Parking Alternatives:



   king Way for Urban infi
      "fffeffPr    jjg
            ^\" ;- :-- " \

            ^ >;  -- \ *
            ••"" ^c ^ ^-. V ^
            . .5^ ^^^ V"^
             5 v v v
            •^ i ^Xr -
              , «^ ^^TTfT^ H-CiiL^

-------
      throughout the country, sprawl development is consuming open
       space in outlying metropolitan areas and increasing automobile
       dependency. This trend is resulting in destruction of natural habi-
tat, air and water pollution, excessive public and private expenditures on
infrastructure expansion, increased transportation and travel costs, and shifts
in jobs out of cities. Simultaneously, abandoned properties in once thriving
urban areas are left behind with an underutilized public infrastructure, thus
feeding the cycle of disinvestment in urban areas. There are many interre-
lated factors influencing this trend, not the least of which are the cost and
ease of development. As the populace becomes increasingly dependent on
automobiles, providing parking in urban areas has become a significant
expense and deterrent to infill and brownfield redevelopment—develop-
ment intended to reduce suburban sprawl and protect the environment by
encouraging developers to invest within existing urban infrastructures.
Providing parking in outlying greenfield areas is less burdensome because
of the availability of land for low cost parking facilities.
   In many instances, efforts to accommodate parking for motor vehicles
have overextended actual need. An important case in point, and a focus of
this guide, is the approach used by many cities to establish vehicular park-
ing requirements—typically a generic formula based on satisfying maxi-
mum demand for free parking. Although this practice may allow city plan-
ners to err on the side of caution, it has some serious drawbacks.
   In practical terms, this practice increases the cost of development and
creates disincentives with respect to infill and brownfields redevelopment.
In addition, generic parking requirements create excess parking spaces that
consume land and resources, encourage automobile use and associated pol-
lution, and degrade water quality. The oversupply of parking is of particu-
lar concern for infill and brownfields redevelopment because these sites
are often located in urban areas where the existing parking infrastructure
can be better utilized and parking alternatives, such as increased use of
transit and pedestrian modes, can be more readily implemented.
   With urban revitalization efforts underway in many cities, the timing is
opportune for instituting changes in parking requirements and transporta-
tion behavior.  An important way to reduce the demand for parking and
the need to supply parking to meet maximum demand is to shift transpor-
tation behaviors in the direction of nonauto modes. This can be achieved
by reducing the availability of parking in areas where alternative modes of
transportation exist and by providing incentives for using alternative modes.
Such changes will encourage infill redevelopment and reduce vehicle miles
traveled, mobile source emissions and congestion. They will also increase

-------

ridership for public transit and, in turn, provide the additional revenues
needed to support public transit improvements.
   There are, of course, potential drawbacks to reducing the supply of park-
ing. Lenders, for example, may be unwilling to approve loans because plans
do not meet their minimum parking requirements; developers may be con-
cerned about the long-term marketability of their property; and residents
may fear that parking will spill over into surrounding residential neighbor-
hoods. Such concerns can be more readily addressed if: the factors that
affect parking demand are understood; walkable, pedestrian-oriented de-
velopment design is implemented; and viable nonauto transit alternatives
exist where needed. Concerns are also alleviated when developers, em-
ployers, and employees are aware of public programs that promote the use
of nonauto transit through financial incentives.  The Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), for example, allows businesses to give
their employees up to $65 per month in tax free transit subsidies. TEA-21
also allows employees who commute by public transit or vanpool to de-
duct the cost of commuting from their taxable income if they do not receive
a subsidy.
   This guide is intended to further the readers knowledge and understand-
ing of these  issues.  It was developed to accomplish the following objec-
tives:
   •  Alert readers to the significance of the urban  parking issue, ad-
      dressing the perspectives of both city planners  and developers;

   •  Illustrate the environmental, financial, and social implications of
      providing an over-supply of parking; and

   •  Describe cost-effective, environmentally  sensitive alternatives to
      generic parking requirements, providing case  study examples of
      successful commercial real estate development in areas that have
      implemented parking alternatives.
   The focus of this guide is on commercial parking, and the audience is
primarily local government officials and city planners, as well as develop-
ers, any of whom can initiate changes to generic parking requirements. It is
                       What is  urban infill?

  Urban  infill is the practice of developing vacant or underutilized proper-
  ties within an urban area rather than undeveloped land in more rural areas
  (greenfields).  Infill helps to prevent sprawl and can aid in economic revital-
  ization.

                      What is a brownfieid?

  A brownfieid is an abandoned, idled, or underused industrial or commer-
  cial site where redevelopment or expansion is complicated by real or per-
  ceived environmental  contamination.

-------
                                   .i  Making'Way'for Urban I nfM
essential, however, that these groups work together to implement such
changes.
   Intrinsic to this guide is the concern that generic parking requirements
can be a disincentive to infill and brownfields redevelopment and associ-
ated urban economic development. With this issue as its focus, the guide is
intended to stimulate consideration of parking alternatives, and provide
the information needed to explore the viability and effectiveness of alterna-
tives.

   The guide is organized into five main sections:
   •  Establishing parking requirements. Explains how generic park-
      ing requirements are typically established and highlights the key
      issues city planners face in tailoring parking requirements.
   •  Cost of providing parking. Explores the factors that influence the
      cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining parking facilities
      of all types, from surface lots to structured garages.
   •  Parking requirements and development decisions. Describes the
      relationship between parking requirements and development de-
      cisions, focusing on the development costs and returns.

   •  Innovative parking alternatives. Describes alter-
      natives to generic parking requirements, includ-
      ing:

      •  alternatives that enable redevelopment projects
        to better utilize existing parking (e.g., in-lieu
        parking fees to cover  costs of city garages,
        shared parking arrangements when users park
        at different times of the day, shuttle buses from
        centralized parking facilities); and
      •  alternatives designed to reduce the demand for
        parking by providing incentives for nonauto
        modes of transportation (e.g., public transit sub-
        sidies, "cash-out" programs, trip reduction pro-
        grams, bicycle amenities).

   •  Case studies of innovative parking requirements.
      Presents three case studies of development projects
      located in metropolitan areas that have benefited
      from innovative parking alternatives. These case
      studies present the cost savings associated with
      parking alternatives, as well as the broader eco-
      nomic, environmental, and social effects of these
      changes.

In addition, an appendix provides examples of innova-
tive parking ordinances and programs.

-------
"Most planners surveyed
  relied on neighboring
   cities and national
 handbooks to determine
 parking requirements.
 This practice may result
    in inappropriate
  requirements if local
  conditions or policy
   approaches differ."
    — Michael Kodama,
 Michael R. Kodama Planning
        Associates
    n setting parking requirements, planners typically use generic stan-
    dards that apply to general land use categories (e.g., residential, office,
    retail). Such standards are provided in publications of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), or they are based on other cities' ordinances
(Shoup 1998). One of the shortcomings of generic parking requirements is
that they often do not take into account the mix of community-specific vari-
ables—density, demographics, availability of nonauto transit, or the sur-
rounding land-use mix —all of which influence demand for parking and
should be reflected in parking requirements. Instead, requirements are based
on maximum demand for parking, when parking is provided at no charge
to users. This formula yields a surplus of parking area that is costly for
developers to provide, and it subsidizes personal  automobile use and en-
courages auto use even in areas where convenient alternative modes of
transportation exist.
   Because of the way in which they are typically established, parking re-
quirements are remarkably consistent across different cities, despite vary-
ing levels of economic vitality, population size, and development density.
The sampling of data  in the table on page 5 also shows that the require-
ments assume that every household has two cars, every employee drives to
work, and every party visiting a restaurant travels by car.
   Alternatively, parking requirements can be established using methods
that are better tailored to specific development projects. This approach en-
tails careful consideration of the following land use characteristics that re-
late to parking demand:
   • Buildin^development type and size. Takes into account the spe-
     cific characteristics of the project. Parking demand is influenced
     by the size of the development (typically measured by total build-
     ing square footage),  as well as the type of land use (e.g., retail,
     industrial). Generic parking formulas address these factors to some
     extent.
   • Population and  development density. Considers the density and
     demographic characteristics of the people using the building, in-
     cluding employees, customers, residents, and visitors. Informa-
     tion on income, car ownership, and age distribution also helps in
     projecting total parking demand.
   • Availability of nonauto modes of transportation. Takes into ac-
     count the modes of transportation available to employees, visi-
     tors, and residents. Proximity of public transportation to a par-
     ticular development, for example, will reduce parking demand.
     Walkable neighborhoods and bicycle amenities will also reduce
     parking demand.

-------
                                      .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill  and
                      Examples  of Minimum Parking Requirements1
                              Residential
                                                     Office
                                                                            Retail
                                                                                           Restaurant


Location

Single
family
Sp
per
sq
aces
1,000
. ft.2
Number of
Spaces per
Employee3

Spaces per
1,000 sq. ft.4
With tables,
no drive-
thru
Bellevue, Washington     2 spaces per
Population (1996):  104,000  residential
Area:  31 square  miles      unit
(Off-Street Parking
Requirements)
                4  spaces
                  (net)
                                                                       1 space (net)
                                                                       (for retail space
                                                                       <  1 5,000 sq. ft.)
14 spaces /
1,000 sq . ft.
(net)
Saint  Louis County,
Missouri
Population (1996):
1 ,005,094
Area: 506 square miles
1  space per   3.3 spaces
residential      (gross)
unit - urban
district
                                                                      5.5 spaces  (gross)  1  space /
                                                                                          3  seats +
                                                                                          2  spaces /
                                                                                          3  employees
(Off-
Re q u



Street
i r



e m e



Bozeman,
P o p u
Area
s q u a
la
t i o n
P
n t



a
s



r k i n g
)



Montana
(1
: Appro
r e
m i 1
e s
996): 26,760
X

i m a t e I y 11.5

2
r
u
u
d
2
r
sp
esi
n i t
a
d

c e
s per

e n t i a I
n
o n -

r b a n
istri
sp
e s i
a
d
u n i t (
s
t re
e
ct
c e
s
sper 4spaces 1.33 4spaces
ential (gross)
if
t
o n -


20 spaces /
1,000 sq . ft.
(net)

 Jozeman Planning Office)  parking
                             available)
                             3 spaces per
                             residential
                             unit (if no
                             on-street
                             parking
                             available)
Fairfax County, Virginia   2 spaces per  3.6 spaces
Population (1996):  880,771  residential      (gross)
Area: 399 square miles      unit
(Fairfax County
Department of Planning
and  Zoning)
                                                             1.2      5spaces(net)
                                                                      (for retail space
                                                                      <1,000 sq. ft)
                                                                      6 spaces (net)
                                                                      (for retai I
                                                                      between 1,000
                                                                      and 5,000 sq. ft)
                                                             1 space/
                                                             4 seats +
                                                             1 space/
                                                             2 employees
Houston, Texas
Population (1996):
1 ,629,902
Area: 556 square miles
(Houston City Planning
Department)
2spacesper   2.5spaces
residential      (gross)
unit
                                                                      4spaces(gross)
                                                                                          8  spaces /
                                                                                          1,000 sq. ft.
                                                                                          (gross)
     "Gross" values represent number of spaces per total area, whereas "net"  excludes "unusable" space
     such  as elevators, exterior walls and corridors.  Where gross values are not available, we have
     presented net values.
     Parking requirements for office space less than 50,000 sq. ft.
     The number of spaces  per 1,000 square feet was converted into spaces  per employee using an
     average number of 3 employees per 1 ,000 square feet of office space  (Burchell et a!.  1994).
     Parking requirements for retail space less than 5,000 sq. ft.

-------
                  ;  Making Way for

    "In the process of
   establishing parking
   requirements, local
    communities are
 sometimes engaged in a
balancing act.  They must
consider access,  mobility,
and traffic safety, but they
   also must encourage
appropriate land use and
   traffic management,
environmental protection,
 and energy and resource
     conservation."
     — Thomas P. Smith
   • Surrounding land use mix. Considers the surrounding land uses
     and density to better understand parking needs, and evaluates
     whether overall peak demand is lower than the sum of peak de-
     mands for different uses. This concept takes the timing of parking
     demand into account in determining the aggregate demand of
     multiple uses. The type of community in which a development is
     located will also affect parking demand. For example, if a devel-
     opment project is located in a city's central business district, the
     availability of general use parking will reduce on-site parking de-
     mand. On the other hand, if the development is located in a resi-
     dential area, on-street parking may be unacceptable to local resi-
     dents, increasing the need  for off-street parking at the develop-
     ment.
   Land use and  demographic information are important tools for estab-
lishing project-specific parking requirements that create a better match of
supply and demand for parking than do many generic requirements. More-
over, adjusting parking requirements downward to reflect realistic demand
helps reduce the total cost of development, particularly in urban areas. By
reducing cost, a potential deterrent to urban infill and brownfields redevel-
opment can be removed.

-------
      ^he cost of providing parking is driven by three key factors: the num-
       ber of parking spaces required, the opportunity cost of the land used
       for parking, and the cost per parking space. The more parking spaces
required, the higher the cost of parking. Generic parking standards tend to
require a greater number of spaces and, thereby, increase total develop-
ment costs.  The opportunity cost of land used for parking is also linked
directly to the number of required spaces —land that might otherwise be
used to generate revenue is consigned to parking use.
   The cost per space, on the other hand, depends on engineering and de-
sign considerations. Although cost per space is not directly influenced by
local government policies and practices, it will vary for urban, suburban,
and rural areas based on factors such as design constraints and land costs.
Cost per parking space includes land, construction, maintenance, utilities/
insurance, administrative, and operation costs (Siegman 1993).

   Land and construction costs, which account for most of the costs of park-
ing, vary considerably across cities and parking designs. For example, the
reported average  land and construction cost for ten parking facilities in
northeastern Illinois (three garages and seven surface lots) is $4,450 per
space (Fish & Associates, Inc., 1998); the cost reported for surface parking
in Lake Forest, Illinois is $18,000 per space (Shoup 1998).  Construction costs
are typically higher for parking structures than for surface parking  lots.
For example, Shoup (1998) reports construction costs of $21,831 per space
for a structured garage in Walnut Creek, California.
   Willson  (1995)  expresses parking costs in terms of a monthly amount
that would pay for the land, construction, and operating costs of providing
a parking space.1  The reported average monthly cost  calculated for six
surface parking sites in Southern California was $48 per space; among the
six sites, the monthly cost ranged from $28 to $61. The average cost for two
sites in Southern California with aboveground structured parking was $97
per space per month.

   In general, the following factors affect the cost of parking:

   •  Structured versus surface parking. Structured parking is more
     costly to construct, operate, and maintain than surface parking.
     Underground parking structures are more costly to construct than
     aboveground structures because of the added expense of excava-
     tion, fireproofing, ventilation, and dewatering (Shoup 1997b). In
"Ignoring both the cost of
providing parking spaces
and the price charged for
 parking in them, urban
    planners thus set
    minimum parking
 requirements to satisfy
    maximum parking
       demand."
      — Donald Shoup,
   Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California,
       Los Angeles
   1 The fee includes land and construction costs, amortized using a 7.5% interest rate over
a 30-year period, and annual operating costs.  Costs are in 1992 dollars.

-------
;  Making  Way for

                        a study of UCLA's parking facilities, the cost per space
                        in an aboveground structure was approximately
                        $10,000 and for a comparable space in an underground
                        structure, $25,000 (Shoup 1998). Because of the rela-
                        tive scarcity of land in urban areas, parking require-
                        ments that assume maximum demand may necessi-
                        tate structured parking facilities for urban infill and
                        brownfields redevelopment, increasing the cost of
                        brownfields  redevelopment in comparison to
                        greenfields development.
                     •  Land cost. Land costs vary widely across settings (ur-
                        ban/suburban), geographic areas, and location within
                        a particular city. Land costs in urban centers are gen-
                        erally much higher than in suburban areas.  For ex-
                        ample, the cost per square foot of land in downtown
                        Charlotte, North Carolina is $121, while in the sub-
                        urbs, the cost per square foot is $21 (ULI1997). Since
                        most brownfields are located in urban areas, with
                        higher land costs, the cost per parking space in
                        brownfield areas is generally higher than in greenfield
                        areas.
                     •  Configuration and size of parking facility. Parking
                        structures and lots are more expensive to build and
                        operate on smaller lots and complex land configura-
             tions, due in part to economies of scale. For example, smaller ga-
             rages have higher costs per parking space because of the fixed capi-
             tal costs (e.g., stairwells, ramps, and elevators) and fixed operat-
             ing costs. These characteristics — smaller lots and more complex
             land configurations — are  typical of urban infill and brownfield
             areas, making parking more expensive at these locations than at
             greenfield sites.
             Geologic conditions. Parking structures on land with more sen-
             sitive seismic conditions or land with difficult terrain also cost more
             per parking space because they require more complex engineer-
             ing and construction design. While geologic conditions vary across
             the country, developers have a greater choice of land options when
             considering development in suburban and rural areas. On the other
             hand, land options in urban areas are more limited, and terrain
             with geologic constraints may be more difficult to avoid.

-------
________^


   All of the cost factors discussed above will have an important bearing
on the financial feasibility of development options and, as such, will influ-
ence development decisions. On the whole, these factors suggest that the
cost per parking space will be more expensive at urban brownfield sites
than at greenfield sites. The next section explores in greater detail how the
costs of parking— both the absolute costs and opportunity costs—factor
into development decisions.

-------
  "Parking requirements
 hide the cost of parking
by bundling it into higher
  housing prices, higher
 consumer prices, lower
urban density, and lower
 land values.  Everyone
but the motorist pays for
       parking."
      — Donald Shoup,
   Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California,
       Los Angeles
       he connections between parking requirements and development
       decisions are somewhat complex, but can be boiled down to two
       basic components:

   • Costs of providing parking, and
   • Expected financial returns associated with availability of park-
     ing or other uses of the land.
Both of these components influence the financial feasibility of development
options and, therefore, development decisions.

   The cost component relates directly to the total cost of development—
the lower the number of required parking spaces and the cost of those spaces,
the lower the project development costs. The cost elements listed in the
previous section suggest that the cost per parking space is more expensive
at small sites with complex land configurations (which may necessitate
building expensive structured garages) and at sites with high land costs.
Another condition that may influence the cost of redevelopment is the need
to demolish  existing buildings to free up land to accommodate parking.
Since many urban infill  and brownfield sites have these characteristics,
parking costs can influence development decisions associated with these
sites.

   The financial returns related to parking are more complex than the cost
component.  As shown in the flow chart on the next page, financial returns
are a product of the amount of marketable space, the occupancy rate, and
the selling price/rental rate for that space. Because parking consumes land,
if less parking is required, more land is available for alternative uses. If that
available land is used to  expand the marketable space and the market for
the space is strong, then revenues generated by the sales of the property
and/or tenant rent will increase. If the land is used to provide other ameni-
ties, such as landscaped open space, its value will increase (i.e., the devel-
opment will be more desirable and command higher sales or rental rates).
On the other hand, to the extent that extra parking is viewed as an amenity
that will influence occupancy rates and sales or rental income, reduced park-
ing may negatively affect project returns. The availability of reliable and
convenient nonauto modes of transport reduces, and may eliminate, this
potential negative effect.
   As shown in the flowchart, municipal and lender requirements are key
determinants of the number of parking spaces provided at a given location;
however, the number of spaces provided also depends on developer pref-
erences, land costs, tenant preferences, and the practices of competing de-
 10

-------
                                   .iMaking'Way'for_Urban  Infill and
velopment. Strong municipal leadership is especially important with re-
gard to promoting parking alternatives at the local level; high marketabil-
ity and financial returns are more likely when municipal leaders demon-
strate a serious commitment to enabling worthwhile infill and brownfield
projects. From the lender perspective, parking requirements can improve
lenders' ability to sell the mortgage in the secondary market should the
project fail, as secondary mortgage buyers can fear unfamiliar property man-
agement requirements associated with "atypical" development.
  Fearing that properties will not be marketable without ample parking,
lenders often establish their own minimum parking requirements as part
of their loan approval processes. Developers and planners need to work
with lending institutions to demonstrate that innovative parking alterna-
tives can be employed to reduce the need for parking while maintaining
high marketability and projected revenues. Also, developers should search
out local banks that have a good understanding of the city and its alterna-
tive transportation modes. Such lending establishments are more receptive
to financing projects that employ creative alternatives to stringent parking
requirements.
                                                                                          11

-------
                    Making  Way for

                                       (averages for Olympia,  Washington)
                               Source:  City of Olympia Public Works Department, and the Washington State
                               Department of Ecology, 1995.
                            Reductions in parking requirements can decrease development costs and
                          potentially increase returns, particularly for infill and brownfields redevel-
                          opment.  Innovative alternatives that allow for reductions in parking re-
                          quirements can improve the financial feasibility of development and may
                          also provide incentives for alternative, less polluting, modes of transporta-
                          tion and nonauto dependent development designs. The next section de-
                          scribes cost-effective, environmentally sensitive alternatives to generic park-
                          ing requirements that have been successfully implemented at cities in vari-
                          ous parts of the country.
12

-------
       ome local governments have implemented alternatives to generic
       parking requirements that increase utilization of existing parking
       facilities, reduce the demand for parking, and/or create more cost-
effective and environmentally  sensitive park-
ing structures that preserve pervious surfaces.2              impiementedAiternatives
By lowering total development costs, some of
                                               Parking Alternative             Location
these parking alternatives have consequently  	
      r      O                        i     J    In-Lieu Fees            Berkeley, California
encouraged urban infill and brownfields rede-                         c 0 c 0 n u t G r 0 v e _ F, 0 r, d a
velopment.                                                         Lake Forest] llllnolg
   n-,1 .     ,.          ,         ,-,,     -,,                              Long Beach, California
   This section presents some of these alterna-
tives and includes a discussion of how and why
                                          J                         Pa lo Alto, California
planners establish these alternatives, the advan-  	
£                                              SharedParking         Indianapolis, Indiana
tages of the innovations, potential concerns of                         M 0 n t g 0 m „ r y c 0 u n t y _ M a r y, a n d
developers and planners, and examples of how  -^1777^77^7^	ST^T^TTT^Tr^	
the  various alternatives  have been imple-                         West Palm Beach, Florida
                                               Maximum Limits        Portland, Oregon
                                                                    Redmond, Washington

In-LJeu  Parking  Fees                    	Sa_" F^ncisc°. canforma
                                               ParkingFreezes        Boston, Massachusetts
   In-lieu parking fees are established by mu-
                                               SubsidiesforTransit     Boulder, Colorado
mcipalities as an alternative to requmng on-site
   r                          1     °                               SanBernardinoCounty.Cal
parking spaces. With in-lieu fees, developers  	
1     oi                             i       CashOutPrograms      Los Angeles, California
are able to circumvent constructing parking on-
                               or      °                            Santa Monica,  California
site by paying the city a fee. The city, in return,  ~-	~~	—•——	
     J L  J  o      J            J          '    Transitlmprovements   Portland, Oregon
provides centralized, off-site parking that is                         c h a 11 a n 0 0 g a _  T „ n n „ s s „ „
available for use by the development's tenants  ~~~-—r~	~~"	;	r~~	"	TT—:	
                 J          -T                  PedestrianandBicycle   Schaumburg, Illinois
and visitors. The fees are determined by the    Amenities             Kendaii, Florida
city and are generally based on the cost of pro-    vehicle Trip Reduction   Cambridge, Massachusetts
Viding parking.                                                      Seattle, Washington
                                                                    Montgomery County, Maryland
   Cities set fees in one of two ways, either by  assssss^^
calculating a flat fee for parking spaces not pro-
vided by a developer on-site or by establishing development-specific fees
on a case-by-case basis. Shoup (1998) reports that in-lieu fees in the United
States range from $5,850 to $20,180 per parking space. These fees can be
imposed as a property tax surcharge.

   In-lieu parking fees provide advantages to both planners and develop-
ers. Allowing developers to pay fees in-lieu of constructing parking has
the following benefits:
   2 Preserving pervious surfaces helps to control nonpoint source runoff from developed
sites. The pervious surfaces absorb rainfall and prevent polluted runoff.
                                                                                              13

-------
                   ;  Making  Way for

          in-Liey Parking Fees
       Coconut Grove — Miami, Florida

 Coconut Grove is a pedestrian-oriented, entertain-
 ment, dining,  and shopping village in southern Mi-
 ami.   In an effort to maintain Coconut Grove's con-
 tinuous street frontage, city planners established
 flexible parking requirements.  Developers or prop-
 erty owners have three choices for satisfying mini-
 mum  parking requirements: they can provide off
 street parking, contract spaces elsewhere,  or pay
 in-lieu fees.  With little space  left to develop and
 high land costs, most property owners choose to
 pay the $50 per space per month fee to the city
 and  use the  land for more productive,  revenue-
 generating  purposes. This in-lieu alternative allows
 the city to preserve a continuous storefront that
 maintains the aesthetic character of the area and
 improves walkability.

 Source:  Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce.
                   •  Overall construction costs may be reduced;
                   •  Construction of awkward, unattractive on-site
                      parking is avoided;
                   •  Redevelopment projects involving historic build-
                      ings can avoid constructing parking that would
                      compromise the character of the buildings;
                   •  Planners can ensure that existing parking facili-
                      ties will be more fully utilized; and
                   •  Planners can encourage better urban design with
                      continuous storefronts that are uninterrupted by
                      parking lots.
                      In establishing in-lieu parking fees, planners must
                   be cognizant of potential developers' concerns about
                   the impact of a lack of on-site parking on the attrac-
                   tiveness of developments to tenants and visitors. This
                   can be an issue if available public parking is insuffi-
cient, inconveniently located, or inefficiently operated. Planners must care-
fully consider the parking demand for each participating property and pro-
vide enough parking to meet this demand in order to avoid creating a per-
ceived or real parking shortage.  Planners must also work to ensure that
public parking facilities are centrally located and operated efficiently.
                             Different types of land uses attract customers, workers, and visitors dur-
                           ing different times of the day. Shared parking is another alternative that
                           city planners can employ when setting parking requirements in mixed-use
                           areas. An office that has peak parking demand during the daytime hours,
                           for example, can share the same pool of parking spaces with a restaurant
                           whose demand peaks in the evening.  This alternative also reduces overall
                           development costs.
                             By allowing for and encouraging shared parking, planners can decrease
                           the total number of spaces required for mixed-use developments or single-
                           use developments in mixed-use areas. Developers benefit, not only from
                           the decreased  cost of development, but also from the "captive markets"
                           stemming from mixed-use development.  For example, office employees
                           are a captive market for business lunches at restaurants in mixed-use de-
                           velopments.

                             Shared parking encourages use of large centralized parking facilities and
                           discourages the development of many small facilities. This results in more
                           efficient traffic flow because there are fewer curb cuts, and turning oppor-
                           tunities on main thoroughfares. This has the added benefits of reducing
                           accidents and reducing emissions from idling vehicles stuck in traffic.
14

-------
                                       .iMaking'Way'for_Urban  Infill and
   Establishing shared parking requirements in-
volves site-specific assessment or use of time-of-
day parking utilization curves.3  Planners need to
consider the following factors when developing
shared parking requirements:

   •  Physical layout of the development;

   •  Number of spaces for each of the indi-
      vidual land uses;

   •  Types of parking users (e.g., employees,
      residents, or hotel guests who park all
      day or customers and visitors who park
      for short periods of time); and

   •  Hourly accumulation of parking for each
      land use.

   Montgomery County, Maryland  allows  for
shared parking to meet minimum parking require-
ments when any land or building under the same
ownership or under a joint use agreement is used
for two or more purposes.  The county uses  the
following method  to determine shared require-
ments for mixed-use developments:

   •  Determine the minimum  amount of
      parking required for each land use as
      though it were a separate use, by time
      period, considering proximity to transit.4

   •  Calculate the total parking required
      across uses for each time period.

   •  Set the requirement at the maximum to-
      tal across time periods.
   3 Time-of-day parking utilization curves developed for
weekdays and weekends are provided in the 1983 ULI pub-
lication Shared Parking for office, regional retail, restaurant/
lounge, cinema, hotel, and residential uses. Calthorpe Asso-
ciates, an urban design, planning and architecture firm, re-
ports that when sizing parking areas for mixed-use develop-
ments, they use these ULI figures and their developer clients
accept the analyses (Rood, 1999).

   4 The minimum parking requirements in Montgomery
County can be reduced for buildings located in close prox-
imity to transit or within a central business district. Parking
reductions are also possible at developments with owners
who participate in transportation demand management pro-
grams. More information on Montgomery County's park-
ing ordinance is provided in the Appendix.
                Shared  Parking:
      Planner  and  DeveSoper Concerns

Planner Concerns

Q: What if the land uses change within the mixed-use de-
velopment?

A: Any change in land uses within a mixed-use develop-
ment requires a  revised assessment of parking demand.
It is possible for peak demand to increase with a  change
in land use.  Thus, planners need to be receptive to im-
proving  transit or providing other incentives  to encour-
age nonauto transport  modes.   Responding in this way
avoids the need for developers to provide additional park-
ing in the event of more intense land use changes.  Of
course, transit solutions are  not always available and cre-
ating incentives for other alternatives will  only capture a
limited  number of commuters.  In such cases, contingen-
cies for additional parking may be necessary to accom-
modate development mix changes.  One alternative is to
"land bank" a percentage of land for parking use, if  needed
at a later time. (Schaumburg, Illinois incorporates a land
banking provision in its 1998 Parking Ordinance; see the
Appendix to this guide for relevant excerpts from its or-
dinance.)

Developer Concerns

Q: Will a development  with  fewer parking spaces  be iess
attractive lo tenants or patrons?

A: If parking  requirements  based on sharing  have  been
established correctly, available supply should  accommo-
date  parking demands, and marketability will not be  af-
fected.

Q: How can  unauthorized use of spaces be prevented?

A: Shared parking facilities are more susceptible to en-
croachment of unauthorized vehicles than single-use park-
ing facilities.  To inhibit such encroachment, owners or
operators of the parking facility  may want to  restrict ac-
cess  and/or use by charging  fees,  gating the parking area,
or using vehicle stickers/permits or electronic access cards.

Q: How are maintenance costs shared?

A: There are various  options for sharing maintenance
costs, and they will depend on the particular development
project.  One approach might be to share maintenance
costs by prorating the  costs depending on parking use.
For example,  in the Montgomery County, Maryland ex-
ample (see table on page 16), using peak parking demands
for different uses,  we calculate maintenance costs for each
use: the office user would pay 44 percent;  the retail user
would pay 41  percent; and the entertainment  user would
pay 15  percent of  the maintenance costs.  If there is single
ownership of mixed-use development, this issue is avoided
entirely.
                                                                                                       15

-------
                    ;  Making Way for

     Circle Centre — Indianapolis, Indiana

 Opened in September of 1995, Circle Centre is In-
 dianapolis' newest example of an Urban Retail/En-
 tertainment (URE) development.  Located in  the
 central business  district, this  mixed-use develop-
 ment contains 630,600 square feet gross lease area
 (GLA) of retail space, 78,000 square feet GLA of res-
 taurant space, a 2,700-seat cinema complex, and  an-
 other 28,000 square feet GLA  of specialty and  en-
 tertainment space.  The total  cost of the develop-
 ment was  $300 million, funded by the city, a con-
 sortium of 19 local corporations, and two interna-
 tional banks.  One of  the factors that  led to a finan-
 cially successful project was the conceptualization
 and implementation of  a  shared parking  scheme
 that allowed for significant cost savings and a  pe-
 destrian-friendly urban  design.

 With generic minimum parking  requirements, Circle
 Centre would have needed about 6,000 parking
 spaces. With shared parking taken into account,
 the project was built with only 2,815 spaces.  Shared
 parking for Circle Centre includes two components.
 First,  the  mixed-use nature of the development
 project allows for customers to use a single park-
 ing space  for multiple destinations.   Second,  be-
 cause the  project is located in the downtown area,
 employees can use nearby off-site parking, particu-
 larly in evenings and on weekends when more than
 12,000 nearby off-site spaces  become available to
 Circle Centre parkers.  Taking these two shared park-
 ing components into account  decreases the esti-
 mated  demand for on-site parking  by  more than
 50 percent.

 This parking demand reduction translates into con-
 siderable cost savings.  At parking costs of about
 $10,000 per space for aboveground structured park-
 ing, development costs were reduced by about $30
 million.  In addition, operating costs  were reduced
 by approximately $1  million  per year.

 Source: Smith, 1996.
   The table below illustrates how peak demand oc-
curs at different times of the day and week for different
land uses when the shared parking method is applied
to a mixed-use development.  While maximum park-
ing demand for the office component of the project oc-
curs during the daytime on weekdays, maximum de-
mand for retail occurs during the daytime on week-
ends, and for entertainment during the evening.

   For this example, setting parking requirements us-
ing maximum demand would have resulted in requir-
ing 680 spaces (300 spaces for office, 280 spaces for re-
tail, and 100 spaces for entertainment). By recognizing
the shared parking potential, a reduction of almost 200
parking spaces (about 25 percent) was achieved—rep-
resenting a considerable cost savings for the developer.
In addition, shared parking also allows for more effi-
cient use of land and better urban design.

   An American Planning Association report, Flexible
Parking Requirements, highlights factors that facilitate
shared parking. The report suggests that for shared
parking to function effectively, parking requirements
for individual land uses must reflect peak demand land
use  and common parking  facilities must  be in  close
proximity to one another. Parking spaces  should not
be reserved for individuals or groups.
                                         Calculating Parking for Mixed-Use Developments

                                                 (Montgomery County,  Maryland)
Weekday



Office
Retail
Entertainment
TOTAL
Daytime
(9 a.m. -
4 p.m.)
300*
1 68
40
508
Evening
(6 p.m. -
12 a.m.)
30
252
1 00*
382
Weekend
Daytime
(9 a.m. -
4 p.m.)
30
280*
80
390
Evening
(6 p.m. -
12 a.m.)
15
1 96
1 00*
3 1 1
Nighttime

(12 a.m. -
6 a.m.)
15
14
10
39
                               * Peak demand by use.
                               Source: Smith 1983, page 7.
16

-------
                                      .iMaking'Way'for_Urban  Infill and
   Centralized parking facilities can reduce the costs of
parking because large facilities are less expensive on a
per space basis to build and maintain than small facili-
ties. Centralized parking, as an alternative to on-site
parking, also improves urban design and preserves the
historic nature of communities. Some cities mandate
centralized parking facilities and finance them through
development impact fees or negotiated contributions es-
tablished during the environmental review process.

   While the concept of centralized parking facilities
makes sense from economic, environmental, and urban
design perspectives, developers' concerns relate to in-
conveniences to building occupants, such as lack of
parking proximity. These concerns can be addressed in
part by providing reliable and frequent shuttle services
to and from the centralized parking facilities. Success-
ful centralized parking has been accomplished in Chat-
tanooga, Tennessee. In this case, centralized facilities
are located at the periphery of the city, reducing traffic
and mobile source emissions in the downtown area and
freeing up land in the center city for redevelopment.
   In contrast to  generic minimum parking require-
ments, maximum limits restrict the total number of
spaces that can be constructed rather than establish a
minimum number that must be provided. Planners set
maximum limits much like they set minimum require-
ments. Typically, a maximum number of spaces is based
on square footage of a specific land use. For example,
the City of Portland, Oregon restricts offices in the cen-
tral business district to 0.7 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet, and retail to 1.0 space per 1,000 square feet
of net building area. Contrary to what might be ex-
pected, the maximum limits in Portland have not led to
a parking shortage because of the abundance of transit
alternatives in the area.

   Planners establish maximum limits instead of minimum requirements
for various reasons. By managing the supply of off-street parking and re-
ducing automobile use, Portland's planners hope to ".. .improve mobility,
promote the use of alternative modes, support existing and new economic
development, maintain air quality, and enhance the urban form of the Cen-
    Centraiized,  Peripheral! Parking
          Chattanooga,  Tennessee

The downsizing of the American steel  industry took
its toll on Chattanooga, Tennessee, and  by the 1960s
Chattanooga was  an economically depressed and
polluted city.  In the 1980s, the Chattanooga Area
Regional Transit Authority (CARTA) board of direc-
tors began looking for ways to revitalize the down-
town.  To encourage urban development while lim-
iting congestion and air pollution, CARTA developed
a strategy that included periphery parking and  a
free shuttle service.  The strategy maintained that
with a  linear shaped central  business district, work-
ers and visitors could drive to the  city, park in one
of the two periphery garages, and  use the shuttles
to travel  up and down the 15 block business  corri-
dor.  By constructing  parking at either end of the
city, CARTA hoped to intercept commuters and visi-
tors before they drove into the city center.

The two structures, Shuttle Park South and Shuttle
Park North are owned by CARTA and  operated pri-
vately. The CARTA's shuttle service commenced in
1992. The Shuttle Park South garage opened in Au-
gust 1994 with 550 parking spaces,  while the Shuttle
Park North garage opened two years later, with
parking for 650  cars.  The free shuttle buses, fi-
nanced through  the garages'  parking  revenues,
depart from both  garages every  five minutes all
day every day and pass within walking distance of
most downtown  destinations.

The peripheral parking garages and the shuttle ser-
vice offer a popular alternative to  downtown  park-
ing. The electric-powered shuttles transport ap-
proximately one million riders each year, making
shuttle-proximate  property  attractive   to  busi-
nesses.   Since 1992, over $400 million  has been
spent on  development in  Chattanooga.  This  in-
cludes a $45 million  aquarium, a $28  million park,
over 100 retail  shops, and over 60  restaurants.
CARTA's  initiatives won commendation from EPA,
receiving a "Way to Go" award in  1996 for innova-
tive transportation solutions that support urban
development.  The  parking-shuttle strategy has
encouraged urban development while limiting the
city's traffic and congestion.

Sources:  EPA,  1998; Chattanooga News Bureau,
1999.
                                                                                                  17

-------
                   ;  Making  Way for

  Link  Between  Maximum Limits  and
             Portland, Oregon

 In Portland, Oregon, maximum parking limits vary
 according to distance from light rail stations.  For
 example, new office space on the light rail transit
 mall  is allowed 0.8 spaces per 1,000  square feet,
 while office space located  in Goose Hollow, located
 several blocks from the transit mall, is allowed 2.0
 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
These maximum limits have not been problematic
to developers.  In fact, property values and cus-
tomer volume in the parking restricted areas near
transit stations are higher than in other areas. In a
1987 survey of 54 businesses located near light rail
transit, 66 percent of business owners said that their
businesses had been helped because they were lo-
cated near public transit; 54 percent reported in-
creased sales volumes as a result of being located
near transit

Source:  Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation Dis-
trict of Oregon, 1999.
tral City" (Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code for the City of Portland,
1999). Both planners and developers benefit from restricting the number of
parking spaces allowed.

   From the city planner's perspective, maximum limits accomplish the
following:

   • Improve the urban environment by preserving open space and
     limiting impervious surfaces;
   • Reduce congestion;

   • Encourage attractive, pedestrian-friendly urban design; and
   • Promote nonautomobile modes of transportation.
   From the developer's perspective, maximum limits accomplish the fol-
lowing:

   • Minimize costs for parking construction, operations and mainte-
     nance;
   • Reduce traffic and traffic related costs; and
   • Operate with a greater floor-to-area ratio, increasing leasable space.

   There are, however, challenges to setting and maintaining maximum
limits.  When limiting the supply of parking, planners must consider pos-
sible spillover parking in surrounding residential neighborhoods. To avoid
such spillover, developers must understand the factors that affect parking
demand and ensure that viable nonauto transit alternatives exist where
                   needed.  Changes in frequency or routing of transit,
                   increases  or decreases in development  densities,  or
                   changes in land use can all influence the demand for
                   parking. By understanding the various factors that af-
                   fect the demand for parking, however, planners can
                   build flexibility into zoning codes and be receptive to
                   modifying requirements to fit the needs of the chang-
                   ing environment. Another useful policy for prevent-
                   ing parking spillover into residential areas is to imple-
                   ment residential parking permit programs.
                     With restrictive maximum limits on the number of
                   parking spaces, developers may worry about the long-
                   term marketability of a property. Marketability should
                   not be a concern for competing developments in the
                   same locale since all developments must adhere to the
                   maximum limits. With regard to competing develop-
                   ments outside the region with maximum limits, ameni-
                   ties other than parking such as convenient access  to
                   services and places of employment, aesthetically attrac-
18

-------
                                       ..;Making'Way'for Urban I nfM
tive streetscapes, or pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, can have a strong
influence on tenant preferences. City governments and developers should
incorporate these elements to attract businesses and residents.

   Maximum requirements are not ideal for all locations. It is crucial for
municipalities that employ maximum requirements to have accompanying
accessible and frequent public transportation. It is also important for the
area to be sufficiently stable economically to attract tenants without need-
ing to provide a surplus of parking. A number of cities have implemented
maximum parking requirements, including San Francisco, California; Port-
land, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. The appendix provides an example
of maximum limits as written in Portland's Title 33 Planning and Zoning
Code.
   The amount of parking required can be directly reduced through park-
ing freezes that cap the total number of parking spaces in a particular met-
                             Parking  Freeze
                           Boston,  Massachusetts

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts capped the total number of commercial spaces
in Boston's downtown district in the 1970s, in response  to nonattainment with carbon
monoxide and ozone requirements specified in the Clean Air Act.  Since Boston's zon-
ing code mandates minimum parking  requirements  for some areas affected by the
parking  freeze,  developers negotiate with  both the local zoning board  and the Air
Pollution Control Commission  (APCC), which  administers the parking freeze, for approval
of development  proposals.  Rather than setting parking plans or definitive standards
for tenant parking,  the APCC  negotiates with each  new development or redevelop-
ment project,  taking into  account demographics and  density.  The APCC's goal is to
limit parking to an overall ratio of 0.4 spaces  per 1,000  square feet of floor space for
office/commercial properties  in Boston's downtown district.  This parking goal repre-
sents  a reduction of  almost 90 percent  from typical maximum demand parking re-
quirements and is achievable  because of Boston's extensive mass transit system.  Par-
tially as a result of its parking freeze,  Boston now attains the carbon monoxide stan-
dards.

The cap on parking affects the way Boston workers  commute to work,  shifting trans-
portation behavior to  nonauto modes.  As shown below, over 60 percent of  commut-
ers use  modes of transportation other than  single occupancy vehicles.

                    Boston  Jo urney- to- Wo rk Transportation Modes
                  Transport Mode
                                          Number and Percentage
                                             of Commuters3
               Public Transportation1
                                              112,681 (43.4%)
               Single Occupancy Vehicle2
                                              96,1 94 (37.1 %)
               C a r p o o I
                                              27,833 (10.7%)
               Walk
               Bicycl e
                                               1 ,448 (O.e
               Work at Home
                                               1,394 (0.5%)
            NOTES:

            1 . Public transportation includes those workers who commute via subway,
              bus/trolley, railroad, or ferry.

            2. Single occupancy vehicle (SOV) include personal automobile, taxi, or
              motorcycle.

            3. Data are for Boston's 1.5 square mile CBD, with 50 million square feet of office
              space and six million square feet of retail space.
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  1992.
  "The generous parking
   capacity required by
   planners often goes
 unused.  Studying office
     buildings in ten
 California cities, Richard
Willson (1995) found that
 the  peak parking demand
 averaged  only 56 percent
       of capacity."
       — Donald Shoup,
   Institute  of Transportation
 Studies, University of California,
         Los Angeles
                                                                                                      19

-------
                   ;  Making Way for

    The Transportation Equity Act
      for the  21st Century:  TEA-21

 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
 (TEA-21) was enacted June 9, 1998 as Public Law 105-
 178. TEA-21 authorizes the federal surface transpor-
 tation programs for highways, highway  safety, and
 transit for the six-year period of 1998-2003. TEA-21
 provides significant funding and other assistance
 to support transit and  other nonauto transport
 modes.  Benefits  of TEA-21  include the following
 provisions:

 • Transit and  vanpool benefits  may be offered in lieu
  of compensation payable to an employee for tax-
  able years beginning January  1998.  This gives tran-
  sit and vanpool benefits the same tax treatment that
  parking benefits  receive under the Taxpayer Relief
  Act of 1997.
 • The limit on nontaxable transit and vanpool benefits
  is increased from $65 to $100 per month for taxable
  years beginning January 2002.
 • Employers can offer employees several options for
  qualified transportation  fringe benefits.  These ben-
  efits can be provided to employees  either in addi-
  tion to present compensation or in lieu of compen-
  sation, tax free.
 • Employers  can offer a parking cash out program
  whereby employees may choose to forego employer
  provided parking  and receive  the taxable cash value
  of  the parking,  or receive  a  tax-free transit or
  vanpool benefit of up  to $65 per month ($100 per
  month beginning  January 2002).
                   ropolitan district. Such freezes have been implemented
                   in various areas of the country in response to
                   nonattainment of environmental standards, traffic con-
                   gestion, or other urban planning considerations. Simi-
                   lar to the issues associated with maximum limits, park-
                   ing freezes need to be implemented in conjunction with
                   viable public transportation options. Cities with suc-
                   cessful parking freezes generally have strong economies
                   and are attractive to tenants, customers, and visitors.
                   Such cities  can attract businesses because the benefits
                   of the urban location outweigh the potential drawback
                   of limited parking, and because public transit offers a
                   viable alternative to auto use.
                     Many of the alternatives to minimum parking re-
                   quirements discussed above, such as in-lieu fees, cen-
                   tralized parking, shared parking, and maximum park-
                   ing limits, provide ways to reduce excess parking sup-
                   ply.  It is also possible to reduce the need for parking
                   and the associated costs by influencing the demand for
                   parking. Demand reduction can be achieved by increas-
                   ing the price of parking or through instituting nonauto
                   transport incentives.  Charging users for parking is a
                   market-based approach by which the true cost of park-
ing can be passed through to parking users. If the fee charged to users of
parking facilities is sufficient to cover construction, operation and mainte-
nance costs, it will likely cause some users to seek alternative transport
modes.
   Demand reduction can also be achieved through a variety of programs
and policies described further below that attempt to reduce the demand for
parking, and thus reduce the needed supply.  While these programs are
typically developed by local governments, their success often depends on
the commitment of businesses to implement them effectively. Demand re-
duction programs include: subsidies for transit, cash-out programs, transit
improvements, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and vehicle trip reduc-
tion programs. When employers allow telecommuting and/or flexible work
schedules that reduce commuting, demand is also reduced.

   Subsidies for Transit
   Transit subsidies can be provided by cities or by employers. In the case
of employer-paid transit pass schemes, the employer pays the cost of em-
ployees' transit, converting the fixed cost for parking spaces into a variable
cost for the public transportation subsidy. This fringe benefit for employ-
ees reduces the demand for parking at the workplace, which in turn re-
duces traffic, air pollution, and energy consumption. It also reduces the
20

-------
                                      .iMaking Way for
cost associated with providing parking, as transit subsidies are generally
less expensive than providing parking. A transit pass in Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, for example, costs $42 per month, whereas the average cost for a
parking space is $91 per month (Shoup 1997b).  To promote transit subsi-
dies, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century eliminates the
tax burden for both employers and employees; these subsidies are not taxed
as payroll or as income.

   In some cases, city planners respond to employer paid transit subsidies
by lowering minimum parking requirements.  For  example, included in
Montgomery County, Maryland, office zoning requirements is a 15 percent
reduction in minimum parking requirements if businesses offer reimbursed
transit passes (Smith 1983). By offering subsidies for public transportation
use, employers enable the reduction of parking space requirements, thus
decreasing total development costs and making urban development  op-
portunities more inviting.
                        Subsidies for Transit
                            Boulder, Colorado

  Boulder's downtown district  comprises some 700 businesses and over 7,500 em-
  ployees. Faced with a shortage of parking for customers,  Boulder developed a
  program to encourage nonautomobile commuting for its  downtown employees.
  In  1993, Boulder's City Council mandated restricted  downtown parking and  ap-
  pealed  for parking demand management  for the city's commuters.

  The Central  Area General Improvement District (CAGID),  made up of  downtown
  businesses,  responded to the Boulder City Council's  demands by providing free
  bus passes for all of the district's employees.  The pass program, which costs
  $500,000 annually and is funded through downtown meter revenues, has success-
  fully altered  transportation modes, freeing up valuable customer parking spaces,
  in the following ways:

    • Multiple occupancy vehicle commuting increased  from  35 percent in  1993
      to 47 percent in 1997.
    • The district's employees require 850 fewer parking spaces as a result of the
      free bus pass program.
    • The increase  in available  parking has  encouraged more retail customers to
      shop in  downtown Boulder.
    • By  taking public transportation, bicycling, carpooling, and walking, Boulder
      employees avoid  212,500  single occupancy vehicle trips per year.  With an
      average commute trip in  Boulder of 10.8 miles, over  two  million  miles of
      pollution- and congestion-causing automobile use is prevented each year.

  While this program has produced beneficial results, the ideal  balance of down-
  town parking and nonauto transport  modes has yet to be  achieved.  Downtown
  Boulder, Inc., an organization representing the  downtown  businesses, maintains
  that while the bus pass program provided  more  spaces for customers,  there con-
  tinues to be a shortage of parking for employees and visitors.

  Source  : Boulder Community Network, 1999.
                                                                                                   21

-------
                   ;  Making  Way  for

            Cash-Out  Program
           Santa Monica, California

 In 1992, California instituted a mandatory cash-out
 program.  The California  Health  and  Safety  Code
 Section 43834 reads, "'Parking cash-out  program'
 means an employer-funded program  under which
 an employer offers to provide a cash  allowance to
 an employee equivalent to the  parking subsidy that
 the employer would otherwise pay to provide the
 employee with a parking space."

 The effects of the cash-out program on transporta-
 tion use in Santa  Monica,  California have  been sig-
 nificant. A study conducted by Donald Shoup of the
 UCLA Institute of  Transportation Studies found that
 for two Santa Monica employers,  the share of solo
 commuters decreased by between seven and eight
 percent once the cash-out program was  in place.
 This reduction in solo commuters is responsible for
 a decrease in annual commuting vehicle miles trav-
 eled (VMT) of 858  miles (Shoup, 1997a).
         Transit  improvements
              Portland, Oregon

 Tri-Met, Portland's transit agency, recently added
 an  18-mile extension to the MAX light rail system.
 This $944 million project includes 20 new MAX sta-
 tions and connects Portland's eastern suburbs to
 its western suburbs.  One of the benefactors of MAX
 improvements is the Lloyd District.  Located just 1.25
 miles east of Portland's downtown,  the Lloyd Dis-
 trict has seen  more than $790 million  worth of de-
 velopment adjacent to its four MAX  stations.  MAX
 moderates the pressure of this wave of develop-
 ment on the Lloyd  District's parking  supply by pro-
 viding an alternative to automobile  use.  Included
 in this development is Oregon's $85 million Conven-
 tion Center, a $200 million renovation and expan-
 sion of the Lloyd Center Shopping Mall, and a $262
 million  sports  arena that hosts the  Portland Trail-
 blazer basketball team.  Recognizing  the benefits
 of MAX, the Convention Center paid for one of the
 district's new MAX  stations.

 The Lloyd District's development is not limited to
 large scale projects.  Ashford Pacific,  a developer
 new to the Portland area, saw opportunity in this
 region of the city and purchased 70 acres of land,
 all within close proximity to MAX stations.  In con-
 junction with  Liberty  Mutual Northwest, Ashford
 Pacific developed Liberty Centre, a  $40 million of-
 fice building located across the street from  the Sev-
 enth Avenue MAX station.  This 350,000 square foot
 building is home to Liberty Mutual  Northwest, the
 headquarters of KinderCare as well as  a number of
 local firms.

 Source:  Tri-County Metropolitan  Transportation Dis-
 trict of Oregon, 1999.
   Cash-Out Programs
   Cashing out is another demand reduction practice
in which cash is provided to employees who do not
drive to work. These cash payments can be set at the
equivalent of the full cost of parking or some portion
thereof. Full cash equivalents typically range between
$36 and $165 per month (Shoup 1997a). The cost sav-
ings associated with cash-out programs depends on the
amount of the cash payments.  If the full cash equiva-
lent is provided,  this  demand reduction program does
not reduce the total costs of providing parking. How-
ever, employees may accept cash payments lower than
the full cash equivalent in exchange for not having on-
site parking.  If partial cash payments are used, em-
ployers face lower cash-out costs and employees still
benefit.

   In any case, cash-out programs provide significant
environmental, social, and broader economic benefits.
For example, in response to California's 1992 manda-
tory cash-out requirement, eight firms reported an av-
erage 17 percent reduction in the total number of solo
drivers (Shoup 1997a). Another benefit of cash-out pro-
grams is a reduction in traffic congestion, and associ-
ated pollution.


   Transit   Improvements

   Local government officials can also improve public
transit to decrease auto  dependence and associated
parking needs. Improvements to consider include new
transit modes, such as light rail, expanded transit ser-
vice hours, increased bus lines, and revitalized transit
stations. Portland, Oregon's MAX light rail system ex-
emplifies the widespread benefits of transit improve-
ments. The light rail system encourages transit-oriented
development, decreases  automobile commuting, and
eases demand for parking. In fact, the light rail im-
provements eliminated  the need for six downtown
parking towers (U.S.  EPA 1998). These improvements
are also partially responsible for $1.3 billion in new
development in Portland over the last 10 years.


   Pedestrian and  Bicycle Amenities

   Demand for parking can be reduced by providing
pedestrian and bicycle amenities that make it easier and
22

-------
                                    .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
more pleasant for people to walk or bicycle rather than
drive. These amenities and design changes can alleviate
traffic congestion.  In particular, improving the
walkability and pedestrian orientation of employment
centers can address the increasingly common "drive to
lunch" syndrome. For example, the auto-orientation of
Tyson's Corner, Virginia has resulted in terrible traffic at
lunch time because people cannot walk to eating estab-
lishments or to do errands.

   These low cost amenities can be as simple as provid-
ing bicycle racks and walkways. For example, officials
in Schaumburg, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, have in-
corporated provisions for bicycle use directly into their
zoning ordinance to encourage use of nonauto transport
modes. The ordinance requires all retail centers to have
a minimum of 10 bicycle spaces located at each main
building entrance. To increase awareness, the ordinance
requires that bike racks be located in a place where they
are highly visible; to promote safe bicycle use, the ordi-
nance requires bicycle parking areas to be separated from
automobile parking. Excerpts  from this zoning  ordi-
nance are included in the Appendix. (See Section 154.125
"Bicycle Parking Requirements.")  Providing shower and locker facilities
also encourages bicycling, roller blading, and walking to work.

   Promoting bicycle and pedestrian transport modes can also be accom-
plished through simple design changes, some of which can be implemented
at no cost. Instead of locating parking between the street and the buildings,
requiring pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate through parking lots, park-
ing should be set back behind buildings.  The Downtown Master Plan for
Kendall, Florida (Miami-Dade County), discusses several design concepts
to improve pedestrian and bicycle access.  Some of the key elements pro-
moted, but not required, by this program are listed in the text box above.
  Pedestrian  and  BicycSs Amenities
             Kendall, Florida

•  Bicycle/pedestrian  access via new sidewalks
   and pathways.
•  Trees and shrubs along edges facing streets
   and sidewalks.
•  Parking hidden in  the  rear or in parking ga-
   rages.
•  Shade and rain protection, such as colon-
   nades, arcades, marquees, second floor bal-
   conies, wide awnings, or tree canopies, for pe-
   destrians.
•  Buildings positioned along the sidewalks at a
   deliberate alignment, giving a designed shape
   to the public space.
•  Doors and windows spaced at close intervals
   to generate activity, direct views to merchan-
   dise, and make the walk sufficiently interest-
   ing.
•  Minimal number of vehicular entries to park-
   ing areas that can  diminish pedestrian mobil-
   ity and erode  space.

Source: Downtown Master Plan for Kendall,
Florida, 1998.
   Vehicle Trip Reduction Programs
   Another direct form of demand reduction involves instituting vehicle
trip reduction programs.  Vehicle trip reduction programs combine several
types of demand reduction components to meet explicit vehicle trip reduc-
tion goals. Thus, instead of capping the number of parking spaces, local
officials limit the number of vehicle miles traveled in a particular region.
These types of programs  attempt to decrease the number of trips by single
occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and increase the use of a variety of commuting
alternatives, including transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling.
                                                                                             23

-------
                           To increase the effectiveness of vehicle trip reduction programs, cities or em-
                        ployers can incorporate an assortment of complementary program elements to
                        encourage nonauto and non-SOV transport.  The following are some examples:

                           • "Guaranteed ride home" services that allow employees who use public
                              transit to get a free ride home (e.g., via taxi) if they miss their bus or if
                              they need to stay at work late.

                           • Company fleet cars that can be used for running errands during the
                              workday (e.g., doctor appointments).

                           • Preferential and/or reserved parking for vanpools/carpools.

                           • Carpooling and/or vanpooling with ride matching service.  Ride match-
                              ing can facilitate the identification of people who live close to one an-
                              other.  This service can be accomplished by providing "ride boards" or
                              by using an employee transportation coordinator.

                           • Cellular phones for car and vanpooling to facilitate timing of pick-ups.
                           Vehieie Trip Reduction At Genetics institute

 In order to meet  the goals of the Massachusetts' State Implementation  Plan, Cambridge,  Massachusetts instituted a
 Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance in 1992 to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the city and to control automobile-related
 air pollution.   Cambridge also implemented a  Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance to complement
 state legislation. The goal  of the  TDM ordinance  is to improve mobility and increase accessibility, while reducing con-
 gestion and air pollution.  The TDM ordinance requires that proposals for building  permits include a TDM plan.  The TDM
 plan  is reviewed  by the city in conjunction with other components of the development plan.  In  planning a TDM,
 developers must  consider the impact of their development on transportation  patterns.

 To ensure that TDM plans are effective, employers must set  goals to reduce the number of employees commuting in
 single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) relative to a baseline for the local area, and measure progress toward these goals using
 annual, employer-managed surveys.  The City of  Cambridge also makes employers aware of 1998 Transportation Effi-
 ciency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which allows employees who commute by public transit or vanpool to deduct
 the cost of their commute from their taxable income. This legislation also allows businesses to provide tax-free transit
 subsidies.

 Founded in 1980,  Genetics Institute (Gl) occupies  two Massachusetts offices, one in Andover and one in Cambridge. As
 a corporate policy, Gl independently designs TDM plans for its properties  and was one of the founding members of the
 Alewife Transportation Management Association, an organization committed to improving access to, and ease  of,
 public transit  and  encouraging alternative modes of commuter  transportation.   As part of its Cambridge TDM, Gl has a
 goal of keeping single occupancy  vehicle use to less than 59 percent.

 Located within walking distance of a subway station and in close proximity to a paved bicycle path, Gl provides fully
 subsidized public transit passes for all of its employees; enclosed, locked bicycle storage; and shower facilities. The
 company also offers a cafeteria,  grocery service, exercise facilities, guaranteed ride home program, and  an hourly
 shuttle  between the two Massachusetts sites. These amenities afford all 704 of Gl's Cambridge employees the opportu-
 nity to  shop,  eat, and exercise at work.   The total annual cost for these transportation management programs is
 approximately $184,000.  The company's transportation management has been effective,  boasting  a low 56 percent
 SOV mode split,  with over one quarter of  Gl's Cambridge employees commuting  by public transportation.

 In 1986, Gl acquired additional land for its Cambridge site.  With this land, the company plans to add  a 246,000 square
 feet research  and development facility to its existing 500,000 square feet office and  laboratory  space.  Gl  expects to
 employ about  430 people at  the new facility.  In its parking transportation demand management agreement,  Gl agreed
 to construct no less than one space per 800  square feet of occupancy (307 spaces) and  no more than one  space per 400
 square  feet (615 spaces).   Gl ultimately constructed only  350 parking spaces, resulting in a parking ratio of 1.42 spaces
 per  1,000 square  feet of space or 0.81 spaces per employee.  The total  cost for the additional structured and surface
 parking will be approximately  $1.2  million  in construction costs,  $1,000 to $2,000 for each of the 290 surface spaces, and
 $10,000 to $14,000 for each of the 60 structured spaces.  By constructing 265 fewer spaces than their  maximum require-
 ment would permit, and assuming a weighted average cost per space of $3,429, Gl saved approximately $900,000 in
 parking construction costs.
24

-------
       his final section of the guide presents three case studies of develop-
       ment projects located in metropolitan areas that have benefited from
       innovative parking alternatives:

   • Reduced parking requirements at The Shoppes of Wilton Manors,
     Wilton Manors, Florida;

   • Transportation management measures at SAFECO Insurance Com-
     pany Expansion, Redmond, Washington; and

   • Shared parking and in-lieu fees at The D'Orsay Hotel, Long Beach,
     California.
   In the case studies, parking alternatives are evaluated in terms of their
impacts on parking costs and development decisions; the environmental
impacts of resulting transportation mode shifts; the economic, fiscal, and
social benefits of the  alternatives; and the opportunity cost of providing
parking.
   While some of the innovative alternatives described in the cases are de-
signed to address an entire municipality, others are tar-
geted at specific developments. Often, the goal of these
alternatives is environmental—reducing automobile use
and improving air quality.  Other times, the alternative is
economically motivated—lowering project costs and en-
couraging urban development.

   In these case studies, both the planners and develop-
ers recognized the advantages of alternative parking  re-
quirements, and the alternative parking requirements low-
ered the total cost of the development.  For the Wilton
Manors and D'Orsay Hotel cases, the lowered cost associ-
ated with parking alternatives was a key element of project
feasibility. In all cases, parking alternatives also provided
environmental benefits.  SAFECO's transportation man-
agement measures and development design limit air emis-
sions associated with automobile commuting and protect
water quality by preserving permeable surfaces that ab-
sorb rainfall and prevent polluted runoff.  Parking alter-
natives used for The Shoppes of Wilton Manors and
D'Orsay Hotel developments facilitated these infill
projects, thus preventing additional sprawl and the asso-
ciated air and water quality impacts.
                                                                                          25

-------
                    Making Way for U^
                            Southeast Florida, comprising Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Coun-
                          ties, is one of the fastest growing regions of the United States. In 1960, the
                          population of the region was 1.5 million people; in 1990, the population
                          reached 4.1 million. Projections for 2015 suggest that the population will
                          reach 6.2 million people, an increase of over 50 percent from 1990.

                            With the growing population and increasing development, fragile eco-
                          systems are being lost and water supplies threatened. This area epitomizes
                          the negative aspects of sprawl, and there is a desire to reverse the trend by
                          revitalizing the inner core areas and promoting "smart growth" develop-
                          ment which is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. Re-
                          ducing parking requirements to reduce the amount of impervious surface
                          and encourage urban infill and brownfields redevelopment is one element
                          of southeast Florida's move toward smart growth and development.

                            In the City  of Wilton Manors, located in Broward County, parking re-
                          ductions were partly responsible for enabling a financially deteriorating
                          neighborhood shopping center to be redeveloped into a successful mixed-
                          use development, featuring restaurants, art galleries, and other entertain-
                          ment uses, as well as professional offices. At its peak in the 1960s, the shop-
                          ping center housed a Grand Union Supermarket, a bank, a fast food restau-
                          rant, and many other stores.  In the 1990s, the shopping center lost several
                          businesses, reducing the tenant occupancy rate to 30 percent.

                            To accommodate redevelopment of the property and revitalize the area,
                          the city teamed with a private development company, Redevco, creating a
                          public-private partnership to transform the shopping center. Because a host
                          of "big box" retail stores had recently located in nearby outlying areas, this
                          property could not support additional retail stores.  Instead, the city and
                          Redevco identified an untapped market niche—entertainment, cultural at-
                          tractions, and restaurants. To enable these uses, the city created a new zon-
                          ing overlay district that not only changed zoning requirements to allow for
                          arts and entertainment uses, but also exempted the developer from stan-
                          dard parking requirements by allowing for shared parking in planned off-
                          site  public parking structures.  The new zoning district also allowed for
                          outside cafes and seating to make the restaurants more inviting and attrac-
                          tive.
                            Under the city's generic parking requirements, art and entertainment
                          uses would have required 390 new parking spaces, in addition to the exist-
                          ing spaces at the site required for previous retail use. Construction of the
                          additional 390 parking spaces would have cost approximately $1.9 million
26

-------
________^


and would have also necessitated demolition of existing buildings, further
increasing redevelopment costs (by approximately $30,000) and reducing
rental income.5 Reducing the parking requirements and allowing for shared
parking reduced development costs enough to make the redevelopment
financially feasible for the developer.

   The Shoppes of Wilton Manors now boast full occupancy, and rental
rates of $32 per square foot (up from $8 per square foot). These two comple-
mentary factors—increased occupancy and increased rental rates — account
for an increase in total annual rental income of $26 million, from $2 mil-
lion to $28 million, 12 times its former rental income.

Environmental   Benefits
   While this redevelopment with parking reductions has not caused a
change in transport mode splits (more people are driving to the Shoppes of
Wilton Manor because of its increased attractiveness and desirable restau-
rants and arts and entertainment facilities), the project provides other envi-
ronmental benefits. By revitalizing an existing development and spurring
additional redevelopment in the area  (see below), the parking reductions
played a part in preventing further sprawl and greenfields development.
In Southeast Florida, curbing sprawl is especially important because of the
sensitive ecosystem west of the area—the Florida Everglades.  As noted in
a December 1998 report prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning
Council, most of the current developments in the region are located on land
that was once part of the Everglades  system. In addition, as part of the
development agreement,  80 percent of the trees along Wilton Drive were
preserved; without the new zoning overlay district, this street would have
been widened, requiring that trees be razed.
   In addition to the financial success of the project and the related envi-
ronmental benefits, the revitalization of the Shoppes of Wilton Manors has
provided economic, fiscal, and social benefits to the community.

   • Economic benefits. The project has stimulated adjacent economic
     development. An office building next door that was vacant for 18
     months now houses a law firm with 100 employees, many of whom
     frequent the restaurants and entertainment facilities at the Shoppes
     of Wilton Manors. Property values in the surrounding area are
     also improving; rental rates have almost doubled, increasing from
     $6 per square foot to rates of between $11 and $14 per square foot
     of leased space.
   5 The building demolition would have also slightly reduced the additional parking re-
quirements, but not by enough to make the development financially feasible.
                                                                                          27

-------
Making Way for U^
           Fiscal benefits.  The increased property value of the Shoppes of
           Wilton Manors—increasing by more than 10 times the initial value,
           from $226,000 to over $3.3 million-will add an estimated $80,000
           to the city in property tax revenues. In addition, the other private
           investments along Wilton Drive have resulted in a 10 percent in-
           crease in city-wide property tax revenues.

           Other social benefits. The project has contributed aesthetic im-
           provements and a safer, more pedestrian-friendly community en-
           vironment. Storefront and landscaping improvements make the
           area more attractive. There has been a reduction in criminal activ-
           ity due to the increased activity and vibrancy  of the  area.  The
           pedestrian flavor of the town center is enhanced as a result of im-
           proved site access. All of these benefits contribute to an improved
           quality of life for local residents and business people.
        Some of the key elements related to the success of the Wilton Manors
      revitalization effort include the following:

        •  The developer's and the city's willingness and commitment to
           work together. According to Redevco Executive Vice President,
           Debra Sinkle, the project was successful because of the public/
           private partnership between the city and Redevco. The city's flex-
           ibility with regard to zoning requirements and its commitment to
           the project created the confidence necessary for the investment of
           private dollars into the project.

        •  The city's flexibility in reducing parking requirements to support
           different redevelopment uses that would otherwise require more
           parking than the original use.

        •  Substantial cost savings resulting from parking reductions, mak-
           ing the redevelopment financially feasible.

-------
                                   .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
Excerpts  From Ordinance  Z-195; EstabSishrsfeni of  an Arts  and
             Entertainment Special Overlay  District
                        Wilton Manors, Florida

Purpose and  Intent

The purpose of the Wilton Drive Arts and Entertainment Overlay District is
to create the opportunity for, and to encourage the development of, new
mixed-use  development  providing entertainment,  cultural  facilities, res-
taurants, shopping and professional offices within the Wilton Drive Central
Business District.
The  parking regulations are intended to promote the location of restau-
rants, entertainment facilities  and other intense uses by exempting  the
properties within the  district from the  off-street parking requirements ...
and  providing standards for parking  within the district [shared  parking
provision].
Exemptions  from  Parking Requirements:

A.    Exemptions from Parking Requirements

    1.  Restaurant or other establishment for consumption of food or bev-
       erages on the premises:  One space per two hundred (200) square
       feet of floor area in rooms or spaces for customer service.
    2.  Auditorium, theater, gymnasium, stadium, area, or convention hall:
       One space per three hundred (300) square feet of floor area.
    3.  Amusement place, dance hall, skating rink, or exhibition hall with-
       out fixed seats: One space per two  hundred (200) square feet of
       floor area.
    4.  Retail store, personal service establishment and banks:  One space
       per three hundred (300) square feet of floor area.

B.  On-Street  parking  to count toward parking  requirements

    On-street parking immediately adjacent to a lot on which the  business
    is located  shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirement of that
    lot.

C.  Valet Parking

    Valet parking and the  stacking of vehicles shall be permitted...

D.    Joint use and off-site facilities to count toward  parking requirements

    Joint use  and off-site facilities [for parking]  shall  be permitted ...

Source: City of Wilton Manors,  Ordinance No. Z-195.
                                                                                               29

-------
                 ;  Making Way for

       Maximum Parking  Limits
          Redmond, Washington
The City of Redmond instituted maximum parking
limits in the early 1990s to manage growth and traf-
fic.  These requirements limit the total number of
parking spaces that can be developed by land use.
For example, general commercial land uses are lim-
ited to five spaces per 1,000 square feet of  gross
floor area (GFA), and business parks are confined
to three spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA.
   The State of Washington's Commute Trip Reduction Law (CTR) was
passed in 1991 with goals of improving air quality and mitigating traffic
congestion. This transportation demand management measure targets the
state's largest counties (those with populations greater than 150,000 people),
requiring employers with more than 100 employees to implement programs
to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips to and from work. Through
the state's CTR, employers monitor commuter mode splits by administer-
ing employee surveys, which are written and processed by Washington
state. The CTR established a goal of a 35 percent reduction in trips by 2005
compared to 1993 levels.

                     SAFECO Insurance Company of America, Redmond
                  Campus, located in King County, one of the nine Wash-
                  ington counties affected by the CTR, has responded to
                  the CTR by implementing transportation management
                  measures as part of its Transportation Management
                  Plan (TMP). These measures consist of employee tran-
                  sit passes, special reserve parking for high occupancy
                  vehicles (HOV), ride matching, vanpooling, and guar-
                  anteed ride home services. Provision of these services
                  has allowed SAFECO to reduce its parking require-
                  ments for its recent expansion project below the City
                  of Redmond's maximum levels.
   SAFECO is currently undertaking a large-scale construction project to
accommodate anticipated growth at its corporate headquarters in Redmond,
adding three additional buildings (385,000 square feet of office space) and
three parking structures (843 parking spaces) for the new office space. To
preserve the attractive park-like setting of the 48-acre campus and to main-
tain a pedestrian-friendly environment, SAFECO chose to construct all three
parking structures underground. These subterranean spaces, while expen-
sive to construct at $18,000 per parking space, will preserve  greenspace
and make it easier to  walk around the business park campus. The City of
Redmond has maximum parking limits that would allow SAFECO to con-
struct 1,155 spaces. Instead, SAFECO built 843 spaces, resulting in a park-
ing ratio of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the new office space. This
amounts to a savings, relative to the maximum limits, of 312 parking spaces.
Reducing the total number of spaces allowed SAFECO to mitigate the high
cost of underground parking.
                                               Financial
                            While these parking reductions were not implemented as cost-cutting
                         measures, the gross cost savings associated with the parking reductions

-------
                                    .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
(relative to the maximum limits) amount to $5.6 million
in parking construction costs, or about $491,000 annu-
ally.6 SAFECO's exemplary transportation management
program (TMP) reduced parking demand and allowed
the company to build fewer parking spaces. Thus, a
portion of SAFECO's expenditures on its TMP repre-
sents the indirect cost of the parking reductions and re-
sulting savings. The total cost of SAFECO's TMP at its
Redmond campus is approximately $261,000 per year,
including $75,400 for transit subsidies.
   When both the full cost of transportation demand
management at the Redmond campus and the savings
from parking reductions are considered, SAFECO's net
savings from parking reductions are $230,000 annually. Given that SAFECO
would have incurred some of the costs of transportation demand manage-
ment at its Redmond campus regardless of the parking reductions, the net
savings actually exceed $230,000.  SAFECO's decision to increase the den-
sity of its existing property, rather than move to another (likely ex-urban)
location, also avoided the cost of procuring additional land.
         King County, Washington

King County is Washington's most populous county
(almost 2 million  residents) and includes the cities
of Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, and  Redmond.  The
county's transit agency, King Country Metro (Metro),
serves a total of  75 million riders annually. The
agency operates bus service throughout the county
and runs the largest vanpool in the United States,
transporting 5,000 commuters each day.  Metro also
works closely with employers, cities,  and  institu-
tions to provide supportive services that  encour-
age alternatives to automobile transport including
transit passes, guaranteed ride home, ride match-
ing, and  commuter bonus programs.
   Under their TMP, SAFECO agrees to maintain an SOV rate at or below
60 percent. Since 1997, SAFECO has kept its total number of SOV trips to
between 57 and 59 percent of total commute trips relative to the overall
transport mode split for East King County of 81.4 percent SOV commuting
and 13.4 percent carpooling.7 Rather than drive alone, 15 percent of SAFECO
employees carpool, 12.5 percent use vanpool services, 8 percent use public
transit, and the remaining 7 percent bicycle, walk, or telecommute. The
company also maintains information on commuter vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). On average, SAFECO employees travel between 6.5 and 7 miles
one way. Thus, by maintaining an average 58 percent SOV rate for its 1,700
employees, SAFECO averts as many as 4,635 VMT each day, or about 1.2
million miles each year. These VMT figures assume two people per carpool
and four people per vanpool. Thus, if the carpools or vanpools transport a
greater number of passengers, this reduction in VMT would be greater.

   • Air Quality Benefits: The environmental benefits associated with
     this reduction in automobile commute miles are significant. By
     avoiding almost 1.2 million miles of automobile travel, approxi-
     mately 27.56 tons of carbon monoxide, 3.85 tons of nitrogen ox-
   6 This annual amount is only associated with construction costs. Annual amount as-
sumes constant payments, an interest rate of 7.25 percent, and a 25-year payment period
(per discussion with SAFECO transportation manager).

   7 Washington State Department of Transportation, 1993.
                                                                                             31

-------

                                ides, and 2.20 tons of hydrocarbons associated with commuting
                                are averted each year.8
                                Water Quality Benefits: Another significant, yet less quantifiable,
                                environmental benefit of reduced parking is the preservation of
                                pervious surfaces to absorb rainfall and prevent polluted runoff.
                                Increasing the amount of impervious areas through paving can
                                alter the area's hydrologic system and cause runoff mixed with oil
                                and other contaminants to pollute receiving streams, rivers, lakes
                                and estuaries. With approximately 40 inches of precipitation each
                                year and many fishable streams, the King County ecosystem is
                                especially susceptible to polluted runoff. An additional 312 park-
                                ing spaces in aboveground lots account for approximately 100,000
                                square feet of impervious surfaces.
                             Several key factors contributed to the success of SAFECO's Vehicle Trip
                          Reduction Program. These include:

                             •  The  City of Redmond's flexibility and cooperation in allowing
                                SAFECO to increase density on the existing property.
                             •  SAFECO's environmentally responsible corporate ethic of reduc-
                                ing parking below the maximum limits and maintaining its loca-
                                tion in Redmond, thus preventing additional sprawl in the area.

                             •  Available bus service to the area. Frequent and reliable public tran-
                                sit through King County Metro enables SAFECO employees to use
                                alternative modes of transportation even when commuting from
                                other towns in the county.
                             •  SAFECO did not require outside financing. SAFECO's transpor-
                                tation management director believes that had they required out-
                                side funding, lenders might  have resisted  making loans unless
                                more parking was provided in the development plan.
                             8 We use average emissions factors from EPA's Office of Mobile Sources' Compilation of
                          Air Pollution Emissions Factors, Volume II: Mobile Sources: (AP-42).  The AP-42 provides the
                          following emissions factors: 21.05 grams of carbon monoxide emitted per VMT, 2.97 grams
                          of nitrogen oxides emitted per VMT, and 1.71 grams of hydrocarbons emitted per VMT.
32

-------
                                  .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
   The City of Long Beach, California recognizes that parking is expensive
and consumes valuable land. In its Downtown Parking Management Plan,
the city's redevelopment agency promotes small- and large-scale urban
development by allowing for shared parking and in-lieu parking fees. The
types of development projects eligible for these parking alternatives cover
non-residential new construction on lots less than 22,500 square feet, addi-
tions or rehabilitation to existing buildings, and renewal of historic land-
mark buildings.
   Long Beach's Downtown Management Plan has proven effective in en-
couraging redevelopment.  The four-star D'Orsay Hotel, which was pro-
posed to the city in 1998, provides an example of  how cities can facilitate
redevelopment with parking reductions. The proposed D'Orsay Hotel in-
cludes a 162-room boutique hotel with 35,000 square feet of retail space.
The property, located on a three block pedestrian  walkway in downtown
Long Beach, was used for office space until the late 1980s when the build-
ings were deemed unsafe and demolished. In recent years, the property
was used as a surface parking lot. Other development proposals for this
property had been made to the city, but fell through in part due to the fi-
nancial burden imposed by the city's minimum parking requirements.
   For the D'Orsay Hotel proposal, Long Beach's minimum parking require-
ments would have required the developer to  construct one parking space
per hotel room, and four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
(GFA) of retail space, totaling 302 spaces. With construction costs of $16,000
per parking space, the parking costs would have totaled $4.83 million, mak-
ing the project financially infeasible.
   After conducting a traffic study to assess parking demand at other Long
Beach downtown hotels, the city's planning department determined that
this mixed-use hotel/retail development did not
require  the minimum number of parking spaces
and modified the requirements to three spaces per
1,000 square feet of retail space, and 113 spaces for
the 162 hotel rooms. The Downtown Management
Plan allowed for the reduction of the parking re-
quirements for the retail space and the hotel's va-
let parking system allowed for the reduction of
parking requirements for the hotel space. Thus, the
revised total number of spaces required was 218
spaces, 84 fewer than would otherwise be required.
   Even with the reduction of 84 parking spaces,
the developer determined that the project was fi-
nancially infeasible given the high cost of under-
                                                                                         33

-------

                          ground parking. At about $16,000 per space in construction costs, parking
                          for this project, even with the revised requirements, totaled $3.49 million.
                            Upholding its mission to encourage urban revitalization, the City of Long
                          Beach Redevelopment Bureau agreed to adjust the parking requirements
                          for this mixed-use project in the form of in-lieu fees for parking. The city
                          allowed the developer to pay in-lieu fees for 56 of the 218 required parking
                          spaces. The in-lieu fee was $3,000 per parking space plus an additional $50
                          per space per month to cover parking operating and maintenance expendi-
                          tures.

                          Cost Savings and Financial Feasibility
                            As shown in the table below, the revised parking requirements decreased
                          the developer's parking construction costs by $1.34 million relative to the
                          generic requirements. With additional savings of $730,000 from the in-lieu
                          fee arrangement included, the total parking cost savings to the developer
                          totaled over $2 million, enough to make the project financially feasible.
                          These cost savings significantly improved  the projected financial net re-
                          turns for the proposed project, and facilitated revitalization of the surround-
                          ing area. The Long Beach Redevelopment Bureau reports that ground should
                          be broken by the end of 1999 for an opening date in the beginning of 2001.
                          Environmentai   !
                            The hotel development is expected to encourage pedestrian traffic in the
                          area, rather than cause additional automobile travel. In addition, the infill
                          redevelopment of the D'Orsay Hotel property may have averted a greenfield
                          development. These types of urban infill projects reduce additional sprawl
                          in California, a state already plagued with an overload of cars, highways,
                          and sprawl development.
Mod if i



Generic Requirements
Retail

Hotel
Total
Revised Requirements
Retail

Hotel
Total
Revised Requirements
Retail & Hotel On-S ite
Retai 1 & Hotel Off-S ite
Total
(With In-Lieu Fees)
ed Parking Re


Req u i rement

4 spaces/1 ,000
square feet GFA
1 space/room
-

3 spaces/1 ,000
square feet GFA
0.70 spaces/room
-
and In-Lieu Fees
N/A
N/A
--

quirements
Gross Floor
Area
(GFA)

35,000
square feet
162 rooms
-

35,000
square feet
162 rooms
-

N/A
N/A
--

for the D '
# of
Spaces
Requ ired

1 40

1 62
302

1 05

1 1 3
21 8

1 62
56
218

Orsay Hotel

Cost per
Space

$1 6,000

$1 6,000


$1 6,000

$16,000


$1 6,000
$3,000



Total
Cost
(millions)

$2.24

$2.59
$4.83

$1 .68

$1.81
$3.49

$2.59
$0.1 68
$2.76

34

-------
                                .i  Making Way for ^^
   Economic Benefits. The D'Orsay Hotel promises to provide eco-
   nomic benefits to downtown Long Beach by attracting additional
   pedestrian traffic. Specifically, the D'Orsay will help existing busi-
   nesses that are struggling to stay in the area, and will likely pro-
   mote additional redevelopment projects.
   Fiscal Benefits. The D'Orsay Hotel is expected to generate approxi-
   mately $300,000 annually in additional property tax revenues for
   the city.9  Because this property is located  in an economically
   troubled area qualified to receive special assistance as a "Califor-
   nia Redevelopment Project Area," the property tax revenue gener-
   ated from the project will be directed back into the area for further
   redevelopment and infrastructure improvements. In addition, the
   state will receive revenues from California's 8.25 percent sales tax
   and the city will receive revenues from the 10 percent hotel tax.
   Other social benefits. The D'Orsay Hotel will provide social ben-
   efits to the residents of Long Beach by promoting an active and
   pedestrian friendly downtown with multiple amenities. By re-
   ducing the minimum parking requirements, the Long Beach Re-
   development Bureau reduced the development's need for sur-
   rounding land. In addition, historic buildings were preserved that
   may otherwise have been demolished to provide space for con-
   structing parking at the city's minimum levels.
This successful redevelopment was made possible for several reasons:
•  The City of Long Beach's flexibility and recognition that parking
   is expensive and consumes valuable land. This enabled the devel-
   oper to negotiate reduced parking requirements and in-lieu fees
   that made the project feasible.
•  Combining two different types of innovative parking requirements
   (shared parking and in-lieu fees). This was necessary to make the
   development project financially feasible.
•  Conducting a development-specific traffic study to estimate the
   number of parking spaces needed for development. The study of
   other downtown Long Beach hotels showed that applying the city's
   parking standards would have resulted in an excess supply of park-
   ing at the D'Orsay Hotel.
9 At the property tax rate of one percent on the project's incremental value of $30 million.
                                                                                        35

-------
                         Barton-Aschman Associates. 1983. Shared Parking. Washington, DC: the
                                Urban Land Institute.

                         Bergman, David, editor. 1991.  Off-Street Parking Requirements: ANational
                                Review of Standards. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Associa-
                                tion.

                         Boulder Community Network.  July 16,1999. "CAGID Transportation Sur-
                                vey."  http://bcn.boulder.co.us /gettingthere/cagidsurvey/
                                cagidsurvey.html.

                         Boulder Community Network. July 16,1999. "Downtown Boulder Em-
                                ployees' Transportation Discount Card."  http://bcn.boulder.co.us
                                / gettingthere/ discount/ index.html.

                         Burchell, Robert W., Listokin, David, Dolphin, William R., et. al. 1994. De-
                                velopment Impact Assessment Handbook. Washington, D.C.: The Ur-
                                ban Land Institute.
                         Center for Livable Communities. 1998. Policymaker's Guide to Transit-Ori-
                                ented Development.
                         Chattanooga News Bureau. July 16,1999. "Chattanooga's Electric Bus Ini-
                                tiative." http://virtual.chattanooga.net/etvi/bus.html.

                         City of Boulder, Colorado, Public Works Department. July 13,1999. "Go
                                Boulder General Programs."  http://go.boulder.co.us/pubs/
                                publications_menu.html.

                         City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1999.  Cambridge Municipal Code,
                                Chapter 10.

                         City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1992. Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance.

                         City of Coral Gables.  1998. Coral Gables Zoning Code,  Article 13: Off-
                                Street Parking and Loading.

                         City of Long Beach, Long Beach Redevelopment Agency.  December 16,
                                1993. Downtown Parking Management Plan.

                         City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. May 1999. Title 33: Planning and
                                Zoning Code, Chapter 33.510, Part Two.
                         City of Olympia Public Works Department  and the Washington State De-
                                partment of Ecology. May 1995. Impervious Surface Reduction Study:
                                Final Report.

                         City of West Palm Beach and West Palm Beach Community Redevelop-
                                ment Agency.  December 4,1995. Downtown Master Plan for the
                                City of West Palm Beach.
36

-------
                                  .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
City of Wilton Manors. February 1997. Ordinance No. Z-195.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Transportation and
      Construction. July 25,1992. "Boston and Cambridge Parking Freeze
      Estimates of "Effects of Change." Memorandum prepared by Daniel
      Beagan and Sonia Hamel.

Commuter Challenge. April 29,1999. "SAFECO Insurance Companies,
      Redmond  Campus." http://www.commuterchallenge.org/cc/
      profiles.html.

Commuter Challenge. April 4,1999. "Managing Transportation Demand:
      Benefits for Business." http://www.commuterchallenge.org/cc/
      benefits.html.

Comsis Corporation. January 1994.  Overview of Travel Demand Management
      Measures: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Ad-
      ministration and the Federal Transit Administration.
Downtown Circulation Advisory Group, Seattle, Washington.  November
      1998. Downtown Circulation Study. Recommendation to SEATRAN.
Edwards, John.  1994. The Parking Handbook for Small Communities. Wash-
      ington, D.C.: The National Trust for Historic Preservation and The
      Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Fish & Associates, Inc., K.T. Analytics, Inc., and Vlecides-Schroeder Associ-
      ates, Inc. April 1998. Opportunity Costs of Municipal Parking Require-
      ments: Final Report. Prepared for the Regional Transportation Au-
      thority.
Highland, Randy. March 1993. "The Cost Per Car of a Parking Garage:
      Seven Points an Owner Should Know When Building a Parking
      Structure." Skylines.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1987. Parking Generation, 2d ed. Wash-
      ington D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Keeling, Rod. March 1998. "The State of Downtown Parking Today." Park-
      ing Today.

Kodama, Michael R., Richard Willson, William Francis & Associates. June
      1996. Using Demand-Based Parking Strategies to Meet Community Goals.
      Prepared for the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Commit-
      tee.
Knight, Deborah.  November/December 1998. "Looking Backward: The
      New Urbanism Movement is Seeking to Restore the Center." Sanc-
      tuary: The Journal of the Massachusetts Audubon Society.
Local Government Commission. November 12,1998. "Transportation Part-
      ners." http://www.epa.gov/oppetptr/wtplgc.htm.
                                                                                         37

-------
                         Montgomery County, Maryland. November 1997.  Montgomery County
                                Code Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 59, Article 59-E.
                         National Parking Association & Parking Consultants Council. 1992. "Rec-
                                ommended Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Parking and Off-Street
                                Loading Spaces." National Parking Association Number 0502-92.

                         Northwest Environment Watch. December 9,1998. "The Car and the City:
                                Comparison of Portland,  Seattle and  Vancouver." http://
                                www.northwestwatch.org/ ccex.html.

                         Renew America. February 2,1999. "EPA's Transportation Partners: 1998
                                Way to GO Awards!"     http://solstice.crest.org/sustainable/
                                renew_america/wtgo98.html.

                         Timothy Rood, Calthorpe Associates. August 27,1999. "'Parking Alterna-
                                tives' Draft." Memorandum Prepared for Christina McAlpin, In-
                                dustrial Economics.
                         Shoup, Donald.  1998. "In-Lieu Parking Fees." Journal of Planning Educa-
                                tion and Research.
                         Shoup, Donald. 1997a.  "Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer-
                                Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies." Transport Policy 4(4): 201-216.
                         Shoup, Donald.  1997b. "The High Cost of Free Parking." Journal of Plan-
                                ning Education and Research 17: 3-20.
                         Shoup, Donald. Winter 1995. "An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Park-
                                ing Requirements." Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (1).
                         Smith, T.P.  1983. "Flexible Parking Requirements."  Planning Advisory
                                Service Report No. 377. Washington, D.C.: American Planning As-
                                sociation.

                         Smith, T.P. 1988. The Aesthetics of Parking. Planning Advisory Service Re-
                                port Number 411. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Associa-
                                tion.

                         Smith, Mary S. September 1996. "Circle Centre: How Parking Helped Make
                                Urban Retail/ Entertainment Development Work." Parking.
                         South Florida Regional Planning Council. September 1998. The Eastward
                                Ho! Newsletter.
                         South Florida Regional Planning Council. July 1996. Eastward Ho! Revital-
                                izing Southeast Florida's Urban Core.
                         South Florida Regional Planning Council. December 1998. Building on Suc-
                                cess-A Report from Eastward Ho!
                         South Florida Regional Planning Council. 1998. Downtown Kendall Master
                                Plan.
38

-------
                                  .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
Tracy, Joseph L.  October 1996. "What's Your Cost?" The Parking Profes-
       sional.
Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon. June 6,1999. "Beyond the
       Field of Dreams: Light Rail and Growth Management in Portland."
       http://www.tri-met.org/reports/dreams.htm.

Urban Land Institute. 1997. Market Profiles 1997: North America. Washing-
       ton D.C.: the Urban Land Institute.
Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association. 1993. The Di-
       mensions of Parking, 3d ed. Washington D.C.: the Urban Land Insti-
       tute.
Urban Land Institute. 1983. Shared Parking. Washington, D.C.: the Urban
       Land Institute.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. June 26,
       1999. "Examples  of Commuter  Choice Programs."   http://
       www.epa.gov/oms/transp/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1998. $mart Investments for
       City and County Managers: Energy, Environment, and Community De-
       velopment (EPA 231-R-98-004). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmen-
       tal Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. Compila-
       tion of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  Vol.  II: Mobile Sources: (AP-42).
       Washington, D.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Village of Schaumburg. 1998. Schaumburg Parking Ordinance, Chapter
       154.
Washington State Department of Ecology and City of Olympia, Public Works
       Department and Water Resources Program. May 1995. Impervious
       Surface Reduction Study: Final Report.
Washington State Department of Transportation, Commute Trip Reduc-
       tion Office.  May 5,1999.  Local Government Parking Policy and Com-
       mute Trip Reduction: 1999 Review.

Washington State Department of Transportation.  May 5,1999. "Transpor-
       tation Demand Management (TDM)."  http://wsdot.wa.gov/
       PubTran/ CTR.ctrweb/ sample/ tdm.htm.
Wilbur Smith & Associates, Inc. 1982.  Parking Requirements for Shopping
       Centers: Summary Recommendations and Research Study Report. Wash-
       ington, D.C.: the Urban Land Institute.
Willson, Richard W. Winter 1995. "Suburban Parking Requirements: A Tacit
       Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl." Journal of the American Plan-
       ning Association 61(1).

-------
40

-------
                                  .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
        s appendix provides examples of municipal zoning ordinances,
      urban master plans, and transportation programs that employ inno-
      vative alternatives to generic parking requirements. These examples
offer "real world" illustrations for some of the alternatives described in this
guidebook. Below, we list the cities with ordinances, plans, or programs
included in this appendix, along with the key elements of their approaches
to parking issues.  For each city, we only include excerpts from the ordi-
nances, plans, or programs that apply specifically to these key elements.

  Coral Gables, Florida
   Coral Gables Zoning Code (1998)
   •  Parking requirement reductions in the central business district
   •  Shared parking
  Schaumburg, Illinois

  Parking Ordinance (1998)
  •  Transportation demand management
  •  Bicycle amenities
  •  Reduced parking requirements if landbanking occurs
  West Palm Beach, Florida
  Downtown Master Plan (1995)
  •  Shared parking
  •  Centralized parking
  •  Improvements in pedestrian amenities
  •  Parking re-design

  Montgomery County, Maryland
   Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)
   •  Shared parking for mixed-use development
   •  Parking reductions for transit-oriented or central business district
      development
   •  Reduced parking  requirements for owners  that participate in
      ridesharing efforts
  Long Beach, California
  Downtown Parking Management Plan (1993)
  •  In-lieu parking fees to fund off-site, public parking
  Portland, Oregon
  Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code (1999)
  •  Maximum parking limits
                                                                                        41

-------
                       Making Way for

                             Section 13-5.

                             Commercial and Industrial Classification of Uses
                             and the Central Business District

                             (d) Central Business District

                                 1.   The central business district shall consist of all commercially zoned prop-
                                     erty bordered by Lejeune Road on the west, Douglas Road on the east,
                                     Navarre Avenue on the north, and Almeria Avenue on the south.

                                 2.   Any building used for other than residential purposes and located in the
                                     City of Coral Gables central business district, as herein defined, shall be
                                     exempted from the off-street parking requirements of Article XV  of this
                                     code, provided, however, that the Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of such build-
                                     ings shall not exceed 1.25.

                                 3.   New buildings containing a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of more than 1.25 and
                                     existing buildings being enlarged to contain a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of
                                     more than 1.25 shall provide off-street parking in accordance with  the re-
                                     quirements of Article XIII of this code.
                             Source: Coral Gables Zoning Code (1998)
42

-------
                                              .i   Making

Section 13-6.
Minimum Parking Requirements - By Use
               Coral Gables Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements - By Use

 Commercial Uses
 One p
      arking  space required per square feet of gros
                                                    s building area shown below:
100 sq.  ft.	200 sq. ft.	250 sq. ft
                                                         300 sq. ft.
                     350 sq.  ft.
                                                                                             400  sq. ft.
Business
Schools;
Trade
Schools;
Vocational
Schools
Beauty Shops;
Clinics; Medical
& Dental
outside the
Central
Business
District; Post
Office
                                    Animal
                                    Hospitals; Cat
                                    Beauty Shops;
                                    Civic Clubs;
                                    Clinics;  Medical
                                    & Dental in  the
                                    Central
                                    Business
                                    District;
                                    Community
                                    Centers; Dog
                                    Beauty Shops;
                                    Fraternal
                                    Buildings;
                                    Libraries; Lodge
                                    Buildings;
                                    Museums;
                                    Private Clubs;
                                    Union Halls;
                                    Veterinary
                                    Clinics
Banks; Business
& Profession
Offices outside
the Central
Business
District;Dry
Cleaners;
laundries;
Savings
Institutions;
S e If-se rv ice
Laundries
                                                                        Art Galleries;
                                                                        Artist Studios;
                                                                        Barber Shops;
                                                                        Business and
                                                                        Professional
                                                                        Offices in the
                                                                        Central
                                                                        Business
                                                                        District;Credit
                                                                        Unions; Finance
                                                                        Companies;
                                                                        Finance
                                                                        Institutions;
                                                                        Photographers;
                                                                        Photo Galleries;
                                                                        Retail Shops;
                                                                        Sales Shops;
                                                                        Travel
                                                                        Ag encies; Trust
                                                                        Companies
Blueprinting;
Cleaning
Plants; Dyeing
Plants;
Engraving
Plants;
Newspaper
Plants; Picture
Framing;
Photocopy;
Photostatic
Copying;
Photo
Developing &
Printing;
Printing
Plants; Repair
Shops (shoes,
clothing,
appliances,
etc.)
 One  and one-half  (1  1/2)  parking spaces required
 below:
                                                      per  square feet of gross  building floor  area shown
                     100 sq. ft.
                    200 sq. ft.
         Outside Central Business District
                                                                In the Central Business District
 Bars; Delicatessens; Beer Gardens; Lunch Counters;
 Cafes; Restaurants; Cafeterias; Taverns; Cocktail
 Lounges
Bars; Delicatessens; Beer Gardens; Lunch Counters;
Cafes; Restaurants; Cafeterias; Taverns; Cocktail
Lounges
 Mixed-Uses:  Off-street parking for mixed-uses shall  be provided  in accordance with Section  13-7  C.
 Central Business District:
 a)       For delineation of the Central Business District refer to Section 13-5 (d) 1.
 b)       Buildings not exceeding a F.A.R. of 1.25 located  within the Central Business District and  used for
         other than residential purposes are not required to provide off-street parking (Section 13-5).
 Off Street Loading: Off-street loading spaces shall  be  provided in accordance with Section 13-9.
Source: Coral Gables Zoning Code (1998)
                                                                                                                       43

-------

                             Section 13-14.

                             Shared Municipal Off-Street Parking

                                 Shared off-street parking shall be permitted to serve two or more individual
                             land uses at municipally owned or operated parking facilities for parking spaces
                             required under this Code for private uses in any C, M or S-Use District subject to
                             the following conditions and restrictions: (3316)
                             A)  A maximum of fifty (50) percent of the required number of parking spaces for
                                 one or more off-peak, nighttime or Sunday /holiday uses (activities) may be
                                 provided, up to a maximum percent of the municipal facility's available day-
                                 time parking capacity as determined in the application process.
                             B)  Unlimited additional parking for one or more off-peak, nighttime or Sunday/
                                 holiday uses (activities), in excess of that required by this Code, shall be per-
                                 mitted up to a maximum percent of the municipal facility's  available daytime
                                 parking capacity as determined in the application process.
                             C)  A recordable agreement for such shared use, in the form of a reciprocal ease-
                                 ment acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney shall be filed with the Zoning
                                 Administrator and recorded with the City Clerk. The City shall be named in
                                 that agreement as one of the parties with right of enforcement.

                             D)  An insurance policy must be obtained and furnished to the City to the satisfac-
                                 tion of the City Manager and City Attorney and such policy shall hold the City
                                 harmless from any and all claims or causes of action which may accrue as a
                                 result of use of premises or due to an incident or occurrence on the premises.
                             E)  A municipal off-street parking facility required for the purpose of complying
                                 with the provisions of this Code shall not  include off-street parking similarly
                                 required for another private use, unless the Parking, Planning, Public Works
                                 and Building and Zoning Directors have reviewed the application and deter-
                                 mined that the periods of peak usage of such uses will not be simultaneous or
                                 in conflict with each other.
                             F)  A site plan, landscape plan, lighting plan, circulation and traffic plan, peak use
                                 analysis and written description of the proposed use of shared facility shall be
                                 submitted by the applicant with each request for shared use approval for prop-
                                 erties operated but not owned by the City.  Only a peak use analysis and writ-
                                 ten description of the proposed use shall be required for parking facilities owned
                                 by the City.
                             G)  Shared required parking must commence within 1/4 mile of the building site.
                                 Additional parking, in excess of code requirements, shall not be subject to this
                                 distance requirement.

                             H)  All development orders or permits covering such approval shall include the
                                 requirement that the order or permit shall be valid only so long as the condi-
                                 tions described in the application or the permit exist.
                             Source: Coral Gables Zoning Code (1998)

44

-------
                                       .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
I)   Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the joint use of municipal
    off-street parking for two or more uses if the total of such spaces, when used
    together, will not be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the sum of the re-
    quirements of the various individual uses computed separately in accordance
    with the requirements of this Code.
J)   Shared use parking approval described in this section shall not be transferable
    in any manner.
K)  An agreement shall be executed by the parties as to the minimum maintenance
    requirements which shall be the sole responsibility of applicant and which fail-
    ure to maintain shall result in immediate revocation of the permit herein granted.
Source: Coral Gables Zoning Code (1998)

                                                                                                      45

-------
                       Making Way for U^
                             § 154.126 Adjustments to Required Parking

                             A)  Incentives for Development of Transportation Demand Management Programs.

                                 (1) Purpose.  Transportation demand management is a means of modifying
                                    travel and encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation in order
                                    to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. In the following
                                    cases, the Village Board may grant relief to the parking regulations through
                                    the variation procedure in specific cases without meeting the hardship re-
                                    quirements of § 154.45.

                                 (2) Shared Ride Programs. These programs decrease parking demand by in-
                                    creasing passengers per  vehicle.  Examples are employer sponsored
                                    vanpooling, carpooling and subscription bus service. For buildings or com-
                                    plexes of a minimum of 30,000 square feet gross floor area, a reduction of
                                    up to 20% of required parking may be allowed based on substantial projec-
                                    tions of reduction in demand.  However, in order to qualify, the petitioner
                                    must submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board that meets
                                    the minimum requirements as stipulated within the following programs.

                                 (3) Vanpooling or Subscription Bus Service.

                                    (a) The petitioner is participating or shall  participate in an approved
                                        carpooling program established under the provisions of § 154.126(A)(4)
                                        below and either;

                                        (i) Petitioner will obtain or lease to qualified employees vans, buses
                                           or other high passenger capacity vehicles, for the purpose of pro-
                                           viding transportation of additional passengers (vanpooling); and/
                                           or

                                        (ii) Petitioner will operate or hire vans, buses or other high passenger
                                           capacity vehicles to provide exclusive or non-exclusive commuter
                                           transportation of employees from residential areas, train stations,
                                           and/or other transit terminals.

                                    (b) In furtherance of the petition, the petitioner may show any other ac-
                                        tivities that will ease the creation of vanpools and carpools.  For ex-
                                        ample:
                             Source: Schaumburg Parking Ordinance (1998)

46

-------
                                       .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
           (i)  Petitioner will develop an alternative work schedule program that
               shall include staggered work starts and stops, flextime and/or com-
               pressed work weeks.

           (ii) Petitioner will provide adequate lunch facilities on the site.
           (iii) Petitioner will provide preferential parking.

               As part of his request for a variation, the petitioner shall show to
               the satisfaction of the Zoning Board that the actions proposed by
               the petitioner shall reduce the parking demand by the amount re-
               quested.
(4)  Carpooling Programs. A variation of up to 10% of required parking based on
    substantiated projections of reduction in demand may be granted for any build-
    ing or complex of 30,000 square feet of gross floor area which institutes or pro-
    poses to institute a carpooling program which meets the following minimum
    requirements:
    (a) Carpooling program must be a specific responsibility of a designated indi-
       vidual or department.
    (b) Program must provide an active matching service using manual or auto-
       mated matching  of addresses and providing employees with potential
       carpools (passive  matching alone such as bulletin boards is not acceptable).
    (c) Program must endeavor to register all existing and all new employees.

    (d) Program must actively promote carpooling to employees through newslet-
       ter, posters and other materials.
(5)  Public Transportation Programs. A reduction of required parking may be
    granted for any complex within one-quarter mile of any regularly scheduled
    bus route or commuter train station, with service available  during commuting
    hours, equal to the  substantiated projection of use of public transportation by
    employees of such complex.
(6)  Enforcement of Carpooling and Shared Ride Programs. Development plans,
    wherein parking is reduced for shared ride or carpooling programs, shall have
    an area designated where parking could be constructed equal to the number
    being reduced.  If the  programs are not being conducted as testified to the Zon-
    ing Board, the owner  must construct the parking required to meet the regula-
    tions of the village, during the next construction season. The petitioner, in ac-
    cepting a parking reduction, agrees to construct such additional parking  as
    would otherwise be required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, if
    the Village Board shall determine after hearing by the Zoning Board that the
    reasons for granting said reduction no longer exists.
Source: Schaumburg Parking Ordinance (1998)

                                                                                                     47

-------
                       Making Way for Ur^
                                 Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the employer(s) must verify that
                             such ridesharing plans, shown at the time the variation was granted, is being imple-
                             mented.  Such verification must include copies of any contracts, lease agreements,
                             purchase agreements and other documentation to show that such transportation
                             demand management has taken or is about to take place.
                                 Prior to the issuance of an annual business permit, the employer(s) shall sub-
                             mit a report evaluating its ridesharing program. Such report shall include the number
                             of participants involved, the percentage of participants to total work force, number
                             and types of vehicles used, and the percentage of parking spaces normally used by
                             employees.
                                 The commitments agreed to by the petitioner and recommended by the Zoning
                             Board and approved by the Village Board shall be applicable to all successors in
                             title and to all tenants. The petitioner shall record a covenant, the content and form
                             of which must be approved by the Director of Planning or his/her authorized des-
                             ignee, acting in the capacity of Zoning Administrator, which binds all successors in
                             title to the commitments approved and the petitioner shall include in  all leases a
                             clause, the content and form of which must be approved by the Director of Plan-
                             ning or his/her authorized designee, acting in capacity of Zoning Administrator,
                             which binds all tenants to this commitment made by the petitioner. (Ord. 163, passed
                             12-5-61; Am. Ord. 2124, passed 5-25-82; Am. Ord. 92-112, passed 10-13-92; Am. Ord.
                             95-62, passed 6-13-95; Am. Ord. 97-152, passed 12-9-97).
                             Source: Schaumburg Parking Ordinance (1998)

48

-------
                                       .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
§ 154.125 Bicycle Parking Requirements

(A) Required number of spaces. The following uses are required to install bicycle
    parking:

    (1) Retail Centers.
       Minimum of ten spaces to be located at each main building entrance(s).

    (2) Office and Professional Uses (sq. ft. gross floor area).
       0 - 49,999              One rack or five spaces
       50,000 - 99,999          Two racks or ten spaces
       100,000 or more        Four racks or 20 spaces

    (3) Restaurants.
       Type A (full service)    One rack or five spaces
       Type B (carry out)      One rack or five spaces
       Type C (full/carry out)  Two racks or ten spaces
    (4) Cultural, Recreational and Entertainment Uses.

       Health clubs; racquetball; handball and tennis clubs; swim clubs and pools;
       community centers; and similar uses as determined by the Director of Plan-
       ning.

       Minimum of 30 spaces.

    (5) Bowling alleys; skating rinks; movie theaters; similar uses as determined
       by the Director of Planning or his/her authorized designee.

       To be determined on a case by case basis by the Director of Planning or his/
       her authorized designee, acting in the capacity of Zoning Administrator.
(B) Location. Bike racks shall be located such that they are highly visible from the
    street and/or building entrance from where bicyclists approach. Bicycle park-
    ing areas shall be separated from motor vehicle parking areas.
(C) Design Criteria and Dimensions.

    (1) Bicycle racks must be capable of locking the bicycle and of supporting the
       bicycle in an upright position.

    (2) A hard surfaced parking area is required. Racks must be securely anchored
       to supporting surface.

    (3) Installation of bike racks shall conform with the requirements set forth by
       the bike rack manufacturer with a rectangular space no less than two  and
       one-half feet wide by six feet long per bicycle unless a locker or permanent
       device to stand the bicycle on end is provided.
Source: Schaumburg Parking Ordinance (1998)

                                                                                                      49

-------
                       Making Way  for U^
                                 (4) Bicycle rack shall be installed with adequate space beside the parked bi-
                                     cycle so that a bicyclist will be able to reach and operate the locking mecha-
                                     nism.

                              (D) Collective Provisions.  Off-street bicycle rack facilities for separate uses may
                                 be provided collectively if the total number of spaces provided collectively is
                                 not less than the sum of the separate requirements for each such use and pro-
                                 vided that all regulations governing location of accessory parking spaces in
                                 relation to the use served are adhered to. (Ord. 163, passed 12-5-61; Am. Ord.
                                 1992, passed 5-26-81; Am. Ord. 92-112, passed 10-13-92; Am. Ord. 95-62, passed
                                 6-13-95).
                             Source: Schaumburg Parking Ordinance (1998)

50

-------
                                        .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
§ 154.123 Schedule of Parking Requirements

       Use                                Required Spaces

(C) Retail Uses.           5.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. NFA for 0-1,000,000 sq. ft. NFA

                          4.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. NFA for 1,000,001 1,500,000 sq. ft
                          NFA
                          4.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. NFA for 1,500,001 or more sq. ft.
                          NFA per building

(D) Service Uses.

                          5.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. NFA for 0-1,000,000 sq. ft. NFA per
                          building

                          4.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. NFA for 1,000,001 1,500,000 sq. ft
                          NFA per building

                          4.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. NFA for 1,500,001 or more sq. ft.
                          NFA per building

Reductions in parking requirements may be granted for retail and service uses if
the difference between the above rate and the reduced rate is landbanked.10
Source: Schaumburg Parking Ordinance (1998)


   10 Landbanking allows reductions in minimum parking requirements for owners or de-
velopers who: 1) show that the minimum requirements exceed parking demand, 2) substi-
tute "green space" (i.e., land left undeveloped) for the avoided parking spaces, and 3) de-
velop the property so that additional parking could be constructed in the event of a parking
shortage.
                                                                                                       51

-------
                       Making Way for Ur^
                             2. Transportation Strategy
                             Parking
                                 A large portion of land area in Downtown West Palm Beach is devoted to park-
                             ing facilities, both surface lots and garages. When facing the street as they often do,
                             these interrupt the continuity of building frontage which makes a street pedestrian
                             friendly.
                                 Street-front parking lots and garages contribute in large measure to the percep-
                             tion that walking in the downtown area is unpleasant.  During the charrette, sev-
                             eral participants expressed surprise that distances between destinations were short,
                             and they mentioned that they often drive between Downtown destinations.  Im-
                             proving pedestrian continuity on Downtown streets would decrease short trip au-
                             tomobile use and iterative parking, increase transit viability, and ultimately require
                             less parking.
                                 The ultimate goal for parking in Downtown is a centrally managed system of
                             strategically located multiple parking facilities concealed behind habitable build-
                             ing facades facing streets.  The Master Plan recommends the following:
                                 1.   Institute a single system to manage parking Downtown as described be-
                                     low;
                                 2.   Modify off-street parking requirements to encourage  shared parking in a
                                     managed system, reducing ratios as follows:
                                     •  2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space;
                                     •  1 space per multi-family residential unit;
                                     •  2 spaces per single-family residential unit;
                                     •  none required for residential development on lots less than 55 feet wide;
                                     •  allow on-street parking to be included in parking requirements of resi-
                                        dential units;
                                 3.   Allow substitution of off-street parking requirements with a one-time pay-
                                     ment to a central system parking fund as per existing ordinance;
                                 4.   Institute a plan for strategically located parking garages to replace surface
                                     lots as the need evolves;

                             Source: West Palm Beach Downtown Master Plan (1995)

52

-------
                                       .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
    5.   Require all existing surface parking lots to be landscaped within a year
        with a street-front hedge 3' 6" in height at the sidewalk and shade trees at
        every third parking space;

    6.   Discourage replacement of buildings with surface parking lots.
    Overall in Downtown West Palm Beach, there is currently an oversupply of
parking spaces. There are about 12,000 spaces, and 200 - 300 will be added with the
restoration of on-street parking to Dixie Highway and Olive Avenue.
    Much of the parking supply in Downtown West Palm Beach is in public lots
that are shared by a variety of users, including Downtown employees, shoppers
and office visitors.  These lots are scattered throughout Downtown, usually close to
major travel attractions (for example, City Hall). This pattern of numerous, smaller
public lots and garages is highly desirable for two reasons:  1) Downtown vitality,
and 2) traffic access.
    Small, scattered public parking lots promote Downtown vitality by encourag-
ing a "park once" travel pattern on the part of motorists. With numerous scattered
lots, drivers don't expect to drive directly to their final destination and park in an
attached garage or lot (as in a suburban office park) and  repeat the process for
every trip throughout the day (for example, for lunch, shopping, bank, and so forth).
Rather, with scattered public parking, drivers expect to "park once" for the entire
duration of their stay Downtown, and access multiple destinations during the day
as a pedestrian. Combining multiple trip purposes in a "park once" environment is
further encouraged when the walking experience between parking and ultimate
destination is safe, comfortable and interesting.  The small-scale grid of Downtown
streets present,  a large number of possible routings between parking lot and  ulti-
mate destination, and pedestrians can continually vary their routes.

    Numerous scattered lots are also preferable for traffic operations. Traffic  gen-
erated by multiple small lots tends to have a gradual rate of entry/discharge, and is
rapidly dispersed to the  surrounding street network. This diffusion of traffic  con-
trasts sharply with the traffic "hot spots" that are created  at the access points of
major attached parking structures.  At such concentration of parking, the number
of spaces and the high entry/exit rate (due to single purpose occupants) often cre-
ates problem intersections, frequently requiring street widening and signalization
to accommodate garage  operations.

    Existing parking and future parking additions to Downtown should be treated
as a single system.  To do so, it is not necessary to combine operation or ownership
of the parking supply into a single entity. Rather, what is required is to assess park-
ing distribution for all of Downtown as a single system, considering all sources of
supply and need.  Additional parking (whether privately or publicly supplied)
should be directed in a manner that yields the most benefit to Downtown as a whole.
A longer term parking policy should therefore focus on several major directions:
Source: West Palm Beach Downtown Master Plan (1995)

                                                                                                      53

-------
                       Making Way for U^
                                 1.  Better use of the existing supply of off-street parking, through directional
                                    signs, public information, leasing and other organizational measures;
                                 2.  Strategically expanding existing parking locations;

                                 3.  Meeting needs of new Downtown tenants  (for example, the County Judi-
                                    cial Building) through a combined use of existing parking facilities, care-
                                    fully targeted expansion of existing lots and construction of new public
                                    lots.
                                 A major objective of the parking program should be to encourage visitors to
                             circulate as pedestrians through Downtown commercial streets, such as Clematis
                             Street, on their way to and from parking.
                             Source: West Palm Beach Downtown Master Plan (1995)

54

-------
                                      .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
Sec. 59-E-3.1. Mixed Uses.
(a) When any land or building is under the same ownership or under a joint use
   agreement and is used for 2 or more purposes, the number of parking spaces is
   computed by multiplying the minimum amount of parking normally required
   for each land use by the 5 time periods shown. The number of parking spaces
   required is determined by totaling the resulting number in each column; the
   column total that generates the highest number of parking spaces then becomes
   the parking requirement.
     Office/I ndustri
                             Weekday
                                                       Weekend
 Daytime
(6 am-6pm)

  1 0 0 %
                                    Evening
                                     (6pm-
                                    midnight)
              Evening
 Daytime       (6am-
(6am-6pm)     midnight)
                                                   1 0%
                                                                 5%
                                                    Nighttime
(Midnight-
  6am)

   5%
     General Retai
                         6 0 %
                                      90%
                                                  1 0 0 %
                                                                70 %
                                                                              5%
     Hotel, Motel , In n
     All Other Uses
                         75%
                         1 0 0 %
                                     1 0 0 %
                                                   75%
                                     1 0 0 %
                                                  1 0 0 %
                                                                1 0 0 %
                                                                1 0 0 %
                                                                             75%
Restaurant 5 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 %
I n d o o r o r 4 0 % 1 0 0 % 8 0 %
Legitimate
Theatre,
Commercial
Recreational
Establishment
M e e t i n g C e n t e r 5 0 % 1 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 %
Multi-family 50% 100% 100%
dwellings in
Commercial
Districts
P e r s o n a I L i v i n g 5 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 %
Quarters
1 0 0 % 10 %
1 0 0 % 10 %





1 0 0 % 10 %
1 0 0 % 1 0 0 %



1 0 0 % 1 0 0 %

                                                                             1 0 0 %
Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)
                                                                                                    55

-------
                     ;  Making  Way for

                              Sec. 59-E-3.2. Computing Parking Requirements for Office Development.

                                 Base parking requirements for offices shall be determined in accordance with a
                              property's Office Parking Policy Area designation and the proximity of the prop-
                              erty to a Metrorail station.  The Office parking Policy Areas are identified on the
                              Adopted Office Parking Policy Area Map which was approved by the District Coun-
                              cil on June 28,1984, and is maintained by the Planning Board. A copy of this map is
                              reproduced at the end of this section. The base parking requirements within indi-
                              vidual Office Parking Policy Areas vary according to the proximity of a property to
                              a Metrorail station which is defined in subsection 59-E-3.21 which follows. The
                              following table establishes the base office parking requirements for each policy area:

                                          Base  Requirements for Office Parking
                                                    Minimum Parking Requirements (Spaces/1000 GSF)
                                                                South
                                                                              Northern
                   Proximity to Metro Station   Southern Area
                                                             Central Area
                                                                             Central Area
                                                                                            Northern Area
                        Less than 800'
                          800'-1 600'
                                                                                                N/A
                       More than  1600'
                                                 2.4
                                                                 2.7
                                                                                                3.0
                  N/A = Not Applicable
                              69-E-3.21.   Proximity to a Metrorail Station.
                                 Proximity to the METRO station is defined as the straight-line distance between
                              a main pedestrian entrance of a building for which the parking reduction is to be
                              granted and a station entrance controlled by the W.M.A.T.A. This station entrance
                              is defined further as the street-level entrance of any escalator or the gate or similar
                              barrier of any station entrance which has no escalator.
                                 An existing or planned metrorail station may be used as a basis for the office
                              requirement if:
                                 (a) It is currently in use as part of an operating transit line; or

                                 (b) the director/planning board has received a certified letter from the
                                     W.M.A.T.A. stating that a construction contract has been signed for any
                                     portion of the construction phase which is located on the same transit line
                                     immediately south of the phase of construction in which the proposed build-
                                     ing or buildings will be located.

                              (Legislative History: Ord. No. 10-32, ' 11; Ord. No. 12-1, ' 1.)
                              Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)
56

-------
                                        .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
59-E-3.32.  Credits for Specified Commercial Uses.
    (a)  For general retail uses, regional shopping centers, restaurants, theatres, fur-
        niture stores and auxiliary retail uses, the director may approve a 15 per-
        cent reduction in the standard parking requirements provided in section
        59-E-3.7.  This reduction is allowed if the  entrance of the proposed use is
        located within 1,600 feet of a metrorail station entrance as defined in sec-
        tion 59-E-3.21.
    (b)  For regional shopping centers, off-site parking spaces may be allowed un-
        der the following circumstances:
        (1) The off-site parking facility shall be used only by employees of the re-
           gional shopping center during seasonal peak periods to help satisfy
           peak parking requirements;
        (2) The off-site parking facility will contain no more than 20 percent of the
           total parking spaces provided for the regional shopping center; and
        (3) The director/planning board finds that there are appropriate contrac-
           tual or lease agreements guaranteeing the continued availability, for
           specified  peak shopping periods, of such off-site parking spaces for
           the regional shopping center.  In addition, the director/planning board
           must find that appropriate administrative mechanisms exist to ensure
           that employees will be required to use the off-site parking facility dur-
           ing specified peak shopping periods.

59-E-3.33.  Credits for Specified Residential Uses.
    (a)  For multiple-family dwelling units, townhouses, fourplex units, and  indi-
        vidual living units in personal living quarters, the director/planning board
        may approve a 10 percent reduction in the standard parking requirement
        provided in section 59-E-3.7, if such units are located within a central busi-
        ness district or transit station development area. A 5 percent reduction is
        also allowed where such units are located within 1,600 feet of a metrorail
        station entrance as defined in section 59-E-3.21.  This credit does not apply
        to parking for housing for elderly or handicapped persons or  a life care
        facility that is constructed in  accordance with the credit provisions  enu-
        merated in Paragraph (b), below.

    (b)  For housing and related facilities for elderly or handicapped persons, the
        Director/Planning Board may approve reductions in the standard parking
        requirements contained in Section 59-E-3.7.  Any reductions granted must
        be in accordance with the following parking credit schedule, which must
        be applied sequentially, with succeeding percentages applying to the bal-
        ance:
Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)

                                                                                                       57

-------
                      /!  Baking Way f^
                (1)    Located within 1,000 feet of Metrorail station entrance:                                   5%
                (2)    Provision  of private shuttle bus service for a minimum of 7 years, with a schedule          10%
                      assured by a special exception granted in accordance with Section 59-G-2.35 or 59-G-
                      2.35.1, a site plan enforcement agreement in accordance with Section  59-D-3.3 or other
                      long-term agreement. Continued  shuttle bus service after that period is subject t o * i-. ~
                      parking needs of the specific project, as determined by the Board of Appeals, Planning
                      Board of Director;
                (3)    Provision of units  that are required to be at or below the price levels for moderately      up to
                      priced  dwelling units specified in accordance with Chapter25A ofthis Code:              20 % 1
                (4)    Facilities  or programs for assisted living,  including  a dining facility large enough  to         20%
                      serve meals  to at least 50 percent of the residents, that are assured by a special
                      exception  granted in accordance with Section 59-G-2.35 or 59-G-2.35.1 or by a similar
                      long-term agreement:

                1 The percentage reduction  must be no  greater than the  percentage of price-controlled dwelling units
                in the facility.

                                Any credit granted for a life care facility approved in accordance with Section 59-G-
                                2.35.1 applies to the computation of the requirement for the dwelling units only
                                and not to the requirement for the nursing home.

                                (Legislative History: Ord No. 10-32, ' 11; Ord. No. 10-63, ' 1; Ord. No. 11-72, ' 10;
                                Ord. No. 11-73,' 11; Ord. No. 12-49,' 1; Ord. No. 13-46, '  7.)
                                Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)

58

-------
___^


Sec. 59-E-3.3. Credits for Specific Uses.
    Percentage reductions in the required number of parking spaces, as specified in
this article, may be approved by the directory/planning board and must be en-
forced by the director. Where multiple credits are granted, each credit allowance is
applied only on the marginal parking requirements. After an initial percentage
reduction is approved for one credit, an additional percentage reduction for each
successive credit applies to the balance of the parking supply required.
59-e-3.31.  Credits for General Office Building
    Parking credits are allowed for office developments that actively participate in
the county  share-a-ride program and/or provide private incentives for ride-shar-
ing.  A schedule of parking credits for offices, based on specific criteria for reduc-
tions and penalties for noncompliance, is presented in the following schedule:
    (a)  Sites within share-a-ride districts. Share-a-ride districts are defined in chap-
        ter  42A of the Montgomery County Code.
        (1) A 15 percent reduction for participation in share-a-ride's continuous,
           personalized ridesharing assistance program may be approved if the
           owner of the development submits a written agreement, with the park-
           ing facility plan, that stipulates the following conditions:
           a.   The owner or lessees with more than 25 employees designate a
               person who shall promote the program to employees in accordance
               with established county procedures for the share-a-ride program.
           b.  The owner or lessees  shall reserve a sufficient number of conve-
               niently located parking spaces to  accommodate all employee
               carpools and vanpools.
           c.   The owner shall make an  annual payment to the ridesharing ac-
               count of the mass transit facilities fund for basic share-a-ride ser-
               vices in accordance with the payment schedule of  chapter 42A of
               the Montgomery County Code.
           d.  The owner shall certify semi-annually to the director that the above
               requirements are being satisfied.
           e.   In the event of noncompliance, the director shall require the owner
               to pay an annual penalty payment to the ridesharing account for
               supplementary share-a-ride services, in accordance with the pay-
               ment schedule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.
        (2) A percentage reduction between one and 15 percent may be approved
           for private incentives (e.g., in-house  carpool promotion/matching sys-
           tem, private shuttle bus, van lease or purchase, reserved carpool spaces,
           and transit pass discount programs) if the owner of the development
           submits a written agreement, with the parking facility plan, that stipu-
           lates the following conditions:

Source:  Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)

                                                                                                      59

-------
                      Making  Way for U^
                                        a.  The owner shall, as a contingency, set aside land for a parking fa-
                                           cility or allow for future construction or expansion of a structured
                                           parking facility, sufficient to provide additional parking spaces
                                           equal in number to the reduction granted.
                                        b.  The owner shall make an annual payment to the ridesharing fund
                                           for monitoring and enforcement, in accordance with the payment
                                           schedule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.
                                        c.  The owner shall certify to the director semi-annually that the above
                                           requirements are satisfied.
                                        d.  In the event of noncompliance, the director shall require the owner
                                           to satisfy at least one of the following penalties:

                                           1.   Construction of additional parking spaces, equal in number to
                                               the spaces originally reduced.

                                           2.   Pay an annual  penalty payment to the ridesharing account for
                                               basic or supplementary share-a-ride  services, in accordance
                                               with the payment schedule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery
                                               County Code.
                                           3.   Suspension of  occupancy permit.
                                The requirements and penalties of Section (a)(2)a., (a)(2)d.l., and (a)(2)d.3, above
                             are not applicable to mixed use projects in the TS-M  zone located within 1000 feet
                             of a Metrorail station where such requirements and penalties may preclude fulfill-
                             ment of master or sector plan objectives for the provision of affordable housing as
                             determined by  the Montgomery County Planning Board.
                             (b) Sites within a share-a-ride outreach area, share-a-ride outreach areas are de-
                                fined in chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.
                                (1) A 15 percent reduction for  participation in share-a-ride's continuous, per-
                                    sonalized ridesharing assistance program may be approved if the owner of
                                    the development submits a written  agreement, with the parking facility
                                    plan, that stipulates the following conditions:
                                    a.   The owner of lessees with more than 25 employees designate a person
                                        who shall promote the program with employees in accordance with
                                        established county procedures for the share-a-ride program.
                                    b.   The owner or lessees shall reserve a sufficient number of conveniently
                                        located parking spaces to accommodate all employee carpools and
                                        vanpools.

                                    c.   The owner shall make  an annual payment to the ridesharing account
                                        for basic share-a-ride services in accordance with the payment sched-
                                        ule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.

                             Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)

60

-------
                                       .i  Making'Way'for Urban I nfM
       d.  The owner shall certify semi-annually to the director that the above
           requirements are being satisfied.
       e.  In the event on noncompliance, the director shall require the owner to
           pay an annual penalty payment to the ridesharing account for supple-
           mentary share-a-ride services, in accordance with the payment sched-
           ule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.
    (2) A percentage reduction between one and 15 percent may be approved for
       private incentives (e.g., in-house carpool promotion/matching system, pri-
       vate shuttle bus, van lease  or purchase, reserved carpool spaces, and tran-
       sit pass discount programs) if the owner of the development submits a
       written agreement, with the parking facility plan, that stipulates  the fol-
       lowing conditions:
       a.  The owner shall, as a contingency, set aside land for a parking facility
           or allow for future construction or expansion of an structures parking
           facility, large enough  to provide additional parking spaces equal in
           number to the reduction granted.
       b.  The owner shall make an annual payment to the ridesharing account
           for monitoring and enforcement, in accordance with the payment sched-
           ule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.

       c.   The owner shall certify to the director semi-annually that the above
           requirements are satisfied.

       d.  In the event of noncompliance, the director shall require the owner to
           satisfy at least one of the following penalties:

           1.   Construction of  additional parking spaces, equal in number to the
               spaces originally reduced.
           2.   Pay an annual penalty payment to the ridesharing account for ba-
               sic or supplementary share-a-ride services, in accordance with the
               payment schedule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.
           3.   Suspension of occupancy permit.
(c)  Sites in remaining areas (locations where share-a-ride services are unavailable):

    (1) A percentage reduction between one and 15 percent may be approved for
       private incentives (e.g., in-house carpool promotion/matching system, pri-
       vate shuttle bus, van lease  or purchase, reserved carpool spaces, and tran-
       sit pass discount programs) if the owner of the development submits a
       written agreement with the parking facility plan that stipulates the follow-
       ing conditions:
Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)

                                                                                                     61

-------
                      Making  Way for  Ur^
                                    a.  The owner, shall, as a contingency, set aside land for a parking facility
                                        or allow for future construction or expansion of a structured parking
                                        facility, large enough to provide additional parking spaces equal in
                                        number to the reduction granted.

                                    b.  The owner shall make an annual payment to the ridesharing account
                                        for monitoring and enforcement, in accordance with the payment sched-
                                        ule of chapter 42A of the Montgomery County Code.
                                    c.  The owner shall certify to the director semi-annually that the above
                                        requirements are satisfied.

                                    d.  In the event of noncompliance, the director shall require the owner to
                                        satisfy at least one of the following penalties:

                                        1.   Construction of additional parking spaces, equal in number to the
                                            spaces originally reduced.

                                        2.   If located within a parking lot district, satisfy condition (1) above
                                            or pay the annual ad valorem tax as specified in chapter 60 of the
                                            Montgomery County Code.

                                        3.   Suspension of occupancy permit.

                             (d) For any office development eligible for parking reductions under this section,
                                the percent reductions are applied to the development's base parking require-
                                ment, as described in section 59-E-3.2 which is concerned with computing the
                                parking requirements for office development.
                             Source: Montgomery County Code Zoning Ordinance (1997)

62

-------
                                        .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
Policy 4
In-Lieu Parking Fees
    Limited availability of land, small lot sizes and existing buildings make pro-
viding required on- or off-site parking very difficult for small-scale new construc-
tion or rehabilitation of existing buildings.  In addition, financial feasibility often
prohibits individual businesses from developing their own parking.
    To assist small-scale new developments and rehabilitation of existing buildings
within the District, the Agency shall not require parking be provided by the project
on-site. In exchange  for the  payment of an in-lieu fee, the Agency will provide
required off-site parking on behalf of eligible developments seeking shared-use
parking.
    The following types of developments are eligible for Agency provided, off-site
parking to meet shared-use parking requirements upon payment of in-lieu fees:
    •   Non-residential new construction on lots of less than 22,500 square feet in
        size.
    •   Additions to  existing buildings, rehabilitation of existing buildings, or
        changes in use or occupancy in existing buildings.
    •   Designated City Historic Landmark buildings.
    •   Existing buildings desiring access to additional parking resources but not
        required to provide those resources by the Zoning Code.
    All off-site parking provided by the Agency will be non-exclusive, shared-use
parking from the pool of  publicly available parking within the District.  Partici-
pants using such parking will not be assigned or guaranteed use of specific spaces
or facilities.  The Agency will, however, be responsible to insure that sufficient park-
ing exists within the  District to accommodate the demand generated by partici-
pants paying in-lieu fees to the Agency for use of off-site parking.

    Each development using shared-use parking in-lieu of constructing parking
creates a demand for spaces that must be satisfied from the pool of available public
parking. Since the availability of public parking is limited, and the Agency will be
responsible for insuring that sufficient parking exists, the Agency shall require that
each project that uses  Agency-provided public parking help pay a portion of capi-
tal cost and operational costs needed to develop and operate public parking re-
sources.
Source: Downtown Parking Management Plan (1993)

                                                                                                       63

-------
                       Making Way for U^
                                 Eligible projects desiring the Agency to provide shared-use parking off-site in-
                             lieu of providing on-site parking, shall pay to the Agency an in-lieu fee for each
                             space required but not provided.  The fee shall be due at the time a building permit
                             or business license is issued. This payment shall be deposited in an Agency ac-
                             count to be used to cover capital costs of providing additional shared-use public
                             parking resources.  The in-lieu fee shall be set by the Redevelopment Agency on an
                             annual basis and may be paid either in a lump sum or on an installment payment
                             basis.  To encourage the rehabilitation of City Historic Landmark structures, the
                             Agency may postpone or waive in-lieu fees if it can be demonstrated that such fees
                             would impair the feasibility of the rehabilitation.
                                 Along with the payment of an in-lieu fee to  cover a portion of capital costs,
                             participants using Agency provided, off-site parking facilities shall pay a share of
                             the operational costs.  These costs may include the user's payment of full-market
                             rates for the use of parking, charges to participating businesses for the privilege of
                             validating short-term parking, and monthly parking rates for the use of long-term
                             or employee parking.
                                 Projects eligible for Agency-provided off-site parking are not required to choose
                             to use Agency provided off-site parking to meet their parking requirements; they
                             may instead choose to provide their own private-parking or provide shared-use
                             parking to meet  the parking  requirements.
                             Source: Downtown Parking Management Plan (1993)

64

-------
                                          .iMaking'Way'for_Urban Infill and
§ 33.510.263 Parking in the Core Area

6.  Maximum Ratios

    Parking is limited to the maximum ratios in Table 510-2.  Where there is more
than one use, the amount of parking allowed is calculated based on the net building
area of each use.

                                          Table 510-2
                IN THE CORE AREA GROWTH PARKING:  MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
              PARKING SPACES PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF NET BUILDING AREA
                                          District/Sector (See Map 510-8):
       Use
                   Downtown
                       2, 3
Downtown
     4
 Downtown 1, 5:
University District
  River
District 5
    River
District 3, 4;
Downtown 6
 Office
                       0.7
                                                      1.0
                                                                       1.5
                                                                                      2.0
 Retail Sales and
 Service, except
 theaters, hotels,
 motels
 Medical Centers
 Schools,
 Colleges
 Manufacturing
 and Production,
 Warehouse and
 Freight
 Movement,
 Wholesale Sales,
 Industrial
 Service
                       0.7
 Community
 Service,
 Religious
 Institutions,
 Theaters, Other
 Uses
Source: Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code (1999)
                                                                                                            65

-------

-------
      f his guidebook was compiled using information from existing stud-
      ies, current bibliographical research, and input from experts. Robin
      Snyder of EPA's Urban and Economic Development Division di-
rected the work of Industrial Economics, Incorporated, the contractor sup-
porting the effort under EPA Contract Number 68-W4-0041. Dr. Richard
Wilson, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at California State Poly-
technic University,  and Michael R. Kodama, of Michael R. Kodama Plan-
ning Consultants, provided valuable input and expert review of the docu-
ment. Harold Horn, of the City of Wilton Manors Community Services
Department, John Resha, of SAFECO Parking and Transportation Services,
and Kristin Asbra, of the City of Long Beach Department of Community
Development Redevelopment Bureau, provided  detailed information for
the case studies, as well as critical review. We are  grateful for the contribu-
tions of these participants.
   In addition, we would like to thank the following people for their com-
ments on drafts of the document:
     Robert Dumphy, Urban Land Institute
     Kenneth Fritz, Village of Schamburg, Illinois
     Christopher Hudson, Congress for New Urbanism
     Todd Juhasz, Westchester County Department of Planning
     Thomas Robertson, Montgomery County Department of Park
       and Planning
     Timothy Rood, Calthorpe Associates

-------
Introduction	1
Beyond Generic Parking Requirements	4
The Costs of Parking	7
Parking Requirements and Development Decisions	10
Relationship Between Parking Requirements
   and Development Decisions	11
Innovative Parking Alternatives	13
     In-Lieu Parking Fees	13
     Shared Parking	14
     Centralized Parking	17
     Maximum Limits	17
     Parking Freezes	19
     Demand Reduction	20
Case Studies	25
     Reduced Parking Requirements:
       The Shoppes of Wilton Manors	26
     A Vehicle Trip Reduction Program:
       SAFECO Insurance Company Expansion	30
     Shared Parking and In-Lieu Fees:
       D'Orsay Hotel	33
References	36
Appendix	40

-------