spring 2013 parking study

Transcription

1 spring 2013 parking study eci 162, dept of civil and env engineering sustainable land, transportation design (almost all seniors, capstone project) eng. professionals who contribute advise and guidance for this project: community groups who contributed with data collection efforts Deb Niemeier, PhD, PE

2 the study approach highly supervised checked at end establish study scope main objective working boundaries locational, time conduct data collection creating an inventory collecting the data analysis results establish current conditions identify problems/solutions

3 Study Motivation, Boundaries study scope data collection analysis results

4 tuesday 12p-1p 5.30p-7.30p wednesday 12p-1p 5.30p-7.30p data collection details auto/bike occupancy duration (last 3 of lic.plate) on-street survey study scope data collection analysis results sample davis reference material - downtown parking update (july 2009) - third street improvements, background report (2010) - staff report, downtown parking and access improvements, Oct 4, davis economic health & prosperity report, 2009 sample other reference material - responsiveness of on-street parking demand to pricing, Seattle case, MS thesis, University of WA - Seattle neighborhood parking study, Parking Infrastructure: energy, emissions, and automobile life-cycle environmental accounting (2010), ERL 5:1-8 - City of Boulder Parking Best Practices Review, Final Report, shoup, 2011

5

6

7

8 example data collected for each block block AA

9 example data collected for each block block BB

10 example data collected for each block block AS

11 on-street survey (N=550)

12 bike spaces 1 /loop, 2 sides, max=6 1 bike/ U, max 4 2/pole, max 2 1/wheel well, max 2 1 bike/pair close bars, max 9 1 bike/inverted U, max 4 This rack looks like its only designed for bikes to be on one side, so even if there wasn t person eating ivy on the other side it would still be for 3 bikes. 2/set of bars, 2 sides, max 6

13 inventory counted Inventory of spaces on street spaces 1382 off street spaces 2336 garage spaces 686 Total 4404 Approx distribution of off street spaces private 901 permit 192 customer 628 employee 6 loading 5 electric 1 other 68 public lots 535 Total 2336 Note: Spaces were designated into categories based on available signage and some degree of judgment

14 the analysis study scope data collection analysis results required: occupancy bike, auto other things students examined inventory type/location of all downtown businesses permits (e.g., 2x as many X as D) cruising time (experimental and survey) expenditures by occupancy and block some explorations of turnover limited analysis of durations some survey results

15 search time v. occupancy Occupancy Optimal Range (Shoup, 2011)

16 results study scope data collection analysis results 12:30 1:00p 12:00 12:30p 6:00 6:30p 7:00 7:30p :00p 6:30 7:00p >87% occupancy 80 87% occupancy 70 80% occupancy <70% occupancy

17 off-street

18 bike occupancy

19 cruising time (survey)

20 finally, turnover rates (5:30p-7:30p)

21 main themes echoed in student analyses parking availability acceptable, even at peak periods problems localized (e.g., in the area of F and 3 rd ) evening turnover rates can be excessively low e.g., turnover rates in the vicinity of 4 th and B streets parking garages are under-utilized off-street parking is under-utilized

22 common questions How do psychological factors play a role in parking? As Shoup notes, free parking is a classic commons problem, Where many people want to use a scarce public resource, self-restraint does not produce any individual reward. Drivers are encouraged to cruise longer, travel solo, etc. Longer-term parkers move vehicles, creating additional enforcement costs. Drivers face internalized costs associated with waiting for spaces and walking longer distances if parking isn t properly managed. Should we be providing for peak parking demand? No. This is an outdated concept and wastes critical public resources. Most progressive cities no longer even require off-street parking as part of development practices. Managing parking through marketbased solutions (e.g., pricing with revenue returns to business districts) is considered more efficient and equitable. Shoup, 2011, 1999; Wagner (2011), Kimley Horn (2011)

23 references Shoup, D. (2011) The High Cost of Free Parking, The American Planning Association, Chicago: 765pp Shoup, D. (1999) The trouble with minimum parking requirements, Transportation Research, Part A, 33: Wagner, A. (2011) The High Cost of Free Parking, Parson Brinckerhoff, ITE Northeastern, url (last accessed Jan 2013): Wagner%20Presentation.pdf Kimley-Horn (2011) Performance-Based Parking, Pricing Study, City of Seattle, Department of Transportation, Seattle: 133pp

24 example, fundamental relationships