2008 Parking Study Final Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v enhancements; would provide a way to manage on-street parking availability, thus ensuring that drivers can find a space easily; and would discourage commuters from using on-street spaces that are needed for shoppers and visitors. In a busy, desirable downtown such as Charlottesville, with a limited parking supply, it is difficult to provide both (a) free on-street parking and (b) assurance that customers and visitors can always find a convenient space. Charging for the most convenient spaces provides the most effective tool for managing the system and ensuring spaces are available. However, the Stakeholder Group believes that introducing charges for on-street parking is not realistic in the current economic situation. The City should nevertheless try to make progress toward more pro-active management of downtown parking. Parking enforcement should be seen positively as an important means of making the best use of downtown parking spaces for shoppers and visitors. An important initial step should be to bring enforcement under the same roof as traffic engineering, as part of an integrated management structure for on-street parking. This would not only help to ensure an appropriate level of enforcement, but also allow the ‘ambassador’ or ‘welcome’ role to develop. PaPaPaParking Exempt Zonerking Exempt Zonerking Exempt Zonerking Exempt Zone The market is generally providing parking for developments within the Parking Exempt Zone (PEZ) at a similar level to the City’s requirements for areas outside the PEZ. The PEZ is not currently causing any problems. Recent developments have been able to lease existing parking spaces in order to meet market needs (including financiers’ requirements). However, the City is concerned that once these existing spaces are all in use, it may be less easy for the market to provide spaces for new developments. Practice varies widely in other cities – there is no one standard or ‘correct’ system. The recommendation is to replace the PEZ with the following system: · Set minimum parking standards, with the developer having the option of paying a fee in lieu of some or all of the parking required. The City would use in-lieu fees to provide a combination of parking and/or support for alternative modes of travel. We recommend setting this minimum standard at one parking space per residential unit, plus 50 percent of the required parking for non-residential uses already specified in the City’s code. In-lieu parking fees should be set at a value that is proportionate to the cost of providing the intended off-site parking or transportation improvement, and at a value that is not so high that it will deter downtown development and/or encourage construction of on-site parking. · Incentivize employer participation in travel demand management (TDM) programs. Encourage the implementation of employee transit pass, parking cash-out, car sharing, or similar travel demand management strategies by not only promotion but also allowing participation to count toward reductions in parking or in-lieu fee requirements. These strategies have the potential to reduce the demand for parking while encouraging additional walking, cycling, and transit use, in line with City goals. · Expand permit parking and create parking benefit districts as needed. To avoid parking spillover into residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown, it may be necessary to establish additional permit parking zones (such as currently exists in North Downtown), or parking benefit districts, which would allow neighborhoods to generate revenue by charging visitors to park on neighborhood streets. TransitTransitTransitTransit and Other Pr and Other Pr and Other Pr and Other Projectsojectsojectsojects It is estimated that around 1-2% of downtown employees (250-300 people) ride transit to work on a typical day. There is also likely a smaller number of downtown shoppers and visitors riding transit. Three-quarters of downtown employees live outside the Charlottesville Urban Area. CTS does not serve them, nor could it realistically be expected to do so. This partly explains why the transit share (1-2%) is so low. It also limits the opportunities for growing transit ridership.