The Parking Fetish

"Does different color brick make me look shorter & expensive?" Answer: Um. No.Our son went away to camp for two weeks so like any kid-free couple, my husband and I spent a night of torrid, passionate, steamy….conversation about parking.

The latest parking obsession is the feud in California between the State Chapter of the American Planning Association (Cal APA) and Donald Shoup.   Cal APA asked its members to oppose a bill (AB 904) that would relieve minimum parking requirements parking in transit-oriented development project areas.  Mr. Shoup sent a widely circulated letter back to Cal APA, expressing disappointment with the organization.   Professor Shoup sees AB 904 as a “parking disarmament policy” which will let cities allow parking prices near transit and remove minimum (and costly) standards.  However, Cal APA sees AB 904 as a one-size-fits-all mandate. 

On July 3, the bill was pulled from a Committee agenda, but not before the spat hit the blogwaves, including  Streetsblog  and Market Urbanism.

So on to passionate and steamy.   I told my husband I actually side with Cal APA on this one.  I’ve written before on how and why Arlington, Virginia – home to many planning innovations – actually keeps it minimums on the books (more below).

My husband, on the other hand, sides with Professor Shoup.  Aaron travels all over the country in his job, and visits lots of medium-sized sprawly cities.  In his work negotiating with local officials, he notes flexibility is worthless because cities looking for a quick buck will always flex to the cheap and the sprawl.   He’d actually like to see parking maximums as well, which was not part of AB 904.

As the night wore on, it became clear we were talking about two different place types.  High dollar TOD doesn’t happen in medium sized towns, so I’ll give him the standards argument.

 But high dollar TOD is what’s on the table, and it seems like the Cal APA-Shoup feud exposes a couple of points:

• Rigorously enforced minimum parking requirements and how outdated minimum parking requirements are flexed as a negotiating tool are two vastly different things.     
• While the gist of the conversation should be TOD planning, it is not.  It’s about parking.  Sure bad parking policy can drive bad planning outcomes.  But overwhleming focus on one aspect of planning like parking can marginalize other planning needs that are as important, if not more important.

Take Arlington.  They use their nasty old minimum requirements like a BOSS.  During recent attempts to get rid of parking minimums, it became clear that the county would give away its ability to negotiate the interlinking aspects of neighborhood design.   Negotiation is key because the issues change over time and place to place.  When I entered Arlington activism in the early 90’s, parks were highest priority.  Affordable housing rose in prominence over the years.  Streetscape and sidewalk improvements that make living without a car possible in the first place are a constant need that needs funding.  Architecture, once hideous, has improved.  Here is a longer post on Arlington, the site plan review process and parking.

The ability to leverage minimums is not just an Arlington quirk where T-3.5 bumps up against T-6.  In a review of its station area policies, Charlotte N.C. hired the Lawrence Group to review its TOD policies and neighborhood compatibility.  In the report, titled “Review of Charlotte’s PED and TOD Districts for Neighborhood Compatibility,” a must-read discussion (Page 8) comes to the same conclusion: keep your minimums, but signal they are a tool.  Don’t give away your bargaining position when setting parking policies.

I realize there is now a great deal of support for streamlining developer requirements for TODs.  Setting standards and getting rid of extraneous process are seen as critical for supporting smart growth.  But AB 904 would not have only eliminated minimums, it would have deep-sixed the strongest negotiating card cities have to orchestrate a dizzying array of planning goals and lessen impacts.  One of the reasons the parking space avoidance card is so strong is (1) unlike other quality of life amenities, spaces are easy to quantify in dollars and (2) those spaces are expensive.   Yes TODs must reign in valuable space for people, not parking and yes, Mr. Shoup offers tons of innovative ways to do so.  In some cases, blanket elimination of minimums will work.  But not all - and that is at the core of the feud.

The bottom line is planners should not be after the best parking plan (or stormwater district or complete streets....).  We should be in the business of making great places that thrive over time.  Perhaps we have less a parking fetish than a streamlining obsession?  Should some Planning Departments be trusted with negotiations and others not?  Sounds like my next night out.

Slides from the 2012 Smart Growth Conference

I've compiled a couple of slides from the Conference that really did a nice job in a photo, chart or bulleted list format.  Some of the slides are a compilation of several ideas.  But if you click on the the blue "here" you can go directly to the presentation.  Likewise scroll down to "Gallery" on the right hand navigation bar.

The main page displaying all of the presentations from the 2012 New Partners for Smart growth conference is here.  If you had favorite presentations or slides, please share in the comments section.  

 These sessions I thought were particularly good:

Putting Parking in its Place for Smart Growth

• Eary (PDF 5MB)
• Garcia (PDF 7MB)
• Hajjiri (PDF 2MB)
• Kang (PDF 7MB)
• Knepper (PDF 7MB)
• Lee (PDF 4MB)
• Sacs (PDF 2MB)
• Shoup (PDF 20MB)
• Smith, M (PDF 8MB)
• Swierk (PDF 4MB)
• Tumlin (PDF 4MB)
• Willson (PDF 2MB)

Smart Growth Performance Measurement

Ang-Olson (PDF 2MB)

• Hume (PDF 3MB)
• Johnson (PDF 2MB)
• Ramsey (PDF 2MB)
• Sage-Martinson (PDF 1010KB)

Community Design and Urban Innovation for a Knowledge Economy (humongous file - but good)
Freedman (PDF 95MB)

A-park-olypse Arlington - what hath Donald Shoup wrought?

I have a confession.  In my early planning years, I wrote tons of policy recommendations on removing barriers to better development outcomes, including parking. I am a dyed in the wool Shoupista
But lately I am wondering if we have festishized policy to the point of missing the how-to of getting really good urban planning. 

This installment is about Arlington - or rather hub-bub over parking for a new development project that might unintentionally set new precedent for long-term policy.  But before we get to the hub-bub, a little history about the corridor.

In the 1970's Arlington Virginia made a now-famous decision to pay for undergrounding the subway corridor (because of economic reasons, not grammatical purity). The County made a deal with local residents: if you agree to put LOTS of density along this spine, we will cap and taper heights down to the neighborhoods, and set a boundary across which density will not jump.  Less advertised is the deal to also initiate a process called site plan review.   The deal goes like this: developers could go right ahead and build under their as-of-right suburban zoning, or come to table and hammer out details of their project.  Needless to say, the density allowances mean most developers come to the table to talk design review, regulatory relief, and community benefit proffers. The photo below shows this subway spine - S.F. means single-family (for more info - read Kaid Benfield’s post on the corridor here).

Over the years, parking has become the highest stakes element in the process, mainly because relief from the as-of-right parking requirements can save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars (because underground parking is expensive).  When I sat in on such negotiations, the process became a kabuki dance of finding the right mix of proffer and relief from the strictures of out of date zoning.  At times, we neighborhoods overplayed our hand, and others, developers would throw in extras.  That's how site plan works.

So what's the kerfuffle now?  It looks like there is a push to replace the out-of-date parking ratios with a suite of new parking policies.  For example, maximum parking ratios would be put in place.  For those new to the issue, most suburban zoning codes require minimum parking ratios, for example a minimum of four spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space.  The developer can add more, and in fact often do.  Maximum allotments say "you can only build this many, you can build fewer spaces, or pay a hefty price for spaces above the allotment."  In Arlington, car ownership is really low, due to a combination of the subway, great bus service and the land use mix.  

But here's the problem.  If you take out the old ratios, you take out the biggest leverage you have to get and keep developers at the table.  In the negotiation stage, proffer funds are often sought to improve the walk, bike and transit amenities that support a car-free lifestyle (and as a result make lowered parking space requirements work in the first place).  Site plan review is also needed because, as the photo reveals, the transition from ultra-high density to single family neighborhoods takes place in a matter of blocks.  Making this work is a delicate, negotiated process that takes place building by building.  Parking is not the only objective to work out.  Neighbors have been able to get stipulations on operations that make life next to a 10 story building not just tolerable, but enjoyable. The same goes for design objectives, parks, trees, and historic preservation, though parking can be used as the lever to get the mix of amenities right depending on the particular location in the corridor.

I know Arlington is extremely proud of its smart growth credentials; having old suburban parking ratios on the books just seems to run counter to having a great smart growth program.  But here is the kicker: the “barrier” language is actually essential to getting smart growth, not stopping it. The key to smart growth success is not just in code, but in negotiations: the higher the ratios, the stronger the hand.  If you are saving a developer $50,000 it’s one thing, but $2 million? Why would anyone choose to water down their bargaining position?

And the timing is befuddling.  While some cities are changing codes to become more business friendly, Arlington doesn’t need it, at least not in the corridor.  In fact, businesses locate to the corridor because of the transit and walk investments. I've been told that there are plenty of infrastructure funds now, but we are talking about a policy change that could extend into a future with fewer public dollars.  In a state like Virginia at this political point in time - there is no going back, no do-overs.   

For my colleagues out there on the stump for better code language, this is not a jab.  Rather, I think we need to get a better hold on the definition of success:  is it neat policies and “clean code,” or is it successful smart growth and redevelopment projects?   They are not always the same thing and as this post points out, cities and counties can retain older code not because they are bad at what they do, but because they are really good.

A-Park-olypse Sarasota

I have a soft spot for angled parking.   Maybe it’s the way more spaces are “found” in downtowns, or that parallel parking seems overly-complicated compared to the simple nature of yanking a shifter into “R” once, and only once.  For that reason, I supported the downtown merchants’ opposition to replacing angled parking with parallel spaces - that is until about 9 am last Thursday. 

That’s when I attended a presentation by SRQ Media Group on its recent Downtown Consumer Study (the must-read powerpoint is here).   The survey was conducted before the latest parking brouhahas erupted – metered parking, adorning a garage with (gasp) murals, and now a proposal to replace angled parking with parallel parking to increase sidewalk widths.  

As the February 9^th breakfast presentation unfolded, Ms. Angled Parking’s “Aha” moment came from this observation: Downtown has a very low attraction rate exclusively for shopping: 8.5%.  Before we can fully appreciate this statistic, let’s consider a couple of points about parking and downtowns:

• The sidewalk widening would be of most benefit to restaurants in the form of more outdoor dining.
• From the presentation, 91 % of people come mostly for dining.  The Farmers Market is also a big draw.
• While parking and garages are often viewed as downtown vibrancy killerers, for Sarasota it is essential.  Approximately 80% of Sarasota respondents came from outside downtown.  Add in tourists, and downtown Sarasota’s market is anything but local.
• Our new, year-old parking garage added 743 vehicle parking spaces, 20 motorcycle spaces and 80 bicycle spaces in the same block where owners are most upset. 
• Finally - the restaurants will have to rely on more than sidewalk width to achieve a fully functioning downtown.  A recent study found "a more critical factor (than street geometry) is the concentration of business activity in a compact commercial center." 

Instead of focusing so much energy on one block of Main Street, we should instead figure out how to move from a downtown where survey respondents come “for dining” to one where locals, visitors and workers are downtown equally for working, dining and shopping.

It seems like a there couple of key points.  First, we need to, at least in the short term, pay more attention to matching diners and Farmers Market patrons to the ability run other errands downtown.  We have a hardware store, banks, health food stores, opticians, services and a new Staples opening soon.  What does a marketing campaign to get all your trips taken care of downtown look like? We need to convince Joe from Palmer Ranch that he can get that hammer while his wife gets the veggies. Second, it's worth noting that Miami Beach has gained a lot of attention by celebrating, not whining about, its garages. Our own garage was recently included in an articleon the trend of parking garage architecture as sculpture.  Finally, the SRQ survey breaks down how people get information on downtown.  Instead of letting the medium drive the message, there seems to be really good information to help targeting or shape further studies needed.

Sarasota is holding a Parking Forum on February 23 from 5:30 pm to 7 at Selby Library where meters, pricing, and other topics are sure to come up.  For more information about the forum, please contact the Parking Services Management Department: 941-954-7057.

Trolling Twitter - Transportation Research Board Greatest Bits

Fellow transportation nerds.  Another massive Transportation research Board (TRB) has come and gone.  For those of us who were not among the 11,000 attendees, Twitter allows a small backstage pass.  Here are some tidbits, though presentations and reports sure to follow. 

General Statistics:

Study: One hour spent driving results in a 20-minute loss in your life expectancy http://ow.ly/1EFKQx

@AurashKhawarzad On 350 calories, a bicyclist can go 10 miles, a pedestrian 3.5 miles, and a car 100 feet.

@Lloydbrown: Smartphones are democratizing the Internet. @aashtospeaks 

@RayLaHood... He told TRB crowd he does not expect new transpo bill to move fwd this year

Bike

Rep. Blumenauer (OR) says: Nationally bike & ped accounts for roughly 13% of mode share, 16% of injuries, and only 2% of investment

MT @PhxDowntowner: 39 cities in China have started public bike sharing programs in just the past two years.

Parking

San Francisco won an award for parking - http://thecityfix.com/blog/san-francisco-and-medellin-win-2012-sustainable-transport-award/

A stat worth repeating: up to 30% of San Fran traffic at any one time are drivers looking for parking.

State of ITS: Guess what. Smart Parking is the fastest growing segment in the transportation industry CC:@laurenwang

Are we building parking or just not putting it in the right places? Come to the Getting the Supply Right session.

4 on-street parking spaces cost each suburban homebuyer an invisible $15,000 in construction and maintenance.

Bus Rapid Transit

Wow! 12+ million #BRT passengers per day worldwide  

Articles

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Intersection of Health and Transportation

Reports

CNU Sustainable Streets

http://www.cnu.org/cnu-news/2012/01/cnus-sustainable-street-networks-principles

Alliance for Biking & Walking = Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report – Highlights from the report include:

• In 2009, 40% of trips in the United States were shorter than 2 miles, yet 87% of these trips are by car. Twenty-seven percent of trips were shorter than 1 mile. Still, Americans use their cars for 62% of these trips.

• While bicycling and walking fell 66% between 1960 and 2009, obesity levels increased 156%.

• Seniors are the most vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians. Adults over 65 make up 10% of walking trips, yet comprise 19% of pedestrian fatalities. This age group accounts for 6% of bicycling trips, yet 10% of bicyclist fatalities.

• Bicycling and walking projects create 11-14 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just 7 jobs created per $1 million spent on highway projects. Cost benefit analysis show that up to $11.80 in benefits can be gained for every $1 invested in bicycling and walking.

• On average, the largest 51 U.S. cities show a 29% increase in bicycle facilities since the 2010 report. Cities report that 20,908 miles of bicycle facilities and 7,079 miles of pedestrian facilities are planned for the coming years (much of this contingent upon funding).