Parking (and curbside management)

The primary reason I wanted to go to the Virginia Transit Association conference was that the opening presentation yesterday was by Jeff Tumlin of Nelson Nygaard, on parking. UCLA Professor Don Shoup is referred to as the guru of parking issues, but people like Jeff make it happen. His firm provides consulting to many jurisdictions and transit systems around the country, so they have a lot of deep experience on the issue.

His presentation focused on Arlington County, which is where the conference was held. It happens that Arlington is a best practice example, that they are working to make places either transit first or "park once" areas, to reduce the overall number of automobile trips.

There were more than 70 slides to his presentation, so I can't recount everything. Household vehicle ownership is dependent on density, access to transit, household size, and income. The more money you have, the more likely you are to have a car _unless_ you live in a denser area well served by transit.

This is the conundrum of revitalization in the city, because people tend to fight off increased density, believing it will massively increase traffic, when the reality is that it sets the stage for massive reductions in traffic--both by making frequent transit service possible and cost effective, as well as making the provision of locally-available retail and services economically feasible and thereby eliminating the need to make as many trips outside of the neighborhood.

(I.e, my observations in the Greater Capitol Hill area is that traffic on most routes--although not the commuter routes--is down significantly over the years. E.g., yesterday, with many seconds on the signal, I was able to cross against the light at 8th and H Street NE at 6:45 pm, in theory a peak traffic movement time, because there was no oncoming traffic from the 700 to the 900 blocks of H Street.)

Arlington County has a sophisticated Transportation Plan with an entire section dedicated to Parking and Curbside Management. In short, ArCo's way of dealing with parking and curbside management is deep and nuanced.

(So if some of you are surprised when I don't come out in favor of X or Y parking proposal, it is because I am the "enemy of the good" in that I want, if not a perfect plan, at least a comprehensive one. DC doesn't have a comprehensive plan for dealing with transportation demand generally, and parking and curbside management specifically. So I am going to continue to advocate for such, rather than be happy with a slew of piecemeal policies and proposals.)

ArCo sets priorities for parking in commercial areas and residential areas according to a kind of "highest and best use" policy (low, medium, and high), oriented to supporting massive reductions in single occupant vehicle trips and on-street "vehicle storage."

E.g., in DC many people have been up in arms about providing "free" street parking spaces to carsharing services such as Zipcar (now they have to pay), whereas in Arlington, they say that because each car in a carsharing service supports 7 to 15 households, and results in significant reductions in car ownership, it satisfies worthy public policy goals and objectives to support the provision of carsharing, therefore they don't charge for the street space.

One of the things that Jeff spoke about was the Arlington vs. BART/SF Bay area experience. BART's development policies at transit stations required developers to replace all parking, moving from parking lots to structured parking. They found that requiring 100% parking placement required huge subsidies, and some ridership increases, but that having no more than 55% replacement provided positive revenue and ridership increases beyond the 100% replacement level. (Note to people in Takoma...)

He also discussed the difference in trip behavior between segregated use and park once/shared-coordinated uses.

Six key parking reform principles:

1. Manage Spillover Parking (into neighborhoods -- and this is what scares people the most. One interesting thing he said is that Austin, TX has created "parking benefits districts" that allow residents to sell their parking permits to commuters).

2. Create a "Park Once," shared parking environment.

3. Create lots of on-street parking (at market prices).

4. Ensure good parking design.

5. Ensure 15% vacancy at all times thorugh market pricing. (Redwood City, unlike DC, doesn't require specific laws authorizing how much to charge where, block by block. They give the govt. agency responsible the overall policy with the authority to do what's necessary, which means they can have differential policies block by block, at different times of day, etc., depending on what is necessary, without requiring specific laws authorizing polices and practices for specific blocks.)

6. Vary parking requirements according to context and goals by tailoring minimums, eliminating minimums, and establishing maximums.

Sadly, the national parking guidelines created by the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the American Planning Association, for the most part are based on automobile-dependent post-1950s suburbs, often in the Sunbelt. These guidelines aren't appropriate to other places, with different conditions, such as traditional commercial districts with multiple destinations co-present, areas served by frequent transit services, denser places, and center cities more generally.

In terms of making the transition from parking minimums to no minimums and/or parking maximums, he says:

1. Manage spillover
2. Give curbspace a value.
3. Popular alternatives to free parking--cash out, and car sharing.
4. Relate parking policies to community goals.
5. Address equity.
6. Conduct massive amounts of stakeholder and community outreach.

(Something that was interesting was on the tour of Arlington that was part of the conference, a person from ArCo commented that the high density that is being constructed in Potomac Yards next to Crystal City would never have been allowed without required transportation demand management programs, that the road network can't be expanded, and that it couldn't accommodate the increase in traffic that would come from automobile dependence. Transit, mode shift, and carpooling are essential to developer plans, otherwise they couldn't build what they are building.)

Speaking of giving curbspace a value, I think this is key. There are equity issues, but right now the cost of a residential parking permit is $15, and there aren't increases for larger vehicles, or additional vehicles. These spaces are worth a lot of money, and as long as they are underpriced, people are encouraged to buy cars. Maybe not so much in places like Columbia Heights, Adams Morgan, and Dupont Circle, where residential densities are so much higher, and it's difficult as a result to find on-street parking, but in neighborhoods of medium density, like Capitol Hill or H Street, car ownership is encouraged by underpricing residential parking permits.

Another point he made is that the issue with regard to equity is about "net social equity," that dealing with these questions more broadly, by increasing opportunities (e.g., the previous post on transit and day care) is more important and significant. Too often, opponents focus on "individual cases" and sob stories, without focusing on the fundamentals. E.g., in NYC, congestion pricing opponents focused on "equity issues," but the reality was that congestion pricing charges for those of lesser means could have been addressed through credits, rather than scuttling the idea altogether.

Some resources:

-- Parking Spaces / Community Places from EPA
-- Parking Management by Tod Litman of the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (he also has a book on the subject, published by the American Planning Association)
-- Toolbox/Handbook: Parking Best Practices & Strategies For Supporting Transit Oriented Development In the San Francisco Bay Area from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission