Parking Spaces /
       Community Places
       Finding the Balance through
       Smart Growth Solutions


 Parking Spaces / Community Places

Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
     Development, Community, and Environment Division (1807T)
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Washington, DC 20460

                    January 2006

7                                his guidebook was compiled by U.S. EPA's Development, Com-
                                munity, and Environment Division (DCED) and contractors using
                                existing and new case studies, current bibliographical research,
                        and interviews with experts. The work was funded through EPA Contracts
                        68-W4-0041 and 68-W-99-046. DCED would like to thank representatives
                        of the following organizations for their participation in developing this report:
                        City Carshare; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Lindbergh City Center;
                        McCaffery Interests; Melvin Mark Companies; NASAAmes Research Center;
                        Prendergast& Associates, Inc.; SAFECO; TransManagement; Valley Transit
                        Authority; the Cities of Wilton Manors (Florida), Long Beach (California), Mi-
                        ami Beach, Milwaukee, and Seattle; Arlington County, Virginia; and the
                        developers of the Van Ness  and Turk project and the Rich Sorro Commons
                        project described in this report. DCED is grateful for the contributions of
                        these participants.

                           In addition, DCED would like to thank the following individuals for their
                        comments on drafts of the document. Organizations are provided for identifi-
                        cation purposes only.

                             Robert Dunphy, Urban Land Institute
                             Kenneth Fritz, Village of Schamburg, Illinois
                             Christopher Hudson, Congress for New Urbanism
                             Todd Juhasz, Westchester County Department of Planning
                             Michael R. Kodama, Michael R. Kodama Planning Consultants
                             Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Instititute
                             Thomas Robertson, Montgomery County Department of Park
                              and Planning
                             Timothy Rood, Calthorpe Associates
                             Dr. Richard Wilson, California State Polytechnic University
                             Staff from the U.S. DOT'S Federal Highway Administration
                              and Federal Transit Administration

                           Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official
                        EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.

 Table  of Contents
Introduction	1
Beyond Generic Parking Requirements	6
The Costs of Parking	9
Innovative Parking Alternatives	13
 Reduce Oversupply	13
 Manage Demand	22
 Pricing Strategies	29
Case Studies	35
 Innovative Parking Policies:
   Portland, Oregon	36
 Context-Specific Requirements and Travel Demand Management:
   Arlington County, Virginia	42
 Transportation Management for Mixed-Use Development:
   Santa Clara, California, NASA Research Park	45
 Reduced Parking Requirements:
   Wilton Manors, Florida, The Shoppes of Wilton Manors	48
 Transportation Demand Management Program:
    Redmond, Washington, SAFECO Insurance Company Expansion . 50
 Shared Parking and In-Lieu Fees:
    Long Beach, California, Embassy Suites at D'Orsay Promenade .. 52

References	56

    A  i hen you shop, you may visit a mall, or go to your town's
 \/\i  main street.  At the mall, you  probably cruise past
 If  If   rows and rows of empty parking, the spaces filled only one day
a year.  Maybe you head downtown, but can only find vacant storefronts.
And where things are bustling, you can't find convenient parking near the
stores you want to visit. All three of these scenarios represent a "parking
problem" that has a negative impact on other community goals. At the mall,
overbuilt parking consumes land and wastes money. Downtown, storefronts
may sit empty because new businesses that would like to move in can't meet
high parking requirements - and too little parking makes good businesses
less viable.

   But what does parking have to do with the environment, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? Research and reports from EPA
and others show that the way we develop our communities has a major im-
pact on the quality of the natural environment. Regions with walkable, mixed-
use, compact neighborhoods,  towns, and  cities, knit together by a robust
network of transportation and environmental corridors, protect human health
and the natural environment. The research shows that development reflect-
ing smart growth principles can lead to reduced growth in air pollution and
less polluted runoff into streams and lakes.  It also leads to a reduction in the
amount of pristine land consumed by development, which can help preserve
habitat for many species. Air  pollution is reduced  because such compact
areas make it easier for some  people to  choose to walk and bike for some
trips, and others will be able to  drive shorter distances or take transit. Along
with fewer and shorter trips by car comes a reduced need for parking, and
that means less land needs to be paved for parking lots or garages. That
reduces development costs and leaves more open ground that can filter rain-
water, and more open space for birds, animals, and people to enjoy. For a
thorough discussion of the connections between development patterns and
environmental quality, see Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical
Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environ-
mental Quality (EPA, 2001 a).

   Many communities are evaluating parking issues as part of a broader
process of reevaluating their overall goals for growth. They want and need
new residents and jobs - for vitality, economic growth, and other reasons -
but they need to decide how and where to accommodate them. In cities,
towns, and countryside, new and newly rediscovered development patterns
offer solutions.  In many places, walkable town centers that offer stores,
workplaces, and housing in close proximity are replacing malls and office
parks, offering shops and dining along with places to live and work. New
neighborhoods offer different housing types and daily conveniences within a
pleasant, safe walking distance. Vacant, underused and contaminated sites

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
      can be reclaimed and benefit their communities with new jobs and housing,
      improved recreational opportunities, and increased fiscal stability. Many com-
      munities are working to offer choices to residents, so they can take a train,
      ride a bike, or walk instead of driving, if that is what is best for them and their
      families. Whether the resulting development patterns are called smart growth,
      quality growth, or balanced growth, they work by creating great places.

         Communities and developers recognize that compact, mixed-use, walk-
      able places need parking to thrive.  Retail activity in particular requires con-
      venient parking spaces that can handle high turnover.  Businesses almost
      always need some parking for their employees, but the amount needed can
      vary widely.  The need for parking  may shift throughout the day as people
      come to shop, employees head to work, and residents go out for the evening.
      Residents and employees in more compact areas usually own fewer cars
      and drive less than is typical in conventional developments. Yet typical park-
      ing regulations and codes simply require a set amount of parking for a given
      square footage or number of units, assuming all trips will be by private auto-
      mobile and ignoring the neighborhood's  particular mix of uses, access to
      transit and walking, and context within the metropolitan region. Such inflexi-
      ble parking requirements can force businesses to provide unneeded parking
      that wastes space and money. The space and money devoted to unneces-
      sary parking could be used to accommodate other homes, businesses, shop-
      ping, or recreational opportunities in the community. In some cases, rigid
      parking standards can discourage  or even prevent development,  because
      providing it is just too expensive - and developers are usually offered no

         In cities and counties across the country, inflexible minimum parking re-
      quirements are the norm ~ but they represent a barrier to better  develop-
      ment, including redevelopment of vacant city land and  contaminated sites.
      EPA developed this guide for local government officials, planners, and devel-
      opers in order to:

         •  demonstrate the significance of parking decisions in development

         •  illustrate the environmental, financial, and social impact of parking

         •  describe strategies for balancing parking with other community goals;

         •  provide case studies of places that are successfully using  these

         The policies described in this report can help communities explore new,
      flexible parking policies that can encourage growth and balance their parking
      needs with their other goals.  The case study in this report of the SAFECO
      Corporation (see page 50) illustrates the potential to use parking policies to

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
save money, improve the environment, and meet broader community goals.
SAFECO has its corporate headquarters in the Seattle region. To accommo-
date new employees, this insurance company built three new buildings and
underground parking garages. In an effort to balance parking needs with
their financial, environmental, and design goals, they choose to offer employ-
ees transit passes, vanpool and rideshare incentives, or parking. Over 40
percent of SAFECO's employees choose an alternative to driving alone. As
a result, each year SAFECO's 1700 employees drive about 1.2 million miles
less than average commuters in the Seattle region, saving 28 tons of carbon
monoxide, a serious pollutant tracked by the EPA. SAFECO also reduced
the amount of ground  that needed  to be paved by 100,000 square feet,
leading to less runoff in this rainy area. The company saves an estimated
$230,000 per year, after accounting for the costs of incentives and the sav-
ings from reducing the amount of parking built.

   Several EPA programs recognize the superior environmental performance
of alternatives to driving alone and to conventional low-density, single-use
development patterns. For example, EPA and the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation sponsor the successful Best Workplaces for Commuters program
(EPA, 2005a), which advocates employer-provided commuter benefits that
encourage shifts from long-distance solo driving and parking. On a regional
level, EPA offers areas that wish to recognize the emissions benefits of smart
growth guidance for "Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities"  (EPA,
2001 b). EPA has also published "Protecting Water Resources with Smart
Growth" (EPA, 2004), which includes 75 policies and programs that help
meet water quality and other community goals. EPA and  its partners  in the
Smart Growth Network (see box) also offer very successful resources on the
policies and actions that create smart  growth.  "Getting to Smart Growth"
(ICMA, 2002) and "Getting to Smart Growth II" (ICMA, 2003), published by
the International City/County Management Association and the Smart Growth
Network,  detail 200 policies that communities have used to create new de-
velopment to serve the needs of their residents and businesses, local gov-
ernments, and the environment.  For more information on these and other
resources,  and  instructions  on  how to  receive  them,  visit

   This report adds to this collection of resources, pointing communities and
developers to proven techniques for balancing parking and other goals to
enhance the success of new compact walkable places. The report begins
with  a discussion of the demand for parking and a review  of the costs of
parking. The following sections detail innovative techniques and case stud-
ies explain how they have been used to solve parking problems in specific

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                          Principles of smart growth

       Smart growth is development that serves communities, the economy, public
       health, and the environment. The original Smart Growth Network part-
       ners articulated the following principles describing smart growth, based
       on their experience in communities nationwide. These principles have
       since been adopted by many organizations and communities to help de-
       scribe the development patterns they seek to create.

           1. Mix land uses.

           2. Take advantage of compact building design.

           3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.

           4. Create walkable neighborhoods.

           5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of

           6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical envi-
           ronmental areas.

           7.  Strengthen and  direct development  toward   existing

           8. Provide a variety of transportation choices.

           9. Make development  decisions  predictable, fair, and cost-

           10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in develop-
           ment decisions.

       For more information, visitwww.epa.gov/smartgrowth.

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                 About the Smart Growth Network

 The Smart Growth Network, formed in 1996, is a loose coalition of organi-
 zations and individuals that believe that where and how we grow is impor-
 tant to our communities, health, and environment. The network is led by
 a partnership of over thirty private sector, public sector, and nongovern-
 mental organizations that work to help create better development pat-
 terns in neighborhoods, communities, and regions across the United States.
 It also includes a membership organization of over 900 individuals, com-
 munity organizations, and other stakeholder groups.  These organiza-
 tions endorse the principles listed on the previous page.

    The Smart Growth Network partners range from planners and archi-
 tects to developers and financiers and funders,  from community advo-
 cates to traditional environmentalists, from real estate agents to transpor-
 tation engineers, and include both governmental associations and parts
 of the federal government.  For more information on the Smart Growth
 Network, its partners and membership program, and the annual New Part-
 ners for Smart Growth conference, visitwww.smartgrowth.org.

 Beyond  Generic Parking Requirements
     Most planners
  surveyed relied on
 neighboring cities and
 national handbooks to
  determine parking
  requirements. This
 practice  may result in
 requirements if local
  conditions or policy
  approaches differ.
   — Michael Kodama,
Michael R. Kodama Planning
     /n calculating  parking  requirements, planners  typically  use
     generic standards that apply to individual land-use categories, such
     as residences, offices, and shopping. The most commonly used guide-
lines, issued by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the Parking Gen-
eration Handbook (ITE, 2004), are based on observations of peak demand
for parking at single-use developments in relatively low-density settings with
little transit (Shoup, 2005). In such places, the destinations are widely sepa-
rated, parking is typically free, and walking, biking, and transit are not avail-
able. As a result, planners assume in effect that every adult has a car, every
employee drives to work, and every party visiting a restaurant arrives by car.
Under these conditions, parking can take up more than 50 percent of the
land used in a development (see figure).  For more compact, mixed-use,
walkable places, these standards end up calling for far more parking than is

  A surplus of parking really can be too much of a good thing. It creates a
'dead zone' of empty parking lots in the middle of what ought to be a bustling
commercial district or neighborhood. This dead  zone means there is less
room for the offices and homes that would supply a steady stream of office
workers and residents who might patronize businesses in the area - and
less room to cluster other businesses that will attract more foot traffic.  Re-
quiring more parking than the market actually demands adds substantial costs
to development and redevelopment, and in some cases the added costs will
prevent development altogether. For example, the future site of the D'Orsay
Hotel in a prime location in Long Beach, California sat for years as a low-
revenue parking lot - every developer who considered building on it was
stopped in part by the high cost of building a garage to fulfill the city's mini-
mum parking requirement.  It is under development today as a hotel and retail
complex in large part because innovative strategies reduced the parking bur-
den on the developer. See page 52 for the full case study.

   Parking requirements are often copied from one jurisdiction to another,
and so are remarkably consistent across different cities. Generic standards
do not take into account the many highly local variables that influence park-
ing, such as density, demographics, availability of public transit, potential for
biking and walking, or the availability of other parking nearby.  The  obvious
results of such rigid requirements are big empty parking lots - and they can
also result in empty buildings.  Perfectly useable space  in older buildings
with limited or no on-site parking  may prove unrentable, because the busi-
nesses that would like to locate there are unable to meet high minimum park-
ing requirements.  The buildings remain vacant, thwarting redevelopment
plans (Shoup, 2005).

  Generic parking standards have simply not kept up the complexity of mod-

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
ern mixed-use development and redevelopment.  But parking requirements
can be altered to allow planners to better measure the true demand for park-
ing and to balance parking with wider community goals.  This approach en-
tails careful consideration of land-use and transportation characteristics that
relate to parking demand. Successful examples consider the following fac-

   •   Development type and size.  Take into account the specific char-
acteristics of the project: is there a large theatre that requires evening park-
ing, or will small shops attract short-term, daytime patronage? Can the two
share parking spaces?  Parking demand is of course also influenced by the
size of the development, which is typically measured by total building square

   •   Development density and design.  Consider the density of the
development. Research shows that each time residential density doubles,
auto ownership falls  by 32 to 40  percent (Holtzclaw  et al. 2002). Higher
densities mean that destinations are closer together, and more places can be
reached on foot and by  bicycle—reducing the need to own a car.  Density is
also closely associated with other factors that influence car ownership, such
as the presence of good transit service, the community's ability to support
stores located in neighborhoods, and even the walkability of neighborhood

   •   Demographics. Consider the  characteristics of the people  using
                         Site Coverage
             for Typical Commercial Development
               (averages for Olympia, Washington)
        Building Footprint
    Source: City of Olympia Public Works Department, and the Washington State Department
    of Ecology, 1995.

                   Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
   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
protection, and energy
     and resource
   — Thomas P. Smith
     "Flexible Parking
 Planners Advisory Service
       Report 377
the development, including employees, customers, residents, and visitors.
People of different incomes and ages tend to have different car ownership

   •   Availability of transportation choices. Take into account the modes
of transportation available to employees, visitors, and residents. Access to
public transportation in a particular development, for example, can reduce
parking demand. Walkable neighborhoods and bicycle amenities can also
reduce parking demand.

   •   Surrounding land-use mix. Consider the neighboring land uses
and density to better understand  parking needs.  For example,  an office
building parking lot will be empty when the restaurant next door is packed, so
requiring both to provide for 100 percent of their parking needs simply wastes

   •   Off-site parking. Consider the parking that is already available near-
by: on the street, on nearby properties, or in public garages that may be
available for users of a new development. On-street parking can be consid-
ered to reduce the amount of on-site parking required for new development,
or as a reserve should new uses require more parking than expected.  On
street parking has the added benefit of acting as a buffer between pedestri-
ans and traffic, increasing the attractiveness of walking.

   Land use and demographic information are important tools for establish-
ing context-specific parking requirements that  better balance supply  and
demand for parking.

  The  Costs of  Parking
7         his section describes the  costs of providing  parking,
         both in terms of financial and environmental health. While parking
         is necessary, providing too much of it can exert a high cost, so
understandings its impact is important.  That impact can vary considerably
with the amount and type of parking provided, and the types of development
being served.

Financial Costs
   The financial cost of providing parking is driven by three key factors: the
number of parking spaces required, the 'opportunity cost' of the land used for
parking, and the cost per parking space1. Parking requirements that assume
suburban levels of demand in urban locations may necessitate large surface
lots or parking garages, unnecessarily increasing the cost of infill and other
compact development. The opportunity cost is the cost of using a space for
parking instead of for a use with higher value.  This  varies considerably
depending on the development context. In infill locations, the opportunity
cost can be quite high,  as each on-site parking space can reduce the number
of new housing units or other users by 25 percent or more (Transportation
and Land Use Coalition, 2002).

   The cost per space depends on engineering and design considerations.
Cost per parking space includes land, construction, maintenance, utilities,
insurance, administrative, and operation costs (Tumlin and Siegman, 1993).
The per-space costs tend to be higher in infill locations, providing a strong
incentive for avoiding a parking surplus. Towns that are trying to encourage
infill development or compact new suburbs can help spur those activities by
accurately gauging parking demand.  In general, the following factors affect
the cost per space of parking:

   •   Structured versus surface parking. Parking garages are more
       costly to construct, operate, and maintain than surface parking
       lots, but can be desirable in urban locations seeking to create a
       more  walkable environment. For example, Shoup (1998) reports
       construction costs of over $29,000 per space for a structured ga-
       rage in Walnut Creek, California, against perhaps $2,000 per space
       to construct surface parking. Underground parking structures are
       more  costly to construct than above-ground structures because of
       the added expense of excavation and required engineering.
 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
   Department of Urban
      Planning, UCLA
   1 All costs are updated to 2004 dollars. Costs include various components as noted. Where
amortized, they assume a 7.5% interest rate over a 30-year period, and annual operating costs.

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                                 Land cost. Land costs vary widely across settings (urban/subur-
                                 ban), geographic areas, and location within a particular city. Land
                                 costs in urban centers are generally much higher than in subur-
                                 ban areas. For example, in 1997 the cost per square foot of land in
                                 downtown Charlotte, North Carolina, was $121, while suburban
                                 land cost $21 (ULI, 1997).  Higher land costs  make the efficient
                                 supply and use of parking critical to development and redevelop-
                                 ment in urban areas.

                                 Configuration and size of parking facility. Parking structures
                                            and lots are more expensive to build and operate on
                                            smaller lots and complex land configurations, due in
                                            part to economies of scale. For example, smaller ga-
                                            rages have higher costs per parking space because
                                            of the fixed capital costs (e.g., stairwells, ramps, and
                                            elevators) and fixed operating costs. These charac-
                                            teristics—smaller  lots and  more complex land
                                            configurations—are typical of urban areas, making
                                            parking more expensive at these locations.

                                            • Geologic conditions. Parking  structures on land
                                            with more sensitive seismic conditions or land with
                                            difficult terrain  also cost more per parking space be-
                                            cause they require  more complex engineering and
                                            construction design. While geologic conditions vary
                                            across the country, developers have a greater choice
                                            of sites when considering development in suburban
                                            and rural areas. Sites in urban areas are more limit-
                                            ed, and terrain with geologic constraints may be more
                                            difficult to avoid.

                                               Land and construction costs, which account for most
                                            of the costs of parking, vary considerably across cities
                                            and parking designs. Construction costs alone also range
                                            widely due to building codes, materials, and labor costs,
                                            but per space construction costs for structures (above-
                          or below-grade) are typically much higher than for surface lots. 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. The
                          reported monthly cost calculated for six surface parking sites in Southern
                          California ranged from $50 to $110 per space, with an average of $86. The
                          average cost for two sites in Southern California with above ground  struc-
                          tured parking was $175 per space per month.  Litman (2004) analyzes cost-
                          recovery thresholds for parking under various scenarios, finding a range from
                          $20 to nearly $200 per month to finance,  build, operate, and maintain a park-
                          ing space.  With such wide variability, national averages, especially those
                          including land costs, clearly do not have much meaning.  This underlines the

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
importance of looking at costs for a specific area when assessing potential
savings from reducing oversupply.

Environmental Costs
   In addition to tangible financial costs, parking has 'external' costs that
affect the natural environment and the surrounding community, and these
are typically not factored into development decisions. Parking lots and ga-
rages themselves have a direct impact on the environment, and they can
affect the environment indirectly by cutting off transportation choices, en-
couraging driving that pollutes the environment.

   Direct environmental impacts include: degraded water quality, stormwater
management problems, exacerbated heat island effects, and excessive land
consumption. Construction of surface parking often paves ground that once
absorbed and filtered rainwater.  This increases stormwater runoff, which
can result in more flooding.  The oil and other pollutants washed off the
parking lot exacerbate water pollution. Dark pavement can artificially raise air
temperature, resulting in 'heat islands' that raise air-conditioning bills. In un-
developed areas, forests, wetlands and  other natural features should be
considered part of a region's "green infrastructure" that process stormwater,
clean the air, and provide wildlife habitat. Ensuring that parking areas are
sized to a development's actual needs instead of to a generic  requirement
can preserve this infrastructure.

   Parking also indirectly affects the environment, primarily because parking
influences how and where people choose to travel. In conventional low-den-
sity, single-use development, the required large surface parking lots create
places that are not friendly to pedestrians or transit. These places also re-
quire  more and longer trips between homes, workplaces, schools, shops,
and parks. As a result, people make the rational choice to drive almost every-
where - and these areas register more vehicle miles of travel per capita.
Increases in travel rates are associated with increased emissions of pollut-
ants,  including carbon monoxide and the pollutants that contribute to
dangerous ground-level ozone. Air pollution is associated with asthma and
many other health problems, driving up health-care costs.
   Compact development that mix uses  can reduce the need for surface
parking, preserving green infrastructure while also reducing the amount of
driving necessary for community residents. By creating an environment that
supports the efficient use of parking,  such development can  also lead to
better balance between parking needs and other community goals.

   For further discussion of the environmental  impact of development pat-
terns, see Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the
Interactions between Land Use,  Transportation and Environmental Quality
(EPA, 2001 a).

Preceeding Page Blank
     Innovative Parking Alternatives
                                                              Strategies That Work
                                               Parking Alternative
        s  local  governments respond  to  public demand for better
       development  patterns,  many  have created alternatives to
       inflexible minimum parking requirements. The alternatives are aimed
at avoiding an oversupply of parking, minimizing parking demand, or using
the power of the marketplace to regulate parking. In areas of existing devel-
opment, avoiding  oversupply encourages  	
better use of existing parking facilities and
better evaluation of parking needs. Other pol-
icies give  people an alternative to driving,
and so reduce the demand for parking. And
market-based pricing systems can help bet-
ter match demand and supply, ensuring
expensive parking spaces are used efficient-
ly. Some of these strategies have lowered
total  development costs, further encourag-
ing compact,  mixed-use development
patterns that moderate parking demand.
  Example Location
                                              Context-Specific Requirements
Montgomery County, Maryland
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
LosAngeles, California
Eugene, Oregon
Seattle, Washington
Boston, Massachusetts
                                              Centralized Parking,
                                              In-Lieu Fees
Miami, Florida
Chattanooga, Tennessee
West Palm Beach, Florida
                                              Shared Parking
Long Beach, California
Indianapolis, Indiana
      This section presents a selection of poli-
   cies that make parking  requirements  more
   flexible. It includes a discussion of how and
   why these alternatives were developed, their
   advantages and limitations, and real-world
   examples. Each application  has its own
   unique characteristics, and this diversity
   makes it impossible to isolate the costs and
   benefits of specific policies. The discussion
   presented here is not intended to portray any
   specific policy as universally applicable.
   Rather, community context should always be
   considered when balancing parking with oth-
   er goals.

   Reduce  Oversupply

      As discussed earlier, in communities work-
   ing to create mixed-use, compact, walkable
   places, inflexible application of conventional
   minimum parking requirements tends to cre-
   ate an oversupply of parking.  This creates
   unnecessary environmental impacts and fi-
                                           Other Supply Strategies
Portland, Oregon
Redmond, Washington
Iowa City, Iowa
                                           Land Banking and
                                           Landscape Reserves
Portland, Oregon
Palo Alto, California
Carmel, California
Cleveland, Ohio
Iowa City, Iowa
Boston, Massachusetts
Washington, DC
San Francisco, California
Seattle, Washington
Boulder, Colorado
                                           Subsidies for Transit
Boulder, Colorado
Santa Clara County, California
San Bernardino County, California
Montgomery County, Maryland
                                           Transit Improvements
Portland, Oregon
Chattanooga, Tennessee
                                           Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Schaumburg, Illinois
Kendall, Florida
                                           Transportation Demand Manage-
                                           ment Programs
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Seattle, Washington
Montgomery County, Maryland
                                           Pricing Strategies
LosAngeles, California
Santa Monica, California
San Diego, California
Pasadena, California

                      Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                            nancial costs.  The strategies discussed below can reduce the supply of
                            parking while still effectively meeting demand.
                            Context-Specific Standards
                               Setting parking standards to fit the particular context of a neighborhood or
                            development is a challenge planners  are just beginning to tackle. As dis-
                            cussed earlier, parking requirements are often applied for each land use city
                            wide, and so lack the flexibility needed to address different parking needs.

                               A major challenge for city planners is how to make codes more flexible
                            and sensitive to specific local conditions, but still provide the predictability
                            desired by developers. Codifying reductions in parking requirements pro-
                            vides the greatest certainty for governments, citizens and  neighbors, and
                            developers, and enables all to plan for balancing parking with other develop-
                            ment goals. When the reductions in  parking requirements are clearly stated
                            in the codes, developments are less likely to be held up in the permitting
                            process or challenged by local residents.    Planners need to develop an
                            understanding of local parking  markets, combine this with experience from
                            other settings, and then create local parking requirements. Some of the mech-
                            anisms being used are:

                               • Transit zoning overlays. In  areas with frequent transit service,
                                  especially those served by rail stations, fewer residents, workers,
                                  and shoppers require parking. In addition, the density and mix of
                                                                 uses possible around rail stations
                                                                 can sometimes support market-rate
                                                                 parking, which leads to more effi-
                                                                 cient use. Many cities find they can
                                                                 reduce minimum parking require-
                                                                 ments  for certain uses that are
                                                                 within a specified distance of a rail
                                                                 station  or frequent bus route. For
                                                                 example, Montgomery County,
                                                                 Maryland reduces parking require-
                                                                 ments by as much as 20 percent,
                                                                 depending on distance  from a
                                                                 Metrorail station.  Parking are only
                                                                 one aspect of transit zoning over-
                                                                 lays, which often address issues
                                                                 such as density, design, and allow-
                                                                 able uses. Codes may encourage
                                                                 shared parking  in transit zones,
                                                                 which accommodates more cars
                                                                 than  parking reserved solely  for
                                                                 residents and commuters.
         Location-and Use-Specific Requirements
                    Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Milwaukee has some of the lowest city wide parking ratios anywhere in the country.
Parking ratios for retail are two spaces per 1,000 square feet, compared to the Insti-
tute of Transportation Engineers' standard of one to 300 square feet. For business
uses, Milwaukee requires eight spaces for the first 2,000 square feet, and one for
each subsequent 1,000 square feet. In the downtown zone, there are no minimum
parking requirements for any land use except high-density housing, where the ratio
is a very low two spaces per three units. The city generally discourages surface lots
within the downtown and dictates that at least 50 percent of the  ground floor of
parking structures be used for retail.
These policies were enacted in 1986 and strengthened in October 2002 with new
credits for transit-oriented development, on-street parking, and shared parking. De-
velopments within a defined geographical area neartransit (which encompasses over
half of the city area) are granted reductions of up to 15 percent in the minimum
requirements.  Further reductions are allowed for on-street spaces adjacent to the
property (up to a 1:1 space credit), and for shared parking (up to 0.75 space credit for
each shared space). One to one credits are also allowed for leased parking spaces
in existing lots within 750 feet of the site.

Source: Milwaukee Department of City Development, 2002.
                                                                        New zoning districts or

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                                              Location-and Use-Specific Requirements
                                                         Seattle, Washington

                                     Seattle's zoning code grants reductions in minimum parking requirements based on
                                     several factors, including:
                                         •  Affordable housing. Minimum parking requirements are reduced to be-
                                            tween 0.5 and 1.0 space per  unit, depending on income, location, and
                                            size of unit.
                                         •  Senior housing and housing for people with disabilities.
                                         •  Car-sharing. Only for multi-family developments that allow dedicated on-
                                            site parking for the city's recognized car-sharing operator.
                                         •  Location. No parking minimums are set for downtown and they are re-
                                            duced in mixed-use, dense neighborhoods.\

                                     Source: Seattle Department of Transportation, 2001.
specific plans.  In compact, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods
and town centers parking requirements can frequently be lower than
typical minimum requirements. Some communities have adopted des-
ignated zoning districts or neighborhood specific plans to accomplish
this. Most commonly, this applies to the downtown; Milwaukee finds
that parking and other goals can be met with lower parking require-
ments than in outlying locations. Some areas waive the minimums
altogether, letting the development market decide where and how
to build  parking. The same
techniques can be applied to
neighborhoods  outside  of
downtowns that offer frequent
transit, such as Seattle's Pike/
Pine  district. Specific plans,
which detail development re-
quirements at the parcel level,
are particularly useful to en-
courage infill development in
older neighborhoods or on
brownfield sites.

Parking freezes. The amount
of parking required can be di-
rectly reduced through parking
freezes that cap the total num-
ber of parking spaces in a particular metropolitan district. . Cities
with successful parking freezes generally  have strong economies
and well developed transit systems, 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 alterna-
tive to automobile use. Downtown Boston has had a  parking freeze
in effect for many years in an effort to control driving and the associ-
ated emissions. Downtown San Francisco has applied a cap on
commuter parking, as their downtown street network functions at
capacity during rush  hours, and transit and other travel options are
numerous. Jurisdictions using the restrictions generally view each
new parking space (commuter spaces in particular) as the genera-
tor of one more rush-hour vehicle trip, and want to limit those trips to
reduce air pollution and congestion.

Reductions for affordable and senior housing. Successful re-
gions frequently struggle to provide affordable housing, as desirability
and supply drive up housing prices. In many of these places, pro-
viding housing to lower-income workers and senior citizens can
become an important goal. Since people with  lower incomes and
older people tend to own fewer vehicles parking requirements can

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                               be reduced for below-market-rate units and senior housing.  This
                               reduces the overall cost of providing such housing, and may in-
                               crease the number of units that can be provided. Los Angeles grants
                               a reduction of 0.5 spaces per unit for deed-restricted affordable
                               housing units, with further reductions if they are within 1,500 feet of
                               mass transit or a major bus line.

                               Case-by-case evaluation. Where area-wide or systematic code
                               changes are not possible, reductions in parking requirements can
                               be granted  on a case-by-case basis, often on the  condition that
                               mitigation measures such as car-sharing (see page 23) are provid-
                               ed. Cities such as Eugene, Oregon specify in their zoning codes
                               that such reductions will be granted subject to a parking study show-
                               ing that the proposed provision will be adequate to meet demand.

                               Abolish requirements. Another approach is for cities to simply
                               abolish all parking requirements in neighborhoods that are served
                               by a  range of travel options and where surrounding  residential ar-
                               eas  are protected from spillover  parking from other users
                               (Millard-Ball, 2002). This leaves it up to  developers—who have a
                               financial interest in meeting tenants' needs while not oversupplying
                               parking—to determine how many spaces are needed.
 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,
Maximum Limits and Transferable Parking Entitlements
   Maximum limits turn conventional parking requirements upside down by
restricting the total number of spaces that can be constructed. Planners set
maximum limits much as they set minimum requirements. Typically, a maxi-
mum number of spaces is based on the square footage of a specific land
use. For example, Portland, Oregon, allows buildings in the central business
district a maximum of 0.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office
space, and  1.0 space per 1,000 square feet of net building area for retail.

   Communities can make maximum parking requirements more flexible by
introducing  transferable parking entitlements, as in Portland Oregon. The
allowed number of parking spaces for a particular development are an "enti-
tlement" that can be transferred  or sold to another development if they are
unused. This policy enables cities to control the parking supply, without re-
stricting developments that would not be feasible without additional parking.
Projects that require more parking can proceed, while those that need less
parking can benefit by selling their rights, or negotiating shared parking agree-
ments for their employees or customers.

   Portland's planners  are using parking maximums in an  attempt to "im-
prove mobility,  promote the use  of alternative modes, support existing and
new economic development, maintain air quality,  and  enhance the urban
form of the Central City" (City of Portland, 1999). By combining maximums
with transferable parking entitlements, Portland's downtown provides ample

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions

parking for retail and other priority uses, along with market-rate commuter
parking, in a compact, walkable area with a mix of uses and transportation

   Both planners and developers benefit from restricting the number of parking
spaces allowed. From the city's perspective, maximum limits:

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

    • Reduce congestion;

    • Encourage attractive, pedestrian-friendly urban design; and

    • Promote transportation choices.

   From the developer's perspective, maximum limits:

    • Minimize costs for parking construction, operations,  and mainte-

    • Reduce traffic and traffic-related costs; and

    • Allow development at a greater floor-to-area ratio, increasing leas-
       able space.
   There are challenges to setting and main-
taining maximum limits. Planners must consider
possible spillover parking in surrounding resi-
dential neighborhoods if parking in those areas
is free.. To avoid such spillover, developers must
understand the factors that affect parking  de-
mand and ensure that viable transportation
choices exist. A common policy for preventing
parking spillover into residential areas is to im-
plement residential parking permit programs, but
these have drawbacks (see discussion of park-
ing benefit districts  on page 33).  Changes in
frequency or routing of transit, increases or de-
creases in development densities, or changes
in land use can all influence the demand for park-
ing in the neighborhood.
 Linking Maximum Limits and Transit Improvements
                  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 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 customer 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
located near public transit; 54 percent reported increased sales vol-
umes as a result of being located near transit, in spite of reduced park-
ing supply.

Source: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, 1999.
   With restrictive maximum limits on the num-
ber of parking spaces, developers may worry about the long-term marketability
of a property. Marketability should not be a concern for competing develop-
ments in the same locale if all developments must adhere to the maximum
limits. Parking restrictions that may seem to place urban areas at a disadvan-
tage can be offset by amenities other than parking, such as convenient access
to services and places of employment, attractive streetscapes, or pedestri-
an-friendly neighborhoods. City  governments and developers should

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                            incorporate these elements to attract businesses and residents. Maximum
                            requirements are not ideal for all locations. Municipalities that employ maxi-
                            mum requirements must have accompanying accessible and frequent public
                            transportation. It is also important for the area to be sufficiently stable eco-
                            nomically to attract tenants without needing to provide a surplus of parking. A
                            number of cities have implemented maximum parking requirements, includ-
                            ing San Francisco and Seattle.
              Shared Parking
       Circle Centre — Indianapolis, Indiana
 Opened in September 1995, Circle Centre in Indianapolis' cen-
 tral business district offers retail and entertainment destina-
 tions. This development contains 630,600 square feet of retail
 space and100,000 square feet of restaurant, speciality, and
 entertainment space, as well as a 2,700-seat cinema. One of
 the factors that led to the financial success of this $300 mil-
 lion project was a shared parking arrangement that saved
 money and allowed a pedestrian-friendly design.

 Under generic minimum parking requirements, Circle Centre
 would have needed about 6,000 parking spaces. By using
 shared parking, the project was built with just 2,815 spaces.
 Shared parking for Circle Centre is used for both customers
 and employees. The mixed-use nature of the development
 project allows customers to use a single parking space for
 multiple destinations within the complex. Employees can use
 nearby off-site parking, particularly in evenings and on week-
 ends when more than 12,000 nearby off-site spaces that nor-
 mally serve downtown office workers become available. Tak-
 ing these two shared parking components into account de-
 creases the estimated need for on-site parking by more than
 50 percent.

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

 Source: Smith, 1996.
Shared Parking
   The concept of shared parking is based on the simple idea that different
destinations attract customers, workers, and visitors during different times of
day. An office that has peak parking demand during the daytime, for exam-
ple, can share the same pool of parking spaces with a restaurant whose
demand peaks in the evening. The first shared parking programs arose when
developers, interested in reducing development costs, successfully argued
that they could accommodate all demand on site with a reduced number of
                    spaces.  The Urban Land Institute (ULI) report Shared
                    Parking (2005) presented  analytic methods for local gov-
                    ernments and developers to use on specific projects,
                    and as mixed-use projects continue to grow in number
                    and sophistication, ULI continues to update this meth-
                       By allowing for and encouraging shared parking, plan-
                    ners 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 develop-
                    ment. For example,  office employees are  a captive
                    market for business  lunches at restaurants in mixed-
                    use developments.

                        Shared parking also allows for more efficient use of
                    land and better urban design, including walkability and
                    traffic flow. Shared parking encourages use of central-
                    ized  parking lots  or garages and discourages the
                    development of many scattered small facilities. A side-
                    walk with fewer driveway interruptions and more shop
                    fronts is more comfortable and interesting for pedestri-
                    ans and will encourage walking. Reducing driveways
                    also results in more efficient traffic flow because there
                    are fewer turning opportunities on main thoroughfares.
                    This has the added benefits of reducing accidents and
                    reducing emissions from idling vehicles stuck in traffic.

                       Establishing shared parking requirements involves

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
site-specific assessment or use of time-of-day parking utilization curves, which
were developed by the ULI in Shared Parking. Planners need to consider
several factors when developing shared parking requirements, including the
physical layout of the development; the number of spaces for each of the
individual land uses; the 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 mini-
mum parking requirements when any  land or building under the same
ownership or under a joint-use agreement is used for two or more purposes.
The county's ordinance also allows parking reductions based on proximity to
transit, participation in TDM programs, or location  in the central business
district. The county uses the following method to determine shared require-
           Calculating Parking for Mixed-Use Developments
                   (Montgomery County, Maryland)

* Peak demand by
Source: Smith 1983
Weekday Weekend
Daytime Evening Daytime Evening
(9 a.m. - (6 p.m. - (9 a.m. - (6 p.m. -
4 p.m.) 12 a.m.) 4 p.m.) 12 a.m.)
300* 30 30 15
168 252 280* 196
40 100* 80 100*
508 382 390 311
, page 7.
(12 a.m. -
6 a.m.)

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;

   •   Calculate the total parking required across uses for each time pe-
       riod; then

   •   Set the requirement at the maximum total across time periods.

   The table above illustrates how peak demand occurs at different times of
the day and week for different land uses. While maximum parking demand for
the office component of the project occurs during the daytime on weekdays,
maximum demand for retail occurs during the daytime on weekends, and
peak entertainment demand is in the evening.  For this example, setting park-
ing requirements using maximum demand would have resulted in requiring
680 spaces (300 spaces for office, 280 spaces for retail, and 100 spaces for
entertainment). By recognizing the shared parking potential, the developer
cut almost 200 unnecessary parking spaces (about 25 percent), represent-

                      Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
             Centralized Parking
            Chattanooga, Tennessee
 To encourage urban development in downtown Chattanooga
 while limiting congestion and air pollution, the Chattanooga
 Area Regional Transit Authority (CARTA) developed a strat-
 egy to provide peripheral parking and a free shuttle service.
 The system is designed for the city's linear central business
 district and allows workers and visitors to drive to the city,
 park in one of the two peripheral garages, and use the shuttles
 to travel up and down the 15-block business corridor. By con-
 structing parking at either end of the business district, CARTA
 intercepts commuters and visitors before they drive into and
 through the city center, reducing traffic congestion.

 The two parking garages Shuttle Park South (550 spaces)
 and Shuttle Park North (650 spaces), are owned by CARTA
 and operated privately. The free shuttle buses are financed
 through the garages' parking revenues. They depart from each
 garage every five minutes all day, every day, and pass within
 walking distance of most downtown destinations.

 The electric-powered shuttles transport approximately one mil-
 lion riders each year, making shuttle-served property attrac-
 tive to businesses. Since 1992, when the shuttle service be-
 gan, over $400 million has been spent on development in Chat-
 tanooga, including the successful aquarium,  over 100 retail
 shops and over 60 restaurants. CARTA's initiatives won com-
 mendation from EPA, receiving a "Way to Go" award in 1996
 for innovative transportation solutions that support urban de-

 Sources: EPA, 1998; Chattanooga News Bureau, 1999.
ing a considerable cost savings.

   An American Planning Association report, Flexible Parking Requirements,
highlights factors that facilitate shared parking (Smith, 1983). The report sug-
                    gests that for shared parking to function effectively,
                    parking requirements for individual land uses must re-
                    flect peak-demand land use and common  parking
                    facilities must be  near one another. Parking spaces
                    should not be reserved for individuals or groups.
                    Centralized Parking Facilities and
                       A subset of shared parking is the construction of cen-
                    tralized parking lots and garages. Some cities mandate
                    centralized parking facilities and finance them through
                    development impact fees, in lieu parking fees, or nego-
                    tiated contributions established during the environmental
                    review process. Centralized parking can  be built and
                    operated by a public entity or public/private partnership
                    and reduce the costs of parking because large facilities
                    are less expensive on a per space basis  to build and
                    maintain than small facilities. The example in the next
                    chapter of Wilton Manors, Florida, is such  a case.

                       Centralized parking facilities can meet urban design
                    goals if they allow the elimination of small surface park-
                    ing lots and driveways that interrupt the walkable fabric
                    of mixed-use areas. Centralized parking enables travel-
                    ers to park once to visit several destinations, potentially
                    reducing on-street congestion from short trips within an
                    area. Developers are sometimes  concerned that cen-
                    tralized parking will be inconvenient for building
                    occupants, but these concerns can be addressed in part
                    by building several "centralized" facilities throughout a
                    business district or mixed-use area. Centralized  man-
agement can still ensure coordinated policies for their use, maintaining many
of the advantages of centralized parking. In other cases, the operator can
provide shuttle services to and from centralized garages. Many downtown
areas have successfully instituted centralized parking. Some cities, such as
Pittsburgh and Chattanooga  (see  box)  operate such facilities at the periph-
ery of the downtown, reducing traffic and mobile source emissions in the
core and freeing up land in the center city for other development.

In-Lieu Parking Fees
   In-lieu parking fees are one way to finance such centralized public garag-
es and  give developers flexibility in providing  parking on-site.  Developers

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
are able to avoid constructing parking on site by paying the city a fee, and
the city in return provides off-site parking that is available for use by the
development's tenants and visitors. The city determines the fees, generally
based on the cost of providing parking.

   Cities  set fees in one of two ways, either by calculating a flat fee for
parking spaces not provided by a developer on site, or by establishing devel-
opment-specific fees on a case-by-case basis. Shoup (2005) reports that
in-lieu fees in the United States range from $2,000 to $20,000 per parking
space and may or may not reflect the true costs of providing parking. These
fees can be imposed as a property tax surcharge or at the time of develop-
ment permitting.

   In-lieu parking fees provide a mechanism for providing parking in balance
with other community goals,  satisfying the public as well as planners and
developers. Using in-lieu fees and centralized garages can:

    •  Reduce overall construction costs;
    •  Avoid construction of awkward, unattractive on-
       site parking that could compromise  historic
    •  Increase public access to convenient parking;
    •  Ensure that parking facilities will be used more
       efficiently; and
    •  Encourage better urban design with streetscapes
       uninterrupted by parking lots and driveways.
   In establishing in-lieu parking fees, planners must be
aware of potential developers' concerns that the lack of
on-site parking will make developments less attractive
to tenants and visitors. This can be an issue if available
public parking is insufficient, inconveniently located, or
inefficiently operated. Planners must carefully consider
the parking demand for each participating property and
provide enough parking to meet this demand in order to
avoid creating a perceived or real parking shortage. Plan-
ners must also work  to  ensure that public parking
facilities are located and operated in ways that support
            In-Lieu Parking Fees
        Coconut Grove — Miami, Florida

Coconut Grove is a pedestrian-oriented, entertainment, din-
ing, and shopping village in southern Miami. To maintain Co-
conut Grove's continuous street frontage and keep it attrac-
tive to pedestrians, city planners established flexible parking
requirements. Developers or property owners have three choices
for satisfying minimum parking requirements: they can pro-
vide 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. The city uses the in-lieu fees to
provide shared, structured parking, improve transit service, and
maintain the sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. By invest-
ing the  in-lieu fees in a  combination of parking and other im-
provements,  the city helps to keep Coconut Grove walkable
and maintain the attractive aesthetic character of the area.

Source: Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce.
Accounting for Uncertainty
   Estimating parking demand is not an exact science, and a few communi-
ties are setting aside land through land banking and landscape reserves that
can be converted into parking if shortages arise.  Landscaping can often be
used to turn this set-aside land into an attractive amenity for the development

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                            or wider community, but requiring new development to purchase additional
                            land as insurance against uncertain parking demand imposes additional costs,
                            which may work against community redevelopment goals.

                              Land banking and landscape reserves are particularly useful policies when
                            the expected need for off-street parking for a particular use is uncertain, due
                           	    to unknown or unusual operating characteristics, or if
                                               no data is available to establish need. Cities could re-
                                               spond by requiring the construction of parking spaces
                                               that may well sit empty.  But these techniques  allow
                                               supply to be determined by the best estimates, with the
                                               security that more parking can be constructed if need-
                                               ed.  In some cases, landscape reserves can be required
                                               in conjunction with parking reductions granted in return
                                               for company plans to reduce private vehicle trips, known
                                               as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans.
                                               If  the employer falls out of compliance with the TDM
                                               plan, they can be required to go to the expense of con-
                                               structing additional parking.
              Land Banking
     Iowa City, Iowa, and Palo Alto, California
Both Iowa City and Palo Alto have enacted land-banking poli-
cies in their parking codes. In some neighborhood commer-
cial zones in Iowa City, minimum parking requirements may
be waived or relaxed, and land banking used in place of up to
30 percent of the otherwise required parking. If an enforce-
ment official determines in the future that the additional park-
ing spaces are needed, the property owner can be required to
construct parking on the land banked area.
Palo Alto's code authorizes the city to defer up to 50 percent
of the required spaces as a landscape reserve where the ex-
pected need for off-street parking for a particular development
is uncertain. The California Park Apartments development, for
example, was allowed to defer 22 of the 95 parking spaces
required by city code, using the land instead for a family play
lot, a barbeque area, and picnic benches. Nearly 15 years
after construction, the landscape reserve has not been need-
ed for parking, and the community enjoys the environmental
and social benefits of the recreation area.

Source: Iowa City and Palo Alto Zoning and Parking Codes.
                                                  Land banking and landscape reserve policies have
                                               been implemented in cities throughout Oregon (includ-
                                               ing Portland), as well as Palo Alto, California; Carmel,
                                               California; Cleveland; and Iowa City, Iowa. Palo Alto al-
                                               lows reductions of up to 50 percent in minimum parking
                                               requirements, provided that the difference is made up
                                               through a landscape reserve. None of the city's land-
                                               scaped reserves have subsequently been required for
                              To avoid confusion with terminology, it should be noted that land banking
                            can also refer to the purchase of land by a local government or developer for
                            use or resale at a later date. Banked land is sometimes used as interim
                            parking to generate revenue generation—parking fees from temporary lots
                            are put towards construction of later phases of the development, and at some
                            point built over into buildings or structured parking.

                            Manage  Demand

                              While reducing excess parking supply is important in eliminating the waste
                            of unused parking spaces, some communities are looking to directly reduce
                            the demand for parking, by providing people with readily available alterna-
                            tives to driving.  Demand reduction programs include car sharing, subsidies
                            for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and com-
                            prehensive vehicle trip reduction programs that may include telecommuting
                            and/or flexible work schedules to reduce commuting. While these programs
                            are typically developed by local governments,  their success often depends

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
on the commitment of businesses to implement them effectively.

   Car-sharing is a neighborhood-based, short-term vehicle rental service
that makes cars easily available to residents on a pay-per-use basis. Mem-
bers  have access to a common fleet of vehicles,  parked throughout
neighborhoods so they are within easy walking distance, or at transit sta-
tions.  In programs with the most advanced technology, members simply
reserve the nearest car via telephone  or the Internet, walk to its reserved
space, open the door using an electronic card, and drive off. They are billed
at the end of the month, gaining most of the benefits of a private car without
the costs and responsibilities of ownership, and without having to search for
parking when their trip  is over.

   In urban neighborhoods with good transit access, car-sharing can elimi-
nate the need to own  a vehicle, particularly a second  or third car that is
driven less than 10,000 miles per year.  In San Francisco, nearly 60 percent
of households that owned  vehicles before joining the car-sharing program
have given up at  least one of them
within  a year, and another 13 per-
cent    were    considering    it
(Nelson\Nygaard, 2002).  Zipcar,
which operates in  Boston, New York,
and Washington, DC, reports that 15
percent of members sell their private
car. In Europe, which has a far long-
er experience with car-sharing, each
shared vehicle takes between four
and ten  private cars off the road ~
and out of city parking  spaces (City
of Bremen, 2002).
   In some cities, developers have
been allowed to reduce the number
of parking spaces if they  incorpo-
rate car-sharing.  Developers  may
need to contribute  towards  set-up
costs and/or provide parking spac-
es reserved for car-sharing vehicles
as part of a project. Car-sharing can
be provided as part of a mitigation
agreement with the local jurisdiction
in return for a reduction in minimum
parking requirements. Alternatively, the parking reduction can  be codified
through zoning ordinances, as is being considered in Portland, Oregon, San
Francisco, and Seattle.
               Car-Sharing, Pricing Strategies
     Van Ness and Turk Development — San Francisco, California

This development includes 141 residential units in a dense area of San Francisco,
with only 51 parking spaces. The development was granted a substantial reduction in
parking requirements—nearly two-thirds—from the city's minimum of 1 space per
unit, to 1 space per 2.8 units. The reduction was granted in large part because of the
developers' agreement to provide two parking spaces for car-sharing operator City
CarShare, accessible to residents and all CarShare members. Strong community
and organizational support, as well as proximity to major transit corridors, were also
If the developers had been required to build the additional 90 spaces required by code,
they would have been forced to add either subterranean levels or parking lifts, which
save space by stacking vehicles on top of each other. These expensive options would
have cost between $1.35 million for lift technology (estimated at $15,000 per space)
or $8.1 million for additional below-grade parking levels (estimated at $60,000 to
$90,000 per space).
The developer also "unbundled," parking costs, so that residents are charged for park-
ing separately from  rent.  The current market rate for parking is $280 to  $300 per
space per month. By charging separately for parking and incurring lower construction
costs, the developer is able to keep apartment rents lower.

Source: Thieophilos Developers, 2002.

                      Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions

                                Car-sharing can also be a useful tool to reduce parking demand in com-
                             mercial developments. Employees can use a shared vehicle for meetings
                             and errands during the workday, allowing them to take transit, carpool, walk,
                             or bicycle to work. Car-sharing works best in compact, mixed-use neighbor-
                             hoods, where firms with corporate memberships tend to use the vehicles
                             during the day and residents can use them in the evenings and on week-

                                Formal car-sharing programs  have been established in many cities, in-
                             cluding Boston; Washington, DC; San Francisco; Oakland, California; Portland,
                             Oregon; Seattle; and  Boulder, Colorado, and are being established in many
                             others. Some programs are run by non-profits with significant government
                             support. Private for-profit companies, notably Flexcar and Zipcar, are operat-
                             ing in a number of cities, but they often work with the city or the local transit
                             agency to secure reserved parking spaces on city streets or in transit park-
                             and-ride lots.  Alternatively, developers  can  provide shared vehicles
                             themselves, or facilitate informal car-sharing among residents. Car-sharing
                             reduces parking demand,  but it also brings a broad range of other benefits,
                             including fewer vehicle trips  with less associated pollution,  and improved
                             mobility for low-income households who may not be  able to afford to own a
                             car, if rental rates are low enough..

                             Incentives for Transit
                                Financial incentives to ride transit can help reduce  parking demand. They
                             can be provided by employers, by cities, or by residential property  managers.
                                   Car-Sharing, Parking Maximums
                              Rich Sorro Commons — San Francisco, California

   Plans for Mission Bay, a 303-acre brownfield redevelopment area in San Francisco, include 6,000 units of housing, office space,
   university facilities, a hotel, community services, and retail. The city introduced parking maximums in this area to maximize the amount
   of new housing, make the most of the new Third Street Light Rail line through the neighborhood, and minimize traffic impacts on
   congested streets and the nearby freeway. Residential parking maximums were set at one space per unit.
   One of the first projects completed was Rich Sorro Commons, a mixed-use project with 100 affordable units and approximately 10,000
   square feet of ground floor retail. It was constructed with only 85 parking spaces, due to:
       •   Excellent proximity to light rail, commuter rail, and frequent bus service;
       •   Provision of two parking spaces for City CarShare; and
       •   Units below market rate, with tenants who are less likely to own a car.

   With fewer parking spaces, Rich Sorro Commons was able to make space available for a childcare center and retail stores at ground
   level. The 17 would-be parking spaces were converted to retail space that is expected to generate revenues of $132,000 annually for the
   project (300 square feet per space at $25.80 per square foot in rent), making housing more affordable. The two City CarShare vehicles
   are available to residents, giving them access to a car without the costs of ownership - a particularly important benefit for low-income

   Source: Kenneth Jones, Developer, 2002.

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
   In the case of employer-paid transit pass plans, the employer pays the
cost of employees' transit, often instead of providing a free parking space.
This fringe benefit for employees reduces the demand for parking at the
workplace, which in turn reduces traffic, air pollution, and energy consump-
tion. It can equalize the transportation benefit that traditionally only went to
employees who drove to work and received a free parking space.  It also
reduces costs, as transit benefits are generally less expensive to employers
than providing parking. A transit pass in Los Angeles, for example,  costs $42
per month, whereas the average cost for a parking space is $91 per month
(Shoup, 1997b). To promote transit subsidies, the 1998 Transportation Equi-
ty Act for the 21st Century changed federal law so that transit benefits are not
counted as payroll or as income (see also the description of cash-out pro-
grams on page 31). In some cases, city planners respond to employer-paid
transit benefits by lowering minimum parking requirements. For example Mont-
gomery County, Maryland's office zoning requirements allows a 15 percent
reduction in minimum parking requirements if businesses offer reimbursed
transit passes (Smith, 1983). The reduction  in required parking can make
urban development opportunities more inviting.

   Transit incentives can also be useful for residential developments, or even
for neighborhoods.. Property managers in Boulder, Colorado, and Santa Clara
County, California, for example, can bulk-purchase transit passes for all their
                                            Courtesy of City Car Share

                      Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                            residents at deeply discounted rates. The principle is similar to that of insur-
                            ance—transit agencies can offer lower rates on passes because  not all
                            residents will actually use them regularly. Residents can take transit for free,
                            meaning they are less likely to  own a vehicle. Another benefit of prepaid
                            transit programs is that they encourage residents to take transit spontane-
                            ously, since costs are paid up-front. A person does not have to commit to
                                                                      transit full-time in order to be able
                                                                      to reduce their demand for vehi-
                                                                      cle   travel    and   parking.
                                                                      Developers who agree to fund
                                                                      transit passes  can thus  be re-
                                                                      warded  with  lower  parking
            Using Parking Revenue to Support Transit
                         Boulder, Colorado
Faced with a shortage of parking for customers, Boulder developed a program to encourage
downtown employees to commute by other means. In 1993, Boulder's City Council mandated
restricted downtown parking and appealed for parking demand management for the city's
 The Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID), made up of many of downtown's 700
 businesses, responded to the Boulder City Council's demands by creating a system using
 revenue from downtown parking meters to pay for free bus passes. The passes are provided
 for all of the district's 7,500 employees, and cost $500,000 each year The program has
 changed travel behavior, freeing up valuable customer parking spaces:
     •   Employee carpooling increased from 35 percent in 1993 to 47 percent in 1997.
     •   The district's employees require 850 fewer parking spaces.
     •   The increase in available parking has encouraged more retail customers to shop in
        downtown Boulder.

 Boulder has created a special website with information about parking issues in the region:
 The City of Boulder offers deeply discounted Eco-Passesto businesses outside the CAGID
 and to residents, and encourages walking and bicyccling. These programs mean Boulder
 employees avoid 212,500 single-occupancy vehicle trips per year, saving an estimated two
 million miles of pollution- and congestion-causing automobile trips, use is prevented  each

 Source : Boulder Community Network, 1999.

                                                                     Transit Improvements
                                                                        One of the  best ways to re-
                                                                     duce the demand for parking is
                                                                     to improve transit service so that
                                                                     it is  frequent,  convenient, and
                                                                     easy to use. Local government
                                                                     officials can improve public tran-
                                                                     sit through major projects, such
                                                                     as adding light rail lines or street-
                                                                     cars, or creating systems that
                                                                     give buses priority at lights and
                                                                     intersections. They can  also
                                                                     lengthen transit service hours, in-
                                                                     crease the frequency of bus and
                                                                     train service, and revitalize tran-
                           sit stations. Small improvements can also help, such as convenient SmartCard
                           payment systems, improved bus stops and shelters, and real-time directional
                           and schedule information systems.  Portland, Oregon's MAX light rail system
                           exemplifies the widespread benefits of transit improvements. The light rail
                           system encourages transit-oriented development, decreases automobile com-
                           muting, and eases demand for parking. In fact, the light rail improvements
                           eliminated the need for six downtown parking towers (EPA, 1998). These
                           improvements are also partially responsible for $1.3 billion in new develop-
                           ment in Portland over the last 10 years.

                           Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
                              Demand for parking can be reduced by providing pedestrian and bicycle
                           facilities and amenities that make it easier and more pleasant for people to
                           walk or bicycle to work, on errands,  or to lunch. These changes can alleviate
                           traffic congestion; for example, the automobile-dependent design of Tyson's
                           Corner, Virginia, has resulted in high volumes of traffic at lunch time because

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
people cannot walk to restaurants or to run errands.

   Promoting bicycling and walking can be accomplished through both com-
prehensive policies and simple changes to the street.  Some jurisdictions
have adopted 'complete streets' policies that require every road construction
or improvement project to provide safe access for everyone using the road,
including  transit   users,   bicyclists,   and   pedestrians   (see
www.completestreets.org). Other communities have focused on closing gaps
in the sidewalk or bikeway network, by adding sections of sidewalks, bike
lanes, or multi-use paths where needed to ensure safe travel by those modes.

   In addition to paying attention to the street, bicycling
and walking can be encouraged through design chang-
es that  make walking  and bicycling more  secure and
pleasant.  The Downtown Master Plan for Kendall, Flor-
ida (Miami-Dade  County), discusses several  design
concepts  to improve pedestrian  and bicycle access.
Some of the key elements promoted, but not required,
by this program are listed in the text box to the right.
   Developers can also encourage bicycling and walk-
ing by providing on-site facilities such as bicycle racks
and even lockers and showers.  For example, officials
in Schaumburg, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, have in-
corporated provisions into their zoning ordinance to
encourage bicycle use. The ordinance requires all re-
tail  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
highly visible; to protect bicyclists, the ordinance requires
bicycle parking areas to be separated from automobile
parking.  Otherjurisdictions require covered, secure bi-
cycle parking for employees who  will be  leaving their
bicycles all day.

Travel Demand Management  (TDM) Programs
   Travel demand management (TDM) programs com-
bine several trip-reduction strategies to meet explicit
travel goals.  Some TDM programs are put into place by a single employer;
others are managed by governments or business improvement districts and
focus on a developed area that may include both businesses and homes.
These programs typically attempt to decrease the number of trips by single-
occupant vehicles, sometimes setting goals such as reduced vehicle trips or
reduced  miles traveled, while increasing the use of a variety of commuting
and travel alternatives, including transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling.
TDM  plans can be used by city planners to allow developers to build fewer
parking spaces.
        Designing for Pedestrians
              Kendall, Florida

Close attention to design can dramatically improve the envi-
ronment for pedestrians. The city of Kendall, Florida, has
started to redevelop a conventional mall near a rail station
into a new town center. The Downtown Master Plan speci-
fies a number of improvements to create a compact, walkable
place with good connections to existing neighborhoods:

    •   Bicycle/pedestrian access via new sidewalks and
    •   Trees and shrubs along edges facing streets and
    •   Parking hidden in the rear or in parking garages.
    •   Shade and rain protection for pedestrians, such
       as colonnades, arcades, marquees, second-floor
       balconies, wide awnings, or tree canopies.
    •   Buildings positioned along the sidewalks at a de-
       liberate alignment, giving a designed shape to the
       public space.
    •   Doors and windows spaced at close intervals to
       generate activity, direct views to merchandise, and
       make walking interesting.
    •   Minimal number of driveways and parking lot en-
       tries that can making walking unsafe and erode
       urban space.

Source: Downtown Master Plan, Kendall, Florida, 1998.

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                              TDM programs may encourage transit incentives, parking cash-out, and
                            other strategies mentioned here. In addition, these programs typically incor-
                            porate an assortment of complementary program elements that make it easier
                            for people to give up solo driving.  Examples include:

                               •   "Guaranteed ride home" services that allow employees who  use
                                   public transit to get a free ride home (usually via taxi) if they miss
                                   their bus or if they need to stay at work late.
                                                                         •   Company fleet cars
                           	    that can be used for busi-
                                                                         ness meetings or running
                                                                         errands during the work-
        Shared Parking, Transit Improvements, TDM Program
                 Lindbergh City Center-Atlanta, Georgia

The Lindbergh City Center is a mixed-use, high-density development in Atlanta on property owned
by the transit agency, MARTA. The project was envisioned with a goal of having transit carry 30
percent of all trips to and from the center. The development, which includes a hotel and restau-
rant as well as office, retail, and residential space, centers on a MARTA light rail station that
connects it to downtown Atlanta, the airport, and other areas. Parking reductions were allowed
because of shared parking between office and retail uses, because of the ample transit access,
and as a result of the Transportation Demand Management programs. Parking requirements for
the first phase of the development were reduced by 20 percent overall; for office space the reduc-
tion is as high as 70 percent. Condominiums are allowed an 8 percent reduction, from 2 to 1.85
spaces per unit.
Source: Paul Vespermann, Lindbergh City Center, 2002.
                                                                         m   Preferential  and/or
                                                                         reserved parking for van-
                                                                         •   Carpooling  and/or
                                                                         vanpooling with ride-
                                                                         matching  service. Ride
                                                                         matching  through infor-
                                                                         mal "ride  boards" or an
                                                                         employee transportation
                                                                         coordinator, helps people
                                                                         find and form carpools
                                   with neighbors.
                               •   Cell phones for carpoolers to facilitate timing of pick-ups.
                               Employers have little incentive to implement vehicle trip reduction pro-
                            grams if they are not granted reductions in minimum parking requirements.
                            They would not be able to realize the potential cost savings from providing
                            less parking,  but would simply be faced with a large number of empty spac-
                            es. Some cities, such as South San Francisco (see box), have acknowledged
                            this through ordinances that reduce parking requirements for projects that
                            include vehicle trip reduction programs.
                            Pricing  Strategies
                              Although parking is often provided at no charge to the user, it is never
                            free. Each space in a parking structure can cost upwards of $2,500 per year
                            in maintenance, operations, and the amortization of land and construction
                            costs. Even on-street spaces incur maintenance costs and an opportunity
                            cost in forgone land value. These costs end up hidden in rental fees and
                            even in the costs of goods and services. Donald Shoup, Professor of Urban
                            Planning at UCLA, has published extensively on parking policy in the United
                            States. He believes that accurately pricing parking would solve many park-

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
ing  problems (Shoup,
                Travel Demand Management Ordinance
                      South San Francisco, California

South San Francisco is one of the few cities in the U.S. to enact a citywide Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) ordinance, which allows reduced parking requirements for projects meeting
TDM requirements. The ordinance applies to all nonresidential developments that expect to gener-
ate 100 or more average daily trips, or to projects seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. Parking
reductions are not fixed, but are subject to case-by-case review and depend on the number and
extent of TDM elements.

For example, the brownfield, mixed-use Bay West Cove development, which is located close to
transit and bus service, was able to reduce required parking by 10 percent by implementing the
following TDM strategies:

       Free parking for carpools and vanpools.
       Late-night taxi service and feedershuttle service.
       Transit subsidy of $25 per month for all tenant employees.
       Late-night taxi service and feedershuttle service.
       Guaranteed ride home program.
       Provision  of a transportation coordinator.
       On-site project amenities such as child care, showers and lockers, electric vehicle charging,
       bicycle storage facilities, and a transit information kiosk.
    •  Parking charges of at least $20 per month for employee parking spaces.

Developers can use  the savings from reduced parking construction and the income from paid park-
ing to offset or cover the costs of implementing such programs.

Source: City of South San Francisco, 2003.
   The cost of parking is
generally subsumed into
lease fees or sale prices.
However, providing any-
thing for free or at highly
subsidized  rates encour-
ages overuse and means
that more parking spaces
have  to be provided.
Charging users for parking
is a  market-based ap-
proach that passes the true
cost of parking to users,
and encourages  use of
other   transportation
modes. If the fee charged
to users of parking facili-
ties  is sufficient to cover
construction, operation,
and maintenance costs, it
may encourage some us-
ers  to seek alternative
transport modes. Even where there are few alternatives to driving, parking
pricing can  encourage employees to seek out carpooling partners. In addi-
tion to reducing the  cost of parking  provision, pricing strategies bring
substantial  environmental and congestion benefits, particularly since they
tend to reduce peak-period vehicle trips the most.

   However, free parking is an ingrained American tradition. An estimated 99
percent (Shoup, 2005)  of parking  in the United States is free.  How can
paying for parking ever be a good thing for drivers? Drivers are willing to pay
for parking that is more convenient and readily available. For example, on-
street spaces near shopping destinations are much more likely to be available
to customers if  priced and regulated to prioritize short stays ~ if they are
free, they will be used for all-day parking by employees or residents.  For
residents, separating the cost of parking from the cost of rent or a mortgage
provides an economic benefit to those who choose to own fewer cars. In
addition, the revenue generating from putting an accurate value on parking
can be used to benefit an entire neighborhood.

   For commuters, making the cost of parking part of the decision on how to
get to work encourages  transit use and other alternatives,  reducing traffic
congestion.  Parking charges have been found to reduce employee vehicle
trips, and thus daily parking demand, by between 7 percent and 30 percent

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                          or more, depending on factors such as the level of charges and the availabil-
                          ity of alternatives to driving alone. One researcher has calculated that each 1
                          percent rise in parking fees is accompanied by a 0.3 percent decrease in
                          demand (Pratt, 2000).

                             Cities and developers are using a variety of pricing strategies to better
                          balance parking demand and supply. They include parking cash-out pro-
                          grams, pricing that prioritizes certain types of trips, residential parking plans,
                          and parking benefit districts.

                          Cash-Out Programs
                             Cash-out programs allow employees to choose a transportation  benefit,
                          rather than simply accepting the traditional free parking space. Under such
                          programs, employers offer employees the choice of:

                             • Free or subsidized parking,

                             • A transit or vanpool subsidy equal to the value of the parking (of
                               which up to $100 per month is tax-free under current federal law), or

                             • A taxable payment approximately equal to the value of the parking,
                               essentially cash to commuters who bicycle or walk to work.

                             Employees who opt for the non-parking subsidies are not eligible to re-
                          ceive free parking from the employer and are responsible for their  parking
                          charges on days when they drive to work.  The cost savings for employers

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
associated with cash-out payments depend on the amount of the payments.
If the full cash equivalent is provided, this demand reduction program does
not reduce the total costs of providing parking.  However, employees may
accept cash payments lower than the full equivalent of the parking subsidy. If
partial cash payments are used, employers face lower overall transportation
subsidy costs, and employees still benefit. The programs help end the ineq-
uity of providing a free parking space benefit to drivers, while offering nothing
to those who choose to arrive via transit, foot, or bicycle.

   Cash-out programs are often easier to implement than direct charges, as
they are generally more acceptable to employees, particularly when free park-
ing had been the norm. However, their impact on travel behavior is usually
lower, due to the administrative  burden on employees, inertia in changing
travel habits, and the fact that cash-out payments can be a taxable benefit
whereas free parking is not.

   Cash-out programs provide significant environmental, social, and eco-
nomic benefits. For example,  in  response to
California's mandatory cash-out requirement, eight
firms reported an average 17 percent reduction  in
the total number of solo drivers (Shoup, 1997a).
Thus, another benefit of cash-out programs is a re-
duction in traffic congestion and associated pollution.
              Cash-Out Program
             Santa Monica, California
Prioritizing Trips
   Parking pricing can be a tool to prioritize some
types of trips over others, according to their pur-
pose and duration. It allows managers to cater to
certain users, such as short-term shoppers, while
discouraging other users, such as commuters, who
add to peak-hour congestion and occupy a parking
space for an entire day. These pricing  strategies
allow the overall supply of parking to be minimized,
while ensuring spaces are available for critical us-
ers. They can also alleviate pressure to provide more parking from retailers
and  businesses, who may be concerned that lack of parking discourages
shoppers. For example:

   •  Low prices for short-term parking encourages  shopping trips, and
     limiting the duration of parking can also support these high-turnover
     trips.  For example,  charging $0.25 per hour with a two-hour maxi-
     mum will allow many people to use a single space over the course
     of a day.  The same space priced at $2.50 for up to ten hours will
     likely serve a single commuter.  The parking revenue might be the
     same,  but the sales for businesses and sales tax for the city will
     likely be much higher with short-term parking.
In 1992, California instituted a mandatory cash-out program. The
California Health and Safety Code Section 43834 reads, "'Parking
cash-out program' meansan employer-funded program underwhich
an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee
equivalent to the parking subsidy  that the employer would other-
wise pay to provide the employee with a parking space."

The effects of the cash-out program on transportation use in Santa
Monica have been significant. A study conducted by Donald Shoup
of the UCLA found that for two Santa Monica employers, the share
of solo commuters decreased by between 7 and 8 percent once the
cash-out program was in place. This reduction in solo commuters
is responsible for a decrease in annual commuting of 858 vehicle
miles (Shoup, 1997a).

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                                Parking charges that are levied by the hour or day, with no dis-
                                counts for monthly parking, remove the incentive to drive every day
                                to "get your money's worth" from the monthly parking pass.

                                Parking charges at transit stations that only apply before a certain
                                time (such as 9:00 am) encourage users to ride transit when it is
                                less crowded, rather than contributing to crowding in the peak.

                                Sophisticated new parking meters can charge visitors a different
                                rate than residents or employees with parking permits, preserving
                                parking for regular users while maximizing revenue from occasional
                          Residential Parking Pricing
                             Parking charges can also  be introduced at residential developments,
                          through separating or "unbundling" the cost of parking from rents or sale
                          prices. Rather than being provided with a set number of spaces whether they
                          need them or not, residents can choose how many spaces they wish to pur-
                          chase or rent. An alternative to direct charges is to provide "rent rebates" or
                          discounts to residents who own fewer vehicles and do not use their allocated
                          parking spaces.

                                                             In many urban areas with limited off-
                                                           street parking, curb parking is reserved
                                                           for residents through residential  park-
                                                           ing permit programs.  In most cases
                                                           these programs give residents free or
                                                           very inexpensive curb parking permits
                                                           and prohibit anyone else from parking
                                                           there.  However, this can leave many
                                                           spaces unused during the day when
                                                           nearby businesses could use extra park-
                                                           ing. A few communities, including Aspen
                                                           Colorado and Tucson Arizona, are ex-
                                                           perimenting with allowing businesses to
                                                           buy permits in these areas at very high
                                                           rates, or are charging hourly  parking
                                                           fees (Shoup, 2005).  The revenue gen-
                                                           erated  can  be used to  benefit the
                                                           neighborhood, in one version of a park-
                                                           ing benefit district, as described below.

                                                           Parking Benefit Districts
                                                             The  revenue from parking can  be
                                                           used to directly benefit the street or the

Preceeding Page Blank

     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
     neighborhood where the money is collected. Parking benefit districts receive
     the revenue from meters and residential permits within the district. Once ad-
     ministrative  costs are covered, all money goes to transportation and
     neighborhood improvements such as undergrounding of utility wires (Shoup,
     1995), regular street and sidewalk cleaning, installation of benches, nice light-
     ing, or other amenities. Parking benefit districts can allow new development
     to use available on-street and other spaces, while addressing potential ca-
     pacity problems through market pricing of curb and off-street parking.
     Earmarking revenue to directly benefit the neighborhood or commercial dis-
     trict helps to generate support for charges from local residents and businesses,
     who might otherwise resist paying for parking that used to be free.  Often,
     local residents or businesses have a say in how the newly available revenue
     will be spent.

       The most common use of Parking Benefit Districts has been in downtown
     business districts, usually using parking meter revenue. Cities such as San
     Diego and Pasadena, California, have implemented such districts. The con-
     cept also  applies to residential areas.  Most residential parking  permit
     programs give residents free or very inexpensive curb parking permits and
     prohibit anyone else from parking there.   However,  this can leave many
     spaces unused during the day when nearby businesses could use extra park-
     ing, and neighborhoods could certainly use the revenue that could be generated
     by charging for street parking..  A few communities, including Aspen Colorado
     and Tucson Arizona, are experimenting with allowing businesses to buy per-
     mits in these areas at very high rates, or are charging hourly parking fees
     (Shoup, 2005). Furthermore, this concept can be refined based on the neigh-
     borhood. For example, a neighborhood adjacent to an institution such as a
     hospital  or university might  implement a two-tiered residential  permit pro-
     gram. Residents could buy permits at one rate, while excess on-street capacity
     would be sold at market value to non-residents.

 Case  Studies
        This section presents case studies that illustrate how
        specific metropolitan areas have benefited from innovative
        parking alternatives. Little data has been collected comparing the
effectivness of various parking strategies, and much cost data is proprietary
and not available for analysis. Therefore, these examples are presented to
illustrate the ways that parking strategies are being used in real-word set-
tings to help communities balance parking and other goals.

   • Portland, Oregon: Parking policies include maximums, location- and
     use-specific requirements,  shared parking entitlements, car-shar-
     ing,  and vehicle  trip reduction or Transportation  Demand
     Management (TDM) measures. The Hilton Hotel and the Buckman
     Heights and Buckman Terrace apartments have used these poli-
     cies to alter their parking mix..

   • Arlington County, Virginia: Location- and use-specific standards and
     vehicle trip reduction strategies were used to reduce parking re-
     quirements in two developments, the Market Common and the 1801
     North Lynn Street commercial development.

   • NASA Research Park, Santa Clara County, California: A large mixed-
     use development  illustrates vehicle trip reduction

   • The Shoppes of Wilton Manors, Wilton Manors, Flor-
     ida:  This case illustrates how shared parking
     arrangements can be used to reduce parking require-
     ments for a mixed-use redevelopment in one of the
     fastest growing areas of the country.

   • SAFECO Insurance Company Expansion, Redmond,
     Washington: SAFECO responded to the state's trans-
     portation demand management requirements with an
     effective vehicle trip reduction program.

   • The D'Orsay Hotel, Long Beach, California: This case
     illustrates how a downtown parking management plan
     that allows shared parking and in lieu parking fees
     can reduce development costs and put scarce land
     to productive use.

   These six case studies were chosen to highlight  the
range and depth of parking alternatives, including those
created for a specific development basis and those written
into code.  The case studies include some description of

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                           outcomes, including parking costs and development decisions; support for
                           compact, mixed-use, walkable communities; and other goals. As city and
                           county jurisdictions, Portland and Arlington have innovative approaches to
                           managing their transportation systems, including parking, and the case studies
                           illustrate how these policies affect specific developments.. Arlington County
                           is an example of code-based parking reduction strategies—it encourages
                           reduced parking primarily through lowered minimum requirements. Portland,
                           on the other hand, has a varied toolbox of strategies to offer developers to
                           reduce parking.  In other cases, specific developments took the initiative to
                           go against development trends in reducing parking.to achieve broader goals,
                           such as the NASA development in California.  For the Wilton Manors (Flori-
                           da) and D'Orsay Hotel (California) cases, the lowered cost associated with
                           parking alternatives was a key element that allowed the projects to be built in
                           a way that satisfied multiple goals of the community and developers. The
                           parking alternatives can also provide directly documentable environmental
                           benefits: SAFECO's use of transportation management measures and devel-
                           opment design, limited air emissions associated with automobile commuting
                           and protected water quality.  Parking alternatives used for The Shoppes of
                           Wilton Manors and D'Orsay Hotel developments facilitated these infill projects,
                           thus  preventing additional  sprawl and the associated air and water quality
                           Innovative  Parking Policies:
                           Portland,  Oregon
           Innovative Parking Policies
                Portland, Oregon
 Portland has adopted a range of parking policies to promote infill
 development and balance driving and alternatives to the private car,
     •   No minimum parking requirements in the central city;
     •   Parking maximums in most neighborhoods, including
     •   Transferable parking rights in areas with parking maxi-
     •   Reductions from typical minimum requirements for car-
        sharing vehicles;
     •   Reductions from typical minimum requirements for vehi-
        cle trip reduction strategies, such as transit access and
        bicycle parking;
     •   Context-specific standards; and
     •   Provisions for shared parking.
   Portland, Oregon, has introduced several innovative planning policies (list-
ed in the box on this page) to balance transportation needs with environmental
                       protection, community design, affordable housing,
                       and other goals.  The two developments profiled
                       below are just a sample of the numerous projects
                       that have taken advantage of the city's parking re-
                       duction policies to achieve economic, environmental,
                       and social benefits. Others, in brief, include:
                       •    Stadium Station Apartments: 115 affordable
                       apartments, with parking at 0.6 spaces per unit.
                       Of the 40 units already leased, only one-third of
                       households own automobiles. Despite already
                       low parking ratios, 50 percent of the  parking re-
                       mains unused at full occupancy.

                       •    Orenco Station and  La Salle Apartments:
                       Both have parking reductions to 1.8 spaces per
                       unit and provide transit pass allowances to resi-
                       dents. This has  achieved a large increase in

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
     transit ridership among occupants.

   • Collins Circle, Center Commons, and Russellville Commons Apart-
     ments: each is able to serve residents with a combination of transit
     access, walkability, and fewer than one parking space per unit

Hilton Hotel
   The Hilton Executive Tower Hotel and garage, developed by Melvin Mark
Companies, is in the heart of the Portland downtown business district, within
the Free Transit Zone. Constructed on a block that was the former home to
the Greyhound bus terminal, the 20-story, 440,000-square-foot project con-
sists of 312 hotel rooms, conference space, 20,000 square feet of ground-floor
retail, and 680 parking spaces. The Hilton Hotel is the owner of the hotel
portion of the project, and a Melvin Mark partnership owns the parking struc-
ture. Under the Portland zoning code, the maximum allowed parking for the
development would have been 380 spaces—312 hotel spaces, plus 68 growth
spaces for the retail.

   The developers recognized that unmet demand for parking existed in Port-
land, but not primarily from hotel visitors. They sought to make the new park-
ing available to other users, which would make it more efficiently used (and
profitable) than if it were restricted to hotel use. They were able to accommo-
date needs of the  new development and surrounding uses by building 680
spaces — more parking than downtown Portland parking maximums allow.
This case study illustrates not only the benefits of shared parking,  but that
parking maximums combined with transferable parking entitlements can in-
crease the value of real estate and development.

   Under the Portland zoning code,  the maximum allowed parking for the
development would have been 380 spaces—312 hotel spaces, plus 68 growth
spaces for the retail. These maximums are lower than both the  parking
generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and
the minimums adopted by most cities. The  maximums for new office and
retail development downtown are one space per 1,000 square feet; for ho-
tels, the maximum is one space per room.

   The city views the parking maximum as an "entitlement." New develop-
ments can either build the parking "entitlement" (the maximum parking allowed)
or can transfer those spaces to another development, as long as  the transfer
contract is signed before the foundation is  laid. Buildings that choose not to
build the parking they are entitled to, or historic buildings constructed before
parking became an issue, are granted an entitlement of 0.7 spaces per 1,000
square feet—70 percent of the parking entitled to new construction—which
they can transfer to other developments at any time. Transferred rights are
generally not sold, but are granted under certain rules that allow the project
delivering the parking rights to reserve use of some of the spaces - but at
market rates paid to the development that built the parking.

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
              S**SSS*»55  «
Courtesy ofMelvin Mark Companies
   In addition to parking limits, the city also has created three different types
of parking spaces applicable to the Hilton Hotel development:

   •  Hotel spaces:  By code, these spaces may only be sold to hotel
      users (guests or visitors) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
      p.m., weekdays. If the hotel is in a slow season, or if not all hotel
      visitors want parking, the remaining parking spaces go unused—a
      potential financial liability.

   •  Growth spaces:  These are the spaces entitled to new develop-
      ment.  They have  no constraints and can be sold however  the
      developer sees fit.

   •  Preservation spaces: These are spaces generally entitled to old-
      er and historic buildings that were constructed without parking. They
      are more  restrictive than  growth spaces;  if they are not used by
      building occupants, they can only be sold to other cash users on a
      daily or hourly basis.

               The  Hilton project combined these two policies -  the
               transferable rights and the categorization of parking spac-
               es - to build enough spaces to serve both the hotel and
               surrounding developments. The spaces built include:

               •    100 hotel spaces allowed under the zoning code,
               but restricted to use by hotel visitors (only 30 percent of
               their entitlement in this category).

               •    68 growth spaces allowed for the retail space  un-
               der the zoning code (100 percent of their entitlement).

               •    512 spaces by transferring the parking entitlement
               from nearby buildings and new projects:

               •    200  growth spaces transferred from a concurrent
               project, the 250,000 -square-foot Pioneer Place mall. The
               project wanted the parking to attract customers, but did not
               want to assume development costs or lose retail density on
               the site to parking.

               •    312 preservation spaces transferred from seven build-
               ings in the area. Most of these were office buildings built at
       a time when parking was not included.

   Transferable parking rights made the Hilton/Melvin Mark development fi-
nancially beneficial to all parties involved. The Hilton project would not have
been feasible had its developers not been able to get the additional parking
spaces and the flexibility to manage parking. As a major revenue component,
the transfer of parking entitlements allowed the developers to secure funding
from lenders. Prior to development, they were able to sell 500 monthly park-
ing passes to managers of the buildings from which they had obtained

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
preservation space rights. Like pre-leasing an office building, this
committed revenue helped in obtaining financing. The additional
parking and more flexible preservation and growth parking spaces
also reduced risk and seasonal fluctuations that the code's "hotel
use" parking constraints present. The garage operates with day-to-
day averages of 85 to 90 percent occupancy from being able to sell
to many different users—a major source of revenue for the project.

   Transferable parking entitlements retains the advantages  of
maximum parking requirements, such as reduced vehicle trips and
reduced land area devoted to parking, while creating flexibility and
a potential for profit that attracts major developments to the area. In
this way, transferable parking entitlements help to reinforce the eco-
nomic health of the central city, and important goal in the Portland
region.  Downtown development ensures that the city of Portland
retains its property tax base,  promotes an active and pedestrian-
friendly downtown with multiple amenities, and produces more foot
traffic for surrounding businesses. Pioneer Place mall, for example,
attracts more customers by having available parking at an adjacent
site, without adding the risk of developing parking or losing retail
space on their property.
    Portland Hilton Executive Tower
         Hotel, conference center, retail,
         parking garage
         312 hotel rooms
         20,000 square feet retail
         680 shared parking spaces - 45%
         more than typically allowed under
         parking maximums
         Transferable parking entitlements
         Parking maximums
         Shared parking
   The preservation buildings that transferred their spaces to Melvin
Mark Companies also reap significant financial benefit. Typically older, com-
mercial buildings are at a market disadvantage for leasing space because
they cannot provide or commit parking for their tenants in office leases. With
parking built at the Hilton/Melvin Mark garage and preferential rights to lease
to their tenants, the older buildings compete on a more level playing field with
newer buildings for prospective tenants.
         Increased parking revenue helped
         attract major downtown develop-
         New parking benefit provided for older
         downtown buildings without their
         own garages
         Shared use reduced impact of ex-
         tra, empty parking spaces
Buckman Heights and Buckman Terrace
   Located adjacent to Portland's central city Lloyd District and along the
edge of a light-industrial area, the site of the Buckman
Heights mixed-use development and the Buckman Ter-
race Apartments was used for decades  as a car
dealership. Despite a heated real estate market, the 3.7-
acre site had been on  sale for well over a year,
unattractive to most developers. Prendergast & Associ-
ates saw an  opportunity to build housing on the  site,
given its prime location—the project is located nine blocks
from light rail, within five blocks of four high-frequency
bus lines, and surrounded by a growing network of bike
lanes and routes. It is also within easy walking distance
of jobs in the Lloyd District, the Central Eastside, and
downtown. In part because of Portland's parking  poli-
cies, Prendergast was able to purchase the site in 1997,
Courtesy ofPendergast & Associates, Inc.

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
     Buckman Heights Apartments and
            Buckman Terrace
         Mixed market-rate and affordable housing
         with modest retail
         144 units and 122 units, respectively
         Parking ratios of 0.4 and 0.57 spaces per
         unit, respectively
sell the dealership building to a retail user, and convert the remaining 2.5
acres of vacant parking lots into sites for 274 units of housing—an 8-unit
townhouse project, a 144-unit mixed-income apartment building, and a 122-
unit apartment building with a small retail space. Creative parking strategies
helped to keep development costs low.

                The city of Portland has very low minimum parking require-
             ments in the area. Zoned for general employment, with housing
             allowed but not actively encouraged, the minimum parking re-
             quirements were just 0.5 spaces per unit—already a significant
             reduction from the typical urban standards of between  one
             and two spaces per apartment. This  neighborhood is close to
             transit and jobs, providing consumers with a choice of differ-
             ent housing types and mobility options.
         Parking maximums
         Use of on-street parking
         Shared off-site parking
         Car-sharing and bicycle parking available
         Parking charges separated from rents
         Lowered parking ratios increase affordabil-
         ity: 40% of Buckman Heights units are af-
         Elminating excess parking saved Buck-
         man Terrace developers at least $875,000
         Eliminating excess parking made room for
         more affordable units
         Residents benefit from affordable transpor-
         tation options:  bicycle facilities are well
                 Both developments have extremely low parking ratios. Buck-
              man Heights has 58 on-site parking spaces for a ratio of 0.4
              spaces per unit. Buckman Terrace has 70 spaces at a ratio of
              0.57 spaces per unit, with only on-street parking for the retail.
              These spaces are a mix of carport, surface, and at-grade struc-
              ture spaces.

                 The developmenter was able to both reduce the parking
              required and keep parking demand lower than supply through
              the following strategies:

              •   Bicycle Facilities: Buckman Heights Apartments elim-
              inated 14 required on-site parking spaces by providing 56
              secure, covered bicycle parking spaces in addition to the
              36 spaces required by code. Portland zoning provision al-
              lows four covered, secure bike parking spaces to be
              substituted for one automobile parking space, up to a max-
              imum of 25 percent of the required parking. The developer
              also provided lockers, floor pumps, and a workstand in the
      bike rooms. The bicycle parking has been so well used that the
      developer added even more bike parking to Buckman Terrace.

      On-street parking: The Buckman Heights development included
      restriping a wide street between the two apartment buildings to ac-
      commodate angled parking, increasing the supply of on-street
      spaces as well as creating a more pedestrian-friendly feel through
      the addition of generous sidewalks, landscaping, and street lamps.
      Although this did not directly replace the requirement for off-street
      spaces in this case, it provided a buffer and allowed the develop-
      ment to build as little parking as possible.

      Shared  off-site parking: The development made use of on-street
      parking in the adjacent area where a sewing/assembly plant and a
      high school were located.  The adjacent uses had huge on-street

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
      parking demand during the day (when residents are typically at work)
      but were empty on evenings and weekends (when residents are
      typically home and parking their cars). This unique setting allowed
      the developer and the lenders to feel comfortable with the sharply
      reduced on-site parking ratios.

   •  Unbundled Parking Costs: Paying for parking separately from rent
      helps keep residents aware of parking costs and allows them to
      make informed, economic choices about vehicle ownership and other
      transportation options. Parking at Buckman Heights costs between
      $15 and $30 per month, depending on surface or covered spaces.
      Buckman Terrace parking (structured) costs $50 per month.

   •  Car Sharing: FlexCar (originally CarSharing Portland) now has two
      vehicles at the complex. Since car-sharing was not available at the
      time of construction,  it did not reduce the amount of parking that
      had to be built, but it now reduces the need for residents to own
      cars and, consequently, the demand for parking.

   Keeping development costs low was particularly important because the
project was not eligible for property tax abatements that are given to low-
income and central city market-rate housing, because it lies just outside the
central city boundary. By cutting costs, partially from parking, the developers
were able to secure the funding needed for develop-

   Considering per space construction costs in Port-
land of $5,000 to $7,000 for surface parking, upwards
of $15,000 for surface structures, and $25,000 to
$30,000 for below-grade structures, parking reduc-
tions  in the Buckman developments significantly
reduced development costs. Buckman Terrace was
constructed with no surplus land, so additional park-
ing would have been forced to go underground. By
forgoing the construction of 50 additional spaces, the
developers were able to reduce the cost of the apart-
ments with the savings of between $875,000  and
$1,125,000. For Buckman Heights Apartments, the
developers were able to add additional apartments
to the project using the money saved from parking,
especially helpful for revenue given rent restrictions
on the affordable units.

   The attention to a walkable environment has giv-
en the residents more transportation choices  and
improved their quality of life, while also making the
project marketable. Both developments have been
at or near full occupancy (95 to 100 percent leased)
since the openings in 1999 and 2000, even outper-
                                                           Courtesy ofPendergast & Associates, Inc.

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                           forming the soft Portland housing market in  recent months. The develop-
                           ments have provided more than 80 new affordable homes. In addition, charging
                           for parking separately from rent benefits households who do not have cars—
                           particularly low-income families. Infill housing also increases the city's tax
       Context-Specific Requirements
             Arlington, Virginia

 Commercial Uses:
     •   Commercial Office Zoning area outside of station
        areas: one space per 530 square feet.
     •   Commercial Redevelopment Zone (along Metro
        Corridor): one space per 580 square feet.
     •   Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor Development and
        developments within one-quarter mile of a Metro
        station: one space per 1,000 square feet.

 Retail Uses:
     •   For retail and service-commercial uses within 1,500
        feet of a Metro station, no parking is required for
        the first 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.
     •   Any square footage above that has the same park-
        ing requirements as commercial in the area (ei-
        ther 1:580 square feet or 1:1,000 square feet, de-
        pending on its location in the corridor).

 Residential Uses:
     •   High-density residential: 1.08 spaces per unit (1:1
        + visitor).
     •   Townhouses:2.2perunit(2:1 + visitor).
     •   Single family homes: one space per house. This
        ratio assumes space in a driveway or on the street.
                           Context-Specific Requirements  and TDM:
                           Arlington  County, Virginia

                              Arlington County is an urban area of about 26 square miles directly across
                           the Potomac River from Washington, DC. Arlington County has adopted coun-
                           tywide development standards and guidelines, including lower parking ra-
                           tios, to support future growth of high-density commercial and residential de-
                           velopment around Metrorail stations in their two corridors—the Rosslyn-Ball-
                           ston Corridor and the Jefferson Davis Corridor. Two specific projects are
                           profiled here—a high-density residential development and a commercial de-
                           velopment.  Both have used the county's context-specific parking require-
                           ments and travel demand management program to better match parking sup-
                                              ply with demand, making resources available for other
                                              community benefits.
                      Arlington County dictates minimum parking require-
                   ments based primarily on distance from Metro stations.
                   Parking requirements for commercial development are
                   particularly transit-sensitive, with the lowest ratios for
                   properties closest to Metro stations. According to Rich-
                   ard Best from the county Public Works Planning Division,
                   if a development is within one-quarter mile of a Metro
                   station, the county is open to allowing development with
                   no new  on-site parking, although this is not specifically
                   written in the code.

                      Every project that goes through the site plan process
                   for development along Metro corridors is required to
                   have a transportation plan, which varies depending on
                   density and use. Further reductions in minimum parking
                   requirements, beyond the location- and use-specific stan-
                   dards, are granted for projects that include  robust
                   transportation choices, such as free or discounted tran-
                   sit passes for employees, other transit subsidies,
                   ridesharing,  and information on transit.

                      While not written into code, Arlington also enforces
                   urban design criteria in  parking construction. All parking
is encouraged to be below  ground, or  if at surface level, it must be in  a
structure that is wrapped  with occupiable  ground floor space, in order to

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
reduce the impact of the parking on the walkability of the street.
There are no codes dictating such design, but a site-plan review
process strongly encourages it.

The Market Common
   The Market Common in Clarendon is a mixed-use develop-
ment with retail and restaurant space, 300 market-rate apartment
units on upper floors, and adjacent office space. Located three
blocks from two Metro stations along the Rosslyn-Ballston corri-
dor, and in close proximity to dense employment and retail, the
area has a variety of uses and urban form that supports walking,
transit, and biking as well as driving and parking. Realizing that patrons of  courtesy of Mccaffery interests
retail establishments would be using the parking during the day
while residents would mainly need parking at night, developers
of the Market Common devised a shared parking strategy.

   Under typical suburban parking requirements, the develop-
ment would have required over 2,000 parking spaces. Under the
Arlington County Code, the project would have required 1,504
spaces for the retail, housing, and office space.  But  by using a
shared parking strategy, the development was able to reduce
the requirement by 25 percent—to 1,160 spaces. The Market
Common is the first recent development approved in the county
with no assigned spaces for residential units—all spaces are
equally available for all uses.

   Parking demand is mitigated through several strategies:

   •  Parking costs are unbundled from rent for residents: $25 per month
     for the first car, $75 to $100 per month for the
                Courtesy ofMcCaffery Interests
   m  Daily parking is variable for other users, with rates
      of $1 to $4 per hour, with higher rates for longer

   •  Bicycle parking reduces demand, as does prox-
      imity to transit.

   Perhaps the parking could have been reduced even
more and still met demand. Studies of parking use at
Market Common indicate that up to 20 percent of avail-
able parking remains unused at peak times.  The
developer and county agreed to count that surplus park-
ing toward  requirements at future phases of this
                                                                 The Market Common
       225,000 square feet of retail and restaurant use
       300 market-rate apartment units
       Parking: 25 percent reduction from county code
       Shared parking
       Parking costs separated from rents
       Transit and bicycle facilities
       Fewer required spaced reduced development costs
       by an estimated $16 million
       Parking paid for only by those who use it

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
            1801 North Lynn Street
        Office building with street-level retail
        348,000 square feet of office space
        6,000 square feet of retail space
        386 parking spaces, one-third of typical requirements
        Extensive TDM program including fare subsidies
        Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities
        Employees have a range of commuting choices
        Eliminating unnecessary parking helped make project
        financially feasible
        Increased tax base from new commercial activity
1801 North Lynn Street
   The 1801 North Lynn Street development is a new commercial building in
the Rosslyn Metrorail station area, zoned for parking requirements of one
                     space per 1,000 square feet, dependent upon  the
                     choices available to travelers. The zoning in this area
                     permits increases in density and height when  the
                     County  Board finds that the development offers im-
                     portant community  benefits.  The 1801 North Lynn
                     Street development has 347,295 square feet of office
                     space, 6,065 square feet of retail, and 386 parking
                     spaces. At typical suburban parking ratios, that amount
                     of development  would have been accompanied by
                     roughly three times  as many parking spaces. Trans-
                     portation Demand Management strategies allowed
                     parking to be reduced to one space per 1,000 square
                     feet ratio. The transportation program included the
                     following elements:

                                                •  Full-time, on-site Employee Transportation Co-
                                                ordinator to manage the program;

                                   Financial contribution to the Rosslyn Commuter Store;

                                   Transit fare subsidies for employees;

                                   Implementation of several ridesharing and parking strategies, in-
                                        cluding promoting ridesharing, helping commuters find rides,
                                        and subsidizing parking for carpools and off-peak commut-
                                        ing; and

                                        •    Bike facilities and showers to encourage bicycle com-

                                           For workers in this building, the discounted Metro fare, along
                                        with walking and biking access to many residential neighbor-
                                        hoods, provides real choices in how to get to work. For shoppers
                                        at its retail establishments, newly available on-street parking in
                                        front of the stores provides a better option than existed before.
                                        The county gets an increased tax base and the vitality of mixed-
                                        use development and street-level retail in an area that in the
                                        past has not enjoyed off-peak activity.

                                           Financial benefits to the developers of  the two Arlington
                                        County projects are obvious ~ reduced parking requirements
                                        sharply reduce construction costs, which in Arlington can mean
                                        upwards of $15,000 per space for structured parking, and up
                                        to $25,000 or more for below-grade spaces. Building less parking
                                        is a major part of making the projects financially feasible, in
                                        terms of balancing land costs, construction costs, revenue, and

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
lending. The Market Commons project, for example, saved $16 million from
the 400 forgone parking spaces, without which it would not have been a
feasible project.

   Arlington has succeeded in promoting high-density, mixed-use develop-
ments with reduced parking in  its Metrorail corridors. This kind of design
promotes walk and bike trips as people can go from home to work and shop-
ping in very short distances. Urban design in both projects pays close attention
to pedestrian comfort, by providing usable public space, circulation paths,
attractive landscaping, and engaging street-level architecture.

Transportation  Management for Mixed-Use
Development:  Santa Clara,  California
NASA Research Park

   The NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) is a 1,500-acre site of federally
owned land that lies between the southwestern edge of the San Francisco
Bay and Silicon Valley, in Santa Clara County, California. Part of the site
includes Moffet field, a decommissioned military site. Years of planning and
community input led to an award-winning plan for a mixed-use development
including  an emphasis on research and technology firms; Internet-search
giant Google recently announced it would build a major campus at the site.
Design and construction will continue through at least 2014.

   The majority of redevelopment on NASA's land will occur in the NASA
Research Park (NRP), a 213-acre parcel on the southwest part of the site.
Plans for development include the restoration of existing historical buildings,
as well as adding nearly two million square feet of educational, office, re-
search and development, museum, conference center, housing, and retail
space. Also being developed as part of the project is 28 acres of a 95-acre
parcel on the north side of the site called "The Bay View." This area is slated
for predominantly housing uses, in addition to supporting retail, childcare,
and other services. The remainder of Bay View will remain as open space
and natural habitat.

   Because the NASA land is federally owned, it is exempt from city or county
codes that dictate parking requirements, as well as other development re-
strictions. Despite the lack of restrictions, the NRP project sought from the
beginning to reduce the impact of traffic on surrounding streets and neigh-
borhoods—with  the goal of keeping driving at least 32 percent below the
typical rates by Santa Clara County residents.

   Had the site been developed using typical minimum parking ratios, it would
have needed 7,542 parking spaces. Instead, the TDM plan calls for 5,200
spaces, with parking ratios determined by the actual number of people ex-
pected to be on-site.

                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
         NASA Research Park and Bay View
    A TDM plan was developed for the NRP and Bay View, using a range of
 trip reduction strategies to ensure that parking demand can be accommodat-
 ed in  fewer spaces The TDM plan will be binding  on partners and other
 tenants at the NRP and Bay View developments, pursuant to the provisions
 of the environmental permits.

    Some of the many innovative TDM strategies to achieve the plan's goals

	    •   Supportive site design, including housing,
                         retail, and office space in close proximity; bicy-
                         cle paths and bike parking; a  network of
                         sidewalks and paths;
          Partially redeveloped 1500-acre former military base
          with significant open space
          1,120 town home apartments for 3,300 residents
          810 dormitory-style housing units for 1,560 students
          Renovation of 600,000 square feet of historic buildings
          Addition of more than three million square feet of new
          housing, office, and retail space
          5,200 parking spaces, 32 percent less than typical
          development codes require
          Mix uses to reduce vehicle trips
          Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and shuttle bus
          Parking pricing policies
          Specific TDM goals for commuting trips, including 32
          percent fewervehicle trips than area average
          Reduced traffic impact on surrounding communities
          Less pavement reduces impact on natural habitat
          Convenient housing and commuting options for resi-
          dents and employees
          Reducing unnecessary parking saves $3 million an-
                         •   Oh-site employees and students get priori-
                         ty for purchasing on-site homes

                         •   Site-wide shuttle bus program  and bus

                         •   Partners, lessees, & tenants are required
                         to pass on the cost of parking or offer parking

                         •   Parking fees structured so the less you park,
                         the less you pay: o discount for monthly park-
                         ing; hourly spaces; low rates for carpoolers

                         •   75 percent of all spaces shared between
                         land uses.

                           The TDM plan allows for adjusting the price of
                         parking to balance demand with supply. This flexi-
                         bility provides revenue for TDM programming while
                         ensuring efficient use of the parking. The TDM pro-
                         gram means significant cost savings for developers,
 while reducing the environmental impact and improving the pedestrian envi-
 ronment of the future campus.

    Without the TDM program, the development would have needed an addi-
 tional 2,342 parking spaces, at a cost of about $3 million annually.  Parking
 fees cover all costs of providing  parking and the TDM program, a benefit to
 both the developer and surrounding communities: The TDM program re-
 quires that those who park pay for the parking supply. Travelers who want to
 drive can park, while travelers who choose not to drive do not have to pay for

    The land itself is a brownfield—formerly contaminated by its military use—
 as well as an environmentally sensitive habitat—home to the burrowing owl,
 a California species of special concern. The development focuses on reme-
 diation, preservation,  and environmental sustainability. The development plan

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
goes a step further to ensure conservation for a sustainable future—it incor-
porates energy efficiency, water conservation, transportation demand
management, and seismic safety. This is a striking change from typical de-
velopment patterns in the area.

   The NRP TDM plan will reduce impervious pavement, an element of de-
velopment that can damage nearby ecosystems because of reduced habitat,
limited rainwater re-absorption, and increased polluted stormwater runoff.
Reduced parking in the NRP saves land, which contributes to the project's
81 acres of preserved land for the endangered burrowing owl.

   By combining uses on the  property and offering on-site employees and
students priority for purchasing homes, the development will not only reduce
the  need for
people to  com-
mute from  out of
the region, but
will sharply  re-
duce internal
vehicle  trips.
The develop-
ment  will  be
home to nearly
5,000  people,
at least half of
whom will work
or study on the
campus. These
employees will
be able to find
services on site,
instead of hav-
ing   to   run
errands off site
on their lunch
breaks. NASA
has committed
to offering  a
minimum  of 10
percent of the
homes  on site
at prices afford-
able   to   its
The  reduced
parking is  not an end in itself.  It underscores the emphasis on better urban
design and improved walkability, improving the quality of life of residents,
           AMES CAMPUS
                        NASA RESEARCH PARK
                    r Bldg 14
                            V	OHMSlBBuHdlns
                            '\   I'
               LAB PROJECT
                               AIR NATIONAL GUARD
                               MASTER PLAN AREA
                           (~\ NASA Research Park |N RPI  li~l Easlside/Airfield
                           ^| Ames Campus       F I Wetlands
                           O Bay View         • Projects under me CUP EA
                           i  I California Air Maul Guard (CANG)

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                          employees, students, and visitors.
        The Shoppes of Wilton Manors
Reduced Parking  Requirements:
Wilton  Manors,  Florida
The  Shoppes  of Wilton  Manors

   In the city of Wilton Manors, in Broward County, parking reductions were
partly responsible for enabling a financially deteriorating neighborhood shop-
ping center to be redeveloped into a successful mixed-use development,
featuring restaurants, art galleries, and other entertainment uses, as well as
professional offices. At its peak in the 1960s, the shopping center housed a
Grand  Union supermarket, a bank,  a fast food restaurant, and many other
                      stores. In the 1990s, the shopping center lost sever-
                      al businesses, reducing the tenant occupancy rate
                      to 30 percent.
        Redevelopment of neighborhood shopping center
        Converted to an entertainment destination
        Eliminated construction of 390 unnecessary parking
        Zoning overlay district recognizes lower demand for
        Off-site shared parking facilities
        Buildings preserved for rental, ratherthan demolished
        for parking
        Saved $1.9 million in construction costs
        Increased property values and city revenues
        Helped inspire nearby redevelopment
                        Southeast Florida, comprising Palm Beach, Bro-
                     ward, and Dade Counties, is one of the fastest grow-
                     ing regions of the United States. Projections for 2015
                     suggest that the population will reach 6.2 million peo-
                     ple, an increase of over 50 percent from 1990. With
                     the growing population and increasing development,
                     fragile ecosystems are being lost and water supplies
                     threatened. Communities and this region are seek-
                     ing to reverse these trends by developing compact,
                     mixed-use, walkable places. Reducing parking re-
                     quirements is one element of southeast Florida's
                     move toward smart growth and development.

                        To accommodate redevelopment of the shopping
                     center and revitalize the area, the city teamed with a
private development company,  Redevco, creating a public/private partner-
ship to transform the property. Because a host of "big  box" retail stores had
recently located in outlying areas, this property could not support additional
retail stores. Instead, the city and Redevco identified an untapped market
niche—entertainment, cultural attractions, and restaurants. To enable these
uses, the city created a  new zoning overlay district that not only changed
zoning requirements to allow arts and entertainment uses, but also exempted
the developer from standard parking requirements by allowing shared park-
ing in planned off-site public parking structures. The new zoning district also
allowed outside cafes and seating to make the restaurants more inviting and

   Under the city's generic parking requirements, art and entertainment uses
would have required 390 new  parking spaces, in addition to the existing
spaces at the site required for existing retail. Construction of the additional

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
390 parking spaces would have cost approximately $1.9 million and would
have also necessitated demolition of existing buildings, further increasing
redevelopment costs and eliminating rental income from the lost buildings.
Reducing the parking requirements and allowing shared parking reduced the
development costs enough to make the redevelopment financially feasible.

   The Shoppes of Wilton Manors now boasts 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, or 12 times its
former rental income.

   In addition to the financial success of the project, the revitalization of the
Shoppes of Wilton Manors has provided other benefits to the community.
The project has stimulated adjacent economic development. An office build-
ing next door that was vacant for 18 months now houses a law firm with 100
employees, many of whom frequent the restaurants and entertainment facili-
ties at the Shoppes  of Wlton Manors. Property values in the surrounding
area are also improving; rental rates have almost  doubled, from $6 to be-
tween $11 and $14 per square foot of leased space. The increased property
value of the Shoppes of Wlton Manors—increasing by more than 10 times
the initial value,  from $226,000 to over $3.3 million—will add an estimated
$80,000 in property  tax revenues to the city. In addition, the  other  private
investments along Wlton Drive have increased city-wide property tax reve-
nues by 10 percent. Storefront and landscaping improvements make the area
more attractive.  Criminal activity has dropped due  to the increased  activity
and vibrancy of the  area. The walkable nature of the town center is en-
hanced as a result of improved site access. All of these benefits contribute to
an improved quality of life for local residents and business people.

   Some of the key elements in Wlton Manors' success include:

   •  The developer's and the city's willingness and commitment to work

   •  The city's flexibility in reducing parking requirements to support dif-
     ferent redevelopment uses;

   •  Substantial cost savings resulting from parking reductions, making
     the redevelopment financially feasible; and

   •  Contributing to significant secondary benefits, including increasing
     the tax base and design improvements, by catalyzing surrounding

   According to Redevco executive vice president, Debra Sinkle, the project
succeeded because of the public/private partnership between the city and
Redevco. The city's flexibility on zoning requirements and its commitment to
the project created the confidence necessary for private investment.

                   Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                         TDM  Program:  Redmond, Washington
                         SAFECO Insurance Company  Expansion

                            The state of Washington's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law was passed
                         in 1991 to improve air quality and mitigate traffic congestion. This transporta-
                         tion 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
 King County Metro
King County, Washington
       5,000 vanpool commuters each day

       Provides TDM support services to employeers
                                           travel patterns by administering employee surveys, which
       Washington's most populous county, with almost 2
       million residents                          ^re written and processed by the state. The CTR es-
                                           tablished a goal of a 35- percent reduction in trips by
       Metro transit serves 75 million riders per year, and
                                2005 compared to 1993 levels.

                                   The headquarters of SAFECO Insurance Company
                                of America is in Redmond, a suburb of Seattle in King
                                County, one of the nine Washington counties affected
                                by the CTR. SAFECO has responded to the CTR with
              an award-winning Transportation Management Plan (TMP) that includes em-
              ployee transit passes, reserved parking for high occupancy vehicles (HOV),
              ride matching, vanpooling, and guaranteed rides home for employees at all
              its offices in the Seattle region.. By providing these services, SAFECO was
              allowed to build less parking for a recent expansion project below the city of
              Redmond's maximum levels.

                 SAFECO has undertaken a large-scale construction project to accommo-
              date anticipated growth at its corporate headquarters in Redmond, adding
              three buildings (385,000 square feet of office space) and three parking struc-
              tures (843 parking spaces) for the new office space. To preserve the attractive,
              park-like setting of the 48-acre campus and to maintain a pedestrian-friendly
              environment, SAFECO chose to construct all three parking structures under-
              ground. These subterranean spaces, while expensive to construct at $18,000
              per space, preserve green space and make it easier to walk around the
              business park campus. The city of Redmond has maximum parking limits that
              would allow SAFECO to construct 1,155 spaces. Instead, SAFECO built 843
              spaces, resulting in a parking  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 number of spaces allowed SAFECO
              to mitigate the higher cost of constructing underground parking, in addition to
              helping meet design goals.

                 While these parking reductions were not implemented as cost-cutting mea-
              sures, the gross cost savings associated with the parking reductions (relative
              to the maximum limits) amount to $5.6 million in parking construction costs, or

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
about $491,000 annually.1

   SAFECO's exemplary IMP reduced parking demand and allowed the com-
pany to build fewer parking spaces. SAFECO targets a portion of the savings
to the IMP, approximately $261,000 per year including $75,400 for transit
subsidies. Combining the full cost of transportation demand management at
the Redmond campus and the savings from parking reductions, SAFECO
annually saves $230,000 from parking reductions. Given that SAFECO would
have incurred some of the costs of transportation demand management at its
Redmond campus regardless of the parking reductions, the net savings ac-
tually exceed $230,000. SAFECO's decision to increase the density  of its
existing property, rather than move to another (likely ex-urban) location, also
avoided the cost of procuring additional land.

   Under its IMP, SAFECO agrees to maintain the rate of employees driving
to work alone at or below 60 percent. Since 1997, SAFECO has kept these
trips to between 57 and 59 percent of total commute trips. By comparison,
81 percent of east King County commuters drive alone, and 13 percent car-
pool (Washington State Department of Transportation 1999). Rather than
drive alone, 15 percent of SAFECO employees carpool; 12 percent use van-
pool services; 8 percent use public transit; and the remaining 7 percent bicycle,
walk, ortelecommute.

   The company also maintains information on commuter vehicle miles trav-
eled (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. Avoiding
      almost 1.2  million miles of automobile travel also avoids approxi-
      mately 27.56 tons of carbon monoxide, 3.85 tons of nitrogen oxides,
      and 2.20 tons of hydrocarbons each year.2

   •  Water Quality Benefits: Another significant, yet less quantifiable,
      environmental benefit of reduced parking is the preservation of per-
      vious surfaces to absorb rainfall  and prevent polluted runoff.
      Increasing the amount of impervious areas through paving can alter
   1 This annual amount is only associated with construction costs and assumes constant
payments, an interest rate of 7.25 percent, and a 25-year payment period per discussion with
SAFECO transportation manager.
   2 Calculated using average emissions factors from EPA's Office of Mobile Sources' Compi-
lation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors, Volume II: Mobile Sources: (AP-42), which provides
the following emissions factors: 21.05 grams of carbon monoxide emitted perVMT, 2.97 grams
of nitrogen oxides emitted per VMT, and 1.71 grams of hydrocarbons emitted per VMT.

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                               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 especial-
                               ly susceptible to polluted runoff. An additional 312 parking spaces
                               in above-ground lots would mean another 100,000 square feet of
                               impervious surfaces.

                            Several key factors contributed to the success of SAFECO's program.
         SAFECO Insurance Company
        Expanded office park by 385,000 square feet
        843 underground parking spaces, 27 percent less than
        typical requirement
        TDM plan including vanpools, transit passes, guaran-
        teed rides home
        Eliminating unnecessary parking saves $230,000 an-
        Employees avoid commuting costs and receive tran-
        sit benefits
        Employees drive about 1.2 million miles less per year
        Less driving avoids about 33 tons of pollutants per year
        Reduced pavement for parking leads to less storm
        water runoff
•   The city of Redmond was flexible and coop-
erative in allowing SAFECO to increase density
on the existing property.

•   SAFECO has an environmentally responsi-
ble corporate ethic of reducing parking below the
maximum limits and staying in Redmond  rather
than relocating.

•   Frequent and reliable public transit 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 transportation management director
believes that, had the project required outside
funding, lenders might have resisted making loans
unless more parking was provided in the devel-
opment plan.
                          Shared Parking and  In-Lieu  Fees:
                          Long Beach, California
                          Embassy  Suites at the  D'Orsay Promenade

                            The city of Long Beach, California, recognizes that creating high-quality
                          downtown  development requires balancing the costs and supply of parking
                          with other community goals, including economic development and walkabili-
                          ty. 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 include non-residential new construction on
                          lots less than 22,500 square feet, additions or rehabilitation to existing build-

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
ings, and renovation of historic landmark buildings.

   The four-star Embassy Suites at the D'Orsey
Promenade, which was proposed to the city in 1998,
provides an example of how cities can use parking
reductions to facilitate redevelopment. The pro-
posed D'Orsay Hotel included a 162-room boutique
hotel with 35,000 square feet of retail space. The
property, on a three-block pedestrian walkway in
downtown Long Beach  was previously a surface
parking lot.

   Other development proposals for this property
had been made to the city, but fell through in part
due to the financial burden imposed by the city's minimum parking require-
ments.  They 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 mil-
lion, making the project financially infeasible.

   The developer worked with the city, which conducted a traffic study to
assess parking demand at other Long Beach downtown hotels. The city's
planning department determined that this mixed-use hotel and retail develop-
ment did not require the minimum number of parking spaces and modified the
requirements in part by  allowing the hotel and retail to share  the available
Modified Parking Requirements for the D'Orsay Hotel

Generic Requirements
Revised Requirements
Revised Requirements
Retail & Hotel On-Site
Retail & Hotel Off -at e
(With In-Lieu Fees)


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

Gross Floor

square feet
162 room s

square feet
162 room s


# of




Cost per









                     Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                D'Orsay Hotel
        Boutique hotel with retail space on former downtown
        parking lot
        162 parking spaces, 47 percent less than typical re-
spaces. The plan reduced the retail parking space required to three spaces
per 1,000 square feet. The hotel's valet parking system allowed the reduc-
tion of parking requirements for the hotel space, to 113 spaces for the 162
rooms. These modifications reduced the number of required spaces by 84.

   However, parking construction costs still made the project financially in-
feasible. Even with the revised requirements, the 218 parking spaces for this
project would cost $3.49 million to build. Upholding its mission to encourage
urban revitalization, the city of Long Beach Redevelopment Bureau agreed
to further adjust the parking requirements by charging in-lieu fees in places
                      of 56 of the required spaces. The in-lieu fee was
                      $3,000 per parking space plus an additional $50 per
                      space per month to cover parking operating and main-
                      tenance expenditures. The city is obligated to provide
                      those parking spaces near the hotel.
        Parking study to assess market demand
        Shared parking
        In-lieu fees to provide off-site parking
        Eliminating unnecessary parking saved $2 million in
        construction costs, making project financially feasi-
        Provides new shopping and work opportunties down-
        Adds $300,000 in new tax revenues annually, to be
        used for further revitalization projects
                         As shown in the accompanying table, the revised
                      parking requirements decreased  the  developer's
                      parking construction costs by over $2  million, with
                      $730,000 of the savings coming from the in-lieu fee
                      arrangement. This reduction made the entire project
                      financially feasible. These cost savings significantly
                      improved the projected financial net returns for the
                      proposed project and ultimately facilitated revitaliza-
                      tion of the surrounding area.

                         The hotel is expected to generate approximately
                      $300,000 annually in additional property tax reve-
                      nues for the city.  Because this property is  in an
                      economically troubled area qualified to receive spe-
cial assistance as a "California Redevelopment Project Area," the property
tax revenue generated 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. The D'Orsay Hotel will
give Long Beach residents an active and pedestrian friendly downtown with
multiple amenities.  Infill redevelopment like  the D'Orsay  Hotel  and  other
projects may help to reduce development pressures on outlying areas and
encourage additional redevelopment.
   This successful redevelopment was made possible by several elements:
   •  The city of Long Beach's flexibility and recognition that parking is
      expensive and consumes valuable land. This enabled the develop-
      er to negotiate the reduced parking requirements and in-lieu fees
      that made the project feasible.
   •  Combining two types of innovative parking strategies (shared park-
      ing and in-lieu fees). This was necessary to make the development

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions

     project financially feasible.
   • Conducting a development-specific traffic study to estimate the num-
     ber of parking spaces needed for development.  The study of other
     downtown Long Beach hotels showed that applying the city's park-
     ing standards would have resulted in an excess supply of parking at
     the D'Orsay Hotel.

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

                         Boulder Community Network. July 16,1999. "Downtown Boulder Employees'
                               Transportation Discount Card." http://bcn.boulder.co.us /gettingthere/

                         Burchell, Robert W, Listokin, David, Dolphin, William R., et. al. 1994. Devel-
                               opment Impact Assessment Handbook. Washington, D.C.: The Urban
                               Land Institute.

                         Center for Livable Communities. 1998. Policymaker's Guide to Transit-Ori-
                               ented Development. Washington, D.C.

                         Chattanooga News Bureau. July 16, 1999. "Chattanooga's Electric Bus Ini-

                         Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2001., Building Healthier Neighborhoods with
                               Metrorail. Rethinking Parking Policies. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake
                               Bay Foundation.

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

                         City of Bremen. 2002. "Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability." http://

                         City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1999. Cambridge Municipal Code, Chap-
                               ter 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 Zon-
                               ing Code, Chapter 33.510, Part Two.

                         City of Olympia Public Works Department and the Washington State Depart-
                               ment of Ecology. May 1995. Impervious Surface Reduction Study:
                               Final Report.

                         City  of Seattle.  2001.  Your  Guide  to  Parking Management.

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
City of West Palm Beach and West Palm Beach Community Redevelopment
      Agency. December 4, 1995. Downtown Master Plan for the City of
      West Palm Beach.

City of Wlton 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 4,1999. "Managing Transportation Demand: Ben-
      efits for Business." www.commuter challenge.org/cc/benefits.html.

Commuter Challenge. April 29,1999. "SAFECO Insurance Companies, Red-
      mond Campus." www.commuterchallenge.org/cc/profiles.html.

Comsis Corporation. January 1994. Overview of Travel Demand Manage-
      ment Measures: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway
      Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.

Downtown Circulation Advisory Group, Seattle, Washington. November 1998.
      Downtown Circulation Study. Recommendation to SEATRAN.

Dunphy, Robert; Cervero, Robert; Dock, Fred; McAvey, Maureen; and Dou-
      glas Porter.  2005 Developing Around Transit.  Washington,  D.C.:
      The Urban Land Institute.

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.

Ewing, Reid and Shi-Chiang Li. 1998. A Vehicle Ownership Model for FSUT-
      MS, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council, Transportation
      Research  Board.

Highland, Randy.  March 1993. "The Cost Per Car of a Parking Garage: Sev-
      en Points an Owner Should Know When Building a Parking Structure."

Holtzclaw, John; Clear,  Robert; Dittmar, Hank; Goldstein, David; and Haas,
      Peter. 2002. "Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Econom-
      ic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use - Studies in
      Chicago,  Los Angeles and San Francisco." Transportation Planning
      and Technology. 25 (1): 1-27.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2004. Parking Generation, 3d ed. Wash-
      ington D.C.

International City/County Management Association. 2003. Getting to Smart
      Growth II.  Washington, D.C.: the Smart Growth Network.

International City/County Management Association. 2002. Getting to Smart

                   Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
                                Growth. Washington, D.C.: the Smart Growth Network.

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

                          Knight, Deborah. November/December 1998. "Looking Backward: The New
                                Urbanism Movement is Seeking to Restore the Center." Sanctuary:
                                The Journal of the Massachusetts Audubon Society.

                          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 Com-

                          Kuzmyak, Richard J., and Richard H. Pratt. 2003. "Land Use and Site De-
                                sign" Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Transit
                                Cooperative Research Program Report 95, Chapter 15. Transporta-
                                tion Research Board.

                          Litman, Todd. 2005a. Online TDM Encyclopedia, www.vtpi.org/tdm.  Victo-
                                ria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

                          Litman, Todd. 2005b (forthcoming). Parking Management Best Practices.
                                Planners Press.

                          Litman, Todd. 2003 "Parking Costs." Transportation Cost and Benefits Anal-
                                ysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, www.vtpi.org/tca/
                                tca0504.pdf.  Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

                          Litman, Todd. 2000. "Transportation Land Valuation: Evaluating Policies and
                                Practices That Affect the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation
                                Facilities." www.vtpi.org/land.pdf. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport
                                Policy Institute.

                          Maryland Governor's Office of Smart Growth. 2005. Driving Urban Environ-
                                ments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices. Annapolis, MD: State
                                of Maryland.

                          Millard-Ball, Adam. April 2002. "Putting on their Parking Caps." Planning. 16-

                          Montgomery County, Maryland. November 1997. Montgomery County Code
                                Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 59, Article 59-E.

                          National Parking Association & Parking Consultants Council. 1992.  "Recom-
                                mended Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Parking and Off-Street
                                Loading Spaces." National Parking Association Number 0502-92.

                          Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2002. City CarShare Vehicle Own-
                                ership Survey. Unpublished survey for City CarShare, San Francisco.

                          Northwest Environment Watch. December 9, 1998. "The Car and the City:
                                Comparison   of   Portland,   Seattle  and   Vancouver."

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
       www. northwestwatch. org/ccex. html.

Pratt, Richard H. 2003. "Parking Management and Supply" Traveler Response
       to Transportation System Changes.  Transit Cooperative Research
       Program Report 95, Chapter 18. Transportation Research Board.

Russo, Ryan. 2001. Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide for Housing
       Developers and Planners. Non-Profit Housing Association of North-
       ern California and Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.

Shoup, Donald 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Washington DC, Amer-
       ican PlanningAssociation

Shoup, Donald. 2002. "Truth in Transportation Planning," Journal of Trans-
       portation and Statistics.

Shoup, Donald.  1999a. "In Lieu of Required Parking." Journal of Planning
       Education and Research, Vol. 18.

Shoup, Donald. 1999b. "The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements."
       Transportation Research A, 33:  549-574.  Also available at

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. 1995. "An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Require-
       ments." Journal of the American Planning Association. 61(1): 14-28.

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

Smith, T.P. 1983. "Flexible Parking Requirements." Planning Advisory Ser-
       vice Report No. 377. Washington, D.C.: American PlanningAssociation.

Smith, Mary S. September 1996. "Circle Centre: How Parking Helped Make
       Urban Retail/Entertainment Development Work." Parking.

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

South Florida Regional Planning Council. September 1998. The Eastward
       Ho! Newsletter.

South Florida Regional Planning Council. July 1996. Eastward Ho! Revitaliz-
       ing Southeast Florida's Urban Core.

Tracy, Joseph L. October 1996. "What's Your Cost?" The Parking Profes-

                    Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions

                          Transportation and Land Use Coalition. 2002. "Housing Shortage/Parking
                                Surplus. Silicon Valley's Opportunity to Adress Housing Needs and
                                Transportation Problems with Innovative Parking Policies." Oakland,
                                CA: Transportation and Land Use Coalition and Nelson\Nygaard Con-
                                sulting Associates. www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/

                          Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon. June 6, 1999. "Beyond the Field
                                of Dreams: Light Rail and Growth Management in Portland." www.tri-

                          Tumlin, Jeffrey, and Siegman, Patrick.  Summer 1993. "The Cost of Free
                                Parking." The Urban Ecologist.

                          Urban Land Institute. 2005. Shared Parking: 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.

                          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

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Transporta-
                                tion.  2005a.  "Best Workplaces for Commuters."  www.bwc.gov,
                                accessed 12/2005.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Qual-
                                ity.  2005b.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol.11:
                                Mobile Sources: (AP-42), 5th Edition. Washington, D.C: U.S. Envi-
                                ronmental Protection Agency.  Accessed at www.epa.gov/otaq/
                                ap42.htm 12/2005.

                          U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency. 2004. Protecting Water Resources
                                with Smart Growth. (EPA231-R-04-002). Washington, D.C.: U.S. En-
                                vironmental Protection Agency.

                          U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency. 2001a. Our Built and Natural Envi-
                                ronments. EPA 123-R-01-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
                                Protection Agency.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001 b. Improving Air Quality Through
                                Land Use Activities. (EPA 420-R-01-001). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                                Environmental Protection Agency.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1998. $mart Investments for City
                                and County Managers: Energy, Environment, and Community De-
                                velopment. EPA231-R-98-004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
                                Protection Agency.

Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
Village of Schaumburg. 1998. Schaumburg Parking Ordinance, Chapter 154.

Washington State Department of Transportation, Commute Trip Reduction
      Office. 1999. Local Government Parking Policy and Commute  Trip
      Reduction: 1999 Review.

Washington State Department of Transportation. May 5, 1999. "Transporta-
      tion Demand Management (TDM)." http://wsdot.wa.gov/PubTran/

Washington State Department of Ecology and City of Olympia, Public Works
      Department and Water Resources Program. May 1995. Impervious
      Surface Reduction Study: Final Report.

Wilbur Smith & Associates, Inc. 1982. Parking Requirements for Shopping
      Centers: Summary Recommendations and Research Study Report.
      Washington, 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).