80% 20% It s a generally accepted principle in parking supply/demand analyses that a parking supply operates at optimum efficiency when total occupancy is no greater than 90% to 95% of the total available supply. Moreover, excess space will provide a "cushion" to accommodate the dynamics of vehicles moving into and out of parking spaces, also to reduce the time required to search for the last few available spaces within the system. This cushion also allows for daily, weekly and seasonal variations as well as vacancies created by restricting some locations to certain users, improperly parked vehicles, snow cover and/or minor construction projects. When occupancy exceeds this optimum level there can be delays and frustration in finding a space and users may be forced to park in an undesirable space at an uncomfortable walking distance, or they may park improperly or illegally. Under these conditions, the parking supply is often perceived as inadequate; even though vacant spaces are available throughout the System. Walker typically estimates the Effective Parking Supply by applying an effective supply factor to the physical inventory of spaces within each parking area. The resulting effective supply is then used to determine parking adequacy, rather than the actual total supply of spaces. This cushion typically ranges from two to ten percent, depending on the type of end-users. Using the conditions and parking patterns observed in the designated study area, we adjusted the on-street and offstreet supply of spaces used for employee and visitor parking to 98 percent of capacity (effective supply factor = 0.98), assuming the system that serves JCC is a simple system with few areas designated for a specific type of end user. Assuming the previously discussed adjustment factor, the parking supply and resulting effective parking supply (1,973 ± spaces) used for analysis is summarized in the inset table Off-Street - Supply Location Supply E.Supply Permit Public 1,588 1,556 Sub-Total (Off-Street) ,576 On- Street - Parking Supply Location Supply E.Supply North Side South Side East Side West Side Sub-Total (On-Street) Total - Combined 2,013 1,973 Effective Supply Factor 98% Off-Street 98% On-Street 7

14 PARKING DEMAND - SURVEY DAY Parking demand was determined through field surveys collected by Walker on Monday January 11th between the hours of 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM. The data collected on the Survey Day was then used to determine parking utilization and identify and document parking patterns. Based upon Walker s survey, peak-hour parking occupancy occurred between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM when 1,084 ± vehicles were observed as parked within the System (inset table on right). Off-Street - Parking Demand Location Permit 15 1:00 PM 76.5% Public % Sub-Total (Off-Street) % On- Street - Parking Demand Location North Side 17 1:00 PM 32.7% South Side % East Side % West Side % Sub-Total (On-Street) % Total - Combined 1, % It s difficult to precisely determine how the overall parking supply is divided between employees and visitors. This due to the fact that designated parking areas on-street and within the structure are not signed, with the exception of 21 on-street spaces adjacent to the JCC in Block 5. This fact allows for shared parking use between employees and other user-groups. Given this fact, Walker developed a blended parking demand ratio for all end-users of the System to assess both existing and future conditions with regard to the System. Table 2: Parking Demand by Block Survey Day Block On-Street 1 On-Street (On-Street) Surplus Peak-Hour (Deficit) Occupancy Off-Street Peak-Hour Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 field survey Off-Street Surplus (Deficit) 2 (Off-street) Occupancy Combined Peak-Hour Demand Combined Surplus (Deficit) 3 (Combined) Occupancy % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Totals % % 1, % Notes: Observed Parking Demand (Survey Day) 1 On-Street occupancy percentages calculated compared to the effective supply figure, not the actual supply. 2 Off-Street occupancy percentages calculated compared to the effective supply figure, not the actual supply. 3 Occupancy percentages greater than 85% on-street and 95% off-street are less efficient. 4 Blocks with greater than 85% to 94% occupancy are colored yellow. 5 Blocks with greater than 95 to 100% occupancy are colored red. 8

15 Based on Walker s observation, the off-street surface lots in Blocks 7 and 8 experienced occupancy greater than 95% in the peak-hour. Typically, as demand exceeds 90% or greater, users experience extended circulation time hunting for any remaining spaces, even though space is most likely available throughout the system in other less convenient locations. PARKING DEMAND RATIOS To project the future parking supply requirements for the System, Walker compared the observed parking occupancy data to the design statistics provided by SFS (e.g. number of JCC staff members and JCC security screening events). Additionally, Walker estimated staffing levels and the number of peak-hour visitors for the other business entities that reside within the designated study area (Figure 4, Appendix). Using this comparison, we developed one parking demand ratio for employees and visitors to depict the overall parking demand observed on the Survey Day. The estimated employee and visitor statistics, observed peak-hour parking demand (1,084 spaces), and the resulting parking demand ratio (.96 vehicles/employee & visitor count) developed for the Survey Day is shown in the following table. Table 3: Parking Demand Ratio Survey Day Employees % Drive 1 Visitors % Drive 2 Total Adj. Demand Demand Ratio % % 1,133 1, Notes: 1 Percent of employees that drive based on U.S. Census "Mode of Transportation" for Olathe, Kansas. 2 Visitor drive percentage estimated by Walker Parking Consultants. 3 Parking demand ratio assumes.96 vehicles for every 10 employees & visitors combined. Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 field survey PARKING DEMAND - DESIGN DAY Regardless of the level of activity observed on the Survey Day, the number of employees and visitors fluctuates daily throughout a typical week at the JCC. Moreover, based on the security screening information provided by JCC, we assume the Design Day peak-hour demand is best represented by using the staffing information provided (255 employees) and 40% of the average number of security screenings (1,151 visitors) on Wednesday and Thursday; designated as the two busiest days weekly by JCC. Given the above, these days best represent a Design Day level of activity, which typically reflects the 95 th percentile level of demand and is equivalent to a very busy day that can occur once or twice monthly. The table on the following page depicts the projected Design Day parking demand (1,319 ± spaces) assuming the previously discussed parking demand ratio and the Wednesday/Thursday employee and visitor screening levels of activity at the JCC. 9

16 Table 4: Parking Demand Design Day Employees % Drive 1 Visitors % Drive 2 Total Adj. Demand Demand Ratio % % 1,373 1, Notes: 1 Percent of employees that drive based on U.S. Census "Mode of Transportation" for Olathe, Kansas. 2 Visitor drive percentage estimated by Walker Parking Consultants. 3 Parking demand ratio assumes.96 vehicles for every 10 employees & visitors combined. Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 field survey PARKING ADEQUACY The term Parking Adequacy is defined as the ability of the parking supply to accommodate the projected Design Day peak-hour parking demand. Moreover, a positive or negative remainder when compared to the effective parking supply indicates a parking surplus or deficit within the System. Based on Walker s analysis, when the effective supply of spaces (1,973 ±) is compared to the observed Survey Day peak-hour demand (1,084 ± spaces), a surplus of 889 ± spaces currently exists. Moreover, when the effective supply of spaces is compared to the Design Day peakhour demand projection (1,319 ± spaces), a surplus of 654 ± spaces is projected. Given the above findings, the parking system that serves the JCC can adequately accommodate the observed Survey Day demand, and will also effectively accommodate the projected Design Day peak-hour parking demand, as shown in the following table. Table 5: Parking Adequacy Design Day Source: Walker Parking Consultants Parking Adequacy (projected) Survey Day Design Day On-Street E. Supply Off-Street E. Supply 1,576 1,576 Total - E. Supply 1,973 1,973 Demand (1,084) (1,319) Surplus/(Deficit)

17 FUTURE CONDITIONS The assumptions used by Walker to project future Design Day conditions are predicated upon the proposed Courthouse plans developed by SFS. Given this, Walker developed a future parking demand model that assumes 350 Courthouse employees (37% increase over today), 855 security screenings in the peak hour at the Courthouse (22% increase over the Design Day peak-hour screenings) and a 2% increase in the other area parking demand generators that utilize the System. Additionally, we increased the available parking supply by 44 new spaces, which are planned for construction beneath the proposed new Courthouse. The added spaces will increase the effective parking supply available within the System to 2,016 ±, as shown in the inset table on the right. Off-Street - Supply Location Supply E.Supply Permit Public 1,588 1,556 Sub-Total (Off-Street) ,620 On- Street - Parking Supply Location Supply E.Supply North Side South Side East Side West Side Sub-Total (On-Street) Total - Combined 2,057 2,017 Effective Supply Factor 98% Off-Street 98% On-Street PARKING DEMAND - FUTURE Assuming the added staffing attributed to the construction of five new courtrooms, as well as the increased security screening demand and projected growth in the other parking demand generators, the projected future peak-hour parking demand will increase to 1,564 ± spaces, as shown below. Table 6: Parking Demand Future (projected) Employees % Drive 1 Visitors % Drive 2 Total Adj. Demand Demand Ratio % % 1,629 1, Notes: 1 Percent of employees that drive based on U.S. Census "Mode of Transportation" for Olathe, Kansas. 2 Visitor drive percentage estimated by Walker Parking Consultants. 3 Parking demand ratio assumes.96 vehicles for every 10 employees & visitors combined. Source: Walker Parking Consultants 11

18 PARKING ADEQUACY - FUTURE When the projected future Design Day peak-hour parking demand is compared to the future effective parking supply (2,017 ± spaces), the resulting difference is a surplus of 453 ± spaces. Based upon Walker s analysis, the future projected effective parking supply appears sufficient to support the future Design Day demand projection, as shown in the following table and graphic illustration. Table 7: Parking Adequacy Future Design Day (projected) Parking Adequacy (projected) Survey Day Design Day Future On-Street E. Supply Off-Street E. Supply 1,576 1,576 1,620 Total - E. Supply 1,973 1,973 2,017 Demand (1,084) (1,319) (1,564) Surplus/(Deficit) Parking Adequacy (projected) Spaces 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1,973 1,973 2,017 1,564 1,319 1, Survey Day Design Day Future Effective Supply Demand Source: Walker Parking Consultants 12

19 WALKING DISTANCES Since Walker s analysis entails the projection of future parking demand, we further assessed the projected Courthouse parking demand with regard to some general rules of thumb concerning acceptable walking distances between parking locations and the desired destination. These rules are detailed in an article authored by two of Walker s senior team members entitled How Far Should Parkers Have to Walk? 1 The article, published in several trade publications that include Parking Today and Urban Land, presents the concept that acceptable walking distance between parking and a destination is based on several factors that include the walking environment, type of user, desired level of service, as well as market standards for acceptable walking distance. Initially, the walking environment can dramatically increase or decrease how far a person is willing to walk. For example, if the weather is fair and the surrounding neighborhood is safe and the walking path affords easy access, acceptable walking distances can be maximized. Conversely, if the weather is poor and the surrounding area appears unsafe or unwelcoming and the path of travel is subject to severe grade changes or obstacles, acceptable walking distances can be greatly reduced. The type of person that utilizes a parking structure or lot also impacts the acceptable walking distance; generally, there are three types of end-users or parkers; i) discretionary, ii) mandated, and iii) resident, which are described as follows: o Discretionary users are typically customers or visitors that are unfamiliar with an area and are normally coming to an institution or business by choice. This type user typically requires parking within line of sight of their intended destination in order to successfully travel on foot between parking and their destination. Because discretionary users can be easily dissuaded from returning if their first experience is negative, they are normally afforded the closest spaces to common or popular destinations. o Mandated users are people who must park at a location as part of other nondiscretionary business. These users are typically employees that drive to and from a location to work. Mandated users can become very familiar with the area and thus do not require line of sight connections between parking and destination. This type user typically requires some minimal level of proximity and ease of access between parking and destination. Ease of access is needed to guarantee a smooth transition between home and work or to ensure quick retrieval of their vehicle when they must travel for meetings or other business. o Resident users are typically captive within a site or institution and do not need a vehicle to access the site each day, but may require access to their vehicle from time to time to do business away from the site or institution. Movements tend to be infrequent and planned, and as a result, resident users do not require parking within close proximity of their destination to maximize speed of retrieval. Additionally, resident users tend to be very familiar with the area and therefore can park some distance from their destination. 1 How Far Should Parkers Have to Walk?, Mary S. Smith & Tom A. Butcher, Parking Magazine 13

20 LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service (LOS) relates closely to end-user type and the walking distance between parking location and destination. LOS is normally recognized as the walking distance between the parking location and final destination relative to the predominating environmental conditions. LOS for user-groups is generally defined as follows: o Discretionary users want and need parking proximate to their destination and are normally accorded the highest level of service and require LOS A. o Mandated users do not need to be within line of sight of a destination, but need to be able to get from their destination to their parked vehicle or the inverse in relatively short order and require LOS B or C. o Resident users need parking but know the area well and normally don t require parking within close proximity to their destination to maximize speed of retrieval and often require LOS D. Table 8: Walking Distance Level of Service (General Standards) Environmental Condition LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D Acceptable Walking Distances Climate Controlled 1,000 2,400 3,800 5,200 Outdoor/Covered 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Outdoor/Uncovered ,200 1,600 Through a Surface Lot ,050 1,400 Inside a Parking Structure ,200 Source: Walker Parking Consultants The distances shown above are based on general standards and do not incorporate market standards. Market standards are variables specific to a location that may increase or decrease acceptable walking distances. For example, in a small community s central business district with limited competition for available free parking spaces, acceptable walking distances may be half the standards shown in the table; however, in a major urban center with parking priced at a premium and many users competing for a limited number of spaces, acceptable walking distances may in fact be double the standard shown. Finally, acceptable walking distances can also be influenced by temporary conditions such as inclement weather. The distance a user is willing to walk on a warm sunny day versus a cold rainy day can vary significantly. In locations where climatic conditions vary substantially, acceptable walking distance is often gauged by direct observation of user behaviors during bad conditions. For this analysis, Walker adopted the standard set forth which indicated that primary parking locations considered LOS A should be allocated for the exclusive use of customers and visitors. Secondary facilities considered as LOS B should be allocated for visitor use first, and employee use as capacity permits. Perimeter facilities considered to provide LOS C and LOS D should be allocated for visitor use only when no other alternatives exists and should be primarily designated for employee parking. 14

21 The figure shown on the following page depicts walking distance levels of service relative to the on-street and off-street spaces that reside within the System that will serve the Courthouse once constructed and fully functional. For this analysis, we assume the general walking distance standards for outdoor/uncovered parking highlighted in Table 8 above. When reviewing Figure 3 on the following page, we note the green circle represents a walking distance of 400 feet or LOS A, while the orange circle represents 800 feet or LOS B, yellow represents 1,200 feet or LOS C and the red circle represents 1,600 feet or LOS D. Finally, the new Courthouse will be constructed between Blocks 1 and 2, as depicted on Walker s figure of the designated study area. On the Survey Day, the surface parking lot that resides in Block 1 was observed to be 11% occupied (23 of 218 spaces parked). Moreover, the new Courthouse will reside directly across the street from this underutilized surface lot. Therefore, some of the projected additional parking demand attributed to the new Courthouse will likely park in the currently under-utilized lot, while the remaining parking demand will most likely be spread more efficiently throughout the remaining spaces within the System. Furthermore, the surface lots located in Blocks 7 and 8, which were observed with greater than 90% occupancy on the Survey Day, should ultimately prove more efficient, as the parking demand is more widely spread throughout the System intended to serve the Courthouse. Figure 3: Walking Distance Level of Service Source: Google Earth, Walker Parking Consultants 15

22 APPENDIX

23 Figure 4: Parking Demand Generators & Demand (projected) Parking Demand Generators (projected) Land Use - Based on Staff & Visitor Counts Survey Day 2 Design Day 3 Growth 4 Future 1 Johnson County Courthouse Employees % 350 Courthouse V isitors (peak hour) % 852 Johnson County Corrections Employees % 82 Corrections V isitors (peak hour) 5 5 2% 5 Johnson County Treasurer Employees % 61 County Treasurer V isitors (peak hour) % 15 U.S. Post Office Employees % 41 Post Office V isitors (peak hour) % 18 Olathe Public Library Employees % 15 Library V isitors (peak hour) % 51 Olathe City Hall Employees % 51 City Hall V isitors (peak hour) % 20 Area Retail Employees % 41 Area Retail V isitors (peak hour) % 26 Sub Total - Employees % 641 Sub Total - V isitors Total - Employees & V isitors 1,133 1,373 1,629 5 Mode of Transportation - Employee Drive Ratio 93% 93% 93% 6 Drive Ratio - Visitors 98% 98% 98% Sub Total - Employees (adjusted) Sub Total - V isitors (adjusted) Total - Peak Hour observed demand 1,084 1,319 1,564 7 Parking Demand Ratio (employees & visitors) 95.6% 95.6% 95.6% Parking Demand (projected) % increase over observed Survey Day demand 21.7% 44.3% Notes: 1 Current and future staffing levels provided by SFS Architects. 2 Survey Day assumes 40% of avg. day security screenings (1,151 visitors) in the peak hour. 3 Design Day projection assumes 40% of peak day security screenings (1,750 visitors) in the peak hour. 4 Future employee count 350 per SFS; visitor demand assumes 28 courtrooms vs. 23 today (22% increase). 5 Percent of employees that drive based on U.S. Census "Mode of Transportation" for Olathe, Kansas. 6 Percent of visitors that drive is estimated by Walker Parking Consultants. 7 Parking demand ratio assumes.96 vehicles for every 10 employees & visitors combined. Source: Walker Parking Consultants 16

24 SCOPE OF SERVICES PARKING CONSULTING A. PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS 1. Participate in a web conference with project team representatives to discuss study objectives, boundaries, procedures and schedule. 2. Obtain from Client programming information for the proposed courthouse development. 3. Obtain from Client current and future land use data for proposed development within the study area. Data will include square footage of buildings, types of land use and any future projections. 4. Obtain from Client current inventory of on-street and off-street parking spaces within the study area; inventory will be field verified by Walker. 5. Categorize the observed inventory on a block-by-block basis including block identification, parking capacity, and public vs. private designations. 6. Perform one (1) day of occupancy counts in an effort to capture peak occupancy data for a typical design day. 7. Develop a parking demand model and calibrate model against Walker s field observations. 8. Compare observed design day parking demand to the existing parking supply to determine the current parking surplus and/or deficit on a block-by-block basis. 9. Using the information and collected data, calculate the projected future parking demand for the proposed development. 10. Utilize the projected future parking demand quantities to project the future parking adequacy within the study area. B. REPORT 1. Prepare and issue to the Client a draft report that includes the following: a. Study methodology; b. Charts, graphs and tables with critical information; c. Executive Summary and synopsis of Walker s findings and conclusions. 2. Issue draft report to the Client for review and comment. 3. Schedule a teleconference with Client to present and review draft report findings. 4. Incorporate comments received from Client into a final report. 5. Issue final report to Client. 17

25 STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS This report is subject to the following limiting conditions: 1. This report is based on assumptions outside the control of Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. ( Walker ) and/or our client; therefore, Walker cannot guarantee the results. 2. The results and conclusions presented in this report may be dependent on future assumptions regarding the local, national, or international economy. These assumptions and resultant conclusions may be invalid in the event of war, terrorism, economic recession, rationing, or other events that may cause a significant change in economic conditions. 3. Walker assumes no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place or change subsequent to the date of our field inspections. 4. Walker is not qualified to detect hazardous substances, has not considered such, and therefore urges the client to retain an expert in this field, if relevant to this study. 5. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits may not be of engineering quality or to a consistent scale, and should not be relied upon as such. 6. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Walker, are assumed to be accurate. We assume no liability resulting from information presented by the client or client s representatives, or received from third-party sources. 7. This report is to be used in whole and not in part. None of the contents of this report may be reproduced or disseminated in any form for external use by anyone other than our client without our written permission. 8. The projections presented in the analysis assume responsible ownership and competent management. Any departure from this assumption may have a negative impact on the conclusions. 9. Computer models that use and generate precise numbers generate some of the figures and conclusions presented in this report. The use of seemingly exact numbers is not intended to suggest a level of accuracy that may not exist. A reasonable margin of error may be assumed regarding most numerical conclusions. Conversely, some numbers are rounded and as a result some conclusions may be subject to small rounding errors. 10. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants. All opinions, recommendations, and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment are rendered by the staff of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as individuals. 18

26