Downtown Parking Task Force / Management Plancity-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/... ·...

Downtown Parking Task Force / Management Plan

1 Brian Abbanat, Transportation Planner

Matt Kowta, Chair, Downtown Parking Task Force

12/3/13 City Council Meeting

CONTENTS • Background • Existing Conditions • Defining the Problem • Goals and Desired Outcomes • Recommendations • Cost / Revenue Estimates • Next Steps

Downtown Parking Management Plan 2

Background

3

Background

Oct. 2012

Dec. 2013

PROCESS 10/9/12: Update on Downtown Parking & Access Improvements.

10/30/12: Established Downtown Parking Task Force. December 2012 – October 2013: • 10 Meetings. Downtown Parking Management Plan 4

Background

DOWNTOWN PARKING TASK FORCE • Jennifer Anderson • Michael Bisch • Cliff Contreras (ex-officio) • Robb Davis • Sara Granda • Amanda Kimball • Alzada Knickerbocker • Matt Kowta (chair) • Rosalie Paine • Steve Tracy • Johannes Troost • Lynne Yackzan

Staff: Brian Abbanat

Melody Eldridge Mike Webb

Ken Hiatt


Background

DPTF MISSION AND OBJECTIVES

Mission: To collaboratively develop a parking management plan that effectively addresses the relationship between a healthy downtown and vehicular parking. Objectives: • Fully understand the nature of the parking

problem to be solved. • Define the components of a successful parking

management system. • Recommend short-, medium-, and long-term

parking implementation measures. Downtown Parking Management Plan 6

Background

HISTORY: STUDIES 1957 CSAA Study: Recommended one-hour time restrictions.

1961 Core Area Report: Recognized future parking needs due to growing community. 50% of spaces occupied by employees.

1982 Traffic and Parking Committee, Traffic Study: Location-specific parking deficits.

1987 Parking Study: 37% of spaces occupied by employees. 500-700 spaces possible without structure via distributed property acquisition.

1996 Parking Study: Estimated need for over 1,000 spaces by 2010.

2007 Parking Occupancy and 2009 Council Presentation: Update.

“For ten years, Davis merchants have talked about their parking problem”

-Davis Chamber of Commerce,1958.


Background

HISTORY: PARKING SUPPLY 1960s: • Two-hour time restrictions • Parking assessment districts (E,F,G street lots) 1980s: • First & F parking structure (1989) 1990s: • Fourth & G parking structure • Amtrak lot / H St improvement • Boy Scout lot 2000s: • Davis Commons lot • Blockface re-parking • E Street Plaza paid parking


Background

HISTORY: PARKING REDUCTIONS

Downtown Parking Management Plan

• E Street plaza • Mid-block crossings

• Intersection bulb-outs • Bus stop

• E Street Parklet

• On-street bicycle parking • Zipcar spaces

9

Background

GREAT (parking) EXPECTATIONS 1. Visitors expect parking to be free.

2. People want to park as close to their

destination as possible.

3. Drivers like to see their destination from their parked cars.

4. People prefer angled to parallel parking.

5. People covet surface parking. Downtown Parking Management Plan 10

Background

GREAT (parking) EXPECTATIONS 6. People are unwilling to search very

hard for available spots.

7. Even when parking spaces are plentiful, drivers tend to believe there is a shortage. 8. Employees and business owners

tend to take prime on-street parking places.

Paraphrased from: Robertson, Kent. “The Psychology of

Downtown Parking.” ULI, 2007. Downtown Parking Management Plan 11

EXISTING CONDITIONS

12

Existing Conditions PROJECT AREA


Existing Conditions PARKING SUPPLY

On-Street: 1,118 Off Street: 988 Total: 2,106

Off Street 47%

On Street 53%


Days: • Monday • Wednesday • Friday • Saturday Times: 9 a.m. – 10 a.m. 12 p.m. – 1 p.m. 3 p.m. – 4 p.m. 6:30 – 7:30 p.m.

Overall Avg. Occupancy Rate: 63%


PARKING OCCUPANCY Existing Conditions

50%

72%

61%

65%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

9-10 am 12-1 pm 3-4 pm 6:30-7:30 pm

Monday

Wednesday

Friday

Saturday

WeekdayAverage (M,W, F)

85%

17

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Weekday Avg.

9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (M, W, F)

Existing Conditions

18

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Weekday Avg.

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. (M, W, F)

Existing Conditions

19

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Weekday Avg.

3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. (M, W, F)

Existing Conditions

20

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Weekday Avg.

6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. (M, W, F)

Existing Conditions

21

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Monday

Existing Conditions

9-10 a.m. 12-1 p.m.

3-4 p.m. 6:30-7:30 p.m.

22

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Wednesday

Existing Conditions

9-10 a.m. 12-1 p.m.

3-4 p.m. 6:30-7:30 p.m.

23

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Friday

Existing Conditions

9-10 a.m. 12-1 p.m.

3-4 p.m. 6:30-7:30 p.m.

24

PARKING OCCUPANCY

Saturday

Existing Conditions

9-10 a.m. 12-1 p.m.

3-4 p.m. 6:30-7:30 p.m.

25

PARKING OCCUPANCY Off-Street Parking

Behind the Averages:

First & F structure: --Highly used (D permit)

Fourth & G structure: -Underused E Street Plaza peak avg: -76% Amtrak lot: -Fully occupied by 8:00 a.m.

-44% from Davis -19% from Yolo Co. -37% outside Yolo

Co.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9-10 am 12-1 pm 3-4 pm 6:30-7:30 pm

Monday

Wednesday

Friday

Saturday

85%

Peak Peak

Existing Conditions


52%

70%

55% 58% 62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9-10 am 12-1 pm 3-4 pm 6:30-7:30 pm Average

85%

~180 spaces

PARKING OCCUPANCY Employee Parking (X-permit)

Behind the Averages:

Highest occupancy rates:

Wed. evening: (82%) Fri. lunch: (77%)

Existing Conditions


469 spaces

27

Defining the Problem….

28

IS THERE A PARKING PROBLEM? Yes and No.

No Yes • Parking available

most of the time. • Peak days/time.

• Underutilized parking, including peaks.

• Parking distribution doesn’t align with demand.

• Willingness to walk. • Willingness to walk.

Conclusion: Parking supply isn’t

effectively managed.

Conclusion:

Parking supply expansion is needed.

We don’t need more

parking! Yes we do!


Defining the Problem


PARKING SYMPTOMS


1. Lunch peak. 2. Evening peak. 3. Saturday morning. 4. Saturday afternoon / evening. 5. First & F garage (difficulty finding spaces). 6. Train Depot parking lot (quickly fills, out of

town train riders, parking unavailable for other users).

7. Delivery vehicles. 8. Inadequate employee parking. 9. Parking signage (inadequate wayfinding).

When occupancy rates exceed

90%... 80% to >95% of all vehicles are looking for parking.

Increases in… • Parking search

time. • Traffic delays. • Vehicle pollution. • Accidents. • Street/crosswalk

conflicts. • Noise Downtown experience degrades.

CHAO

S!

30


PARKING SYMPTOMS


10. Conversion of retail to restaurant uses. 11. Future downtown development (challenged

by parking supply). 12. Inadequate D-permit parking (employee

parking in 1st and F garage). 13. Green waste deposited in parking spaces

(reduces parking supply). 14. Abuse of time-restricted parking spaces. 15. Low occupancy rates in the 4th and G Street

garage.

The DPTF analyzed: • Parking

occupancy rates • Downtown

visitor surveys • Other parking-

related data (permits, citations)

• Personal experience / observations

• Public comment and correspondence

• Case studies • Parking-related

literature 31

Defining the Problem WHAT DO DOWNTOWN

VISITORS THINK?


• 42% = Need more parking • 37% = Need better parking management • 33% = Parking needs adequately met

• 60% stay between 1-2 hrs. • 33% stay longer than 2 hours • 1/3 believe parking is adequate; 2/3 believe it is not. • 69% state parking conditions affect downtown enjoyment. • 99% stated they would return to downtown again.

32

2012 Transportation Needs Survey (DT parking question):

2013 Davis Downtown Parking Survey:

Goals and Desired Outcomes

33


GOALS


Goal #1: Improve customer / visitor parking convenience and experience.

Goal #2: Provide adequate parking options for

downtown employees. Goal #3: Ensure adequate parking supply to serve

the needs of existing and future development.

Goal #4: Promote alternative access to downtown

to reduce parking demand.

34

DESIRED OUTCOMES


Outcome #1: Provide convenient parking for downtown visitors.

Outcome #2: Maximize existing off-street parking

resources. Outcome #3: Provide reasonably convenient

employee parking. Outcome #4: Promote and incentivize downtown

parking opportunities and alternative transportation options.


35

DESIRED OUTCOMES


Outcome #5: Effectively enforce parking restrictions and revise parking violation policies.

Outcome #6: Improve pedestrian & bicycling

experience downtown. Outcome #7: Effectively use emerging technologies. Outcome #8: Incorporate parking needs associated

with future development. Outcome #9: Support increased downtown

economic activity.


36

Defining the Problem PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT

EXAMPLES: Management: • Time restrictions • Reparking • Meters • Valet parking • Incentives Supply: • Diagonal parking • Restriping • Surface lots • Parking structure Enforcement: • Hours • Citation policies • Staffing Tech / Info: • Info systems • Wayfinding • Mobile apps

• Management (On- / Off-street)

• Supply (On- / Off-street)

• Enforcement

• Technology / Information

37

Recommendations

38

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS (Parking Management)


#1: Establish paid parking in SE Quadrant.

• Extend time restriction from 2 to 4 hours.

• Charge lowest price possible without creating a shortage.

Elsewhere: • 90-min free on street. • 2-hr free on surface lots. • 3-hr free in garages.

Recommendations: • Balance the

parking needs of different downtown stakeholders.

• Prioritize parking availability for visitors.

DPTF Suggested

Rate: $1.00/hr pk $.50/hr off-pk

39

Recommendations



#2: Increase employee parking location options.

• Expand X-permit into 4th & G garage • Develop Regal lot for X-permit • Utilize Old North Davis for lower-cost

employee parking.

#3: Increase employee permit fees and streamline to single “X” permit.

• $10/month ($120/yr)




40

Recommendations


#4: Convert Amtrak lot to paid parking. #5: Restrict double-parking during lunch peak. #6: Eliminate on-street green waste in downtown.





41

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS (Enforcement / Information)


#7: Shift enforcement to 10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. #8: Establish tiered fine citation system.

• $43 / $86 / $129 & thereafter #9: Upgrade parking enforcement technology.




42

Recommendations


#10: Invest in electronic information systems. #11: Develop transportation and parking alternatives campaign. #12: Collect quarterly parking occupancy and turnover data.

RECOMMENDATIONS (Enforcement / Information)




43

Recommendations


#13: Explore voluntary shared parking district. #14: Provide van-accessible disabled parking upon resurfacing and/or metering. #15: Streetscape improvements

RECOMMENDATIONS (Parking supply / downtown investment)




44

Recommendations


#16: Expand parking supply. • $150,000 for feasibility study, design

concept, and preliminary engineering of a site-specific parking structure.

• Boy Scout lot • 3/4/E/F site • Amtrak lot • A location between B/C/1/4 Streets

RECOMMENDATIONS (Parking supply / downtown investment)




45

Recommendations


#17: Administration • Additional staffing likely required.

#18: Improve transit options into downtown. #19: Re-examine in-lieu parking fee policy and procedures.

RECOMMENDATIONS (Uncategorized)




46

Recommendations

PARKING MIGRATION

47

Recommendations

LONG-TERM PARKING COVERAGE (2 hrs or more free)

48

Recommendations

BENEFITS


• Visitor convenience: Can find a parking space in the core (and stay longer).

• More parking options in more locations.

• Streamlined, increased employee parking options.

• Parking options for cost sensitive users.

• Enforcement hours match demand. 49

Recommendations

BENEFITS


• Less traffic congestion during peak hours.

• Safer, more organized. • Revenue stays in downtown for :

• For increased parking capacity. • Other downtown investments (lighting,

safety, aesthetics). • Increased economic activity

50

Cost / Revenue Estimates

51

Cost / Revenue Estimates

COSTS


Upfront: ~$837,000 • Meters, Regal lot, ADA upgrades,

garage feasibility study.

Annual: ~$197,000 - $297,000 • Meters, employee parking cross-

subsidy, human resources.

REVENUE Annual: ~$1,048,000 • Meters, parking permits, tiered fine

citations.

COST RECOVERY

Low Rev.

High Rev.

Low Cost 2 yrs 1 yr

High Cost 4 yrs 1+ yrs

52

Next Steps

53

Next Steps

NEXT STEPS


• Integrated package.

• Implementation strategy needed: • Grouping / phasing of

recommendations. • Equipment research • Human resources • Funding assumptions • Timeframe

54

Next Steps

NEXT STEPS


1. Tonight: Council feedback • Overall thoughts • Priorities • Concerns

2. Staff develops implementation strategy.

3. Staff implements any “low hanging fruit,” if desired.

4. Return in ~2 months for formal approval.

55

Recommendations

THANK YOU


Recommendations

“Low Hanging Fruit”


1. Rec #2: Employee parking: • Negotiate to open 4th & G

garage for X-permit & Amtrak riders.

• Establish OND “O” permit zone 2. Rec #4: Establish paid parking in

Amtrak lot. 3. Rec #10: Information systems:

• Improve information systems in garages.

57

Recommendations

“Low Hanging Fruit” Potential Complications: 1. 4th & G garage: • Public enforcement of privately owned

parking. • Receptiveness of existing tenants.

2. Amtrak lot: Funding to construct lot

stated…

58

Downtown Parking Task Force / Management Plancity-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Downtown Parking Task Force / Management Plancity-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/... ·...