The Fan“Long List” Review

December 6, 2018 (6:00 PM)Binford Middle School

Agenda1. Review Findings, Feedback and Preliminary Recommendations (30 minutes)

a. High-level, aimed at orienting new participantsb. Present guiding principlesc. Introduce concepts

2. Open Forum Q&A (10 minutes)a. Intended to clarify ambiguity or answer questions regarding what principles are being addressedb. NOT intended to be a debate or exploration forumc. Questions should be limited to principles and concepts presented

3. Topic Exploration and Discussion (50 minutes)a. Topic areas are set up around the perimeter of the roomb. Staffers are subject-matter experts focused on the particular topicc. Also opportunities to complete surveys, post comments, etc.

Study Area

• 500+ Acres• 146 City Blocks• 7,021 On-Street

Spaces (51%)• 6,689 Off-Street

Spaces (48%)• 13,710 Total Spaces

The Fan

On-Street Parking Supply• 7,201 Total Spaces*• 6,032 Spaces of Effective Supply* Based on official regulations

• Only six metered parking spaces• Time-restricted/resident spaces

only make up 30% of total supply• Restricted spaces exist primarily

east of Meadow St• 47 loading zones (~ 141 spaces)• 52 No Parking zones on block faces

0-1 Hour (Free), 73 spaces,

1% RPP/1-Hour, 1,507 spaces,

22%

2-3 Hour (Free), 280 spaces,

4%

Metered, 6 spaces,

0%

Unrestricted, 4,960 spaces,

72%

Handicapped, 54 spaces,

1%

Off-Street Parking Supply• 6,220 Total Spaces• 6,094 Spaces of Effective Supply

• No commercial parking lots• 5 facilities owned by VCU (816 spaces)• 2 Private Garages (522 spaces)• 72 lots for customers (1,383 spaces)• 36 lots for employees (618 spaces)• 22 lots for institutions (640 spaces)• 24 mixed-use lots (548 spaces)• 142 residential lots (2,159 spaces)• ~ 20 interior spaces/garages per block

(~3,000 spaces)

Customers21%

Employees9%

Institutions10%

Mixed-Use8%

Residential32%

Private Garage

8%

VCU12%

Weekday Parking UtilizationOccupancy Observations:

• Friday, April 27: 11A-2P & 5P-7P (118 blocks)

MID-DAY• 68% total on-street utilization

• 95 block faces utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

• 50% total off-street utilization• 26 facilities utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

EVENING• 91% total on-street utilization

• 199 block faces utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

• 47% total off-street utilization• 33 facilities utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

Weekend Parking UtilizationOccupancy Observations:

• Saturday, April 28: 11A-2P & 5P-7P (118 blocks)

MID-DAY• 83% total on-street utilization

• 139 block faces utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

• 39% total off-street utilization• 27 facilities utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

EVENING• 99% total on-street utilization

• 261 block faces utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

• 46% total off-street utilization• 29 facilities utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

Late Night Parking UtilizationOccupancy Observations:

• Saturday, October 26: • 9P-11P (146 blocks)

• 107% total on-street utilization• 284 block faces utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

• 44% total off-street utilization• 56 facilities utilized to 100% of capacity or higher

Emerging Developments

• Will add ~ 451 net spaces to the area

• Will need ~ 484 spaces on a typical weekday

• Could need ~ 619 spaces on a peak evening

General Findings (What We Saw)1. Heavy on-street utilization on nights and weekends, with many instances of vehicles

parking in unsafe/unsanctioned areas.2. Comparatively lower off-street utilization rates at each interval.3. Many “auxiliary” parking spaces off alleyways unused behind block faces parked at or

over capacity.4. Substantial subscription to the RPP program (3,626 permits for 1,057 spaces)5. Absence of designated resident or employee parking areas outside the established RPP

zones.6. Limited number of ADA spaces (54) on-street. If the system were an off-street facility,

the requirement would be for 2% of capacity (~140 spaces)

Most Common Concerns (What We Heard)• Constant concerns regarding emerging development impacts and VCU student

encroachment.• Many conflicts between different land uses, primarily around on-street parking.• Zoning does not seem to be requiring enough parking to support new uses as they are

introduced.• Curbside turnover and availability is a major concern for businesses in the area.• Constituents want to see changes, but are unclear how they should/could be funded.• Common concerns about the RPP program and potential abuses.• General acknowledgement that long-term growth will need to less car-centric, more

focused on live-work or alternative transportations modes.

‘Long List’ Strategic Initiatives1. (Re)Establish curbside standards. This is a life-safety issue.2. Revise current code to support a transition from car-centric to car-light

activity and maximize efficiency.3. Shift utilization off the street and into under utilized assets.4. Where feasible, encourage private property owners to collaborate to create

more efficient shared facilities.5. Investigate establishing a parking benefit district to support future

development.6. Consider the use of pricing to influence behaviors and decision making.7. Begin investing in pedestrian amenities to encourage other modes of

transportation.

INITIATIVE PROS CONS

Reduce unsafe conditions/practices Will require enforcement if implemented

Perceptibly open up new capacity Could increase traffic through neighborhoods

Potential traffic calming effects Cost and time intensive to implement

Recognition of regulations already ratified Change the neighborhood streetscape

Could improve curbside availability Could negatively impact some residences

Could compel better use of off-street alternatives May be perceived as punative measure

Improves turnover/availability Will displace other users, who will need alternatives

Creates incentives for alternatives (parking/transportation) Perceived as antagonistic to area businesses

Makes the most use out of existing assets Would require amendment to local code

Low or no cost way to expand capacity Still requires a third-party to broker

Could help mitigate operating costs Does require participation from both parties

Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements Places onus on City to build more parking assets

Allows developers to maximize footprint Can be a barrier to development

Would more parking to the general supply Requires cooperative effort with multiple land owners

Cheaper than building structured parking Disruptive during development period

Could address some existing parking issues Would disrupt adjacent neighbors during construction

Could replace capacity lost to curbside reaignment No current funding/subsidy source identified

Will increase turnover Can create a barrier to patronage

Provides incentive to use off-street parking Would require enforcement if implemented

Creates a revenue stream to fund other options Would require identification of off-street options

Creates incentive for alternative transportation Cost and time intensive to implement

Will make it easier to cross major roadways Cost and time intensive to implement

Potential traffic calming effects Could reduce parking/traffic capacity

Promote collaborative interior development

Institute "Fee for Use" Pilot for on-street parking

Install pedestrian amenities to promote walking (e.g. bump outs, Belgian bumps, etc.)

Apply uniform marking of on-street parking and "No Parking Areas"

Revise/expand On-Street Permit Programs

Enforce existing regulations

Promote shared parking agreements between parties to create employee parking

Introducing 'in lieu' payment option to Zoning Ordinance

Exploration Stations1. On-Street Regulations: Alex

2. Paid Parking Pilots and Parking Benefit Districts: Eric

3. Shared Parking and Collaborative Development: Greg

4. On-Street Parking Permit Programs: Andy

5. ‘In Lieu’ Fees and other Zoning Amendment: Kalyani

6. Pedestrian Enhancements: Chris and Max