Article: Park raving mad: The junk science behind off-street parking quotas

[JNA]

http://grist.org/article/park-raving...arking-quotas/

If you’re a little more discerning than most planners, and less pressed for time,
you might look up the research of the Institute for Transportation Engineers or of the American Planning Association.
Both organizations publish references on parking that are impressively elaborate and precise: They are not, however, impressively reasoned.
They are, in Shoup’s apt phrase, “closer to numerology than to statistics.”

Have you changed/rewritten/amended your parking requirements based upon what ?

[michaelskis]

Yes... one community that I have done work for eliminated all of the off street parking requirements within the downtown core for uses that do not provide lodging arrangements. It is a tourist based community and they wanted to maximize the available street wall along the primary streets, encourage pedestrian travel to encourage people to visit multiple shops and/or restaurants, encourage appropriate in-fill development where parking lots currently exist, and minimize traffic congestion (less time people are in their cars, the better). To encourage this, that community have on street parking without meters, several city owned parking lots at various points in the perimeter of the downtown core, and several other venues, such as the high school, civic center, and theater, offers free parking on their off days. The high school even has a shuttle into the center of the town on weekends.

It was a bit controversial at first because a few business did not know where their patrons were going to park. Thus far, only two new in-fill developments have been approved where parking lots were located. The neighboring business have seen an increase in walk-in traffic.


However, having said that, this model would not work in all cases. It was easy because the City wanted to maximize the tourist based retail component. Else where I have referenced an ITE manual and in one community the PC can alter the regulations on a case by case basis if the applicant has a professional research parking/traffic study showing that they do not need the number required by the parking regulations. We also go onto define professional research.

[Midori]

I am very, very interested in encouraging the towns I work for to reduce parking requirements, so I'm eager to see research to back that up.

the PC can alter the regulations on a case by case basis if the applicant has a professional research parking/traffic study showing that they do not need the number required by the parking regulations.

I love that idea. At a variance hearing this week for a reduced parking requirement, though, the question came up: what happens when that building is no longer used for [store that doesn't need a lot of parking], but becomes a [store that has high parking requirements]? Or are the parking studies less focused on the specific use of the property and more on available off-site parking?

[SW MI Planner]

I love that idea. At a variance hearing this week for a reduced parking requirement, though, the question came up: what happens when that building is no longer used for [store that doesn't need a lot of parking], but becomes a [store that has high parking requirements]?

Our code requires parking standards be brought up to code at a change of use, but we have this situation here on a majority of our parcels where it's simply not possible and holding to this standard would severely restrict redevelopment. I'd like to find a happy medium where we have some ability for oversight but lessen the requirements a little. I'm usually a black and white person (damn commie planner) but have a hard time with parking in general, I think cities require too much and even if we didn't developers still provide for way too much of it. Honestly, I kind of feel like the burden should be on the tenant to make sure their needs are filled when they occupy a place. If parking isn't going to spill out onto an adjacent street, I'm not sure we (cities) should care if the change of use changes substiantially the parking requirements.

[NHPlanner]

We recently re-worked our parking requirements. They're in our Site Plan Regulations, not the Zoning Ordinance, so it gives the Planning Board more flexibility in handling waivers rather than having to send applicants to the ZBA for variances.

We also built in some flexibility standards and alternative parking design requirements as well.

Without reposting the entire regs, here's the section titles:

7.03 Parking

A. General off-street parking and loading standards
B. Dimensional requirements for parking spaces
C. Minimum stacking space requirements
D. Loading space standards
E. Minimum parking required
F. Flexibility in off-street parking and loading standards
G. Alternative parking standards
H. Traffic circulation
I. ADA compliance
J. Bicycle parking

[Tobinn]

I'd love to see a shift to parking maximums rather than parking minimums. Just my two cents.