Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 45 of 45

Thread: How many trips generated by high density residential?

  1. #26
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by pdxTom View post
    My questions are:
    1) For a high density residential project, what is the expected trip generation per unit, both under the current proposal which does not have sidewalks and if the proposal was modified to add sidewalks?
    If there is frequent transit service nearby, he should most definitely be required to provide sidwalks to access the transit stop and all public sidewalks adjacent to the project. This is not required under city code?

    Quote Originally posted by pdxTom View post
    [2) Since many projects are sold on the basis of one reserved space per unit, is the lack of on site parking or street parking for guests a problem?
    I originally understood it as NO public parking nearby. Now that you mention the park lot, I understand your concern. Is there room to add on street parking to the adjacent public streets to be shared by both park users and neighborhood guests (on the developer's dime)?

    Quote Originally posted by pdxTom View post
    3) If the project is built as proposed, how does one keep condo guests from filling up the small lot for park use while keeping the lot available for park users?
    Are there any fees or time restrictions at the park lot today? A one-, two- or three-hour limit or minimal parking fees ($1/hour) would discourage neighborhood guests or residents from tying up the park spaces for any significant amount of time. Banning overnight parking should also be considered.

  2. #27
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally posted by pdxTom View post
    My questions are:

    1) For a high density residential project, what is the expected trip generation per unit, both under the current proposal which does not have sidewalks and if the proposal was modified to add sidewalks?

    2) Since many projects are sold on the basis of one reserved space per unit, is the lack of on site parking or street parking for guests a problem?

    3) If the project is built as proposed, how does one keep condo guests from filling up the small lot for park use while keeping the lot available for park users?
    1. using the ITE Trip Generation rates, you can expect around 1800 trips per day. This number does not take into account the impact the bus route would have.

    2. The lack of on street parking will become a problem in the future. Without the City doing some enforcement, cars will start parking regardless of any posted signs. Why can't they park on the street? Is it signed no parking? What is the width of the street? Would it be possible to allow on street parking on one side of the street or both?

    3. The only way to keep the parking lot for it's intended use is to sign and enforce regulations. Limiting parking times, maybe even metering.

  3. #28
    Cyburbian jresta's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,472

    it's access not transportation

    I have two questions here (that i may have answers for)

    1. Why is it hard to understand that there is a big difference between living in a big city like DC or Chicago and living in a big city like Detroit or Houston. There are a lot of wealthy people in the former that live in one or zero-car households. In the latter not owning a car carries the stigma of the poorest of the poor. Portland is somewhere between the two but probably leaning more toward the transit friendly cities.

    2. The problem to be solved is access, not transportation. Transportation can be a means toward that end. I don't understand why planners mention parking and transit as stand-alone components. "there's a bus route with 10 minute headways" as if that means anything. Where does the bus go? Do i have to transfer? How late can i stay out? How long is the trip? or "there are 200 parking spaces" where am i driving? how long will it take? what kind of traffic will i be in when i leave this parking lot? where am i going to park when i reach my destination?


    When considering how many transit or auto trips per day 100 units will generate you first have to consider what's within walking distance and how the inhabitants will get to work or school. People in urban environments use transit to go to work and to go out. They don't use it to run errands. You take care of your errands, on foot, on your lunch break or on your way home from work. If you have a car you use it on the weekends for grocery shopping and the like. If you don't have a car and you're doing heavy shopping you take a cab home.

    As planners we need to know what we're talking about. I'm comfortable telling my neighbors that we need fewer cars, not more parking, because i know what not having a car means. It's difficult to talk about the real impacts of low-parking developments and what the residents will need if you can't relate.
    Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

  4. #29
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,247
    J Resta less cars??? What you want to close my city down???!!?

    Yes that is sarcasm to a certain extent. I know there is a big difference between urban areas. However; you build for what the market demands. Any developer that does not provide parking in a brand new condo is just looking for trouble when it comes time to sell the properties. I'd suggest building a few less units as it sounds like he is really shoehorning something in there.

    What you see as a transportation planning problem, others may see it entirely as a land use planning problem. I don't disagree with 95 percent of your arguement, but if a wealthy person can afford a car, they are most likely going to have one, whether they drive it a lot or not. For example, I can and do take the bus to work. I cannot take it to Dr's visits, or to trips to my cabin in N Michigan. Therefore, while I may not use my car every day, I do use it. I could take it to some Dr's appointments, but given the spatial mismatch between living in the inner city and many doc practicing in the burbs it would take hours to get to places, and my periodontist would require a 3 mile walk down a busy 6 lane blvd with no sidewalks!

    HEre are some of my observations:
    1) Most homes these days need two incomes,
    2) Not all couples or roomates work in the same place. One may have excellent non-auto based commutes (walks, bus, telecommute). The other may not be so lucky.
    3) In spite of not needing a car, lots of wealthy folks (and poor ones too) have cars for personal use or recreation.
    4) Even in transit dependant cities like Chicago, DC, or NY, there is still a very large percentage of all trips being made by car. Cars actually pay the user fees that pay for most transit, road, and pedestrian improvements. You cannot ignore planning for cars or you will put every other transportation program in jepordy.
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  5. #30
    Cyburbian jresta's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally posted by DetroitPlanner View post
    J Resta less cars??? What you want to close my city down???!!?

    Yes that is sarcasm to a certain extent. I know there is a big difference between urban areas. However; you build for what the market demands. Any developer that does not provide parking in a brand new condo is just looking for trouble when it comes time to sell the properties. I'd suggest building a few less units as it sounds like he is really shoehorning something in there.
    Exactly. Build for what the market demands. If there's no market for housing without parking - it won't sell.

    What you see as a transportation planning problem, others may see it entirely as a land use planning problem.
    I don't think you really understand what i'm saying. It's not a transportation planning problem at all. It's every bit a land use problem.

    I don't disagree with 95 percent of your arguement, but if a wealthy person can afford a car, they are most likely going to have one, whether they drive it a lot or not.
    Here's the difference in reality between people who live in medium sized cities and
    people who live in big cities.

    For example, I can and do take the bus to work. I cannot take it to Dr's visits, or to trips to my cabin in N Michigan. Therefore, while I may not use my car every day, I do use it. I could take it to some Dr's appointments, but given the spatial mismatch between living in the inner city and many doc practicing in the burbs it would take hours to get to places, and my periodontist would require a 3 mile walk down a busy 6 lane blvd with no sidewalks!
    Going to the suburbs for a doctors visit in Boston, Chicago, New York, Philly , DC, San Francisco, Seattle, etc? Not likely.

    HEre are some of my observations:
    1) Most homes these days need two incomes,
    2) Not all couples or roomates work in the same place. One may have excellent non-auto based commutes (walks, bus, telecommute). The other may not be so lucky.
    3) In spite of not needing a car, lots of wealthy folks (and poor ones too) have cars for personal use or recreation.
    4) Even in transit dependant cities like Chicago, DC, or NY, there is still a very large percentage of all trips being made by car. Cars actually pay the user fees that pay for most transit, road, and pedestrian improvements. You cannot ignore planning for cars or you will put every other transportation program in jepordy.
    The first three are debatable but nor worth it right now.

    #4 - In New York a minority of trips are made by car. Cars don't even pay tolls to cross bridges within the city. Transit money comes mostly from the sales tax. Given how few gallons of gas the average New Yorker uses per year most road repairs also get covered by the general fund.

    Where did anyone say you should ignore planning for cars?
    Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

  6. #31
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,247
    Quote Originally posted by jresta View post
    Going to the suburbs for a doctors visit in Boston, Chicago, New York, Philly , DC, San Francisco, Seattle, etc? Not likely.

    The first three are debatable but nor worth it right now.

    #4 - In New York a minority of trips are made by car. Cars don't even pay tolls to cross bridges within the city. Transit money comes mostly from the sales tax. Given how few gallons of gas the average New Yorker uses per year most road repairs also get covered by the general fund.

    Where did anyone say you should ignore planning for cars?
    If I had it my way I'd have all my Docs in the City, unfortunately when there is a disparity in income the doctors leave as they can't make money.

    First three were meant to be debatable, but yeah its not worth it.

    I think you're confusing Manhatten with New York City, look at areas like Staten Island, Queens, even peripharies of the Bronx and Brooklyn, they are developed for higher car trips. In fact most of the folks driving or walking around around in the outer bourgoughs would be considered nuts for actually driving into Manhatten.

    The planning for the cars was taken out of context, I apologize if I did not make myself clear. Cars provide the gas tax revenues that operate and provide capital for transit, as well as non-motorized networks. One needs to be cognizant that the reality we face is if we don't plan for cars, we will not have the funding needed for transit or non-motorized improvements. Its sad, but true.
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  7. #32
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally posted by DetroitPlanner View post
    The planning for the cars was taken out of context, I apologize if I did not make myself clear. Cars provide the gas tax revenues that operate and provide capital for transit, as well as non-motorized networks. One needs to be cognizant that the reality we face is if we don't plan for cars, we will not have the funding needed for transit or non-motorized improvements. Its sad, but true.
    This is absurd. When transit was the dominant mode it subsidized automobiles. Transit needs subsidy now because it can no longer capture the economy of scale to make it efficient enough to operate without subsidy. This is in large part because our cities have been designed (in many cases exclusively) for the automobile.

    I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to plan automobile facilities, but the argument that automobiles need to be encouraged so they can be taxed to subsidize transit is pure hogwash.

    BTW: Transit money in Chicago comes from sales tax as well. A very small part of that is sales tax on gasoline. The RTA also recieves federal capital funds and some formula grants, some of which come from the highway trust fund.
    Reality does not conform to your ideology.
    http://neighborhoods.chicago.il.us Photographs of Life in the Neighborhoods of Chicago
    http://hafd.org/~jordanb/ Pretentious Weblog.

  8. #33
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,247
    Jordan, your pie looks way different that ours does! How many cents does transit get per dollar??? is this a regionwide or citywide tax?

    http://www.rtachicago.com/presscente...Exhibit1-4.pdf

    I would suspect that this is only absurd to those living in the higher tier cities. I don't like the current funding situation, and over the next several years (as gas increases in cost, cars get small again, and new hybrid technology takes off, the revenues will dimish even more!)
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  9. #34
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    368
    Just because -A- source of funding diminishes does not mean that the things fed by them are doomed. They can and have in the past changed funding sources, and they will continue to find funding from some source as needed, even if the funding sources differ in the future.

  10. #35
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by DetroitPlanner View post
    Jordan, your pie looks way different that ours does! How many cents does transit get per dollar??? is this a regionwide or citywide tax?
    In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one cent out of every five cents of state sales tax collected per dollar goes to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority which ONLY operates transit in the Boston region.

    In the Raleigh-Durham area, the Triangle Transit Authority is funded by a car rental tax and a tag fee.

    In Charlotte, CATS is funded with a 0.5 cent countywide sales tax.

  11. #36
    Cyburbian jresta's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally posted by DetroitPlanner View post
    If I had it my way I'd have all my Docs in the City, unfortunately when there is a disparity in income the doctors leave as they can't make money.
    Detroit isn't like the other cities i mentioned. That's why i said -
    Why is it hard to understand that there is a big difference between living in a big city like DC or Chicago and living in a big city like Detroit or Houston


    I think you're confusing Manhatten with New York City, look at areas like Staten Island, Queens, even peripharies of the Bronx and Brooklyn, they are developed for higher car trips. In fact most of the folks driving or walking around around in the outer bourgoughs would be considered nuts for actually driving into Manhatten.
    I worked in Manhattan. I've lived in Brooklyn. My parents are from New York. My dad still lived in Brooklyn up 'til 4 years ago. I know the city quite well and i also know that when people in Brooklyn or Queens need to go to the doctor, if they're not visiting a GP in the neighborhood, they go "into the City." The last thing a New Yorker does is go visit a doctor in Nassau.

    Most people in the outer boroughs don't drive into Manhattan. If you're in Queens you probably take LIRR. If you're in Brooklyn you probably take the subway or a cab.


    New York has 8 million people. That's more people than most states. Of course the city is going to have a lot of car trips. Cars still account for a minority of all trips. In a lot of cases an extreme minority. In the case of the Hudson River crossings private autos account for 70% of the volume but only deliver 20% of the people.

    The planning for the cars was taken out of context, I apologize if I did not make myself clear. Cars provide the gas tax revenues that operate and provide capital for transit, as well as non-motorized networks. One needs to be cognizant that the reality we face is if we don't plan for cars, we will not have the funding needed for transit or non-motorized improvements. Its sad, but true.
    Again, that may be the case in Michigan or New Jersey but it's not the case in New York City or Philadelphia. Transit money comes from a combination of sales tax, hotel tax, and rental car tax. Not from the gas tax.

    Either way the argument makes no sense. When i lived in South Carolina the city fathers implemented a hotel and rental car tax to pay for a new convention center. If hotel and rental car receipts take a dive the city isn't going to default on the bonds. They're going to shift the tax somewhere else.

    The same thing has happened before with transit.
    Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

  12. #37
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Aliquippa Pa
    Posts
    232
    Please specifically to the questions below and save your philosophical discussions for another thread. I am trying to answer two narrow questions to figure out if they are worth raising to the developer or at public hearings. Please cite sources when possible.
    I'd like to point out that while I was a party to the first hijacking of this thread, I've been a good boy and refrained from participation in the second hijacking of this thread.


    My questions are:...


    3) If the project is built as proposed, how does one keep condo guests from filling up the small lot for park use while keeping the lot available for park users?
    A thought that I think is at least partly on topic...

    Somebody proposed resrticting overnight parking in the lot for use by park visitors. I'm not clear on how that would benefit anyone. If it's a matter of keeping people out of the park as a deterrent to any illicit activity overnight, then such a prohibition should already be in place. Otherwise, why would we need to worry about those spaces being used overnight by visitors to the proposed development? How many park patrons are going to be inconvenienced by that overnight use?

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1

    Car Sharing to reduce demand

    I think some consideration should be given to reducing demand by reducing the need for cars. Car Sharing organizations are all over the US. Perhaps as part of their zoning change request, the developer defends their position for a reduced parking / unit by proposing a car sharing car on site. This would give those of us who choose to go car free with a very desirable option. It would be a very desirable extra in the condo... and it would free up parking spaces.

    Perhaps we should keep the current ratios and force developers to be creative when they make a zoning variance. Goverments role is to insure that a system makes sense for the community. In this case the developer may be able to make a reasonable arguement that parking demand is reduced by the combonation of transit, bike and car sharing.

    Jon

  14. #39
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by digger View post
    Somebody proposed resrticting overnight parking in the lot for use by park visitors. I'm not clear on how that would benefit anyone. If it's a matter of keeping people out of the park as a deterrent to any illicit activity overnight, then such a prohibition should already be in place. Otherwise, why would we need to worry about those spaces being used overnight by visitors to the proposed development? How many park patrons are going to be inconvenienced by that overnight use?
    I was thinking of it more as a deterrant to the condo residents who may try to use the park lot as a regular parking area.

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    6

    Portland residential

    I am early in a planning Master's program, though I'm older with another Master's degree in a business field and a good bit of other knowledge and experience. So, with what I know and some common sense, I offer the following....

    My slight familiarity with Portland suggests that the project is on the West side of the city, where home prices are among the highest in the area. So it is my assumption that this development would be for relatively affluent individuals. Now, I also know that the public transit use in Portland is quite high, even among car-owners. However, since these are higher-wealth individuals they will likely own a car; and whether or not they use public transit they will want a place to park their car. Thus, in terms of parking spaces I would expect that 283 would not be enough parking for the development if we assume that they ever want guests. (Here in Michigan I would guess you need 1.5 parking spots per condo because we're an extremely car-dependent state with sprawled cities). I think you mentioned in your second post that the development was placing the parking in an underground garage? If that's not the case, I would think it's a good suggestion to make (like JusticeZero, I too have a prejudice against parking lots for both economic and aesthetic reasons).

    The other concern I would have would be about congestion on the road. A condo complex on a narrow, congested road in the hills with limited visibility sounds like a recipe for disaster. Would the space and zoning allow for a mixed-use development that might reduce the need for residents to drive places for convenience items, plus offer a few jobs?

  16. #41
    Cyburbian Tobinn's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    260

    Parking and stuff

    1) For a high density residential project, what is the expected trip generation per unit, both under the current proposal which does not have sidewalks and if the proposal was modified to add sidewalks?
    For Trip Generation - check ITE; a high-rise Condo generates about 4.18 trips per day and 5.86 for a generic condo/townhome, for example.

    2) Since many projects are sold on the basis of one reserved space per unit, is the lack of on site parking or street parking for guests a problem?
    As far as parking, here in Clearwater (I was a City Planner for about seven years before making the shift over to the dark side), multi-family residential parking requirements called for 1.5 parking space per dwelling unit. Most developers put in two spaces per dwelling units saying that the City was crazy to allow less than that. Time has shown that two spaces per dwelling unit seems to work out fairly well. To put this in context, Clearwater is a resort town and a lot of the condos that have gone in lately are on the beach. Most of those seem to have been for investment purposes (all hail the real estate bubble) for better or for worse. The City has since updated the Code to require at least two spaces per unit.

    In Clearwater you 279 units would require 558 parking spaces.

    The City of Tampa requires the following:
    Efficiency: 1/unit
    1 – 2 bedrooms: 1.5 per unit
    3 and up: 2 per unit
    Add 0.25 spaces per unit for guest parking.

    In Tampa assuming a split of 20 one-bed, 175 two-bed and 84 three-bed you would be required to provide 520 spaces.

    3) If the project is built as proposed, how does one keep condo guests from filling up the small lot for park use while keeping the lot available for park users?
    Make the parking spaces there metered.


    With regard to sidewalks – make’em install’em – people should at least be given the option of walking. How can a City not have sidewalks?

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally posted by cololi View post
    1. using the ITE Trip Generation rates, you can expect around 1800 trips per day. This number does not take into account the impact the bus route would have.
    Hell no!! Not for 279 units, even with a bus route nearby, are you crazy? With that amount of units you'd be lucky to have 800 or 900 in a day, what category were you using?

  18. #43
    Cyburbian Random Traffic Guy's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally posted by bjfan82 View post
    Hell no!! Not for 279 units, even with a bus route nearby, are you crazy? With that amount of units you'd be lucky to have 800 or 900 in a day, what category were you using?
    Ummm, the one that generates one-way trips?

  19. #44
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    441
    I didn't read all of the 2nd page of comments but be sure and consider the number of bedrooms. I noticed Michaelskis noted that. It is very important to know what their proposal is. If these are 3 bedroom condos it will be much different than 1 bedroom condos. So it may or may not be enough parking. Need more info.

    Second, as part of the development is it possible to have the developer construct the sidewalk connections? Seems at the least it should be done on the fringes of the property in question. Just my 2 cents...

  20. #45
    Member
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    12
    I read somewhere that a house generates 9 trips a day. But that could've been a house with kids...so nevermind. That 4-5 tpd sounds right to me.

    Schaller did an indepth study on "Why people drive in manhattan". 14% of all trips in the CBD are by cars; and almost all drive because of choice and not necessity (to refute claims from Queens saying congestion pricing will hurt the poor). I had a point on why I brought this up....I think someone above me talked about it??

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 17
    Last post: 24 Nov 2010, 3:51 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last post: 15 Oct 2010, 6:25 PM
  3. Trips generated from retail development
    Transportation Planning
    Replies: 13
    Last post: 25 Jan 2007, 3:10 AM
  4. Trips generated by housing type?
    Transportation Planning
    Replies: 33
    Last post: 24 Mar 2006, 1:52 PM