National Capital Region Federal Parking Study

Transcription

1 National Capital Region Federal Parking Study An Accessibility-Based Approach for Federal Facilities Parking Policies Makeover Montgomery 4 Presentation May 11,

2 NCPC is a federal agency. Core responsibilities include: Comprehensive Planning Project and Master Plan Review 2

3 The Federal Government in the National Capital Region Maryland 14% of region s land is federal 29% of DC s land is federal Includes parks, federal campuses, military installations Virginia Washington, DC U.S. General Services Administration manages 100 million sq. ft. in 697 buildings U.S. Department of Defense controls 75 million sq. ft. in 3,415 buildings 3

4 Federal Interests in Regional Transportation Regional good neighbor Efficient operations, federal transportation assets, and infrastructure funding 420,000 federal employees comprise 14% of region s workforce Federal spending accounts for 1/3 of regional GDP 42% of peak period Metrorail passengers are federal employees 4

5 Comprehensive Plan Used for Master Plan Reviews NCPC Review of Federal Master Plans, including Transportation Management Plans 5

6 NCPC s Parking Ratios Established in the 1980 s Set parking maximums Based on number of employees Updated in 2004 to emphasize transit access Historic Boundary of Washington 1:1.5 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 6

7 Parking Ratios Today Metrorail Stations 1:5 1:1.5 1:2 1:3 1:4 Historic Boundary of Washington L e ss T r a n sit A c c e ss M o r e T r a n s i t A c c e ss 1:1.5 1:2 Suburban with less transit access 1:3 Suburban with transit access 1:4 Historic DC Boundary (Inner Suburbs) 1:5 Central DC (Employment Area) 7

8 Case Study: Washington Navy Yard 1:5 Central DC (Employment Area) Secure facility Near Metrorail station Current = 1:3.7 Approved target = 1:4.5 Parking => green space 8

9 Case Study: Pentagon Reservation 1:4 Historic DC Boundary (Inner Suburbs) Completed in acres, main building is 6.5 million GSF 23,000 employees 8,494 employee parking spaces Includes Metrorail station Existing parking ratio: 1:2.7 Proposed future parking ratio: 1:3.2 Long range plan adds employees and eliminates parking 9

10 Case Study: National Institutes of Health 1:3 Suburban with transit access National Institutes of Health Walter Reed Army Medical Center Urbanizing area Near Metrorail station Very large, secure facility Special employees Current = 1:2.3 Future target =

11 Case Study: National Institute of Standards and Technology 1:1.5-1:2 Suburban with less transit access MARC (Maryland Area Regional Commuter) CCT NIST 270 Secure facility Distant from Metrorail Near future BRT Non-federal employees and visitors Current = 1:1.5 Proposed target = 1:2 11

12 Why review our parking ratios? Update Comprehensive Plan Be aspirational, but achievable More responsive to facilities, e.g. inner suburban campuses A predictable and fair process regardless of circumstance Consistency with local standards and national trends Take advantage of new modelling capabilities 12

13 Study Organization Literature Review Assess the transportation literature and industry best practices Local Parking Comparison Consider local approaches to parking policy Modeling Analysis Assess NCPC policies in light of the regional transportation model (2016 and 2030) 13 3

14 Literature Review Early Adaptation Off-street parking minimums and metered curb-side parking Environmental Awakening Downtown parking caps and TDM in response to environmental legislation and oil crisis. Initial Reaction On-street parking bans/limits Analytical Methods Car usage promoted and accommodated through generously supplied parking. Accessibility Focus Parking maximums and emphasize sustainability and multi-modalism. 14 4

15 Local Parking Comparison NCPC has similar goals to local jurisdictions but different review tools and authorities. Local jurisdictions increasingly encourage transit and more efficient land use patterns. To achieve this, they are: Limiting/Eliminating parking requirements (e.g., DC). Allowing flexibility (e.g., Arlington Co.). Implementing ongoing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Monitoring (e.g., Montgomery Co.). 15 5

16 Modeling Background What is Accessibility? TPB Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) Calculate the transit-shed and drive-shed of a federal facility/taz HH accessible by transit HH accessible by car = Accessibility Ratio Ratio under 1: more homes can reach a particular location by car than by taking transit Ratio over 1: transit provides access to more homes than driving 16 6

17 Modeling Background Metro Center Takoma Gaithersburg 956K Households (Transit) 286K Households (Car) 412K Households (Transit) 246K Households (Transit) = 3.34 = 0.87 = K Households (Car) 328K Households (Car) HH accessible by transit HH accessible by car = Accessibility Ratio Ratio under 1: more homes can reach a particular location by car than by taking transit Ratio over 1: transit provides access to more homes than driving 177

18 Accessibility Mapped Montgomery Co. Transit accessibility: very high in the core moderate radiating along Metrorail relatively limited elsewhere Fairfax Co. Prince George s Co. 18 8

19 Accessibility Ratio Accessibility along Metrorail Accessibility generally declines away from Metro Center/Gallery Place Edge/ End-ofLine Shoulder Core Shoulder Edge/ End-ofLine Near Edge of Historic DC Metro Center/Gallery Place Stations along each Metrorail line - NOT to scale. Near Edge of Historic DC Blue Green Orange Red Silver Yellow 19 9

20 Accessibility Present & Future Anticipated regional growth, highway/transit projects, congestion by 2030 will improve accessibility in the Downtown core and near new transit capacity

21 Observed Parking Ratio Validating the Accessibility Ratio & Parking Supply Observed Parking vs. Accessibility Ratio (2016) Accessibility ratio predicts 62% of the variation in parking supply at facilities (92% without outliers - NSA-Bethesda, St. Elizabeths, and Naval Observatory) Federal Facilities Linear Trend (Federal Line Facilities) Accessibility Ratio (Transit v. Auto) [2016] 21

22 Parking Ratio % Change Accessibility at Federal Facilities Existing Conditions vs Projected Future (2030 Accessibility Levels) 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 7% 8% 9% 26% 19% 22% Significant accessibility increases for centrally located facilities by More modest increases in suburban facilities Existing Conditions Projected Future 22

23 High variability in Historic DC Boundary zone 23

24 Comprehensive Plan vs. Observed Parking Ratios Observed (Current Parking Ratio) Comprehensive Plan Parking Ratio Modified Parking Ratio 6 5 Modified Parking Ratio Current Comp Plan Policy 4 Parking Ratio Current Parking Ratio

25 Comprehensive Plan vs. Observed Parking Ratios Observed (Current Parking Ratio) Comprehensive Plan Parking Ratio Modified Parking Ratio Current 1:4 Historic DC Boundary Zone Parking Ratio

26 Comprehensive Plan vs. Observed Parking Ratios Policies remain aspirational but more possible with additional TDM strategies. Parking Ratio Current 1:4 Historic DC Boundary Zone 2 1 0

27 Recommendation #1: Data-Driven Policies Policies should be both aspirational and realistically achievable. Proposed Ratios should better align with regional accessibility. Majority of facilities in the Historic DC Boundary Zone (1:4) provide twice as much parking as the underlying policy. Break off parts of 1:4 zone - combine with suburban zones. 27

28 Recommendation # 1: Data-Driven Policies 1:5 Central Employment Area Ratios should better align with regional accessibility (2016 and 2030). The majority of facilities in the Historic DC Boundary Zone (1:4) provide twice as much parking as the underlying policy. Policies should be both aspirational and realistically achievable. Parts of 1:4 zone should be broken off and combined with suburban zones. Predicted parking Ratios for the Region (Rounded up to even ratios). 28

29 Recommendation #2: Modification Process Develop a more transparent and equitable parking ratio variance process. Revised boundaries will help but not eliminate the need for case-by-case considerations. Needs and missions of federal facilities are as unique and varied as their locations. For variance - conduct lifecycle cost, accessibility, and mission analyses. 29

30 Recommendation # 3: Performance-Based Monitoring Strengthen TDM program with more continuous monitoring and reporting. TDM programs work best with annual or biennial monitoring. NCPC only requires TMPs when master plans or projects increase employment by at least 500 employees. Continual follow-up is a significant opportunity to meet goals. Implement TDM Strategies Monitor Progress (Example dashboard) Set Mode Share Targets Develop and Refine Policy 30