THE EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET …THE EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY...

THE EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY

ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOR IN SAN FRANCISCO

A Planning ReportPresented to

The Faculty of the Department ofUrban and Regional Planning

San José State University

In Partial Ful�illmentOf the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Urban Planning

By

Alyssa B. Sherman

May 2010

THE EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOR IN SAN FRANCISCO

A Planning Report

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of

Urban and Regional Planning

San José State University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Urban Planning

By

Alyssa B. Sherman

May 2010

AcknowledgmentsManythankstomyfamilyandtoPaul’sfamilyfortheirconstantsupport,encouragement,andguidance:Mom,Dad,Jared,Grandma,Paul,Diana,Sara,andGeorge.Also,thankstomyclassmates,friends,andcolleaguesfortheirgeneroushelpwiththesurvey:

o JeanCaseyo AimeeEscobaro AnneKoellero RossNakasoneo GregNewmarko DanPesaturoo MattPiveno WendySabow

Thankstomyadvisor,DayanaSalazar,forherhelpfulreviewoftheprojectatallstages.

TableofContentsIntroduction............................................................................................................................1TheCityofSanFranciscoinContext ................................................................................................................................. 1ThePracticalRelevanceofThisStudy.............................................................................................................................. 3AbouttheSurveyMethods .................................................................................................................................................... 4DescriptionofReportOrganization .................................................................................................................................. 4AnOverviewofCurrentParkingPolicyPractice.......................................................................5Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................. 5MinimumParkingRequirements ....................................................................................................................................... 5MaximumParkingRequirements....................................................................................................................................... 7

AHistoryofParkingPolicyinSanFrancisco ...........................................................................111906‐1955:SanFranciscoBeforeMinimumParkingRequirements .............................................................. 111955‐1997:TheEraofParkingMinimums................................................................................................................. 111997andBeyond:DiscardingResidentialParkingMinimumsandIntroducingMaximums ............... 12

LiteratureReview..................................................................................................................15Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................. 15MainThemesandDebates.................................................................................................................................................. 15Thenegativeeffectsofminimumparkingrequirements....................................................................................... 15Howavailabilityofanoffstreetresidentialparkingspaceinfluencestravelbehavior .......................... 17Howavailabilityofaparkingspaceatthedestinationinfluencestravelbehavior................................... 18Howlanduseinfluencestravelbehavior ...................................................................................................................... 18Theimpactofparkingrequirementsonurbandesign ........................................................................................... 19Theimpactofparkingrequirementsonhousingaffordability........................................................................... 20Developers’perceptionsofparkingrequirements.................................................................................................... 21Thepublic’sperceptionsofresidentialparking......................................................................................................... 22Alternativestominimumparkingrequirements....................................................................................................... 23

ConclusionsFromtheLiterature..................................................................................................................................... 25

ASurveyoftheInfluenceofResidentialParkingAvailabilityonTravelBehavior ...................27SurveyMethodology.............................................................................................................................................................. 27SurveyInstrument................................................................................................................................................................... 28SampleSelectionandSurveyAdministration............................................................................................................. 28

SurveyResults.......................................................................................................................................................................... 31StatisticalAnalysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 32InSanFrancisco,towhatextentdoestheavailabilityofanoffstreetresidentialparkingspaceinfluenceresidents’travelbehavior? .............................................................................................................................. 32Willreducingresidentialoffstreetparkingrequirementsencouragepeopletodriveless? ................. 36Dopeopleselfselecttoliveinplacesthatallowthemtotravelinacertainpreferredway? ............... 37

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................39StudyFindings ......................................................................................................................................................................... 39LimitationsoftheStudy....................................................................................................................................................... 39PolicyImplicationsoftheResearch................................................................................................................................ 39OpportunitiesforFutureResearch................................................................................................................................. 40Appendices ...........................................................................................................................41

Glossary ................................................................................................................................43

Bibliography..........................................................................................................................45

ListofFiguresandTablesTable1.MaximumParkingAllowancesinSanFrancisco ....................................................................13Table2.Locations,Dates,Times,andSampleSizeofInterceptSurveyAdministrations......29Figure1.MapofSurveyRespondentsandAreaswithParkingMaximumsinSanFrancisco.

..............................................................................................................................................................................30Table4.DemographicsofSurveyRespondents .......................................................................................31Table5.Off‐StreetResidentialParkingandPrimaryCommuteModeCross‐Tabulation ......33Table6.Off‐StreetResidentialParkingandPrimaryEntertainmentModeCross‐Tabulation

..............................................................................................................................................................................33Table7.Off‐StreetResidentialParkingandPrimaryCommuteModeStatisticalSignificance

..............................................................................................................................................................................34Table8.Off‐StreetResidentialParkingandPrimaryEntertainmentModeStatistical

Significance .....................................................................................................................................................34Table9.Off‐StreetResidentialParkingandPrimaryErrandModeCross‐Tabulation............34Table10.Off‐StreetResidentialParkingandPrimaryErrandModeStatisticalSignificance

..............................................................................................................................................................................35Table12.DescriptiveStatisticsforWorkModeShareandAvailabilityofaParkingSpaceat

Home..................................................................................................................................................................35Table13.RelationshipBetweenParkingMaximumsandNumberofTripsPerDaybyMode

..............................................................................................................................................................................37Table14.WhyPeopleChoseTheirHousingLocation ...........................................................................38Appendix1.SurveyInstrument.......................................................................................................................41

1

IntroductionForyears,ithasbeenstandardpracticeforcitiesacrossthecountrytorequire

developerstoprovideaminimumnumberofparkingspaceswhenbuildingnewresidentialdevelopments.Althoughthesepolicieswereintendedtopreventspilloverparkingonthestreetandtorespondtomarketdemandforresidentialparking,inrecentyearsithasbecomeapparentthatminimumparkingpoliciessubsidizethecostofusingsingleoccupantvehiclesandencouragepeopletousevehicles.ThewidespreaduseofsingleoccupantvehiclesintheUnitedStateshasbeentiedtoincreasesinpollution,sprawl,housingprices,andunpleasanturbanaesthetics.

Toencouragepeopletodrivelessandtotaketransitorwalktotheirdestinationsmoreoften,denseurbanareasthatarewell‐servedbytransit,suchasSanFrancisco,arebeginningtoreducetheamountofresidentialparkingthatdevelopersarerequiredtoprovideoutofabeliefthatdensityandtheavailabilityoftransitinsuchareasreducesresidents’needforavehicle.SanFranciscorecentlyimplementedparkingmaximums,whichreplaceminimumparkingrequirementswithalimitonthenumberofparkingspacesthatdeveloperscanbuildincertaindenseneighborhoods.

Atthispoint,thereislittleinformationavailabletodescribetheeffectsofreducedparkingrequirementsonpeoples’travelbehavior.Thus,urbanplannerswhoareconsideringinstitutingparkingmaximums,reducingparkingminimums,eliminatingparkingminimums,orimplementinganyotherprogramtoreducethenumberofoff‐streetresidentialparkingspacesprovidedwithnewdevelopmentinSanFranciscoorelsewherearelikelytobeinterestedinhowsuchpolicieswilleffecttravelbehavior.

Todeterminetheeffectsofreducedparkingrequirementsontravelbehavior,asurveywaspreparedanddatawascollectedandanalyzedtoanswerthefollowingquestions:

1. InSanFrancisco,towhatextentdoestheavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceinfluenceresidents’travelbehavior?

2. Willreducingresidentialoff‐streetparkingrequirementsencouragepeopletodriveless?

Thestudyalsoanalyzesdifferencesinthetravelbehaviorofpeoplewholiveinareaswithparkingminimumsandareaswherethecityhasrecentlyintroducedparkingmaximumsandeliminatedparkingminimums.Italsoprovidesanoverviewofcurrentparkingpoliciesintendedtoreducemotorvehicletrips.Thisstudyproducesdatathathelpspredictwhetherpoliciesaimedatreducingresidentialoff‐streetparkingrequirementswillbeeffectiveinencouragingpeopletodriveless.

TheCityofSanFranciscoinContextSanFranciscoisacityof808,9761residentslocatedinNorthernCalifornia.Located

atthetipofapeninsula,SanFranciscoisborderedbythePacificOceantothewestandtheSanFranciscoBaytothenorthandeast.Itislocatedatthecenterofthenine‐countyBayArearegion,withSiliconValleyapproximately35milestothesouth,thecitiesofBerkeley

1U.S.CensusBureau,“PopulationFinder,”http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation(accessedAugust30,2009).

2

andOaklandtotheeast,andthescenicandagriculturallandsofMarin,Napa,andSonomacountiestothenorth.

InadditiontoitsgeographicpositionatthecenteroftheBayArea,SanFranciscoisalsotheregion’shubofemployment,shopping,entertainmentandtransportation.In2008,573,124peoplewereemployedinSanFrancisco,2andin2005thecityhad$13.03billionintaxablesales.3Therearemorethan150venuesandeventsspacesinthecity,includingtheatres,musicclubs,galleries,andmeetingspaces.4

SanFranciscoalsoenjoysthedistinctionofbeingoneofthemostexpensivehousingmarketsintheUnitedStates.5InJanuaryof2010,themediansalepriceforsingle‐familyhomesinSanFranciscowas$720,000,and$599,000forcondos.6In2007,theaveragehouseholdsizewas2.3,andthemedianannualhouseholdincomewas$65,519.7

Thecityishistoricallywell‐servedbytransit.Cablecarshavebeenoperationalsince1873,8andtodaythecountry’sseventhlargesttransitsystem‐MunicipalTransportationAgency(MUNI)–operateselectricstreetcars,lightraillines,anddieselandelectricbusesinadditiontothecity’siconiccablecars.9BayAreaRapidTransit(BART)isaregionalrapidrailsystemthatmaintainseightstationsinSanFranciscoandconnectsthecitytoBerkeley,Oakland,Fremont,SanFranciscoAirport,andsuburbanareasoutsidethecity.CaltrainisaheavyrailsystemthatconnectsSanFranciscowithSanJoseandSiliconValley.Inaddition,ferrylinesconnectSanFrancisco’sdowntownEmbarcaderotoMarin,Solano,andAlamedacounties.

AlthoughavarietyoftransitresourcesareavailableinSanFrancisco,mostofthecitywasdevelopedaftertheadventoftheautomobileinanauto‐orientedpattern.Parkingrequirementsforresidentialdevelopmentswereintroducedin1955.DespitethewideavailabilityoftransitinSanFrancisco,themajorityofcityresidentsowncars.TodayinSanFrancisco,70.3%ofhouseholdshaveatleastonecaravailable10,andamongworkers,39.6%drivealonetowork,32.2%usepublictransportation,and9.5%walktowork.11However,therearenoexistingstatisticstomeasurethetravelbehaviorofpeoplewitharesidentialparkingspaceasopposedtothosewithoutaparkingspaceathome.63.5%of

2U.S.BureauofLaborStatistics,“QuarterlyCensusofEmploymentandWages,”http://data.bls.gov/cgi‐bin/surveymost(accessedAugust30,2009).3CaliforniaDepartmentofFinance,“Financial&EconomicData,”under“SanFranciscoCountyProfile,”http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/profiles/pf_home.php(accessedAugust30,2009).4Yelp,“VenuesandEventSpaces,”www.yelp.com(accessedAugust30,2009).5SustainLane,“2008USCityRankings:HousingAffordability,”http://www.sustainlane.com/us‐city‐rankings/categories/housing‐affordability(accessedAugust30,2009).6RosenConsultingGroup,“MarketFocus:AMonthlyAnalysisoftheSanFranciscoRealEstateMarket,”February2010.7U.S.CensusBureau,2005‐2007AmericanCommunitySurvey,“FactSheet:SanFranciscoCounty,California,”http://factfinder.census.gov(accessedSeptember20,2009).8SanFranciscoCableCarMuseum,“CableCarHeritage,”http://www.cablecarmuseum.org/heritage.html(accessedAugust30,2009).9SanFranciscoMunicipalTransportationAgency,“AboutUs,”http://www.sfmta.com/cms/ahome/indxabmu.htm(accessedAugust30,2009).10U.S.CensusBureau,“SanFranciscoCounty,California:SelectedHousingCharacteristics2005‐2007,”http://factfinder.census.gov(accessedAugust30,2009).11U.S.CensusBureau,“SanFranciscoCounty,California:SelectedEconomicCharacteristics2005‐2007,”http://factfinder.census.gov(accessedAugust30,2009).

3

thecity’shousingstockwasbuiltpriorto1949,12whichmeansthereareanumberofunitsinthecitythatwerebuiltwithouttheamountofparkingthatisrequiredunderSanFrancisco’sparkingpoliciestoday.Inotherwords,thereareplentyofresidencesinSanFranciscowithoutoneparkingspaceperunit.Thus,thecity’sdevelopmentpatternprovidesanopportunitytostudythedifferencesintravelbehavioramongthoseresidentsthathaveaparkingspaceandthosethatdonot.

ThePracticalRelevanceofThisStudyThisstudypresentsnewlycollectedsurveydatacomparingthetravelbehaviorof

peoplewithorwithoutanoff‐streetparkingspaceinareaswithandwithoutparkingminimumswithinthesamecity.Thisdataprovidesinsightintowhetherpoliciesthatdiscouragevehicleownershipsuchasimplementingparkingmaximums,reducingparkingminimums,oreliminatingparkingminimumsmaybeeffectivemeansofdecreasingmotorvehicletripsforwork,errands,andentertainment.ThisstudycanhelpadvisecityplannersanddevelopersinSanFranciscoandelsewhereastowhetherpoliciestoeliminateparkingminimumsandintroduceparkingmaximumswilleffectivelyrealizetheintendedgoalsofreducingcongestion,encouragingdenserdevelopment,makinghousingmoreaffordable,andsupportingimprovedurbanform. SanFranciscoisanideallaboratoryinwhichtostudytheinfluenceofresidentialoff‐streetparkingspaceavailabilityontravelbehavior.InseveraldenseSanFrancisconeighborhoodswithgoodtransitaccess,thecityrecentlyintroducedpoliciestoeliminateparkingrequirements.AlthoughplannersandanalystsbelieveSanFrancisco’sparkingpolicieswillinfluencetheeventualresidentsofunitswithoutoff‐streetparkingspacestobelessauto‐dependentthantheircounterpartswithoff‐streetparkingspaces,13thereislittleevidencetosuggestdifferencesinthetravelpreferencesofresidentsofthesetwotypesofneighborhood.14Infact,parkingpolicyisgenerallyalittle‐studiedtopic,andonethatistypicallyomittedfromtextbooks.15Althoughthosewhodostudyparkingpolicygenerallyagreethatminimumparkingrequirementsareunnecessary,thereisverylittleevidencetoactuallysuggestthatparkingpolicycanchangebehavior.16Residentialparkingistheareaofparkingpolicywiththeleastempiricalevidenceavailable,yetthisispossiblythemostimportantareaforstudybecauseofthevarietyofsocialandeconomiceffectsthatresidentialparkingpolicycanbringabout.17

12U.S.CensusBureau,“SanFrancisco,California:SelectedHousingCharacteristics:2005‐2007,”http://factfinder.census.gov(accessedAugust30,2009).13TomRadulovich,Interviewedbyauthorinperson,SanFrancisco,California,July2,2009andJoshuaSwitzky,Interviewedbyauthorinperson.SanFrancisco,California,July9,2009.14RoccoPendola,StephanieRuddy,andElmerTosta,“ResidentialParkingRequirementsinSanFrancisco:DoTheyAffectTravelBehavior?”UnpublishedreportpresentedtoLivableCitybySanFranciscoStateUniversityUrbanStudiesProgram,May2005.15JasonHenderson,“TheSpacesofParking:MappingthePoliticsofMobilityinSanFrancisco,”Antipode41,no.1(2009):73.16GregMarsden,“TheEvidenceBaseforParkingPolicies–AReview,”TransportPolicy,no.13(2006):455.17Ibid.

4

AbouttheSurveyMethods ThedesiredrespondentgroupforthissurveywasSanFranciscoresidentswholiveinareasthathaveeliminatedparkingrequirements,andacontrolgroupofpeoplewholiveinpartsofthecitywhereresidentialparkingrequirementsarestillinplace.Assuch,allresidentsofSanFranciscooverage18werewithinthedesiredgroupofrespondentsforthissurvey.Asurveycontaining23questionscoveringtravel,parking,housing,anddemographicswasprepared,andwasadministeredtomorethan200peopleinSanFrancisco,bothonlinethroughneighborhoodassociationsandsocialnetworksandthroughinterceptsurveyadministrationatsupermarketsandinparks.Thisrandomsampleyielded182uniqueandusablesurveys.ThevariablesweredescribedwithdescriptivestatisticsandrelationshipsbetweenthevariablesweredescribedwithstatisticaltestsincludingChi‐SquareandT‐TestsofIndependentMeans.Afullanalysisofthesurveydatafollows.

DescriptionofReportOrganizationThereportofthisstudybeginswithanoverviewofcurrentparkingpolicypractice,

whichprovidesanin‐depthdiscussionofthedevelopmentandcurrentapplicationsofminimumandmaximumparkingrequirementsforalllanduses,withparticularfocusonresidentialparkingpolicies.Then,thediscussionnarrowstoabriefhistoryofparkingpolicyinSanFrancisco,andanoverviewofthecity’smorerecentintroductionofparkingmaximumsandretractionofparkingminimums.ThissectionincludesachartoutliningalloftheSanFrancisconeighborhoodswherethecityeliminatedparkingminimumsandadoptedparkingmaximumsforresidentialdevelopment.

Aliteraturereviewdetailstheeffectsofparkingrequirementsanddescribesthelimitedexistingresearchregardingthewaysinwhichresidentialparkingavailabilityshapestravelbehavior.Itthendiscussesthebodyofrelatedstudies,whichdescribetherelationshipsbetweenoff‐streetparkingrequirementsatdestinationsandtravelbehavior;landuseandtravelbehavior;parkingrequirementsandurbandesign;andparkingrequirementsandhousingaffordability.Theliteraturereviewfinisheswithdescriptionsofdevelopers’andthepublic’sperceptionsofparkingrequirements,andsuggestionsforalternativestoparkingrequirements.

Next,thereportdescribesthesurveyadministeredtoanswertheresearchquestions.Thissectionfocusesonthesurveyresultsandanalysisprocess,anddiscussesthesurveymethodology,includingthesurveyinstrument,sampleselection,surveyadministration,andlimitations.Finally,asetofrecommendationsandconclusionsdrawnfromthedataandresearchispresented.

5

AnOverviewofCurrentParkingPolicyPractice

IntroductionAlthoughcitieshaverequireddeveloperstoprovideaminimumnumberofoff‐

streetparkingspacesforbothresidentialandcommercialusessinceshortlyaftertheadventofthemotorvehicle,inthe1980sinnovativeplannersstartedtointroduceanewwaveofparkingrequirementssuchascommercialparkingmaximumsandlimitsontheamountofparkingthatdevelopersarepermittedtobuildincertaindowntownareas.Today,citiesareconsideringimplementingawiderrangeofalternativeparkingstandards,suchaseliminationofparkingminimumsforbothresidentialandcommercialdevelopmentandresidentialparkingmaximums.Suchpoliciesaredesignedtolimittheinfluenceofthevehicleandtocreatewalkableandvibrantneighborhoodsandcommercialdestinationsbyreducingtheamountoflandtakenupbyparking.Thissectionwillexplorethehistoricaldevelopmentofparkingrequirementsandwillprovideanoverviewofthestateofthepracticeregardingcurrentparkingpolicy.

MinimumParkingRequirementsToday,freeparkingisavailablejustabouteverywheresuchasonthestreet,instrip

malls,oratthecondominiumcomplexesofourfriends.Thewidespreadavailabilityoffreeparkingdevelopedfromatraditionofprovidingcurbsidetethersforhorsesandcarriages.18Asmorepeopleboughtcarsandthedemandforcurbsideparkingincreased,citiesbegantoincludeinzoningordinancesrequirementsthatdevelopersprovidetheminimumnumberofoff‐streetparkingspacesnecessarytoaccommodatethedemandforparkingcreatedbydevelopmentonaparticularsite.Thispracticeisnowknownasaminimumparkingrequirement.By1946,asurveyof76citiesfoundthat17%hadimplementedminimumparkingrequirements.Afollow‐upstudyofthesame76citiesfiveyearslaterfoundthat71%ofcitieshadadoptedparkingrequirements,19makingfora54%jumpinthenumberofcitieswithminimumparkingrequirements.Today,mostcitiesestablishminimumoff‐streetparkingrequirementsinzoningordinancesforalllanduses,includingcommercial,office,andresidentialdevelopments.

BeyondthetraditionalcustomofprovidingfreeparkingintheUnitedStates,thereareseveralreasonswhycitiestodayrequiredeveloperstoprovideoff‐streetparkingspaces.Twoprimarymotivationsarecommercialviabilityandmarketdemand.Developersandcitieswanttomaximizethemarketdemandforaparticulartypeofhousingorbusiness,andthustheconventionalbeliefisthatalanduseshouldprovideoff‐streetparkinginaquantitythatissufficienttoaccommodateallofthevehiclesthatmightwanttoaccessthatparticularlanduse.20Neitherdevelopersnorfunderswanttodiscouragepeoplefrompurchasing,renting,orshoppingatapropertybecauseitisinaccessible.Also,city

18DonaldShoup,TheHighCostofFreeParking(Chicago:PlannersPress,2004),1.19Mogren,EdwardandWilburSmith,ZoningandTraffic(Saugatuck,Connecticut:EnoFoundationforHighwayTrafficControl,1952)asquotedinDonaldShoup,TheHighCostofFreeParking(Chicago:PlannersPress,2004),22.20RichardWillson,“SuburbanParkingRequirements:ATacitPolicyforAutomobileUseandSprawl,”JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation61,no.1(1995):30.

6

governmentsliketominimizethenumberofvehiclesthat“spillover”intoon‐streetparkingspacesinneighboringresidentialareasorillegalspaces.21

Citiestypicallyestablishminimumparkingrequirementsinoneoftwoways:byfollowingexamplessetbyneighboringcitiesorbyusingamanualdevelopedbytheInstituteofTransportationEngineers,calledParkingGeneration.However,accordingtoparkingpolicyresearcherDonaldShoup,bothofthesemethodsareflawed.Bycopyingtheparkingplansenactedbyotherlocalagencies,citiesruntheriskofrepeatingthemistakesofothers,andmayinadvertentlyreplicatearbitrarycalculations.22TheparkingratesoutlinedinParkingGenerationarenotgenerallyapplicable,astheyarebasedonafewparkingsurveysthatareconductedduringpeakhoursinsuburbanlocations.23Althoughmostcitieslackthefinancialresourcestoconductindividualparkingdemandsurveysforeachlanduse,itisdifficulttorationalizeapplyingtheITEratestoallcircumstances.

Sincemostcitiesfollowthesamerulesofthumbtocalculateparkingrequirements,manycitiesimplementrequirementsthataresimilar.TypicalminimumparkingratesinCaliforniacitiesareasfollows:24

o Residential:onetotwospacesperunit.(1:1or2:1)o OfficeSpace:threespacesper1,000squarefeetofofficespace.o Retail:onetofourspacesper1,000squarefeetofretailspace.o Restaurant:variesgreatlybyrestauranttypeandjurisdiction;butonespace

per200squarefeetisfairlytypical.Manydeveloperschoosetobuildmoreparkingthantheminimumamountrequiredbecausefundersfavorprojectswithabundantparking.

Althoughdriversdonotpayadirectfeetousemostparkingspaces,thespacesarenotfree:developersmustpaytobuildthespacesandtheyaddthefeetorentalandpurchaseprices.Commercialtenants,inturn,passthefeeontoconsumersbyaddingittothepricesforgoodsandservices.Theperceptionthatparkingisfreeandplentifulandtherealitythatfreeparkingisnearlyalwaysavailablemakesdrivingtoadestinationseemmorecosteffectivethantakingtransit,whichentailspaymentofafareforeachride.Studieshavefoundthatminimumparkingrequirementscanlowerdensity,encouragesprawl,increasecongestion,andreducedemandfortransitservices.25Thesefactors,incombination,createauto‐centeredcommunitiesanddowntownareaswithlittlestreetscapevitality.

Plannersarebeginningtorecognizetheinfluenceofplentifulparkingoncommunityvitalityandarestartingtoscrutinizethepracticeofminimumparkingrequirements.Asaresult,somecommunities,suchasBerkeley,California,allowexceptionstoparkingminimumsfordeveloperswhoopttobuildfewerthantherequirednumberofspaces.26Othercities,suchasSeattle,Washington,haveeliminatedminimumparkingrequirements

21Ibid.22DonaldShoup,“TheTroublewithMinimumParkingRequirements,”TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,no.33(1999):550.23Ibid.,551.24MetropolitanTransportationCommission,“DevelopingParkingPoliciestoSupportSmartGrowthinLocalJurisdictions:BestPractices,”(MetropolitanTransportationCommission,Report,May2007),24‐25.25RichardWillson,“SuburbanParkingRequirements:ATacitPolicyforAutomobileUseandSprawl,”JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation61,no.1(1995):38‐40.26AdamMillard‐Ball,“PuttingonTheirParkingCaps,”Planning,April2002.

7

altogetherincertainareas.InSeattle,developersarenotrequiredtoprovideaminimumnumberofparkingspacesforvehiclesinthedowntowncore,thoughtheyarerequiredtoprovideparkingspacesforbicycles.27ParkingisalsonotrequiredincommercialzonesnearlightrailstationsinSeattle.28Meanwhile,Portland,Oregonhaseliminatedminimumparkingrequirementsinthecentralresidentialandcommercialcore,neighborhoodcommercialzones,andcertainotherareaszonedforcommercialandofficelanduses.29Portlandalsoexcludes“siteslocatedlessthan500feetfromatransitstreetwith20‐minutepeakhourservice”fromminimumparkingrequirements30andallowsdeveloperstoprovidebicycleparkinginplaceof25%ofrequiredparking.31Asthediscussionbelowwillexploreinmoredetail,SanFranciscohasalsoeliminatedoff‐streetparkingminimumsaltogetherincertainpartsofthecityinandarounddowntown.

Thecitiesdiscussedinthissectionhaveadoptedprogressiveparkingpoliciesthatserveasalternativestominimumoff‐streetparkingrequirements.Inthenextsection,Iwilldiscussanothergroupofinnovativeparkingpoliciesfromcitiesthathavedecidedtochangethestatusquoofparkingpolicybyestablishingthresholdslimitingtheamountofparkingthatdevelopersmaybuildincertainareas.

MaximumParkingRequirements Plannerslookingtopreventsprawlandauto‐dependencyinfavorofcreatingmorewalkableandvibrantplacesaremorefrequentlyconsideringparkingmaximumsinplaceoftraditionalparkingminimums.Asopposedtoparkingminimums,whichrequiredeveloperstoprovideacertainminimumnumberofparkingspaces,whichtheycanexceed,maximumparkingrequirementsestablishalimitontheamountofparkingspacesthatadevelopercanprovide.Citiesmayestablishparkingmaximumsinsteadofparkingminimums,orinconcertwithaparkingminimum.Likeparkingminimums,maximumparkingdesignationsareincludedinzoningordinancesorneighborhoodplans. Parkingmaximumsarearelativelynewalternativeparkingpolicystrategy.Thelimitonthenumberofspacesallowedistypicallydeterminedinoneoftwoways.Somecitiesbaseparkingmaximumsontheavailabilityofalternativemodesoftransportation(asinPortland,Oregon;SanFrancisco,California;andCambridge,Massachusetts,whichalltieparkingmaximumstotransitpolicies).32Othercitiesconductparkingutilizationstudieslocallytoderiveparkingmaximumallowancesfortheirmunicipality,ratherthanrelyingonParkingGenerationrates.ThecitiesthathaveconductedutilizationstudiesincludePortland,Bend,andHoodRiverinOregon.33

Cambridge,Massachusettsiscreditedwithbeingoneofthefirstcitiestosetparkingmaximums,whichitdidinthe1980s.Cambridge’sparkingmaximumtodayallows,for

27CityofSeattleMunicipalCode,Title23,SubtitleIII,Subdivision2,Chapter23.49,SubchapterI.“DowntownZoning:GeneralProvisions.”28CityofSeattleMunicipalCode,Title23,SubtitleIII,Subdivision2,Chapter23.54.“QuantityandDesignStandardsforAccessandOff‐StreetParking.”29CityofPortlandCityCode,Chapter33.266.110:ParkingandLoading,MinimumRequiredParkingSpaces.30Ibid.31Ibid.32MetropolitanTransportationCommission,“DevelopingParkingPoliciestoSupportSmartGrowthinLocalJurisdictions:BestPractices,”(MetropolitanTransportationCommission,Report,May2007),35.33Ibid.

8

example,foramaximumoftwoparkingspacesper800squarefeetofgeneralofficespace,orfortwospacesperfiveseatsatabar.34Inadditiontoremovingparkingminimums,Portlandhasalsosetparkingmaximumsinpartsofthedowntownbusinessdistrict.Themaximumallows,forexample,.7off‐streetparkingspacesper1,000squarefeetofofficespace,and1.35spacesperresidentialunit.35SanFranciscohasalsosetparkingmaximumsinseveralneighborhoods.AdetaileddiscussionofSanFrancisco’sparkingpoliciesandrequirementswillfollow.

Althoughrealizedbenefitsofresidentialparkingmaximumsarenotwell‐documented,thereissomeevidencethatparkingmaximumsleadtomarginalincreasesintransitridershipanddecreasesinvehiclecongestion.36Citiesmaychoosetoimposeparkingmaximumstoencouragetransitridership,maximizelimitedlandresources,andimproveurbanaesthetics.37Unitswithoutparkingspacesaremoreaffordable,38soremovingthecostofaparkingspacefromthepriceofahouse(alsoknownas“unbundling”parking)canmakehousingaffordableformorepeople. Despitethebenefits,parkingmaximumsasanalternativeparkingpolicyareoftencontroversial.Developersareoftenopposedtoparkingmaximumsbecause,overthemanyyearsthatminimumparkingrequirementshavebeenthestatusquoindevelopment,developershavecreatedaruleofthumbforwhatwillsell:residentialunitssuchassinglefamilyhomes,condominiums,orapartmentswitharatioofatleastoneparkingspaceperunit(1:1).39Itisoftendifficultfordeveloperstoconvincefunderstoinvestinprojectsthatprovidelessthanoneparkingspaceperunitbecauseitisadeeplyrootedindustrystandard.Developersalsofearthatunitswithoutparkingwillnotbeabletocompetewithsimilardevelopments.40

However,twostudieshaveproducedevidencecontradictingdevelopers’andfunders’fearsaboutthemarketabilityofunitswithoutparking.AstudyoftheeffectsofparkingrequirementsonthecostofhomesinSanFranciscofoundthatcondominiumssoldwithaparkingspaceactuallyhaveaslowerabsorptionratethanthosewithoutaparkingspace.Thatstudyfoundthatcondominiumunitswithparkingtook41dayslongertosellthanthosewithout.41Anotherstudyfoundthathousingwithoutparkingprovidesdeveloperswithahigherrateofreturn.Theauthorofthatstudycalculatedthatparking

34CityofCambridgeZoningOrdinance,Section6.36:ScheduleofParkingandLoadingRequirements.35MetropolitanTransportationCommission,“DevelopingParkingPoliciestoSupportSmartGrowthinLocalJurisdictions:BestPractices,”(MetropolitanTransportationCommission,Report,May2007),36‐37.36SanFranciscoPlanningandUrbanResearchAssociation,“ParkingandLivabilityinDowntownSanFrancisco:PoliciestoReduceCongestion.”www.spur.org/publications/library/report/parkingandlivabilityindowntownsf_010105(accessedSeptember27,2009)37JoshuaSwitzky,Interviewedbyauthorinperson.SanFrancisco,California,July9,2009.38JiaandWachs,158.39LukeH.Klipp,“TheRealCostsofSanFrancisco’sOff‐StreetResidentialParkingRequirements:AnAnalysisofParking’sImpactonHousingFinanceAbilityandAffordability,”Master’sThesis,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2004,6.40RichardWillson,“ParkingPolicyforTransit‐OrientedDevelopment:LessonsforCities,TransitAgencies,andDevelopers.”JournalofPublicTransportation8,no.5(2005):87.41WenyuJiaandMartinWachs,“ParkingRequirementsandHousingAffordability:CaseStudyofSanFrancisco,”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1685(1999):159.

9

sellsforlessthanitcoststobuild,andthataunitwithoutparkingyieldsasignificantlygreaterprofitpersquarefootthanaunitwithparking.42 IwillnowturntoadiscussionofthedevelopmentofparkingpolicyintheCityofSanFrancisco,fromtheintroductionofparkingminimumstothecurrentriseofparkingmaximums.

42Klipp,26.

AHistoryofParkingPolicyinSanFrancisco

1906‐1955:SanFranciscoBeforeMinimumParkingRequirementsMuchoftoday’sSanFranciscowasbuiltintheaftermathofthe1906earthquake,

duringtheyearswhenmotorvehicleusewasinitiallygrowing.NorthBeachandChinatownaretwodense,mixedcommercialandresidentialdistrictsnearDowntownSanFranciscothatwererebuiltimmediatelyfollowingtheearthquake.Thebuildingsaresetattheedgeofthesidewalkwithretailonthegroundfloorandhousingabove.BuildingsinNorthBeachandChinatowndonothavegarages,driveways,orparkinglots.Today,findingstreetparkingtherecanbecompetitive,butitdoesnotkeeppeoplefromvisiting,shopping,ordining,asevidencedbythecrowdsfoundeatingoutsideorbrowsingshopwindowsonweekendnights.

AlthoughSanFrancisco’sdowntowncoreremaineddense,likemanyothercitiesthatdevelopedduringtheearly20thCentury,SanFranciscobegantodevelopinanauto‐centricpatternasvehiclesbecameubiquitousduringthe1920sand1930s.Duringthoseyears,developersconstructedmanybuildingswithground‐floorparkinggaragesandresidentialunitsontop,althoughtheywerenotyetrequiredtoprovideparking.Manyofthecity’souterneighborhoods,suchastheSunsetDistrictandtheRichmondDistrict,developedduringthisperiod.Single‐familyhomeswithgarages,neighborhoodcommercialdistricts,andsupermarketswithlargeparkinglotsdefinetheseneighborhoodstoday.

1955‐1997:TheEraofParkingMinimumsIn1955,SanFranciscoinstituteditsfirstminimumparkingrequirementofone

residentialoff‐streetparkingspaceforeachdwellingunit.Thisrequirementremainsineffectinmostneighborhoodsinthecitytoday.In1960,thecityaddedcommercialandindustrialparkingrequirementstothezoningcode.43In1968,thecityadoptedwhatisknownasa“softmaximum”whereindeveloperscanprovidenomorethan150%oftheminimumnumberofrequiredparkingspacesasaccessory.44However,thereareprovisionswherebythecitygrantsconditionalusepermitstodeveloperswhowishtoprovidemoreparking.

In1973,shortlyafterBayAreaRapidTransit(BART)commuterrailservicestartedtooperate,SanFranciscointroducedits“TransitFirst”policy,whichcontinuestocomprisethetheoreticalfoundationofthecity’sGeneralPlan.45Thepolicyprioritizesinvestmentintransitandencouragesstreetdesignandparkingpoliciesthatminimizevehicletraffic.ThepolicyguidesthepathofdevelopmentinSanFranciscobyencouraginginvestmentsininfrastructurethatbenefitshighly‐connected,multi‐modaltransportationsystemsthatadequatelyaccommodatepedestrians,bicyclists,andtransitridersaswellasdriversofmotorvehicles.46

43LivableCity,“ABriefHistoryofParkingRequirementsinSanFrancisco,”http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/parkinghistory.html(accessedDecember7,2009).44Ibid.45CityofSanFranciscoGeneralPlan,TransportationElement:TheFreewayRevoltand"TransitFirst"(1960‐1989).46Ibid.

12

Thecitydoesnotrequireconstructionofoff‐streetparkingfacilitiesinconjunctionwiththedevelopmentofcommercialbuildingsdowntown,anditmaintainsacommercialparkingmaximumthatallowsdeveloperstoconstructparkingforupto7%ofthegrossfloorareaofadevelopment.47Thistotalsaboutoneparkingspaceper4,000squarefeetofdevelopedspace.DevelopersmayexceedthatlimitwithaconditionalusepermitfromthePlanningCommission,whichisonlygrantedifthereisadeterminationthattripstheparkingwouldservecannotbeaccommodatedbytransit,carpooling,oruseofexistingparking,andiftheparkingwillnotcontributetocongestionordisrupttransit.48Inmorerecentyears,thecityhasbeguntoextendparkingmaximumstoresidentialdevelopmentdowntownandinareasthatarewell‐servedbytransit.

1997andBeyond:DiscardingResidentialParkingMinimumsandIntroducingMaximums

Today,thecity’spopulationdensityis17,259peoplepersquaremile,49makingitoneofthedensestcitiesinthecountry.SanFrancisco’sdensityisgreaterthanthatofChicago,Boston,orPhiladelphia,threecitieswithextensiveandwell‐utilizedtransitsystems.However,manySanFranciscoresidentsownvehiclesandusethem.In2008,thepopulationofSanFranciscowas798,17650andtherewere470,333vehiclesregisteredinthecity.51Ifadifferentindividualownedeachoneofthosevehicles,thiswouldmeanthat59.8%ofSanFranciscoresidentsowntheirownvehicle.Additionally,39.2%ofthecity’spopulationreportscommutingtoworkbycarortruck.52

Although,initially,themajorityofregionalofficejobswerelocatedinSanFrancisco’sdowntowncore,theBayArearegionisexperiencingasprawlinggrowthintechnology‐relatedjobsinSiliconValley,whichislocatedapproximately40milessouthofSanFrancisco.MostoftheofficespaceinSiliconValleyislocatedinlow‐risecar‐orientedbusinessparks,andmanyofthepeoplewhoworkintheseofficescommutefromSanFranciscodistrictssuchasthetrendySouthofMarket,Mission,andNoeValleyneighborhoods.

In1997,SanFranciscointroduceditsfirstparkingmaximuminMissionBayandithasimplementedseveraladditionalneighborhood‐basedparkingmaximumssincethen.Table1containsachartdescribingthecity’sresidentialparkingmaximums.Inadditionto

47CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPublicWorksandPlanningDepartments,“ParkinginSanFrancisco:ConditionsandTrends,”December1975.48SanFranciscoPlanningandUrbanResearchAssociation,“BallotAnalysis,November2007,PropositionH:ParkingInitiative,”http://spur.org/goodgovernment/ballotanalysis/Nov2007/proph(accessedDecember7,2009).49UnitedStatesCensusBureau,“PersonsperSquareMile:2008,”http://factfinder.census.gov/(accessedDecember7,2009).50UnitedStatesCensusBureau,“FactSheet:SanFranciscoCity:2006‐2008AmericanCommunitySurvey3‐YearEstimates,”http://factfinder.census.gov/(accessedDecember7,2009).51StateofCaliforniaDepartmentofMotorVehicles,“EstimatedVehiclesRegisteredbyCountyForthePeriodofJanuary1ThroughDecember31,2008,”http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/est_fees_pd_by_county.pdf(accessedDecember7,2009).52UnitedStatesCensusBureau,“FactSheet:SanFranciscoCity:2006‐2008AmericanCommunitySurvey3‐YearEstimates,”http://factfinder.census.gov/(accessedDecember7,2009).

13

implementingparkingmaximums,thecityhasalsoeliminatedparkingminimumsintheneighborhoodswithparkingmaximums.

ThepropagationofparkingmaximumsincludedinNeighborhoodPlansinSanFranciscoindicatesthatthecityisdedicatedtoreachingthegoalssetforthinitsTransit‐Firstpolicy.Accordingtothecity’sPlanningDepartment,residentialparkingmaximumsaregoodforthecityforseveralreasons.First,theydecreasetheoverallnumberofcarsinthecityandencouragepeoplewholiveneartransittouseit.53Italsomaximizestheefficiencyoflimitedlandinadensearea.54Finally,fromanurbandesignpointofview,buildingfewerparkingentranceswillcreatemoreattractiveandwalkableplaces.55

Table 1. Maximum Parking Allowances in San Francisco

Sources:CityandCountyofSanFranciscoMunicipalCode,Section151.1:ScheduleofPermittedOff‐StreetParkingSpacesinSpecifiedDistricts;CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment.MarketandOctaviaAreaPlan.May30,2008;CityandCountyofSanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency.DesignforDevelopmentfortheMissionBayNorthandSouthProjectAreas.ApprovedMarch16,2004;CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment.EasternNeighborhoodsZoningGuide.January19,2009.

53JoshuaSwitzky,Interviewedbyauthorinperson.SanFrancisco,California,July9,2009.54Ibid.55Ibid.

Year Neighborhood DescriptionParkingMaximum ExceptionsAllowed?

1998 MissionBay RedevelopmentArea1spaceperunit Nonespecified

2005RinconHill(RHDTR)

High‐RiseResidential,adjacenttodowntown

.5spacesperunit

Upto1parkingspaceperunitthroughPlanningCommissionreviewifspacesareoperatedwithmechanicalstackersorvalet.Requiresunbundlingofparking

2006 Downtown(C‐3)DenseCommercial/Office/High‐RiseResidential

.75spaceperunit

Allowsmaximumof1parkingspaceperunitforunitswith2ormorebedrooms

2008

EasternNeighborhoods:‐Mission‐EastSOMA‐CentralWaterfront‐ShowcaseSquare/Potrero

Residential,Eastofdowntown

.5to.75spacesperunit

Upto.75‐1parkingspaceperunitthroughPlanningCommissionreviewifspacesareoperatedwithmechanicalstackersorvalet.

2008 MarketandOctaviaResidential/Commercial,adjacenttodowntown

.75spaceperunit

Allowsmaximumof1parkingspaceperunitforunitswith2ormorebedrooms

14

InDowntownSanFrancisco,theminimumoff‐streetresidentialparkingrequirementwasonespaceforeveryfourunits(1:4)foraslongasanyonecouldrememberuntilthecityimplementedaparkingmaximumintheC‐3ZoningDistrictin2006.56However,developerswouldoftenbuildmoreorlessparkingthanrequiredwithapprovalfromthecity.57So,althoughthecurrentweakeconomyhaspreventeddevelopersfromconstructingmanynewbuildingssincetheparkingmaximumswereestablished,thereisaprecedentinthecityforconstructingbuildingswithlimitedoff‐streetparkingspaces.WiththeimplementationoftheparkingmaximumsindowntownSanFrancisco,thereisnolongeranyprovisionforexceedingtheamountofparkingspecifiedasallowableexceptionsinTable1.

56Ibid.57Ibid.

LiteratureReview

Introduction Thereiscurrentlyadebateswirlingaroundtheissueofminimumparkingrequirementsforresidentialdevelopments.Whileithasbeencommonpracticeforcitiestorequiredeveloperstoprovideaminimumamountofparkingformorethan70years,recentlyresearchershavebeguntodiscusstheeffectsofsuchpracticesonurbanformandtravelbehavior.Thisliteraturereviewpointsoutsomeofthekeyargumentsagainstthecontinueduseofminimumparkingrequirementsasthestatusquoinresidentialdevelopmentanddiscussesthewidearrayofsolutionsthathavebeenproposedasalternativestominimumparkingrequirements. Thispaperisspecificallyinterestedintheinfluenceoftheavailabilityofaresidentialoff‐streetparkingspaceonindividuals’travelbehavior.Despitethemanyargumentsagainstminimumparkingrequirements,therehasbeenvirtuallynoresearchconductedtospecificallydescribemyresearchquestion.Severalresearchershavenotedthatthistopicisonethatwarrantsfurtherinvestigation.58Thereare,however,manystudiesthatexaminecloselyrelatedtopicsthathavedirectinfluenceontravelbehavior. Inthisliteraturereview,Iwillstartwithadiscussionofthewidelyrecordednegativeeffectsofminimumparkingrequirements.Iwillthenturntoadiscussionofthefewstudiesthatdirectlyaddresshowavailabilityofanoff‐streetparkingspaceinfluencestravelbehavior.Next,Iwillprovideanoverviewoftherelatedstudiesthatdiscusshowtheavailabilityofparkingatadestinationmayinfluencetravelbehavior,andamoregeneraldiscussionofhowurbanformandlanduseinfluencetravelbehavior.Iwillthendiscussthehandfulofstudiesthatconsidertheimpactsofparkingrequirementsonurbandesignbeforeturningtoadiscussionofhowparkingrequirementsinfluencehousingprices,whichisthedominantfocusofresearchintotheimpactsofparkingrequirements.Beforeturningtopolicyconsiderations,Iwillprovideananalysisofthestudiesthatdescribedevelopers’andresidents’perceptionsofresidentialparking.Finally,IwilldiscussthevarietyofalternativestominimumparkingrequirementsthathavebeenproposedrecentlyandIwillidentifygapsintheliterature.

MainThemesandDebates

Thenegativeeffectsofminimumparkingrequirements

Traditionally,mostcitieshavefollowedasystemofminimumparkingrequirementstoensurethatnewdevelopmentprovidesenoughparkingtoaccommodatealluses,withoutcreatingspilloverparkingandexcessthroughtrafficonresidentialstreets.Theserequirementsaimtohelpfosterefficienttransportationsystems,strongeconomies,

58LukeH.Klipp,“TheRealCostsofSanFrancisco’sOff‐StreetResidentialParkingRequirements:AnAnalysisofParking’sImpactonHousingFinanceAbilityandAffordability,”Master’sThesis,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2004:17;GregMarsden,“TheEvidenceBaseforParkingPolicies–AReview,”TransportPolicy,no.13(2006):455;JohnNobleandMikeJenks,Parking:DemandandProvisioninPrivateSectorHousingDevelopments,Eynsham,England:InformationPress,1996:11.

16

accessibility,cleanurbanenvironments,andsafety.59Essentially,mostcitiesdeterminethedemandforparkingthatvariouslanduseswillcreateatpeaktimesandwritearequiredminimumnumberofparkingspacesforeachuseintotheirzoningcodes.Todeterminethenecessaryquantityofparking,theytypicallyconsulttheInstituteofTransportationEngineersParkingGenerationmanualorsurveyneighboringcities.60

Today,nearlyeveryresearcherstudyingparkingpolicyhaspointedoutfaultwiththissystem.Althoughmostresearchersstudyingthetopicwouldagreethatparkingrequirementsshouldbecalculateddifferently,theyhavemanydifferentargumentstosupporttheircontentionsthatchangesareneeded.Themainargumentsthatresearchersciteagainstminimumparkingrequirementsareasfollows:

o ITEParkingGenerationmethodologyisflawed61o Requiredparkingraisesthepriceofgoodsandhousing62o Requiredparkingsubsidizesthecostofoperatingavehicle63o Requiredparkingleadstoincreaseduseofmotorvehicles64o Requiredparkingmakestransitlessviable65o Requiredparkingreducestheamountoflandavailablefordevelopment66o Requiredparkingleadstoincreasedsprawl67o Requiredparkingharmstheenvironment68o Requiredparkingleadstounpleasanturbandesign69

Inthesubsequentpages,Iwillprovideanoverviewofthebodyofliteraturethathasemergedtodescribetheeffectsofparkingrequirementsandthealternativepoliciesthathavebeenproposedtoaddresstheseissues.

59Marsden,448.60Ryan.Russo,“Parking&Housing:BestPracticesforIncreasingHousingAffordabilityandAchievingSmartGrowth,”Master’sThesis,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2001:12.61ChristopherCherry,ElizabethDeakin,NathanHiggins,andS.BrianHuey,“Systems‐LevelApproachtoSustainableUrbanArterialRevitalization,”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1977(2006):208;DonaldShoup,“TheHighCostofFreeParking,”JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,no.17(1997):4;DonaldShoup,“TheTroublewithMinimumParkingRequirements,”TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,no.33(1999):551.62JasonHenderson,“TheSpacesofParking:MappingthePoliticsofMobilityinSanFrancisco,”Antipode41,no.1(2009):77;ToddLitman,“ParkingRequirementImpactsonHousingAffordability,”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute(January2009):11;Russo,11;Shoup(1999),556;DonaldShoup,TheHighCostofFreeParking,Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,2005:141‐143.63Shoup(1997),11‐12;DonaldShoup,TheHighCostofFreeParking,Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,2005:217;RachelWeinberger,MarkSeamanandCarolynJohnson,“ResidentialOff‐StreetParking:CarOwnership,VehicleMilesTraveled,andRelatedCarbonEmissions(NewYorkCityCaseStudy),”TransportationResearchRecord,no.2118(2009):25.64Litman(January2009),11;Russo,1,11;Weinberger,Seaman,andJohnson,25;RichardWillson,“SuburbanParkingRequirements:ATacitPolicyforAutomobileUseandSprawl,”JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation61,no.1(1995):34.65Henderson,77;Russo,10.66Litman(January2009),9‐10;Russo,1;Shoup(1997),11.67Litman(January2009),10‐11;NobleandJenks,5‐6;Russo,1,10;Willson(1995),36‐37.68Henderson,77;NobleandJenks,5‐6;Russo,11;Shoup(2005),291;Willson(1995),34.69Litman(January2009),11;NobleandJenks,5‐6;Shoup(2005),129‐135.

17

Howavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceinfluencestravelbehavior

Thefewarticlesthatspecificallydiscusshowresidentialparkingavailabilityinfluencesmodechoicesuggestthatpeoplewithoutanavailableresidentialoff‐streetparkingspacetendtodrivelessthanthosewhohaveaccesstoaparkingspaceathome.However,onlyahandfulofpriorstudieshavespecificallystudiedthisquestion.

AstudyconductedinNewYorkcomparedthetravelbehaviorofresidentsoftwoneighborhoodsthatareequallyservedbytransitandaboutthesamedistancefromManhattan’scentralbusinessdistrict:JacksonHeights,QueensandParkSlope,Brooklyn.70Usingcityparkinglotdata,taxrecords,andvisualrecording,theresearchersfoundthatresidentsofJacksonHeights,whichhas156%moreparkingthanParkSlope71,were45%morelikelytodrivetoworkinManhattanthanresidentsofParkSlope.72Althoughtheresultssuggestthatpeoplewilldrivemorewhenaresidentialparkingspaceisavailable,theauthorsmentionadditionalfactorsthatcouldaccountforthehigherrateofManhattan‐boundautotripsoriginatinginJacksonHeights,suchashigherratesofshiftworkormoreparkingattheworkplacesofJacksonHeightsresidents.73

Agroupresearchingwhetheravailabilityofaresidentialoff‐streetparkingspaceinSanFranciscoinfluencestravelbehaviorfoundconflictingresultsastowhetherthetravelbehaviorofpeoplewithparkingvariesfromthosewithout.74Theauthorsfirstadministeredasurveywithasamplesizeof42andfoundthatindevelopmentswithparkingratiosofoneparkingspaceperunit(1:1),81.5%ofresidentsownedacar,50%drovetowork,and70.4%drovefornon‐workpurposes.75Indevelopmentswithparkingratiosoflessthan1:1,theyfoundthat46.7%ownedacar,26.7%drovetowork,and42.9%drovefornon‐workpurposes.76TheyalsoconductedasmallTripGenerationstudy,inwhichtheyfoundthatadevelopmentinaneighborhoodwithagoodtransitsystemandaparkingratioof.14:1hadthehighestTripGenerationrate(1.67autotripsperparkingspaceduringpeakhours),althoughtheotherbuildingsexaminedhadhightripgenerationratesaswell(.79,.42,and.55).77Theresults,whichareinconclusive,focusedonahandfulofspecificdevelopments,anduseaverysmallsamplesize,suggestthatpeoplewithoutparkingathomedrivelessthanthosewithaparkingspace,butthosewhohaveaparkingspacedrivefrequently. Finally,areviewof26residentialtransitorienteddevelopments(TODs)acrossCaliforniafoundthatresidentsofdevelopmentswithmoreparkingusedtransitlessforworktrips,butthisfindingwasnotstatisticallysignificant.78ThestudyalsofoundthatTODswithhigherratesoftransitusehadaboutthesameamountofparkingspace,

70Weinberger,Seaman,andJohnson,27.71Ibid.72Ibid.,26.73Ibid.,26.74RoccoPendola,StephanieRuddy,andElmerTosta,“ResidentialParkingRequirementsinSanFrancisco:DoTheyAffectTravelBehavior?”UnpublishedreportpresentedtoLivableCitybySanFranciscoStateUniversityUrbanStudiesProgram,May2005:16‐17.75Ibid.76Ibid.77Ibid.,18.78RichardWillson,“ParkingPolicyforTransit‐OrientedDevelopment:LessonsforCities,TransitAgencies,andDevelopers.”JournalofPublicTransportation8,no.5(2005):81.

18

suggestingthattoomuchparkingwasprovidedconsideringthetransit‐accessibilityofthedevelopment.79

Howavailabilityofaparkingspaceatthedestinationinfluencestravelbehavior

Sincetherearenotmanystudiesthatexaminetheinfluenceofresidentialparkingavailabilityonpeoples’travelbehavior,itisinstructivetolookatthebodyofliteraturethatlooksatwhetherparkingavailabilityatworkorshoppinglocationsinfluencestravelbehavior.Theliteratureonthistopicsuggeststhatpeopledrivemorewhenthereisaparkingspaceavailableatthedestination.

Onestudyof10officeparksinSouthernCaliforniathatmetminimumparkingrequirementsfoundthatpeakutilizationwasonly56%,80whichsuggeststhattheparkingminimumsaretoohigh.Thisstudyalsorevealedthatpeoplewhoworkatofficeswithfreeparkingtravelwith10%fewerpeoplethanthosewhoworkatofficeswithoutfreeparking,becauselesspeopleareridingtransitorcarpooling.81InCuritiba,Brazil,acitythatiswellknownintransportationplanningcirclesforitsextensiveBusRapidTransit(BRT)system,parkingminimumswereimposedevenlyinthedowntownandoutskirtareas.ArecentstudyoftheareasaroundfiveBRTstationsinCuritibafoundthatparkingminimumsledtofreeorcheapparkinginthecity,promotingsingleoccupantvehicleuseandrunningagainstthestatedgoalsofthecity’sadoptedlandusepolicies.82

Meanwhile,asmall,informalstudyofthreeworksitesinScotland(ahospital,acorporateheadquarters,andabusinesspark)builtincompliancewithGreatBritain’sparkingmaximumrecommendationfoundthatratesoftransituse,walking,andbicyclingwere14%to20%higheratthesiteswithlimitedparkingthanthatexpectedatlocationswithsimilarlanduses.83Moreresearchiscertainlynecessarytoconfirmtheresultsofthisunpublished,limitedstudy.

Howlanduseinfluencestravelbehavior

Anotherusefulgroupofstudieslooksathowlanduseinfluencestravelbehavior.Avarietyoflandusefactorsotherthanparkingcaninfluencetravelbehavior,includingresidentialdensity,landusemix,employmentdensity,roadwaydesign,bicyclefacilities,sitedesign,andretail.84Travelbehaviorindicatorsthatcanbestudiedincludemodechoice,vehiclemilestraveledandvehicleownership.Somestudiesinthiscategoryfindthatdensitycaninfluencemodechoice,andinrecentyearsthisprovesparticularlytrueforresidentsofTODs.However,anotherbodyofliteratureinthisareahasreachedinconclusiveresults,andsomearguethatit’simpossibletoisolatethefactorsthatinfluencetravelbehavior.

79Ibid.,8280Willson(1995),32.81Willson(1995),36.82ChristopherZiemann,“IsCuritiba,BraziltheModelCityforParkingManagement?”Submittedforpresentationandpublication,88thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,2009:14.83TomRyeandStephenIson,“TheUseandImpactofMaximumParkingStandardsinScotland,UK,”Submittedforpresentationandpublication,86thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,2007:12‐13.84ToddLitman,“LandUseImpactsonTransport,”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute(August2009):2.

19

Alandmarkstudyconductedin1995foundthatresidentialdensityandmixedusesgenerallyinfluencepeopletousesingleoccupantvehicleslessfrequentlyandtousetransitorwalkmore.85Inprofessionalpractice,itiscommonlyacceptedthatpeoplewillusecarslessoftenwhenthereareothermeansoftravelsuchastransitavailable,walkabledestinationsnearby,andlocalemploymentopportunities.86Similarly,studiesofTODs,whicharesimilartomostdenseurbanareasintheirproximitytotransitandmixedlanduses,haverevealedthatTODresidentstypicallyownfewercarsduetosmallerhouseholdsizeandproximitytotransit87andusetransittwotofivetimesmoreoften.88Therecouldbeaself‐selectionfactoratplaywhenitcomestoTODresidents,which,asotherstudiespointout,mustalwaysbetakenintoconsiderationwhenlinkinglandusetotravelbehavior.89

A1998studydidnotfindthatanyofthelandusesanalyzedinfluencedtravelbehaviorwithgreatstatisticalsignificance,andconcludedthatwecannotsufficientlyuselandusetopredictpeoples’travelbehavior.90Usingaregressionmodelthataccountedforpeoples’housinglocationpreferences,thisstudyfoundaweakcorrelationthatsuggestsresidentsofzipcodeswithhigherserviceemploymentdensitymadeagreaternumberofnon‐worktripsinsingleoccupantvehicles,andthosewholivedinzipcodeswithhigherretailemploymentdensitymadefewernon‐worksingleoccupantvehicletrips.91

Theauthorofahighlycriticalreviewofthebodyofliteraturethatattemptstoexplainlinkagesbetweenlanduseandtravelbehaviorarguedthatthereislittleevidencetosupporttheargumentthaturbanformcanpredictorinfluencetravel92andthatit’sdifficulttoisolatewhetheraspecificvariableunderconsiderationactuallyhasacausalrelationshipwiththeindependentvariable.93Thearticlegoesontosuggestthatstudiesinthiscategorycanbemoreeffectiveifresearchersuseappropriategeographicscalesandaccountforpeoples’decisionsaboutwheretolive.94

Theimpactofparkingrequirementsonurbandesign

Thereisalsoasmallgroupofworkthatstudiestheimpactofparkingonurbandesign.Sinceparkingrequirementscreatelowerdensities,theyessentiallycontrolgrowth.

85LawrenceD.FrankandGaryPivo,“ImpactsofMixedUseandDensityonUtilizationofThreeModesofTravel:Single‐OccupantVehicle,Transit,andWalking,”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1466(1995):51‐52.86SanFranciscoPlanningandUrbanResearchAssociation,“RethinkingParking,”http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/reducinghousingcostsbyrethinkingparking_110198(accessedSeptember20,2009).87G.B.ArringtonandRobertCervero,“TCRPReport128EffectsofTODonHousing,Parking,andTravel,”TransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC:2008,25.88Ibid.,2.89MarlonBoarnetandSharonSarmiento,“CanLandUsePolicyReallyAffectTravelBehavior?”UrbanStudies35,no.7(1998):1166;RandallCrane,“TheInfluenceofUrbanFormonTravel:AnInterpretiveReview,”JournalofPlanningLiterature15,no.1(August2000):18.90BoarnetandSarmiento,1166.91BoarnetandSarmiento,1166.92RandallCrane,“TheInfluenceofUrbanFormonTravel:AnInterpretiveReview,”JournalofPlanningLiterature15,no.1(August2000):3.93Crane,8.94Crane,19.

20

However,somebelievethatgrowthcontrolmeasuresshouldbeimplementedmoredirectlyinzoningpolicies,suchasfloorarearatioslimits.95Onestudylooksatthesmall,narrowlotsonSanPabloAvenueinBerkeleyandfindsthat,withminimumparkingrequirementsinplace,theamountoflandthatwouldhavetobedevotedtoparkingwouldmakedevelopmentunfeasible,orfeasibleonlybyplacingparkinginthefrontofthelotandmovingthebuildingtowardtheback.96Thismakesforpoorurbandesign,andiflandownersdecidetheydon’twanttodevelopbecauseoftheparkingrequirements,thelandwilllayvacant.97

Anotherstudylooksattheimpactthatparkingminimumshaveondowntownlanduseandresolvesthattherequirementsleadtocongestionbecause,aseachnewdevelopmentisapprovedwithaminimumnumberofoff‐streetparkingspaces,thesupplyofparkingspacesandthenumberofcarsusingthemincreasesbutthecapacityofsurroundingstreetsremainsthesame.98Thiscreatesneighborhoodsthatarecongestedandunpleasantforwalking.Also,parkinglotentrancesanddrivewaysrequireadditionalsidewalkcurbcutsandreducespaceforstreettrees,leadingtoalesspleasantpedestrianexperience.99

Theimpactofparkingrequirementsonhousingaffordability

Theimpactofparkingrequirementsonhousingaffordabilityisoneofthemoststudiedaspectsofminimumparkingrequirements.Thebodyofliteraturedescribesthewaysinwhichminimumparkingrequirementsmakehousinglessaffordable,contributestosprawl,andamountstoinequitabletreatmentofpeoplewhodonotowncars. Thereareamultitudeofstudiesthatestimatethecostofaparkingspace.100Althoughmanyofthesestudiesareseveralyearsoldandthenumberswouldhavetobeadjustedforinflation,theyarestillinstructiveindicatorsofhowparkingincreasesthepriceofhousing.A2005studyofTODsfoundthateachunithad1.41spaces,equalingroughly$16,920,acostthatisfactoredintorentsorpurchaseprices.101TworecentstudiesofparkingcostsinSanFranciscoestimatethataparkingspaceaddsabout20%tothecostofahousingunitandcancostanywherefrom$20,000foranabovegroundspaceto$100,000foranundergroundspace.102

Thehighcostofparkingispassedontotheconsumerthroughanincreasedsalesprice.Asearlyas1964,astudyofapartmentconstructioninOakland,Californiafoundthatoncethecityestablishedminimumparkingrequirement,developersbeganbuildinglargerunitsandcharginghigherrentstopassthecostofparkingconstructionontorenters.103A95Willson(1995),39.96Cherryetal.,208.97Ibid.98MichaelManvilleandDonaldShoup,“Parking,People,andCities,”JournalofUrbanPlanningandDevelopment131,no.4(December2005):244‐5.99Henderson,77.100Henderson,78;WenyuJiaandMartinWachs,“ParkingRequirementsandHousingAffordability:CaseStudyofSanFrancisco,”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1685(1999):158;Klipp,25;Litman(January1999),9;Russo,7‐8;Shoup(1997),6;Willson(2005),83.101Willson(2005),83.102Henderson,78;Klipp,25.103WallaceF.Smith,TheLowRiseSpeculativeApartment,Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleyCenterforRealEstateandUrbanEconomics,InstituteofUrbanandRegionalDevelopment,1964.

21

morerecentstudyofthecostofhousinginSanFranciscowithandwithoutparkingspacesfoundthatsingle‐familyhomeswithparkingcost11.8%morethanthosewithoutparking,andcondominiumswithparkingcost13%morethanthosewithoutparking.104Theauthorsdeterminedthatthemortgageneededtopurchaseahomewithoutparkingwouldbe$9,000lessthanwhatabuyerwouldneedtopurchaseahomewithparking,meaning24%morepeoplecouldaffordtopurchaseahomeifitdidn’tincludeaparkingspace.105A2004studyestimatesthataparkingspacecosts$68,000inSanFrancisco.106

Parkingrequirementsalsogenerallydecreasetheamountofaffordablehousingthatcanbebuilt.Developers’profitsdecreasewithhighminimumparkingrequirements,becausecostsincreaseandunitcapacityonthelanddecreases.Developerstypicallyrespondbybuildingmoreexpensiveunits,whichcanmoreeasilyabsorbthecostofparking,anddecreasethenumberofaffordableunitsbuilt.107Also,parkingrequirementsincreasetheamountofthegovernmentsubsidythatisneededforeachunitofsubsidizedhousing.108

Parkingrequirementsalsoencouragesprawlanddecreaseddensity.Whenparkingrequirementsincreasefromzerospacestoonespace,urbandevelopmentbecomesmoreexpensiveby22%whilesuburbandevelopmentonlygoesupby6%,109makingsuburbandevelopmentcheaperandmoreattractive.Also,theneedtobuildparkingonthelotlimitstheamountofhousingthatasitecanaccommodate.110Typically,developerschoosetobuildlesshousingwhenthereisaparkingrequirement,whichdecreasesdensityandcreatesfewerunitsthatcanabsorbthecostofparking.111 Finally,parkingrequirementsareinequitableforpeoplewhodonotowncars.Agreaterpercentageoflowerincomepeopledonotownvehicles.In1990,theaveragenumberofhouseholdvehiclesintheBayAreawas1.76.112Forhouseholdsearningbetween48%and60%ofthemedianincome,itwas1.3.113Householdsearningbetween24%and26%ofthemedianowned.98vehiclesonaverage.114Minimumparkingrequirementscausepeoplewhodonotowncars,andwhocannotaffordtheminsomecases,tosubsidizethecostofparkingforthosewhodoowncarsbecausethecostofparkingisbuiltintorentalratesandproductprices.

Developers’perceptionsofparkingrequirements

Developersfollowastrictsetofguidelinestoensurethatprojectswillbefinanciallysuccessfulandtheywillbeabletosecurethefundingtheyneed.Theytendtowardcautionintheirinvestmentsandavoidtakingunnecessaryrisksbecausepotentialfundersconsider104JiaandWachs,158.105Ibid.106Klipp,22.107ToddLitman,“ParkingRequirementImpactsonHousingAffordability,”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute(January2009),13.108ToddLitman,ParkingManagementBestPractices.Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,2006:262;Henderson,78.109Russo,7‐8.110Ibid.111Henderson,78.112Russo,14.113Ibid.114Ibid.

22

aproject’sexpectedrateofreturn,whichcanbeaffectedbyunitsinthemix,location,localamenities,andthenumberofparkingspaces.115Commercialsuccessisusuallybasedonwhetheradevelopercomplieswithcityregulations,thelocationofthedevelopment,1:1parking,andbuildingaunitmixthathasalreadyproventosellintheneighborhood.116Overcomingindustrystandardsgoverningtheamountofparkingfinanciersareconfidentwillenableaunittosellcanbechallengingforplanners.

Developmentindustrystandardsarewhy,evenifdevelopersexpectthatproximitytorailwillinfluencetravelbehavior,theyarecautioustoprovidelessparkingneartransit.117Developersinsistthathousingwithoutparkingsellsataslowerratethanhousingwithparking,118buttheJiaandWachsstudyfindsthatpeoplearewillingtopurchasearesidentialunitevenifitdoesnotincludeaparkingspace.119Specifically,thatstudyfindsthatcondoswithparkingtook41dayslongertosellthancondoswithout.120

Willson(2005)foundthatthetidesarebeginningtochange.Asdowntownareasincitiesarebeginningtoeliminateminimumparkingrequirements,developersareshowingagreaterwillingnesstoreducethenumberofspacestheybuild.121Heisconfidentthatasdevelopersseemoreexamplesofsuccessfuldevelopmentsbuiltwithlessparking,theywillbemorewillingtoapproachprojectswithlessparking.122AnotherstudyexaminedwhetherreducingparkingminimumsinTorontowouldencouragedeveloperstobuildlesscommercialparking.123Theyfindthatmanycommercialspaces,suchasoffice,generalretail,andmedicallanduses,weremorelikelytoprovidelessparkingthannecessary.AlthoughlimitedtoToronto,thisfindingsuggeststhatdevelopersmightbewillingtoprovidelowerlevelsofparkingforsomeusesiflowerminimumsareinstituted.124

Thepublic’sperceptionsofresidentialparking

AsthegovernmentinGreatBritainbegantoconsiderreplacingresidentialoff‐streetparkingminimumswithmaximumsof1.5spacesperunit,severalstudiesofpublicopinionwereconductedtodetermineoptimallevelsofparkingandhowthepopulacewouldrespondtoreductionsinparkingavailability.Respondentsinoneauto‐orientedsuburbcitedsafetyandproximityofparkingspacestotheirhomeasmainconcerns,andtheauthorsconcludedthathighparkingratiosshouldbeinstitutedtomeetcarownershipratesandhighratesofvisitors–suchas1.25parkingspacesper1‐bedroomapartment,and2.25forsemi‐detachedhomes.125

115Klipp,6.116Ibid.117Willson(2005),86.118Klipp,27.119JiaandWachs,159.120Ibid.121Willson(2005),86.122Ibid.,87.123JoshuaEngel‐Yan,BrianHollingworth,andStuartAnderson,“WillReducingParkingStandardsLeadtoReductionsinParkingSupply?:ResultsofExtensiveCommercialParkingSurveyinToronto,Canada,”TransportationResearchRecord,no.2010(2007):102.124Engel‐Yan,Hollingworth,andAnderson,109.125NobleandJenks,62.

23

Anotherstudywasconductedin2002toassesstheattitudesofSoutheastLondonresidentsandresidentsofnearbysuburbstowardoff‐streetresidentialparking.12699%ofrespondentssaidtheyhadadedicatedoff‐streetparkingspaceand94%ofrespondentssaidtheywouldnotconsiderpurchasingpropertywithoutanoff‐streetparkingspace.127Eventhosewithoutacarreportedthattheywouldnotbeinterestedinhousingwithoutparking.128Whenaskedwhatfactorswouldencouragepeopletoliveinaunitwithoutaparkingspace,theyrespondedthatproximitytotransit,shops,andfacilitiesandlocationcouldswaytheiropinions.129Stubbsconcludedthatresidentsdidnotsupportpoliciestoeliminate1:1parkingbecausetheywereworriedthathousingwithoutparkingwouldbeworthlessandbecauseofthepotentialinconvenienceassociatedwithnothavingapersonalparkingspace.130Althoughtheseresultsareveryinteresting,theyarelimitedingeographicscopeandsamplesize,asonly47peopleinandaroundLondonresponded.131

Alternativestominimumparkingrequirements

Manystudieshaveputforthsuggestionsforalternativepoliciesandpracticesthatcanhelpaddresssomeoftheproblemsthatthecurrentparkingminimumparadigmcreates.Abriefdiscussionofeachalternativepolicyfollows.

Somestudiessuggestthatcitiesshouldadoptparkingmaximums,whichwouldreplacetherequiredminimumnumberofspaceswithamaximumnumberofspaces,overwhichadevelopercouldnotprovideadditionalparking.132AsmallsurveyofgovernmentsinScotlandrevealedsupportforthepotentialofparkingmaximumstoreducecaruseandstimulatedenserdevelopment,andevensomesupportfromdevelopers.133

Alargegroupofstudiesadvocatesfortheunbundlingofparkingfromthecostofpurchasingorrentingahome.134“Unbundling”meansthatparkingspacesareavailableataresidentialbuildingforpurchaseorrent,butarenotautomaticallyincludedinthesalepriceofthehome.Thesestudiesarguethatparkingrequirementshidethetruecostofdriving,135whichsubsidizesdrivingandencouragespeopletodrivemoresinceitappearstobearatherinexpensiveformoftravel.Also,whenparkingisbundledwiththepriceofhousing,developerscan’tmeasurethemarketdemandforit.136Unbundlingparkingcoulddecreasethecostofhousingandensurethatthosewhousetheparkingspacesaretheones

126MichaelStubbs,“CarParkingandResidentialDevelopment:Sustainability,DesignandPlanningPolicy,andPublicPerceptionsofParkingProvision,”JournalofUrbanDesign7,no.2(2002):213.127Ibid,232.128Ibid,228.129Ibid,232.130Ibid,234.131Ibid.,213.132Cherryetal.,209.133RyeandIson,11‐12.134Litman(January2009),2;Klipp,30;Russo,11;SPUR(2004);SanFranciscoPlanningandUrbanResearchAssociation,“ParkingandLivabilityinDowntownSanFrancisco:PoliciestoReduceCongestion.”www.spur.org/publications/library/report/parkingandlivabilityindowntownsf_010105(accessedSeptember27,2009);Willson(2005),83.135Russo,11;SPUR(2004)136Willson(2005),83.

24

whopayforit.137Thereissomeevidencethat,althoughinitiallyresistant,developersarebecomingmoresupportiveofunbundlingparking.138

Manypapersadvocateforreducingparkingrequirements,eitherinconjunctionwithaparkingmanagementprogram,139orbycreatingreduced,context‐specificparkingrequirementsforTODs140andaffordablehousing.141Russodescribesaparkingmanagementsystemforprovidingoff‐streetresidentialparkingwhereinprojectswouldbeapprovedwithlowerparkingminimums,butdeveloperswouldberequiredtoprovidelandscapedareasthatcouldlaterbeconvertedtoparking.142Inconjunction,thecitywouldrequirethedevelopertofundtransitpassprogramsforresidentsanditwouldrestrictstreetparkingpermitsforresidentstoreducespilloverimpacts.143Engel‐Yanadvocatesforreducedparkingminimumsinconjunctionwithaparkingmanagementprogramthatconsidersenvironmental,economic,andtransportationsystemconcerns.144

SeveralstudieslayoutframeworksforreducingparkingrequirementsforTODandaffordablehousingunits,whichtendtoattractpeoplewhoeitherprefertoliveneartransitandwithoutacar,orwhoareconstrainedtoliveassuchduetotheirfinancialsituation.145ArringtonsuggeststhattheITEParkingGenerationhandbookadoptalternaterequirementsspecificallyforTOD,whichshouldbemoreflexiblethanthestandardparkingrequirementsandallowforreducedparkingatTODs.146Anotherstudysuggeststhatthedemographiccharacteristicsofaproposeddevelopment’slikelyinhabitants,suchasage,income,disabilitystatus,147andcarownershiprates148betakenintoconsiderationwhenassigningparkingrequirements.

Sharedparkingfacilitiesarefrequentlymentionedinconjunctionwithcommercialparkingfacilities,buttheycanalsobeusedtoaddressissueswithresidentialparking.149TODscanpartnerwithtransitagenciestoshareparkingneartransitstations,sincethetwolandusesrequireparkingatdifferenttimesofday.150Sharedparkingisperceivedassaferthandedicatedparkinganditmakesthebestuseofdrivewayspace,requiresthatlessoverallparkingbeprovided,andcanhelpincreasehousingdensities.151Sharedparkingprovidestheaddedbenefitofenablingunderutilizedparkinglotstolaterbeconvertedtocommunalspaceifparkingdemandislaterreduced.152

Designsolutionscanhelpalleviatesomeofthenegativeaestheticimpactsofparkinglots.Innovativedesignsolutionsliketandemparkingandcarelevatorscanreducethe

137SPUR(2004).138Klipp,30.139Engel‐Yan,Hollingworth,andAnderson,110;Russo,24.140ArringtonandCervero,54;SPUR(2006),3;Willson(2005),90.141Russo,20;SPUR(2006),4‐5.142Russo,21.143Russo,21‐24.144Engel‐Yan,Hollingworth,andAnderson,110.145SPUR(2006),3.Willson(2005),90.146ArringtonandCervero,54.147Russo,20.148SPUR(2006),4‐5.149Cherryetal.,209;Russo,25.150Willson(2005),90.151NobleandJenks,65‐66.152Ibid.

25

amountofspacededicatedtoparking,153thoughthisclassofsolutiondoesnotaddresstheprevalenceofsingleoccupantvehiclesincities.Improvingthephysicaldesignofparkinglotsbydroppingthemafewfeetbelowpedestrianlevelandaddingsolarpanelsorlandscapingcanhelpcreatemorepleasanturbanexperiences.154Forparkinggarages,designsolutionsincludewrappingthegaragewithretailshops,makingthegaragelooklikeabuilding,andplacingparkingonlyonupperlevels.155Forsingle‐familyunits,citiescanrestrictthesizeofgaragedoorsthatfacethestreettoonlythewidthofasinglecar,requirethatagaragedoortakeuplessthan50%ofabuilding’sfaçade,orrequirethatdevelopersplaceparkingattherearofthehouse.156

Finally,agroupofinnovativealternativestoparkingminimumshasdeveloped.Thesesolutionsshouldn’tnecessarilybeusedinisolation,butincombinationwithoneofthepolicieslistedabovecouldbequiteeffectiveatreducingsomeoftheimpactsofrequiredparking.Thesesolutionsincludecar‐sharingprogramsthatmakevehiclesavailableforshort‐termrentalrightatdevelopments,157development‐widetransitpasses,158andin‐lieufeesthatcanbeusedtobuildcommunalparking.159

IntheminorityofresearchregardingparkingpolicyisonearticlearguingthatminimumparkingrequirementsarenotresponsibleforincreasesinVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)and,infact,haven’tkeptpacewithincreasesincarownership.ThispaperstatesthatcarownershipintheUnitedStatesincreasedbyabout200%between1946and1990,butVMTonlyincreasedby18%andminimumparkingrequirementshaven’tevendoubled.160Althoughtheauthordoesn’tofferevidencetosupportthisclaim,hesuggeststhatonlyone‐thirdoftheincreaseinVMTcanbeattributedtoparkingrequirements,andsuggeststhatVMThasincreasedinrecentyearsbecauseofsprawlandlongerperiodsofpeaktravel.161

ConclusionsFromtheLiterature Thebodyofresearchregardingtheinfluenceofresidentialparkingspaceavailabilityontravelbehaviorisratherthin,andevenstudiesinrelatedareassuchastheeffectsofparkingonmodechoiceforworkandshoppingtripsaresomewhatlimited.Theliteraturedescribinghowurbanforminfluencestravelbehaviorisinconclusive,andsomeresearcherssaythaturbanformfactorscannotbeusedtopredictormeasuretravelbehavior.Theliteratureregardingtheinfluenceofparkingrequirementsonhousingpricesisalittlebitbulkier,withageneralagreementthatparkingrequirementsareexpensive,andtheyraisethecostofhousingandcannegativelyinfluencedensity.

153Klipp,32‐33;Russo,26.154VinitMukhijaandDonaldShoup,“QuantityversusQualityinOff‐StreetParkingRequirements,”JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation72,no3(Summer2006):302.155Ibid.,303.156Ibid.,305.157Klipp,35;Russo,24.158Russo,25.159Cherryetal.,209;Russo,25;MukhijaandShoup,299.160ErikFerguson,“ZoningforParkingasPolicyProcess:AHistoricalReview,”TransportReviews24,no.2(March2004):188.161Ibid.,189.

26

Manyresearchersinthisareahavenotedtheneedforadditionalresearchontopicsrelatedtoparkingandtravelbehavior.Researchersarestartingtotakenotethatparkingisbyandlargeunderstudiedandomittedfrommostplanningcurricula.162Futureresearchissuggestedtounderstandhowpeoplewillreacttotheintroductionofparkingmaximumsthatcouldleadtoreductionsintheavailabilityofoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaces.163Also,moremustbelearnedabouthowparking,particularlyresidentialparking,164influencesmodechoiceonasmallergeographiclevel,possiblytheblockgrouplevel.165Finally,anyresearchaboutresidentialtravelbehaviormustincludeconsiderationofwhetherpeoples’housingpreferencesallowthemtoself‐selecttotravelandliveincertainlocations,whichisanotherareaofresearchaboutwhichlittleisknown.166 Thisstudyfitswellintotheresearchvoidconcerningtheinfluenceofresidentialparkingspaceavailabilityontravelbehavior.Sinceverylittlecomprehensiveresearchhasbeendoneinthisarea,Ithinkthattheresultsofmysurveyshouldhelpinformthebodyofresearchthatdescribestheimpactofbothparkingandlanduseontravelbehavior.Ialsointendtoaddresswhetherpeopleself‐selecttoliveneartransitorinacertainlocation,soIexpectthisstudytoexpandtheliteratureinthatareaoffocusaswell.Itismyhopeandexpectationthatmyanalysiswillhelptoshedlightonthisunderstudied,yetimportant,aspectofparkingpolicy.

162Henderson,73.163Stubbs,235.164JiaandWachs,159;Marsden,455.165FrankandPivo,52.166BoarnetandSarmiento,1162;Marsden,455.

ASurveyoftheInfluenceofResidentialParkingAvailabilityonTravelBehavior

SurveyMethodologyAlthoughtheeliminationofminimumoff‐streetparkingrequirementsandthe

implementationofparkingmaximumsinresidentialareasareseenastwomethodsforlimitinguseofmotorvehiclesandforreducingcongestiononcitystreets,verylittleresearchhasbeenconductedtodeterminewhethertheresidentsofthesetwotypesofneighborhoodsmaybepre‐inclinedtowardlessfrequentuseofautomobilesorwhetherthesepoliciesmaypotentiallybesuccessfulinencouragingpeopletochangetheirtravelpreferences.Assuch,asurveywasconductedaspartofthisstudytodetermine:

1. Theextenttowhichtheavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspace

influencesresidents’travelbehaviorinSanFrancisco.2. Whetherreducingresidentialoff‐streetparkingrequirementsencourages

peopletodriveless.Priortothisstudy,therewaslittletonoinformationavailabletodescribetheextent

towhichthetravelbehaviorofSanFranciscoresidentswithaccesstoanoff‐streetparkingspaceathomevariedfromthatofSanFranciscoresidentswithoutaccesstoan‐offstreetparkingspaceathome.NeithertheUnitedStatesCensusnortheAmericanCommunitySurveyincludesquestionsaboutresidentialparking.AlthoughtworecentsurveysconductedinSanFranciscoincludedquestionsaboutparkingavailabilityathome,bothcoveredlimitedgeographicareasthatwouldnotprovideusefuldatacomparisons.167

Thus,primarydatawasneededtoanswertheresearchquestionposedinthisstudy.Asurveyisanappropriatemethodforgatheringdataonquestionsoftravelbehaviorandattitudesbecauseitcanyieldqualitativedatathatothermethodsofdatacollectiondonotconsider.Manypreviousstudiesoftheinfluenceofparkingontravelbehaviorhaveusedsurveystogatherdata.168

Althoughthesurveymethodisanextremelyaccurate,inexpensive,andfastmethodforcollectingdataabouttravelbehavior,itisnotwithoutitschallenges.Attimes,surveysamplesmaybetoosmallorunrepresentative,ormemory,recency,orconsistencybiases

167RoccoPendola,StephanieRuddy,andElmerTosta,“ResidentialParkingRequirementsinSanFrancisco:DoTheyAffectTravelBehavior?”UnpublishedreportpresentedtoLivableCitybySanFranciscoStateUniversityUrbanStudiesProgram,May2005;SanFranciscoPlanningDepartment,“ResidentTravelBehaviorSurvey:SOMA/TransbayArea,”ResearchconductedbyGodbeResearch,December2008.168Engel‐Yan,Joshua,BrianHollingworth,andStuartAnderson.“WillReducingParkingStandardsLeadtoReductionsinParkingSupply?:ResultsofExtensiveCommercialParkingSurveyinToronto,Canada.”TransportationResearchRecord,no.2010(2007):102‐110;Pendola,Rocco,StephanieRuddy,andElmerTosta.“ResidentialParkingRequirementsinSanFrancisco:DoTheyAffectTravelBehavior?”UnpublishedreportpresentedtoLivableCitybySanFranciscoStateUniversityUrbanStudiesProgram,May2005;Stubbs,213.

28

mayexist.169Thesurveymethodalsomakesitdifficulttoquantifyhowpeoples’tendencytowardself‐selectionofresidentialcharacteristicsbasedonpre‐heldattitudesmayinfluencetheirtravelbehavior.170Onestudystatesthatexperimentsconductedtomeasuretheinfluenceofachangetothebuiltenvironmentontravelbehaviorareamongthemorereliablemethodsofestablishingarelationshipbetweentravelbehaviorandthebuiltenvironment.171Althoughtheexperimentalmethodmayachievemorevalidresultsthanthesurveymethod,abeforeandafterexperimentwouldbeoutsidethepurviewofthisstudybecauseoffundingandtimelimitations,andthedifficultyofidentifyingappropriateexperimentlocationsinSanFranciscoduringthecurrentconstructionslowdown.

SurveyInstrument

Ibasedthesurveyinstrument(Appendix1)onquestionsthatotherresearchersstudyingtravelbehaviorincludedintheirsurveysandonquestionsthatareincludedintheNationalHouseholdTravelSurvey.172Ithentailoredthequestionstomorespecificallycollectthequalitativedatathatmyresearchquestionsrequire.Iincludedaquestionprobingthereasoninginformingpeoples’decisionstoliveinspecificlocations,toaddressandlimitthepossibilitythatpeoplemayself‐selectwheretheylivebecauseofdeep‐heldideologies,attitudes,andpreferences.Thesurveyaskedsubjectstonotethecrossstreetsthatareclosesttotheirhometodeterminewhethertheyliveinanareawithorwithoutaparkingmaximum.Finally,Iaskedpeers,colleagues,andmyfacultyadvisortoreviewthesurveyandprovidefeedbackandsuggestionsforimprovements.

SampleSelectionandSurveyAdministration

ThesamplepopulationforthesurveyincludesSanFranciscoresidentswholiveinneighborhoodswhereparkingmaximumshavebeenenactedandacontrolgroupofthosewholiveinneighborhoodswhereparkingmaximumshavenotbeenenacted.Thefocusisonthedenseinnerurbanareaswhereparkingmaximumshaverecentlybeenenactedbecauseparkingspaceavailabilityismorelikelytohaveaninfluenceonthetravelbehaviorofresidentsintheseneighborhoodsthanthosewholiveinthemoresprawling,lesstransit‐accessibleouteredgesofthecitywhereparkingminimumsstillapply.Icollecteddatafromneighborhoodsthatdonothaveparkingmaximumsinplacetocomparedifferenceswithinthetwogroups.Figure1indicatesthecross‐streetsclosesttotheresidencesofsurveyrespondentswholiveneardowntownSanFranciscoandtheboundariesofthevariousneighborhoodswhereresidentialparkingmaximumshavebeenenacted. Thesurveywasadministeredto203subjectswhoareSanFranciscoresidentsaged18orolder.19responseswereeliminatedbecausetheyprovidedincompleteinformationandtworesponsesweredeletedbecausetheywereduplicates.Thus,thestudysampleyielded182complete,uniquesurveysthatcouldbeanalyzed.Thesurveywasadministered169PatriciaL.MokhtarianandXinyuCao,“Examiningtheimpactsofresidentialself‐selectionontravelbehavior:Afocusonmethodologies,”TransportationResearchPartB:Methodological42,no.3.(2008):207‐208.170Ibid.,205,211.171Ibid.,225‐226.172UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,“NationalHouseholdTravelSurvey,”BureauofTransportationStatistics,ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration,UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey(accessedFebruary23,2010).

29

asbothanin‐personinterceptsurveyandasanonlinesurveytoarandomsamplebetweenFebruary28,2010andMarch21,2010.TheinterceptsurveywasadministeredatthelocationsandonthedatesindicatedinTable2.Table2.Locations,Dates,Times,andSampleSizeofInterceptSurveyAdministrations

Location Date Time SampleSize

SOMAWholeFoodsGroceryStore,4thSt.andHarrisonSt. Sat.2/29 9:00am‐10:30am

13

RainbowGrocery,13thSt.andFolsomSt. Sat.2/29 11:00am–2:00pm

37

MissionCreekPark,4thSt.andChannelSt. Sat.3/6 11:30am‐2:00pm

14

DoloresPark,18thSt.andDoloresSt. Sat.3/6 3:00pm–5:00pm

17

NoeValleyWholeFoodsGroceryStore,24thSt.andNoeSt. Sun.3/7 9:00am‐10:00am

25

TOTAL=106

Alllocationsaretransit‐accessible.TheSOMAWholeFoods,RainbowGroceryStore,andMissionCreekParkarewithinparkingmaximumareas;theNoeValleyWholeFoodsandDoloresParkarenotwithinparkingmaximumareas.Atthestorelocations,subjectswererecruitedastheyenteredorexitedthestore,orastheywalkedbyonthestreet.Thesurveyswereself‐administeredandfilledinonclipboards.Severalvolunteerstrainedinpropersurveyadministrationprotocolandprovidedwithanoverviewoftheproject’sobjectivesassistedtheprincipalinvestigatorwithdatacollection.Volunteersalsoworebuttonsthatidentifiedthemas“GraduateStudentResearchers”affiliatedwithSanJoseStateUniversity.

ThesamplealsoincludedSanFranciscoresidentsfromotherpartsofthecity,whocompletedthesurveyonline.TheGlenParkAssociationandHayesValleyNeighborhoodAssociationdistributedthesurveylinktotheirmembersviaemail,andseveralvolunteerspostedthesurveylinktothesocialnetworkingsiteFacebookorsentemailedinvitationstocolleagues.TheHayesValleygroupislocatedminutesfromtheSanFranciscoCivicCenterinanareawithoutresidentialparkingminimumsandwithparkingmaximums;theGlenParkgroupislocatednearthesouthernedgeofthecityinaneighborhoodwithaBARTstation.GlenParkstillhasresidentialparkingminimumsandnoparkingmaximums.Contactsineachoftheseorganizationscirculatedalinktomemberswitharequestidentifyingthestudyasstudentresearchandrequestingthattheycompletethesurveyonlineathttp://www.surveygizmo.com/s/251929/jnarg.

30

Figure1.MapofSurveyRespondentsandAreaswithParkingMaximumsinSanFrancisco.

16TH ST

17TH ST

PINE ST

OM ST

24TH ST

BUSH ST

NO

E S

T

SCO

TT ST

POST ST

BAY ST

UNION ST

HYD

E ST

RISON ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

EDDY ST

26TH ST

LAGU

NA ST

TURK ST

04TH S

T

GREEN ST

SUTTER ST

VALLEJO ST

FILBERT ST

GO

UG

H ST

JACKSON ST

JON

ES ST

19TH ST

LARKIN

ST

PACIFIC AVE

18TH ST

STEINER

ST

15TH ST

25TH ST

FRAN

KLIN ST

HOWARD ST

FE

14TH ST

CALIFORNIA ST

MASO

N ST

OAK ST

FILLMO

RE ST

CAS

TRO

ST

I-80 E

ASTBOUND

I-80 W

ESTBOUND

BRYANT ST

ELLIS ST

TAYLOR

ST

POW

ELL ST

SACRAMENTO ST

HAYES ST

GREENWICH ST

VALEN

CIA S

T

PAGE ST

CAP

P ST

WASHINGTON ST

07TH ST

FLOR

IDA S

T

ILLINO

IS S

T

YOR

K ST

I-280

SOUTH

BOUND

I-280 NO

RTH

BO

UN

D

BRANNAN ST

02ND ST

GR

ANT AVE

IOW

A ST

DIA

MO

ND

ST

08TH ST

28TH ST

MCALLISTER ST

LEAVENW

ORTH

ST

05TH ST

SHO

TWE

LL ST

KAN

SA

S ST

IND

IAN

A ST

HAIGHT ST

GEARY ST

FULTON ST

MARIPOSA ST

DE H

AR

O S

T

29TH ST

20TH ST

HW

Y 10

1 SO

UTH

BOU

ND

BROADWAY

GROVE ST

09TH ST

DUNCAN ST

LOMBARD ST

ISLAIS ST

GOLDEN GATE AVE

ALAB

AM

A STD

OU

GLA

SS

ST

10TH ST

MISSION ST

MINNA ST

EVANS AVE

30TH ST

TOWNSEND

UTA

H S

T

DAY ST

SANSO

ME ST

11TH ST

PIERC

E ST

HAM

PSH

IRE

ST

BATTERY ST

CLIPPER ST

COLUMBUS AVE

TEN

NE

SS

EE S

T

MAIN ST

RH

OD

E IS

LAND

ST

27TH ST

CHESTNUT ST

IVY ST

BEALE ST

DUBOCE AVE

VALLEY ST

01ST ST

JERSEY ST

VER

MO

NT S

T

MO

NTG

OM

ERY ST

23RD ST

SAN

CH

EZ ST

CLAY ST

BUC

HAN

AN ST

WALLER ST

EUR

EK

A ST

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

SPEAR ST

ARK

AN

SA

S S

T

BRO

DER

ICK ST

PEN

NS

YLVA

NIA AVE

ELIZABETH ST

THE EMBARCADERO

HILL ST

PRECITA AVE

BAKER ST

CARGO WAY

WIS

CO

NS

IN S

T

TOLA

ND ST

AVILA ST

PERRY ST

BAR

TLETT S

T

HARRT ST

BEACH ST

MARKET ST

OWENS ST

GEARY BLVD

ERR

MISS

ISS

IPPI S

T

12TH ST

SAN

JO

SE A

VE

ALAMEDA ST

FREMONT ST

ELSI

E ST

NAPOLEON ST

CO

NN

EC

TICU

T ST

STOC

KTON

ST

HENRY ST

LILY ST

STATES ST

MIN

NES

OTA S

T

FRO

NT ST

I-280 N O

FF RA

MP

NATOMA ST

POWHATTAN AVE

HOLL

ADAY

AVE

AMADOR ST

CO

LLING

WO

OD

ST

STEVENSON ST

COLE

RIDG

E ST

OTIS ST

HERMANN ST

DIVISION ST

PIXLEY ST

PRO

SPEC

T AV

E

DORE ST

LEX

ING

TON

ST

BLUXOME ST

ALVARADO ST

DAVIDSON AVE

RITCH ST

LINDEN ST

HO

FFMA

N AV

E

DR

UM

M ST

DAVIS ST

AUSTIN ST

OAKDALE AVE

LILAC

ST

TEHAMA ST

RIPLEY ST

PHEL

PS S

T

OFARRELL ST

ST

HAR

TFOR

D S

T

RUSS ST

LUC

KY S

T

STEUART ST

VICK

SB

UR

G S

T

NEWHALL ST

FIFTH S

T

TERR

Y A FRAN

CO

IS BLVD

LIND

A ST

LIBERTY ST

BEACON ST

CH

ATTAN

OO

GA ST

OR

D S

T

SAN

BR

UN

O AV

E

MOULTON ST

JOIC

E ST

FERN ST

MULLEN AVE

MARIN ST

JULIA

N AV

E

CUSTER AVE

OLIVE ST

OR

A WAY

IRWIN ST

E ST

RUTLEDGE ST

HANCOCK ST

TEX

AS

ST

I-80 W OFF RAMP

TABER PL

VAN N

ESS AVE

MARINA GREEN DR

MARINA BLVD

ALPINE TER

KEARN

Y ST

LAN

DE

RS

ST

CYP

RE

SS

ST

DIAMOND HEIGHTS BLVD

13TH ST

POLK ST

NORTH POINT ST

KING S

T

WILLOW ST

UPTON S

T

OC

TA

WEBSTER

ST

0

STALTA ST

ERIE ST

WELSH ST

TREA

T AV

E

HALLECK ST

BAY

SHO

RE B

LVD

BERNARD ST

BRID

GE

VIE

W W

AY

BURKE AVE

POPE RD

DIVISAD

ERO

ST

MISS

OU

RI S

T

MARY

MIC

HIG

AN S

T

MAGNOLIA ST

CAR

OLIN

A ST

MOSS ST

DELANCEY ST

ANNIE ST

COSO AVE

PON

D S

T

BERNAL HEIGHTS BLVD

I-80 E OFF RAMP

VIRG

IL ST

CLINTON PARK

BALM

Y S

T

BUE

NA

VIS

TA T

ER

ALBIO

N ST

CH

UR

CH

ST

RAUSCH ST

PLUM ST

SHAN

NO

N ST

SHA

RO

N S

T

HO

RA

CE S

T

DORLAND ST

VAREN

NES ST

ASIN ST

WATER ST

CLO

VE

R LN

PERINE PL

STANFO

BLAIR TER

FAYETTE ST

MYRTLE ST

ON S

ASH ST

GLOVER ST

CHESLEY ST

PAR

K H

ILL

AVE

INC

A LN

TONQUIN ST

JUNIPER ST

HO

ME

STE

AD

ST

WO

RTH

ST

PLEASANT ST

ELIM ALYO

RBEN

PL

ADAIR ST

FRANCISCO ST

JEFFERSON ST

ALAB

AM

A ST

BRYA

NT S

T

22ND ST

GREEN ST

MAR N ST

PIERC

E ST

DAVIS ST

HILL ST

CHESTNUT ST

NORTH POINT ST

CLAY ST

BRO

DER

ICK ST

23RD ST

TEX

AS

ST

FRANCISCO ST

VER

MO

NT S

T

CLAY ST

20TH ST

NEL ST

KEARN

Y ST

18TH ST

ELLIS ST

KAN

SA

S ST

25TH ST

TRE

AT AVE

ST

19TH ST

26TH ST

21ST ST

JEFFERSON ST

06TH ST

ALVARADO ST

15TH ST

PIERC

E ST

UTA

H S

T

OC

TAVIA ST

PIERC

E ST

BUC

HAN

AN ST

SHO

TWE

LL ST

BERRY ST

MARIN ST

BEACH ST

15TH ST

SAN

CH

EZ ST

23RD ST

15TTH S

1444THH ST

SANN

OOTISSSSSTT

LANN

DDEE

RSSPOOOO

CCLLII

CCH

UR

CCH

ST

PPLLUUM SSST

SSHAA

RO

NFAAAFF

YAAEETOON

SS

GGO

UGG

HHSSTT FFFFE

HA

VE

IIVVYYYYY SSTT

UBOCCE AVVAA E

BBUUCC

HHAANN

ANNST

SST

LLIILLLLLYYYYLLLL SSTTT

HHEEEERRMMAAAANN SST

DDEENN SSTT

OOCC

TTATTT

AASSSSSHH SSTTTTT

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XXX

X

X

X

X

X XX

X

X

X

X

XXX X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XXX X

X

X

X

X

XX

X XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

East SOMA

Mission Bay

CentralWaterfront

ShowplaceSquare

PotreroHill

Mission

Hayes Valley

Rincon Hill

Downtown

FF

OOMMSSST

HOWARDDST05TTH

STT

MMISSION

SSSST

SSTT

MMMAINSBBEEAL001SST SSST

SPPEARSFFREEMOONTT ST

NNNNNAATTAAAAOOOOOMMAA SSSSSTTT

SSSTTTEEVVEENNSSOOOONN SSTT

EUUAART STT

E SST

I--88000000 WWWW

MMA

NNIEESSST

EELLIIIIMMAAAALYLL

T

ONST

TFAF

OMSST

AA ST

A

STEE

S

TTTTEEUUAARRTT SSTTTT

WWWW

MAKEET

T

ST MMASSO

NNSSTT

LLISS SSTT

SST

VVVEE

GEAAARRRRYY SSSSTTTT

TST

SSTOOCC

KKTTONN

SST

MM

ST

HHHHAAAALLLLLLEECCCCCKK SSSSTT

AASHHHAAANN

NNO

N

AVVAA IISSSTEEEEAARRRR

NYYY

SSTT

DowntownwwnwnwowooD oDo ow

AAAARRRRRRRRNN

S

LL

VVVVAA

TS

MARKEET ST

SSKKTT

M

AN

NNO

N

DA

KKKKEE

OOCC

n

YYYEESS SSYYYY SSSS

TT

WOOFFFFFF RRRAAAMMM

Rincon n n ncRinccon

TT

HillHilHillHilMMM

W

TTT

RR

T

illW

225TTH SST

ILLINOO

STT

II--22880NNN

OR

TTHB

OU

ND

IIOOWWW

AAASSS

TTIIN

DIA

NA

SST

TEEN

NE

SS

EEE

ST

223RRDD SST

VE

MIN

NNES

OOOTA

ST

MIC

HIG

NSS

ST

188THH SSTTT

SSST

266THH STT

CentralC

LLLLIINNGG

AANN

WaterfrontWWW erfroW

OOOOIISS

SSSTT

LVLL AAAVNNN

IIAAAAVVVAAA EEE

SSSTTT

117TTHH SST

KAKKN

SA

SSST

MMARRIPOOSA SST

DHH

AAR

OS

T

2220THH SST

UUNNNN

DDDD

UTAATT

HS

TTT

RH

OODD

EISS

LAND

ST

ERR

MO

NNT

STT

ARK

AN

SSA

SS

T

PPEN

NS

YLVVL AAVV

NIA

AVVA EE

WWIS

COO

NS

INSS

TT

MMISSS

IISS

IPPPI S

TT

EEEEEDDDDAAAAAAA SSSSSTTT

COO

NN

EEC

TICCU

TSS

T

DDIIVVVISIOOOOONN ST

REE ST

SSSSSSAAAAANN

BBR

UN

OOAVAA

EE

IRWINST

TTEX

AS

STT

MISSS

OU

RRI S

T

CAAR

OLIN

ASSS

T

BLLLLAAIIRR TTTER

SSSTT

22NDD SSSSTTTT

2233RD SSSTTTT

TTEEX

ASS

ST

VVVEEEERRRRR

MMMMMMOOOOO

NNNNTTTTT

SSSTTT

T

222111ST SST

UTAATT

HS

TT

BER

5THH SSTTTTT

Showplaceplawpph cehSSSSShoVVE

BB

SquareeqS rea

DEE

H

RRRMM

O

Potreroeeerotre ottoot oPo 11199TTTTHH SSTT

HilllH llHillH

166TH ST

T

ST

1ST STT

266TTHH SSTT

STT VVAAAAVVVLLEE

NNNNNCC

IIAASS

TT

CCAP

PSST

FLLOR

IDAA

ST

YOOR

KS

TT

SSHO

TWWE

LLSS

T

ALABB

AM

ASS

T

HAAM

PSHH

IRE

SSTT

BAR

TTLETTTT

SSSSTT

ALAME

LLLEEXX

IINNGGGGG

TTOONN

SSTT

LLIILLAACCCC

SSTT

LLUUCC

KKKKKYY

SSTT

LLIINNDDDD

AAASS

T

JULIA

NNNNAAVVAAA

EE

CCCCCYYPP

RREEEEE

SSSS

SSTTTTT

EEEEEEEERRRRIIIIEEEE SSSSTT

TTRREA

TAAAAVAA

EE

VVIIRRRRGG

IILLSSSSS

TT

NTON PPAPP RKK

BBAAAAAALLMM

YYSSSSS

TT

AALLBIO

NSSSSTT

HHOOOO

RRAA

CCEE

SSTTTT

STT

ADAAIRR STT

AALAB

AAM

ASS

T

BRYYAAYY

NT

SST

HILL STT

225TTH SST

TTRE

ATTAAVAA

ERADOO ST

15TTH SST 1

D STT

A

MissionoMM oss nnonssioMisM

O

SS

BOO

AAMMEEE

ERRRRIIIIEEE SSSSTTTTTTTNNTTTOOONN PPAP RKKK

1

TT

SS

1HH

AARRR

NNTT

KeyAreas Zoned with Parking MaximumsEastern Neighborhoods Planning Areas Central Waterfront East SOMA Mission Potrero Hill/Showplace SquareDowntown C-3 Residential Zones

Market Octavia Neighborhood Plan AreaMission Bay Redevelopment Plan AreaRincon Hill Plan Area = Location of survey respondent’s residence

Base Map Source: San Francisco Enterprise GIS Program (SFGIS), www.sfgov.org/gis.

N

1inch = 0.6 milesX

004SS

TTOOWWWWWENSSST

II--228800NN

OOOFFFF

RRRRAA

MMMPPP

FIFFTHSS

T

00

STTT

BBRRID

GGE

VVIIE

WWWW

AAYAA

AASIN SSST

RY STMission Miss nsionnnnnM ss

BayBaayaa

4TTTTHH

T

RRRRY

ERERR

SSTT

077

TT

2NDDSTTT

MMIINNNNNAA PPPEERRRRRRYY SSTTT

HHAAAARRRRRRT STT RR

RRIITTCCCHHSSTT

RRUSSSST

MMMMPP

TTTTAAATTTTTBBEEEERR

PPLLLL

LSSHHSSTTT

RRYYRR

MMOSS SSSTTTT

DDDEELAANCCEY SSTT

MPPPPP

SSSSSSTTTAAANNNNFFOO

NEL SSSSTTT

SS

LEaststtEaEE tst

NCCC

SOMASOOMSSOAAAA A

llllll

RR

077

TT

LLSSMMMMMM

TT

TTT

AA

RR

2NDD MMMMM D

ill

R

lllMM

illll

31

IssueswithSurveyAdministration

Althoughthesamplewasrandomtoavoidsamplingbias,thereweresomeissueswithself‐selection,affinity,andaccessibilitybias.IoriginallyplannedtodeliverthesurveyoutsideofabusySafewaystoreattheintersectionof4thStreetandKingStreetinSOMA,andwasignoredbyeverypersonwhowalkedbyfor10minutes,despitemycleanappearanceandanintroductorylineandabuttonidentifyingmeasastudentconductingresearchforaschoolproject.Thereareanumberofpanhandlerswhotypicallyoperateinthisarea,sothisresponseisunderstandable.Asaresult,ImovedtonearbyMissionCreekPark,whereIhadahigherresponserate.IoriginallywantedtoincludeSafewaystoresinmyanalysisbecausethesupermarket’spricesarelowerthanthoseatWholeFoods,whichmighthaveprovidedamorebalancedsurveysample.

Aswithallinterceptsurveys,atouchofaffinitybiasalsoenteredthepicturebecausewetendednottoapproachpeoplewhowereinvolvedinconversation,talkingonacellphone,listeningtoheadphones,orwhodisplayedobviousdisinterestbywalkingquicklypastusoravertingtheirgaze.Wealsodidnotapproachpeoplewhowerewalkingdogsifanotherpersonwithadogwasalreadycompletingthesurveyinthearea,toavoidconflictsbetweentheanimals.Finally,duetothetimeandresourceconstraints,wecouldnotaccessallareasofthecity,whichcouldhaveintroducedsomeaccessibilitybiasaswewereunabletorepresentallpossiblesituations.Assuch,Ireachedouttothemostaccessiblesubjects,whicharethosewhowerepresentatpublicareasthatIcouldreadilyaccessandwhoself‐selectedtocompletethesurvey,orthosewhosubscribetoneighborhoodlistservsandarethusalreadypre‐disposedtocivicmindedness.

SurveyResultsThefinalsamplesizewas182,with65respondentsfromareaswhereparking

maximumshavebeenimplementedand114wholiveinareasofthecitywhereresidentialparkingminimumsarestillinplace.Threerespondentsdidnotindicatewheretheylive.Table3displayssurveyrespondentdemographics.Table 3. Demographics of Survey Respondents

YearofBirth1971to1992 1945to1970 1944andearlier NoAnswer

61.5% 31.3% 2.7% 4.4%Income

$36,000orless $36,001to$75,000 $75,001to$150,0001 $150,000andgreater19.2% 18.7% 24.2% 26.9%

GenderMale Female Self‐Identified 49.5% 47.3% .6%

Numberofadultsinhousehold1 2 3 4ormore

28% 47.3% 11.5% 8.2%Numberofchildreninhousehold

0 1 2 3ormore82.4% 6% 6% 2.2%

HomeOwnershipRent Own 58.8% 37.9%

32

Analysisofthesurveyresponsesyieldedthefollowingstatisticallysignificantresults:Peoplewholiveinareaswhereparkingmaximumshavebeenintroducedmakefewerworktripsinsingle‐occupantmotorvehiclesthanthosewholiveinareaswithoutparkingmaximums.Thereisalsoarelationshipbetweenavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceandthechoiceofsingle‐occupantvehicleastheprimarymodeforworkcommutes.Also,thereisarelationshipbetweenavailabilityofanoff‐streetparkingspaceathomeandmodechoiceforentertainmenttrips.

Intermsofoveralltrips,peoplewithoutanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceavailableattheirhomereportedmaking,onaverage,1.4tripsbybicycleeachday.Thisiscomparedtothe.5tripsperdaythatpeoplewhohavemotorvehicleparkingathomereport.Availabilityofaparkingspacewasnotcorrelatedwithmodechoiceforothermodeswithstatisticalsignificance,butpeoplewhohaveaparkingspaceathometookanaverageof2.2tripsbyvehicleperday,ascomparedtothe1.5tripsperdaymadebypeoplewithoutaparkingspaceavailableathome.

Finally,peoplewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsalsomakemoretripsbybicycleeachday.Thosewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsreportedmaking1.8tripsbybicycleeachday,asopposedtothe.6tripsperdaythatpeoplewholiveoutsideofparkingmaximumareasreported.Also,peoplewholiveinareaswithmaximumsmakeanaverageof2.2tripsbysingleoccupantmotorvehicleeachday,comparedtothe.86tripsbymotorvehiclethatpeoplewholiveinparkingmaximumareasmake.Inthenextsection,Iwilldescribeingreaterdetailthemethodsutilizedinthisstudytodeterminetheseresults.

StatisticalAnalysis

InSanFrancisco,towhatextentdoestheavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceinfluenceresidents’travelbehavior?

Theprimaryfocusofthispaperconsiderstherelationshipbetweenaccesstoanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceandtravelbehavior.Toaddressthisissue,severalresearchquestionsweredevelopedtoanalyzethesurveydatausingPASWStatistics18.0.Thesurveyrespondentswerecodedbasedonwhetherornottheyhadaccesstoanoff‐streetparkingspaceattheirresidence,regardlessofwhethertheyownamotorvehicle.Thesamplewasrelativelyevenlysplit,with86respondentswhodonothaveaccesstoanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceand79respondentswhodohaveaccesstoanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspace.

Thefirstresearchquestionwas:“Whetherpeoplewhohaveanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspacemakemoreworktripsbysingleoccupantvehiclethanthosewhodonothaveanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspace.”ThisquestionwasanalyzedusingaT‐testforindependentsamples,whichfoundthat

peoplewithaccesstoanoff‐streetparkingspaceathomemakeanaverageof.89tripstoworkbysingleoccupantvehicle,whilepeoplewithoutaccesstoanoff‐streetparkingspacemakeanaverageof.64tripsbymotorvehicleperday.Thisresulthadapvalueof.172,

33

whichisgreaterthanthecriticalvalueof.05,whichmeanstheresultisnotstatisticallysignificant.

Next,Two‐Factor‐Chi‐Squaretestswereutilizedtoanalyze“whetherthereisarelationshipbetweenavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceandprimarycommute,errand,andentertainmentmodes”Forthepurposesofthisstudy,“primarymode”wasdefinedas“themodeusedforthelongestpartofthetrip.”

Respondentswereaskedtoidentifythemodetheyconsideredtheirprimarymodefortraveltoworkorschool,forerrandssuchasshopping,andentertainmentsuchasatriptothemovies,fromalistthatincludedbicycle,carshare,singleoccupantmotorvehicle,carpool,publictransit,walking,orother.

Asforcommutemode,themajorityofrespondentsreportedcommutingbysingleoccupantvehicle(55),publictransit(46)orbicycle(26).Table4belowdisplaysthebreakdownsproducedbythistest.Table 4. Off-Street Residential Parking and Primary Commute Mode Cross-Tabulation

PrimaryCommuteMode

Bicycle

MotorVehicle(SOV)

MotorVehicle(Carpool)

PublicTransit Walking

Workat

Home Other Total

No 20 23 3 21 8 8 0 83Off‐StreetResidentialParking

Yes 6 32 3 25 3 4 2 75

Total 26 55 6 46 11 12 2 158Forentertainmenttrips,peopleprimarilyreporteddrivingsingleoccupantmotor

vehicles(46),ridingpublictransit(38)orwalking(33).Table5belowdisplaysthebreakdownsforentertainmenttrips.Table 5. Off-Street Residential Parking and Primary Entertainment Mode Cross-Tabulation

PrimaryEntertainmentMode

Bicycle

MotorVehicle(SOV)


PublicTransit Walk Other 8 Total

No 16 20 4 21 18 3 0 82Off‐StreetResidentialParking

Yes 3 26 10 17 15 1 1 73

Total 19 46 14 38 33 4 1 155AlthoughaChi‐SquareTestcanrevealcorrelationandarelationship,itcannot

determinecausality.Thus,welearnfromthistestthatthereisarelationshipbetweenavailabilityofanoff‐streetparkingspaceathomeandprimarycommutemodechoice,and

34

betweenavailabilityofanoff‐streetparkingspaceathomeandprimaryentertainmentchoice.However,wedonotknowtheprecisenatureoftheserelationships.

Thefindingforcommutemodeisstatisticallysignificantwithapvalueof.024(seeTable6below).

Thefindingforentertainmentmodeisstatisticallysignificantwithapvalueof.025(seeTable7below).Table 6. Off-Street Residential Parking and Primary Commute Mode Statistical Significance

Value df

Asymp.Sig.(2‐sided)

PearsonChi‐Square 14.597a 6 .024LikelihoodRatio 15.865 6 .014NofValidCases 158

a.4cells(28.6%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis.95.

Table 7. Off-Street Residential Parking and Primary Entertainment Mode Statistical Significance

Value df



a.4cells(28.6%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis.47.

ACross‐Tabulationwasalsopreparedtoinvestigatetheexistenceofarelationshipbetweenoff‐streetresidentialparkingavailabilityandprimaryerrandmode.Althoughtheresultsindicatethatmorepeoplewhodonothaveaparkingspaceathomeconsiderbicyclingtheirprimarymodeoftransportationforerrands,andfewerconsideramotorvehicleastheirprimarymode,theseresultsarenotstatisticallysignificant.TheresultofthistestisincludedinTable8andTable9below.Table 8. Off-Street Residential Parking and Primary Errand Mode Cross-Tabulation

PrimaryErrandMode

BicycleCityCarShare

MotorVehicle(SOV)


PublicTransit Walk Total

No 16 1 29 3 4 30 83Off‐StreetResidentialParking Yes 7 0 40 3 2 22 74Total 23 1 69 6 6 52 157

35

Table 9. Off-Street Residential Parking and Primary Errand Mode Statistical Significance

Value df



a.6cells(50.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis.47.Finally,aT‐Testwasperformedtoanalyzethequestion,“Whetherpeoplewhohavean

off‐streetresidentialparkingspaceavailable{bicycle,usecitycarshare,drivesingleoccupantmoorvehicle,carpool,ridepublictransit,walk,oruseanothermode}morethanthosewhodonothavearesidentialoff‐streetparkingspaceavailableforalltripscombined.”

Thisquestionanalyzeddatacombinedfromseveralofthesurveyquestions.Thesurveyinstrument(SeeAppendix1)askedrespondentshowmanytripstheytookoneachofthemodeslistedabove.Italsoaskedrespondentstoindicatetheirprimarymodeforerrandandentertainmenttrips,andhowmanytripsperdaytheytookforeachofthesepurposesonaverage.Bycombiningaveragenumberoftripsperdayusingeachmode,a“totaltripsperdayoneachmode”valuewascalculated.Table10displaysthedescriptivestatisticsforeachmode.Althoughmanyinterestingrelationshipsarerevealed,theonlycorrelationthatisstatisticallysignificantisthatbetweenbicyclecommutetripsandavailabilityofaparkingspace.Peoplewithaparkingspaceathomemake.5tripsforworkonbicycleonaverage,whilepeoplewithoutaparkingspaceathomemakeanaverageof1.4tripsforworkviabicycleeachday.Thisfindingisstatisticallysignificantwithapvalueof.042.Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for Work Mode Share and Availability of a Parking Space at Home

GroupStatistics Off‐Street

ResidentialParking N Mean Std.Deviation

Std.ErrorMean

No 81 1.3563 3.13616 .34846BicycleWorkTrips/dayYes 69 .5138 1.42967 .17211

No 81 .0062 .05556 .00617CarShareWorkTrips/dayYes 69 .0290 .24077 .02899

No 81 1.5037 2.39551 .26617MotorVehicleWork(SOV)/dayYes 69 2.2004 2.99002 .35996

No 81 .2148 .96707 .10745MotorVehicleWork(Carpool)Yes 69 .3199 1.09823 .13221

No 81 1.1191 1.95768 .21752PublicTransitWorkTrips/dayYes 69 1.2325 1.87598 .22584

36

No 81 1.7743 2.48222 .27580WalkWorkTrips/dayYes 69 1.7029 2.36950 .28525

No 81 .0370 .19003 .02111Othermode(see#4)Yes 69 .0688 .34269 .04125

Thus,itseemsthatinSanFrancisco,availabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparking

spaceisrelatedtothemodeoftravelthatpeoplechooseforcommuteandentertainmenttrips.Althoughtheexactnatureofthatrelationshipisnotentirelyclear,itisclearthatpeoplewhodonothaveanoff‐streetparkingspaceathomecommuteviabicyclemorefrequentlythanthosewhohaveanoff‐streetparkingspaceavailableathome.

Willreducingresidentialoff‐streetparkingrequirementsencouragepeopletodriveless?

Thesecondissuethispaperaddresseslooksfortheexistenceofarelationshipbetweenresidentialparkingrequirementsandtravelbehavior.Specifically,thesurveypreparedinconjunctionwiththispaperaskedquestionsaboutthewaysinwhichpeopletravelinareaswhereresidentialparkingmaximumshavebeenimplementedandthosewheremaximumshavenotbeenintroduced.Thesequestionsseektorevealwhetherreducingparkingmaximumsmayachievetheintendedresultofencouragingpeopletodrivelessinareaswheremaximumsareintroduced. Thesurveyrespondentswerebrokenintotwogroups:onecomposedofpeoplewholiveinneighborhoodsinSanFranciscowhereparkingmaximumshavebeenintroduced,andonecomposedofpeoplewholiveinSanFrancisconeighborhoodsthatstillmaintainmoretraditionalparkingminimumrequirementsinthezoningcode.Theformergrouplivesinareasclosertodowntownthatarewell‐servedbytransit;thelattergroupisprimarilylocatedtowardtheedgesofthecityandfurtherfromdowntown. First,aT‐TestforIndependentMeanswasconductedtodeterminewhethercausalitycanbedeterminedbetweenlivinginanareawithaparkingmaximumandnumberofworktripstakenbysingle‐occupantmotorvehicle,publictransit,bicycle,andwalkingmodes.Thistestfoundwithstatisticalsignificancethatsingleoccupantmotorvehicletripsareinfluencedbyaperson’sresidenceinanareawithaparkingmaximum.Peoplewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsmake.87tripsforworkbysingleoccupantmotorvehicleeachday;thosewhodonotliveinareaswithparkingmaximumsmake.46tripsforworkbysingleoccupantvehicle.Thepvaluewas.022,whichislessthanthecriticalvalueof.05,meaningthisresultisstatisticallysignificant,and,thus,residencewithinanareawithparkingmaximumsseemstocausepeopletomakefewerworktripsbysingleoccupantvehicle.Althoughtheresultsforworktripsbybicycle,transit,oronfootwereinteresting,noneofthesefindingswerestatisticallysignificant. Next,aT‐TestforIndependentMeanswasconductedtodetermineifthereisarelationshipbetweenparkingmaximumsandthetotalnumberoftripsrespondentsmadeeachdayviaeachmode.Asdescribedabove,thetotalnumberoftripsthatrespondentsmadeeachdaywascalculatedbycombiningthereportednumberoftripsthatrespondentsmadeusingtheirprimarywork,errand,andentertainmentmodes. Thistestfoundthatpeoplewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsmade1.8tripsonbicycleperday,whilepeoplewholiveinareaswithoutparkingmaximumsmade.6tripsperdayviabicycle.Inotherwords,peoplewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsmake

37

3timesasmanytripsbybicycleeachdayasthosewhodonot.Thisfindingisstatisticallysignificantatthe.006level. Thetestalsofoundthatpeoplewholieinareaswithparkingmaximumsmade.9tripsbysingleoccupantmotorvehicleseachday,whilepeoplewholiveinareaswithoutparkingmaximumsmade2.2tripsperdayviasingleoccupantmotorvehicle.Inotherwords,peoplewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsmakefewerthanhalfasmanytripsviasingleoccupantmotorvehicleeachdayasthosewhodonot.Thisfindingisstatisticallysignificantatthe.002level. Table11belowdisplaysthefindingsofthistest.Table 11. Relationship Between Parking Maximums and Number of Trips Per Day by Mode

GroupStatistics LivesinMaximumarea?

N MeanStd.

DeviationStd.ErrorMean

NotMaximumArea 101 .6095 1.42377 .14167BicycleWorkTrips/day InMaximumArea 54 1.7694 3.71784 .50593

NotMaximumArea 101 .0050 .04975 .00495CarShareWorkTrips/day

InMaximumArea 54 .0370 .27217 .03704

NotMaximumArea 101 2.2206 3.02002 .30050MotorVehicleWork(SOV)/day

InMaximumArea 54 .8620 1.42933 .19451

NotMaximumArea 101 .3059 1.19102 .11851MotorVehicleWork(Carpool)

InMaximumArea 54 .1587 .53137 .07231

NotMaximumArea 101 1.0592 1.76650 .17577PublicTransitWorkTrips/day

InMaximumArea 54 1.3557 2.13153 .29006

NotMaximumArea 101 1.7755 2.53047 .25179WalkWorkTrips/dayInMaximumArea 54 1.6276 2.27377 .30942

NotMaximumArea 101 .0396 .24169 .02405OthermodeInMaximumArea 54 .0694 .30874 .04201

Thus,itseemsthatpeoplewholiveinareaswhereresidentialparkingmaximumshavebeenimplementedprefertodrivelessandtoridebicyclesmore.Althoughtheseresidentsmayhaveself‐selectedtheirhousinglocation,asthenextsectionwilldescribe,peoplewholiveintheseareastendtodrivesingleoccupantvehicleslessfrequentlythantheircounterpartsinotherpartsofthecity.Thus,itislikelythatpoliciesaimedatreducingparkingrequirementsindenseareassuchasthosethathavealreadyadoptedparkingmaximumsinSanFrancisco,willmakesomeprogresstowardreachingtheirintendedgoalsofreducingthenumberoftripsmadebysingleoccupantvehicleandreducingcongestion.

Dopeopleself‐selecttoliveinplacesthatallowthemtotravelinacertainpreferredway?

Athird,relatedquestionarises.Asmentionedabove,thereissomeconcernthatsurveysarenotthemostprecisemethodforresearchingtravelbehaviorbecauseof

38

peoples’tendenciestochoosehousinglocationsthatallowthemtotravelacertainway.Forexample,thereisatheorythatpeoplewholiveinTODsmayself‐selecttodosobecausetheyarepre‐disposedtolivingwithoutacarorneartransit,andTODsmeetthesegoals.Thus,studiescontendingthatTODsencouragepeopletoaltertheirtravelbehaviorandgiveuptheircarsaresometimescriticizedforfailingtoaccountforthefactthatpeoplechoosetoliveintheTODsbecausetheyenablethemtolivetheirchosentravellifestyle–andarenotactuallythecauseofthebehavioritself.

Thus,aquestionwasincludedinthesurveythataskedrespondentswhytheychosetoliveinaspecificlocation.Thereasonsvariedagreatdeal,butthemajorityofrespondentsindicatedthattheychosetolivewheretheylivebecauseitisclosetoworkorschool(47),orforreasonsnotincludedinthesurvey.Respondentsweregiventheoptiontoindicateanotherreasonwhytheychosetheirresidence,andtheopen‐endedresponsesincluded:price,neighborhood,size,abilitytobike,andattributesofthehouse.Table12indicatesthechoiceslistedinthesurveyandpeoples’responsestotheclosed‐endedportionofthequestion.Althoughtheseresultsarenotstatisticallysignificant(Chi‐Squarepvalue=.106),theyarestilltellingbecausetheyindicatethatavailabilityoftransit,bicycling,orparking,werenotthepredominantreasonwhymostofthesurveyrespondentschosetheirhomes.

Table 12. Why People Chose Their Housing Location

Whypeoplechosetheirhousinglocation

Closetoworkorschool

Closetoretailandentertainment

Closetofriendsandfamily

Closetopublictransit

Availabilityofparking

Closetoscenic

locations/recreation

Noneofthe

above/other

NotMaxArea

25 10 9 12 5 14 25LivesinMaximumarea?

InMaxArea

22 10 3 9 0 3 10

Total 47 20 12 21 5 17 35

Conclusion

StudyFindingsInsummary,thisstudyfoundthat,overall,peoplewholiveinareaswhereparking

maximumshavebeenintroducedmakefewertripsinsingle‐occupantmotorvehiclesthanthosewholiveinareaswithoutparkingmaximumsandmoretripsbybicycleeachday.Peoplewholiveinareaswithmaximumsmakeanaverageof2.2tripsbysingleoccupantmotorvehicleeachday,comparedtothe.86tripsbymotorvehiclethatpeoplewholiveinparkingmaximumareasmake.Thosewholiveinareaswithparkingmaximumsreportedmaking1.8tripsbybicycleeachday,asopposedtothe.6tripsperdaythatpeoplewholiveoutsideofparkingmaximumareasreported.

Thestudyalsofoundarelationshipbetweenavailabilityofanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceandthechoiceofmodeforworkcommutesandentertainmenttrips.Also,peoplewithoutanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceavailableattheirhomereportedmaking,onaverage,1.4tripsbybicycleeachday.Thisiscomparedtothe.5tripsperdaythatpeoplewhohavemotorvehicleparkingathomereport.

Thesefindingssuggestthatavailabilityofaparkingspaceathomeislinkedwithmodechoiceandthatpeoplewholiveinareaswhereparkingmaximumshavebeenimplementeddo,indeed,exhibittravelbehaviorthatisdifferentthanthatofpeoplewholiveinareaswithoutparkingmaximums.Thus,itisverylikelythatpolicieslikeimplementingresidentialparkingmaximumsoreliminatingresidentialparkingminimumsinthedenseareasclosertodowntownarelikelytoencouragepeopletomakefewertripsbymotorvehiclebecausepeoplewholiveintheseareasarealreadyusingothermodesmoreoftenthansingleoccupantmotorvehicles.

LimitationsoftheStudy ThisstudywasconductedinaratherlimitedgeographicareawithinSanFrancisco.Thus,theresultsmightnotbegeneralizedtothepopulationofthecityasawholeortothepopulationsofothercities.Also,thesamplesizewasconstrainedtothosewhowerewillingtocompletethesurvey,totheareasthesurveyorswereabletoaccess,andtothosewhowereabletoaccessthesurveyonlineandfillitinaccurately.Thesamplesizeof182isalsorelativelysmall,consideringthepopulationofSanFranciscoasawholeismorethan800,000.Alargerandmorestratifiedsampleselectionmightbenecessarytoproducemorerobustresults.

PolicyImplicationsoftheResearchThefindingsofthisresearchsupplementandaugmentthelimitedliterature

regardingtheeffectsofreducedparkingrequirementsonpeoples’travelbehavior.ThisresearchyieldedresultsthatindicatethatpeoplewholiveinareasofSanFranciscothathaveadoptedparkingmaximumsdrivelessandridebicyclesmorethanresidentsofotherpartsofthecity.Thisresultsuggeststhatprogressiveparkingpoliciesthatlimittheamountofparkingthatcanbebuiltwithnewdevelopmentarelikelytomeettheirgoalsofencouragingpeopletodrivelessandtotaketransitorwalktotheirdestinationsmore

40

often.Theseresultsalsosuggestthatdensityandtheavailabilityoftransitinsuchareasdo,indeed,reduceresidents’needforavehicle. Also,theresultsdosuggestarelationshipbetweenavailabilityofaparkingspaceathomeandmodechoiceforworkandentertainmenttrips.Thus,bylimitingthenumberofparkingspacesthatdeveloperscanbuildinfutureresidentialprojectsinSanFrancisco,thecitycaninfluencethewaysinwhichpeopletravel.Itispossiblethatavailabilityofaparkingspaceathomeinfluencespeoples’decisionstodriveforworkandentertainmenttrips,and,thus,bynotmakingasmanyofthoseparkingspacesavailablewithnewdevelopments,peoplecanbeencouragedtodrivelessoften.

OpportunitiesforFutureResearch Thispaperpinpointsseveralopportunitiesforfutureresearchintotheinfluenceofparkingmaximumsandresidentialoff‐streetparkingontravelbehavior.First,detailedstudieswithtraveldiariesshouldbeadministeredinneighborhoodswhereparkingmaximumshavebeenadoptedandthosewhereparkingminimumsarestillonthebooks.Thedatacollectedfromsuchathoroughstudywouldhelpexpandthelimiteddatapresentedinthisstudyregardingthedifferencesintravelbehaviorbetweenpeoplewholiveinareaswithandwithoutparkingmaximums.Second,abefore‐and‐afterstudyshouldbeundertakentomeasure,forexample,neighborhoodtransitboardingratesbeforeandafterthedevelopmentofanewresidentialbuildingwithlimitedparkingavailabilityinanareaofSanFranciscowithparkingmaximums.Thisstudywouldservethepurposeofdeterminingwhetherlimitedparkingavailabilityreallydoesdrivepeopletoseekoutalternativemodesoftransportation.Finally,arandomstudylikethisoneshouldbeconductedoveralongerperiodwithalargersamplesizetogeneratemoreeasilygeneralizeddataaboutpeoples’travelpreferences.

AppendicesAppendix 1. Survey Instrument

Travel

1. Whichofthefollowingisyourprimarymodeoftravelforcommuting?Forthepurposesofthissurvey,pleaseconsider“primary”tomean“themodeyouuseforthelongestpartofyourtrip.”BicycleCityCarShare,Zipcar,orothercarshareservice Motorvehicle(singleoccupant)(car,truck,van,scooter,motorcycle)Motorvehicle(carpool)PublicTransit(Muni,BART,Caltrain,ACTransit,etc…) Walk WorkatHome/UnemployedOther____________________

2.

Pleaseindicatethenumberoftimesyouusedeachofthefollowingmodestogettoandfromworkonthedayofyourlastcommute.Forexample:ifyouwalked¼miletoMUNI,rodeMUNI,thenwalkedtoyouroffice,anddidthereverseforyourtriphome,thesewouldcountas4walkingtripsand2PublicTransittrips.________________Bicycle________________CityCarShare,Zipcar,orothercarshareservice________________MotorVehicle(singleoccupant)________________MotorVehicle(carpool)________________PublicTransit________________Walk________________WorkatHome/Unemployed________________Other

3. Howmanyminutesisyourtypicalone‐waycommutetowork?____________________

4.

Whichofthefollowingisyourprimarymodeoftravelforerrands,suchasgroceryshoppingordroppingoffdrycleaning?BicycleCityCarShare,Zipcar,orothercarshareservice Motorvehicle(singleoccupant)Motorvehicle(carpool)PublicTransit Walk Other____________________

5. Howmanytripsforerrandsdoyoutypicallytakeeachday?

Answercanbeafraction;Pleaseconsidereachstopmadeonthewaytoorfromanotherdestinationasaseparatetrip.____________________

6.

Whichofthefollowingisyourprimarymodeoftravelforentertainment,suchasgoingouttoarestaurantoramovie?BicycleCityCarShare,Zipcar,orothercarshareservice Motorvehicle(singleoccupant)Motorvehicle(carpool)PublicTransitWalk Other____________________

7. Howmanytripsforentertainmentdoyoutypicallytakeeachday?Answercanbeafraction;Pleaseconsidereachstopmadeonthewaytoorfromanotherdestinationasaseparatetrip.____________________

8.

Whatpercentageofyouroveralltraveltimeforalltripsdoyouspendoneachmode?________________Bicycle________________CityCarShare,Zipcar,orothercarshareservice________________MotorVehicle(singleoccupant)________________MotorVehicle(carpool)________________PublicTransit________________Walk________________Other100%Total

9. Travelpatternsareaffectedbywherepeoplechoosetolive.Itisimportantthatwegetatleastagenerallocationofyourhousehold.Whatstreetdoyouliveonandwhatistheclosestcrossstreet?_________________________and___________________________City:__________________________________________________

(Surveycontinuesonthereverse)

42

10. Howmanyvehiclesareowned,leased,oravailableforregularusebythepeoplewhocurrentlyliveinyourhousehold?Householdmembersincludepeoplewhoconsideryourhometheirprimaryresidence,withwhomyoushareresourcessuchasincomeandvehicles.0123456ormore

Parking11. Howmanyoff‐streetparkingspaces,ifany,doyouhaveaccesstoatyourresidence?

Anoff‐streetparkingspaceisinagarageorlotonthesamepropertyasyourresidence,andnotonacitystreetorrentedoff‐site.0(Skipto#13)123456ormore

12.

Howdoyoupayforyouroff‐streetresidentialparkingspace?ItwasincludedintheresidencepurchasepriceormonthlyrentRentitfor$____________/monthPurchaseditfor$____________/monthOther____________(Skipto#15)

13. Ifyoudonothaveanoff‐streetresidentialparkingspaceavailableatyourresidence,wheredoyouparkyourmotorvehicle(s)ifyouownany?Rentaspaceelsewherefor$____________/monthParkonthestreetwithpermitParkonthestreetwithoutpermitOther_________________

14.

Fromwhereyoutypicallypark,howmanyminutesisthewalktoyourresidence?_________________minutes

Housing15. Whatisthemainreasonyouchosetoliveinthelocationofyourcurrentresidence?

ClosetoworkorschoolClosetoretailandentertainment ClosetofriendsandfamilyClosetopublictransportationAvailabilityofparkingClosetosceniclocationsand/orrecreation Noneoftheabove/Other____________

16. Doyourentorowntheresidenceyouarelivingin?RentOwnOther

17. Whichbestcategorizesyourresidence?SmallMulti‐unitcondoorapartmentbuilding(9unitsorless)LargeMulti‐unitcondoorapartmentbuilding(10unitsormore)Single‐familyhome Other

18.

Inwhicheradoyouestimateyourresidencewasbuilt?1954orearlier1955to19971998toPresentDon’tknow

AboutYou19.

Howmanyadultsage18orgreater,includingyourself,areinyourhousehold?1 2 3 4 5 6ormore

20.

Howmanychildrenunderage18areinyourhousehold?01 2 3 4 5 6ormore

21. Whatisyourgender?MaleFemaleSelf‐Identified

22.

Inwhatyearwereyouborn?_________________

23. Whatisyourannualhouseholdincome?$36,000orless $36,001to$75,000$75,001to$150,000$150,001orgreaterNoAnswer

Thankyouforyourhelp!

Survey#___________________Date___________________Location___________________

GlossaryParkingMaximums:Anupperlimitplacedonsupplyofparkingallowed,eitherat

individualsitesorthroughoutanarea,suchasacommercialdistrict.ToddLitman,ParkingManagementBestPractices.Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,2006:271.ParkingRequirement:Numberofparkingspacesthatmustbesuppliedataparticular

location,whichisoftenmandatedinzoningcodesordevelopmentrequirementsbasedonpublishedstandards.

ToddLitman,ParkingManagementBestPractices.Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,2006:272.

BibliographyArrington,G.B.andRobertCervero.“TCRPReport128EffectsofTODonHousing,Parking,

andTravel.”TransportationResearchBoard.Washington,DC:2008.Boarnet,Marlon,andSharonSarmiento.“CanLandUsePolicyReallyAffectTravel

Behavior?”UrbanStudies35,no.7(1998):1155‐1169.Cherry,Christopher,ElizabethDeakin,NathanHiggins,andS.BrianHuey.“Systems‐Level

ApproachtoSustainableUrbanArterialRevitalization.”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1977(2006):206‐213.

CityofCambridgeZoningOrdinance.Section6.36:ScheduleofParkingandLoading

Requirements.CityofPortlandCityCode.Chapter33:ParkingandLoading.CityandCountyofSanFranciscoGeneralPlan.TransportationElement.CityandCountyofSanFranciscoMunicipalCode.PlanningCodeSection151.1:Scheduleof

PermittedOff‐StreetParkingSpacesinSpecifiedDistricts.CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment.EasternNeighborhoodsZoning

Guide.January19,2009.CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment.MarketandOctaviaAreaPlan.May

30,2008.CityofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment.“ResidentTravelBehaviorSurvey:

SOMA/TransbayArea.”ResearchconductedbyGodbeResearchforCityofSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment,December2008.

CityandCountyofSanFranciscoPublicWorksDepartmentandPlanningDepartment.

“ParkinginSanFrancisco:ConditionsandTrends.”December1975.CityandCountyofSanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency.DesignforDevelopmentforthe

MissionBaySouthProjectArea.March16,2004.CityandCountyofSanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency.DesignforDevelopmentforthe

MissionBayNorthProjectArea.March16,2004.CityofSeattleMunicipalCode.Title23,SubtitleIII.LandUseRegulations.

46

Crane,Randall.“TheInfluenceofUrbanFormonTravel:AnInterpretiveReview.”JournalofPlanningLiterature15,no.1(August2000):3‐23.

Engel‐Yan,Joshua,BrianHollingworth,andStuartAnderson.“WillReducingParking

StandardsLeadtoReductionsinParkingSupply?:ResultsofExtensiveCommercialParkingSurveyinToronto,Canada.”TransportationResearchRecord,no.2010(2007):102‐110.

Ferguson,Erik.“ZoningforParkingasPolicyProcess:AHistoricalReview.”Transport

Reviews24,no.2(March2004):177‐194.Frank,LawrenceD.andGaryPivo.“ImpactsofMixedUseandDensityonUtilizationof

ThreeModesofTravel:Single‐OccupantVehicle,Transit,andWalking.”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1466(1995):44‐52.

Henderson,Jason.“TheSpacesofParking:MappingthePoliticsofMobilityinSan

Francisco.”Antipode41,no.1(2009):70‐91.Jia,WenyuandMartinWachs.“ParkingRequirementsandHousingAffordability:Case

StudyofSanFrancisco.”TransportationResearchRecord,no.1685(1999):156‐160.Klipp,LukeH.“TheRealCostsofSanFrancisco’sOff‐StreetResidentialParking

Requirements:AnAnalysisofParking’sImpactonHousingFinanceAbilityandAffordability.”Master’sThesis,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2004.

Litman,Todd.“LandUseImpactsonTransport.”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute(August

2009):1‐59.—.ParkingManagementBestPractices.Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,

2006.—.“ParkingRequirementImpactsonHousingAffordability.”VictoriaTransportPolicy

Institute(January2009):1‐33.LivableCity.“ABriefHistoryofParkingRequirementsinSanFrancisco.”

http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/parkinghistory.html(accessedDecember7,2009).

Manville,MichaelandDonaldShoup.“Parking,People,andCities.”JournalofUrban

PlanningandDevelopment131,no.4(December2005):233‐245.Marsden,Greg.“TheEvidenceBaseforParkingPolicies–AReview.”TransportPolicy,no.

13(2006):447‐457.

47

MetropolitanTransportationCommission.“DevelopingParkingPoliciestoSupportSmartGrowthinLocalJurisdictions:BestPractices.”MetropolitanTransportationCommission.May2007.

Millard‐Ball,Adam.“PuttingonTheirParkingCaps.”Planning,April2002.Mokhtarian,PatriciaL.andXinyuCao.“Examiningtheimpactsofresidentialself‐selection

ontravelbehavior:Afocusonmethodologies.”TransportationResearchPartB:Methodological42,no.3.(2008):204‐228.

Mukhija,VinitandDonaldShoup.“QuantityversusQualityinOff‐StreetParking

Requirements.”JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation72,no3(Summer2006):296‐308.

Noble,JohnandMikeJenks.Parking:DemandandProvisioninPrivateSectorHousing

Developments.Eynsham,England:InformationPress,1996.Pendola,Rocco,StephanieRuddy,andElmerTosta.“ResidentialParkingRequirementsin

SanFrancisco:DoTheyAffectTravelBehavior?”UnpublishedreportpresentedtoLivableCitybySanFranciscoStateUniversityUrbanStudiesProgram,May2005.

Russo,Ryan.“Parking&Housing:BestPracticesforIncreasingHousingAffordabilityand

AchievingSmartGrowth.”Master’sThesis,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,2001.Rye,Tom,andStephenIson.“TheUseandImpactofMaximumParkingStandardsin

Scotland,UK.”Submittedforpresentationandpublication,86thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,2007.

SanFranciscoPlanningandUrbanResearchAssociation.“BallotAnalysis,November2007,

PropositionH:ParkingInitiative.”http://spur.org/goodgovernment/ballotanalysis/Nov2007/proph(accessedDecember7,2009).

—.“ParkingandLivabilityinDowntownSanFrancisco:PoliciestoReduceCongestion.”

http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/parkingandlivabilityindowntownsf_010105(accessedSeptember27,2009).

—.“RethinkingParking.”http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/reducing

housingcostsbyrethinkingparking_110198(accessedSeptember20,2009).Shoup,Donald.“RoughlyRightorPreciselyWrong.”Access,no21(Spring2002):20‐25.—.TheHighCostofFreeParking.Chicago:AmericanPlanningAssociationPress,2006.

48

—.“TheTroublewithMinimumParkingRequirements.”TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,no.33(1999):549‐574

Smith,WallaceF.TheLowRiseSpeculativeApartment.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,

BerkeleyCenterforRealEstateandUrbanEconomics,InstituteofUrbanandRegionalDevelopment,1964.

StateofCaliforniaDepartmentofMotorVehicles.“EstimatedVehiclesRegisteredbyCounty

ForthePeriodofJanuary1ThroughDecember31,2008.”http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/est_fees_pd_by_county.pdf(accessedDecember7,2009).

Stubbs,Michael.“CarParkingandResidentialDevelopment:Sustainability,Designand

PlanningPolicy,andPublicPerceptionsofParkingProvision.”JournalofUrbanDesign7,no.2(2002):213‐237.

Switzky,Joshua.Interviewedbyauthorinperson.SanFrancisco,California,July9,2009

andviaemail,November30,2009.UnitedStatesCensusBureau.“PersonsperSquareMile:2008.”

http://factfinder.census.gov/(accessedDecember7,2009).

UnitedStatesCensusBureau.“FactSheet:SanFranciscoCity:2006‐2008AmericanCommunitySurvey3‐YearEstimates.”http://factfinder.census.gov/(accessedDecember7,2009).

UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.“NationalHouseholdTravelSurvey.”Bureau

ofTransportationStatistics,ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration,UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey(accessedFebruary23,2010).

Weinberger,Rachel,MarkSeamanandCarolynJohnson.“ResidentialOff‐StreetParking:

CarOwnership,VehicleMilesTraveled,andRelatedCarbonEmissions(NewYorkCityCaseStudy).”TransportationResearchRecord,no.2118(2009):24‐30.

Willson,Richard.“ParkingPolicyforTransit‐OrientedDevelopment:LessonsforCities,

TransitAgencies,andDevelopers.”JournalofPublicTransportation8,no.5(2005):79‐94.

—.“SuburbanParkingRequirements:ATacitPolicyforAutomobileUseandSprawl.”

JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation61,no.1(1995):29‐42.Ziemann,Christopher.“IsCuritiba,BraziltheModelCityforParkingManagement?”

Submittedforpresentationandpublication,88thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,2009.

Date post:	06-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

THE EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET …THE EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY...

Documents