Sacramento TMA parking study comments

Sacramento Transportation Management Association

The Sacramento TMA is an independent, non-profit membership association.

Contact the TMA at (916) 737-1513 sactma@surewest.net

Comments on Central City Parking Master Plan
Overall, the consultants seem to have manipulated massive amounts of data in order to justify some extremely regressive parking policies. The recommendations indicate that perhaps data from focus groups with retail establishments and commercial office developers were given more emphasis than other data. The report presents a hypothetical projected increase in demand and recommends planning to increase parking supply to meet this, rather than recommending policies to manage the demand.
Policy Recommendation	TMA Comment
8. Promote alternative modes of transportation and walkable communities 9. Provide transportation options to encourage use of existing parking supply	Revise the order of Policy Recommendations, making 8. and 9. first and second.
1.1.1 Maintain current parking minimums for non-residential development 1.1.2 Increase the parking minimums for residential development to match parking demand in other similar cities and observed conditions in Sacramento	The Sacramento TMA asks that parking minimums for office development be eliminated, in recognition of recent progressive studies and writing.
1.2.1 Remove limitation on the maximum amount of parking that can be provided with new Central City development	Naturally, office tenants would like one parking space per employee and , but the resulting parking spaces do not agree with the City's air quality and traffic reduction needs. The Sacramento TMA suspects that the amount of available parking is less important to retail establishments than the location of the parking, i.e. right outside the door. We ask for data from the buildings that have been built since 1990, complying with the City parking maximum limits, giving their available parking concerns. If this policy is adopted, it should be rewritten to include the provisions that any development approved with more than the maximum amount of parking be required to include in its Transportation System Management Plan all the currently best available travel reduction and parking management programs, systems and facilities, including but not limited to complete transit subsidies and Sacramento TMA Concierge Membership. Also, this conflicts with Goal #5: Minimize the negative effects of parking, since a negative effect of more parking is that it accommodates more cars, thus causing more traffic congestion and worse air quality.
	For future residential development, Policy recommendation 1.2.1 does not consider car-sharing, transit availability and dining and entertainment options within walking distance.
1.2.2 Adopt City policy and guidelines to allow for “in-lieu-of-parking” fees for development of less than the minimum required parking	If, instead of making developers build off-street parking, the City allows them to pay a fee in lieu of each space provided, a progressive policy would have the fees go for public improvement in the area. If the fee is less than the cost of building the space, that's an acceptable deal. The developers then can spend more money on the actual project. Approximately 25 American cities are actually doing this, including Orlando, Florida, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Goal 2. Supply parking to meet need	"Need" should be defined. If need is "demand" then this goal as written says the City will increase parking as demanded. Progressive demand management and trip reduction strategies are severely lacking in the policies recommended to support this goal. Also, this conflicts with Goal #5: Minimize the negative effects of parking.
9.1 Use the Parking Fund to provide transportation services that link Central City areas with surplus parking with areas of high parking demand/deficiency. 9.1.1 Consider using shuttle services to link available parking with popular trip destinations to address parking needs in areas without sufficient parking capacity	The Sacramento TMA objects strenuously to spending more public dollars to study the feasibility of, or to provide, shuttle systems. The most recent shuttle system recommended by a consultant, the RT/state shuttle from parking under the freeway to worksites, has been discontinued and operated at a serious deficit.
6.2.2 Provide additional information and signage for bicycle parking in publicly available parking facilities	During the spring 2006 bicycle promotion campaign, 65 cyclists commented that we need convenient bicycle parking at retail and secure parking at offices. Representative comments included: "The city should encourage more stores and doctor's offices to provide bicycle racks." "More bike racks at businesses and other establishments would really make cycling more convenient." "I ride my bike all over town to get my errands done and there are very, very few businesses that even have bicycle racks/parking. Usually I have to find a "no parking" sign to lock to." "There is a need for more "high-security" bike lockers. There are many people with nice bikes that don't trust locking them up in a bike rack." "Need better and more available bike parking at offices. Cyclists should not be an afterthought when it comes to commuting, cycling should be encouraged and promoted by all employers."
	A progressive policy recommendation would be that major events in the central city provide valet bicycle parking. More people can attend, with the least space devoted to accommodate their transportation choice, with valet bike-parking.
8.2.1 Use City funds to promote the use of RT park-and-ride and transit services as a substitute for parking in the Central City	The Sacramento TMA believes parking funds should not be used to support or promote park-and-ride lots. These do not reduce vehicle trips, they merely shorten them, and often not significantly.
The recommendations fail to reference new reports, research, technology. Progressive thinking about parking management for the future is lacking.
The central city districts that have thrived in recent years aren’t the ones that have provided the most parking; they are the ones that have provided the least. Portland, Oregon, instead of expanding its downtown parking capacity, has spent the past 30 years restricting it. There was less parking per capita in downtown Portland in the 1990s than there was in the 1970s, and Portland has one of the most successful downtowns in America.
Los Angeles and San Francisco both opened new concert halls in the 1990s. Los Angeles included a six-level garage for 2,188 cars, built at a cost of $110 million. San Francisco, on the other hand, put in no garage — for a total cost of nothing. After each concert in L.A., the patrons head straight for their cars, leaving the area around the building deserted. After concerts in San Francisco, people spill out onto the local streets, spending money in local bars, restaurants and bookstores. Some of them have to walk several blocks to their cars parked along the curb, but every block they walk adds extra life to the neighborhood.
Minimum parking requirements take land out of development, which forces up the cost of building on whatever land remains. Rents are higher than they would otherwise be. Minimum parking requirements make smaller, moderately priced apartments difficult to produce. The Central City needs densely built projects filled with compact two and three-bedroom apartments, rather than boutique developments that make money by selling or renting luxury units at luxury prices.
The recommendations are not supported by the conclusions in the report Instead, policy recommendations are inconsistent or contradictory, or obvious recommendations are not presented. For example, policy 7.1.1. says fees and fines will cover capital and operating costs and generate additional revenue, while 3.3.1 says rates will be based on maintaining occupancy rates at 85%. This is a serious inconsistency in the recommendations. Also...
In the Impacts of Future Development on Parking Supply / Demand Relationship, Office Development, the report states: "The parking demand associated with office development can be generally satisfied if parking is provided at the current minimum parking requirement of one space per 600 square feet of development."	Yet, the recommendation is to remove the limitation on the maximum amount of parking that can be provided with new Central City development.
and.."The typical government office project has a parking demand slightly lower than the zoning minimum (about one space per 700 to 800 square feet), while the typical private office project has a parking demand slightly higher than the zoning maximum (about one space per 450 to 500 square feet).	Yet, no suggestion is given that this might be because all the public sector employers provide a generous transit subsidy, and no recommendation is made to require this of private office projects.