Category Archives: Parking

Supply and Demand in Downtown Residential Parking

Downtown Chicago Building Roundup: North

Downtown Chicago Building Roundup: North (Photo credit: Gravitywave)

I’d like to delve a little bit further into the pernicious effect of parking minimums, particularly as it distorts the market tenets of supply and demand. Seeing an article over the weekend in Crain’s Chicago Business about the decline in parking demand in downtown Chicago residential buildings, I could not avoid beating my favorite drum about the high cost of parking and its negative externalities. Here is the problem, according to Crain’s:

Demand for parking is dropping in downtown apartment buildings. At Lakeshore East, a development of mixed use high rise apartment and condo buildings just north of Millennium Park, south of the Chicago River and east of Michigan Ave., around 40% of renters lease a parking space, down from the developers projection of 55%. This would be fine in a true free market where the developer would assume the risk of overbuilding on parking. However, the City’s zoning code, in its infinite wisdom, requires parking in new residential developments at ratios of 0.55 to 1 space per unit. Thus, the developers initial projection for parking is at the lowest end of the parking ratio in the zoning code and is still over market demand.

Of course, I agree with Matt Yglesias in that the “problem with this regulatory minimum is that it makes it harder for existing buildings to recoup the losses previously incurred through overbuilding of parking.” Because the zoning code won’t allow for pooled or shared parking between buildings, each building must have its own allocated parking. The costs of this parking, of course, get passed onto the occupants of the building indirectly, regardless of whether the occupants have a need for a car.

Because of the over supply of residential parking downtown as mandated by zoning, parking is artificially cheaper than it should be. This, of course, encourages greater auto use in the densest part of the city, the part in which public transportation of various modes operate at a very high frequency practically around the clock. It also encourages the catering of urban design towards the car and away from alternate transportation modes, despite the fact that the alternate transportation modes may make up a larger share of trips in this area.

Ideally what I would like to see in this circumstance is free market pricing for residential parking, or if the zoning will continue to manipulate the market,  parking maximums (for all types of parking). This will allow for shared parking at closer to the true cost of providing that parking. It will also allow the free market to decide what the best use of property is under right and can reduce the cost of development and occupation of residential and other space. Most importantly, removing the parking minimums and over-supply of parking will be supportive of the existing public transportation infrastructure in place downtown, as it is the dominant mode of travel within the area and its externalities are significantly better than the car.

3 Comments

Filed under Parking

Question Time

I’m interested in understanding how to forecast parking demand for a commuter rail station on an existing line. I would appreciate it if anyone can send me information or studies on how other transit agencies, municipalities or MPOs plan for this. If you know of anything, please send me an email at rjrich [at] hotmail [dot] com. Thanks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commuter Rail, Parking

Commuter Rail Stop Distribution: Some thoughts…

I just wanted to add some additional thoughts on Alon Levy’s fantastic post about commuter rail stop distribution. The lack of urban stations in the mid-city sections of most cities with commuter rail is a real problem in most American cities with commuter rail services. I’d like to explore in-depth the possibility for in-city stations in Chicago and how this would work.

Alon examined two Metra lines, the UP North and Milwaukee North lines, both of which serve the north suburbs and traverse through dense residential neighborhoods of Chicago. These are precisely the areas that are ripe for a “transit revival” particularly as they have been stable (on the MD-N) and/or growing in population (UP-N). And yet, these areas are ignored, I think, because Metra (and commuter railroads generally) views as its bread and butter the traditional suburban peak service commute pattern. I think its safe to say that Metra views city riders as having alternative (i.e. competing) forms of transit (CTA) and, thus, does not need to serve these riders.

And yet, there are numerous places along the UP North and Milwaukee North lines which a new station could have a significant impact on the neighborhood in terms of access and connections. Let’s examine a couple of places.

Addison (UP North Line)

Located 1.5 miles south of the busiest station on the UP North Line, Ravenswood, this site is ideal for transit access. It is also adjacent to the Addison Station on the CTA Brown Line and has bus connections to the Addison 151 bus and Lincoln 11 bus. About a mile to the east is Wrigley Field which can act as a sort of seasonal anchor, similar to Ravinia Park. A station here could provide additional ridership from the bustling West Lakeview neighborhood to downtown (15 minutes away) or north to Highland Park and Waukegan with additional reverse-commute service. Furthermore, many current riders at Ravenswood live closer to Addison, thus increasing the likelihood that Metra could be capturing additional riders here who find Ravenswood inconvenient.

According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology TOD Database, in 2010, 17,001 people lived within 0.5 mile of the station or 36 residents per acre. 37% of this population took transit to work, the majority by L. Additionally, household income is high, over $90,000, rental housing units are 52% of the total market and 62% of the population has 1 car or less. These factors point to strong transit demand likely coming from choice riders. These customers are Metra’s bread and butter.

Irving Park (Milwaukee North Line)

This station has been studied before but I think it should be seriously examined again. A station at Irving Park Road on the Milwaukee North Line would be located midway between the existing stations of Grayland and Mayfair, which are 0.8 miles apart. It is also adjacent to the Six Corners shopping district, once one of the largest retail districts outside of the Loop and still a significant destination. “Six Corners” is a reference to the intersection of Cicero Avenue, running north-south; Irving Park Road, running east-west; and Milwaukee Avenue, which radiates diagonally from downtown to the northwest. The station would be located about two blocks east of this intersection in a commercial area that is auto-oriented to the west and a residential area to the east.

Transit service includes the two Metra stations, Grayland and Mayfair (both stations have around 250 riders), located 0.5 miles south and north of this area respectively, and CTA buses on Cicero Ave., Irving Park, and Milwaukee Ave. The CTA Blue Line station at Irving Park and the Irving Park Metra Station are  a mile to the east and adjacent to each other. CTA Blue Line service on the O’Hare branch parallels Milwaukee Ave. and supplements bus services in this area. Additionally, Irving Park Road was recently proposed to be a viable bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor in a study conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Council. In a BRT scenario, buses would operate in dedicated lanes with signal priority, off vehicle fare payment, and level boarding at stations. A station would be placed every half mile (one at the Six Corners intersection is proposed) and at transit connections.

Another look at CNT’s TOD Database shows that in 2010, approximately 10,000 people lived within 0.5 miles of this potential station. Owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing were even, and 21% took transit to work. Average household income was around $60,000. 55% of households had 1 car or less.

This neighborhood is more middle class than near Addison, although households here rely on cars to a greater extent. This is due in large part to the lower residential density (about half of Addison) and urban form which have auto-oriented retail, plentiful parking throughout the area, and proximity to the Edens and Kennedy expressways. And yet, because of the connectivity options between commuter rail and CTA bus, 20 minute trips downtown and reverse commute service to the job-rich areas along Lake-Cook Road in the north suburbs, and large infill development opportunities I think a station has serious potential to attract additional ridership and development nearby.

It has become clear in urban planning circles that the U.S. is undergoing some demographic  trends that will factor into greater use of transit services of all types. In Chicago, we see a continued population growth in the city’s north side neighborhoods, including the areas discussed above. We are seeing a preference for urban living, particularly among the Millennial generation which entails more one-person households, disinterest in owning a car and greater interest in alternative transport modes like bicycling and transit. Furthermore, businesses are taking note in following this “creative class” in locating businesses downtown (most recent example: Sara Lee).

These trends in general, and the creative class in particular, are locating to cities that have strong, established transit systems. It behooves cities like Chicago and agencies like Metra to tap into this transit demand in this era of austerity.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Commuter Rail, Parking, Transit Planning

The High Costs of Parking…

I’m sorry that I have been bashing the parking issue to a bloody pulp and I will move on to other things, but if you want to know what is wrong with urban planning today, how unresponsive we’ve become to market conditions, and how poorly we treat our towns and cities, pedestrians and transit systems, please read this post.

Leave a comment

Filed under Parking

Parking Minimums: Promoting Driving Everywhere

Chalmette19FebOfficeDepotRedFord

Source: Wikipedia

I would like to add a bit of anecdotal experience of living in a large city and commuting and the insidious effect that parking minimums have on cities, generally, and transit, specifically.

I live in the Jefferson Park neighborhood of Chicago. It is part of the city’s famed bungalow belt and is located in the extreme northwest side of the city. Though my part of neighborhood was plated in the 1920’s, most development occurred in the 1940’s and ’50s. As such, it was developed with the automobile in mind. Despite the fact that most homes are on postage size 25’x125′ lots (thank you 1920’s plats!), most of the commercial corridors filled in during the 1940’s-’50s and are auto-oriented.

Because my home has a back alley garage (guaranteed parking) and much of the neighborhood has easy free parking thanks to zoning that requires parking minimums, I actually drive a fair amount, much more than I’d like to. Accordingly,

“A guaranteed parking spot makes use of the automobile a more attractive option”

much to the detriment of transit and pedestrian space.

When the car takes precedence in transportation planning, other things get neglected. When retail is built into “centers” and “strip malls” and not corner stores, pedestrians and transit get neglected. And what are shopping centers and strip malls: just urban design that satisfies parking minimums.

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 Comments

Filed under Parking

Planning Projections

Parking lot

Is this sustainable? (Photo credit: add1sun)

We use projections in transportation planning all the time. I am not convinced they are sound. Dealing with the provision of commuter parking for a commuter railroad, for example, we rely on population/household forecasts from the metropolitan planning organization along with some in-house variables that assume that most people will drive to access transit. But if we build the transit station so that the only way to access it is by driving, than we are fulfilling our own prophecy. With energy costs dramatically increasing,  is it rational to be planning for the continuing use of the car as the predominant mode of transportation in our community? This is not an example of Strong Towns planning.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Parking

Access to Transit

Metra and TOD in Morton Grove. Source: katherine of chicago @Flickr

I would like to take the opportunity to give a little shout out to the RTA to promote a new document they put together called Access & Parking Strategies for Transit-Oriented Development.

This is a much-needed guide for municipalities in the Chicago area on the “how” of TOD. Sure, all urban planners are familiar with TOD but in practice, how many know how to really make it work? A big reason why TOD fails is parking. As in, too much parking. Many municipalities will build TOD but still keep parking minimums that are more appropriate for suburban style development patterns. The great thing about the RTA guide is that it rightly reminds people that one of the biggest ways to support TOD is to make it more difficult to use a car. Because, as any driver knows, people who are already in cars tend to stay in cars. Adding density and mixed land uses within close proximity and easy access to transit makes transit successful. It makes TOD successful. The RTA points out the need to reduce parking demand is the key to a successful TOD.

So, how do we reduce parking demand, particularly in suburban areas that are designed around the automobile? In creating a TOD area, we do the following:

  • Provide as much on-street parking as necessary at a variable market rate.
  • Unbundle parking from private development, particularly in TOD areas
  • Set parking maximums rather than minimums.
  • Implement shared parking
  • Create alternatives to access transit. This includes bike and pedestrian trails, shuttle buses, and remote parking facilities.

When we do these things, we create a way for transit to be successful. When transit is successful, frequency can rise, resulting in a positive feedback loop that generates more transit customers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Parking, Transit-Oriented Development, Urban Design