HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/29/2011 - UPDATE ON THE PARKING PLAN: DOWNTOWN AND SURROUNDIDATE: November 29, 2011
STAFF: Timothy Wilder
Randy Hensley
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Update on the Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s Advance Planning Department is preparing a Parking Plan in close collaboration with
the Parking Services Department. The main purpose of this work session is to review progress on
the Plan and to gain Council feedback on preliminary Parking Plan ideas. The Parking Plan is
scheduled for another Council work session on February 28, 2012, and for consideration of adoption
by the Council on April 17, 2012.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council have any questions or comments about the Parking Plan process?
2. Regarding the preliminary Parking Plan ideas listed in Attachment 1, does the Council have
any additional ideas that it would like staff to explore, or ideas that it would like staff to
revise or remove from the list?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Purpose of the Parking Plan
The purpose of the Parking Plan is to address key parking issues dealing with long-term parking,
short-term parking, funding, customer services, and neighborhood parking spillover. Although these
issues were identified in the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP), they have become more acute
with increased Downtown vitality. Since 2004, the demand for parking has grown due to a
continuing influx of new visitors, workers and residents.
Not all of the recommendations in the DSP have been implemented. One recommendation that was
implemented and that has been successful, is a program to enhance enforcement of time limits. The
program has been effective in increasing the turnover of on-street parking spaces, which is the
primary mission of Parking Services. However, there are drawbacks and limitations to enhanced
enforcement of time limits, creating the need to discuss the other industry-standard tool to create
turnover, which is on-street pay parking.
November 29, 2011 Page 2
In addition, the Parking Plan will revisit other existing parking principles and strategies and provide
new or revised principles and strategies as needed. Two new areas for update include the
incorporation of bicycle parking strategies and the impact of the Mason Corridor on parking
demand. Overall, the Plan will provide guidance on the City’s approach to parking management and
its parking program.
Attachment 2 is a map of the Parking Plan boundaries.
Primary Questions
The main questions to be addressed in the Parking Plan are:
• As housing, jobs and commercial activity continue to grow downtown, what are the best
ways to manage the supply and demand for parking?
• Is enforcement of time limits the best way to achieve on-street parking space turnover?
• Are changes needed in the parking requirements for development projects?
• How does bike parking need to be improved?
• How will new programs and infrastructure be funded?
• How can customer service regarding parking options be improved?
• What new policies are needed to address the impacts of parking in neighborhoods by non-
residents?
• Is new parking infrastructure needed in Downtown and, if so, when, how much and where?
Process to Develop the Parking Plan
The City's Advance Planning Department is managing the planning process in close collaboration
with the Parking Services Department. Kimley-Horn and Associates has been retained to assist staff
with development of the Plan.
The Parking Plan public outreach process has involved a variety of downtown and community
stakeholders. The public process has consisted of stakeholder meetings, Expert Advisory Panel
interviews and meetings, citizen and business questionnaires, website updates, announcements in
City News, Facebook, and Twitter, and two rounds of City board and commission meetings.
November 29, 2011 Page 3
The main steps in the process are outlined below:
Timeframe Major Tasks
March – June 2011 Issues identification; initial public input; parking inventory
July – November 2011 Field data collection, Expert Advisory Panel process (intensive
public outreach); questionnaires; issues refinement,
board/commission meetings, stakeholder meetings, 1st Council
Work Session
December 2011–
March 2012
Parking model development, preliminary idea analysis, guiding
principles development; identification of strategies; draft Parking
Plan; public meetings; board/commission meetings, 2nd Council
Work Session
April 17, 2012 Final Parking Plan; City Council Hearing
Recent Major Tasks
Three major tasks completed to date are summarized below.
Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel
As part of the public involvement process and issues assessment, a six-member panel of parking and
downtown experts conducted an intensive three-day interview process with business, neighborhood,
City, bicycling, and other community stakeholders. The purpose was to provide an outside
perspective of the downtown parking situation and to identify potential strategies for further
consideration. The Expert Advisory Panel final report contains details about the process,
observations, findings, and recommendations (Attachment 3 – written by the Panel).
In general, the Panel felt that the current parking system in downtown is good, but that the
community is unprepared for significant changes in parking demand. The Panel recommended a
series of strategies and next steps to deal with changes and improve the parking system. The Panel
recommendations, along with the questionnaire responses, stakeholder feedback and field survey
data, form the basis of the preliminary Parking Plan ideas that are the subject of this work session.
Community and Business Questionnaire
An online questionnaire was conducted from August through September 2011 to assess public
satisfaction with parking. Over 1,000 responses were received. The questionnaire was divided into
questions directed towards downtown visitors (shoppers, workers, residents, etc.) and towards
owners or managers of downtown businesses. The questionnaire was not scientifically verified for
accuracy. Instead, it is intended to provide a general sense of the community and business
satisfaction and preferences regarding Downtown parking.
Results of the questionnaire are summarized in the Power Point presentation slides (Attachment 4).
They show a general level of satisfaction with both vehicle and bike parking, although respondents
identified areas that could be improved, such as more off-street parking and better bike rack design.
The results will be more thoroughly analyzed by the consulting team and contained in a future task
report.
November 29, 2011 Page 4
Field Surveys
Staff conducted three types of field surveys, including (1) an inventory of all downtown parking
spaces; (2) occupancy counts; and (3) on-street turnover data. The data will be thoroughly analyzed
in a future task report provided by the consultant. Some preliminary findings are described below.
Parking Inventory - Breakdown of Downtown Parking Spaces
Parking Type Number of Spaces Percent of Total
On-Street 3,590 33%
Off-Street 7,410 67%
Public 1,982 18%
Private 5,428 49%
Total 11,000 100%
Vehicle occupancy of parking spaces is an important parking management indicator. The field
survey was conducted within the central business district of the study area (“Area of Focus”).
Vehicle occupancy counts for downtown indicate that there is a very high occupancy (over 85% of
spaces occupied) on all streets surrounding Old Town Square and in public lots and garages during
the peak hours. Very low occupancies occur on the top levels of the parking garages and on private
lots away from the downtown core.
The vehicle turnover rate and duration-of-stay are other important parking indicators. The turnover
rate measures the number of different vehicles that use a parking space, and is an indicator of how
effective the downtown parking program is at creating turnover. A higher turnover rate indicates
that more vehicles are using downtown parking. The turnover data collection process covered a
sample of five core downtown block faces (100 South College Avenue, 300 East Mountain Avenue,
200 West Mountain Avenue, 200 Walnut Street, and 100 Mathews Street). College Avenue has a
high turnover rate relative to other streets in and around Old Town. According to the consultant,
downtown has a very desirable level of on-street parking turnover.
Length-of-stay is related to turnover, and is a measure of the average amount of time vehicles stay
in a parking space. The average weekday stay of vehicles in time-limited parking is about one hour.
The average weekend stay is slightly higher at about 1 ½ hours. A higher length-of-stay number is
correlated to a lower turnover rate. A high length-of-stay can indicate that Downtown employees
are “camping out” in on-street parking spaces, thus depriving customers and visitors of an
opportunity to park on-street.
Selected List of Issues, Problems, Comments, and Observations
The Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel Report (Attachment 3) contains an extensive list of issues
drawn from interviews with a variety of community members, information provided by City staff,
and observations. The following issues were selected from that more extensive list and were used
as a foundation for identifying preliminary ideas.
November 29, 2011 Page 5
The Overall Parking Situation
1. Good, but room for improvement
2. Good, but not ready for the future
3. Parking is an aggravation, not yet a real “pain”
4. Unclear future parking needs
New Development and Neighborhood Impacts
5. Need parking-related economic development strategy
6. Not prepared for surge in employment
7. No commercial or residential parking requirements
8. Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods
Alternative Transportation Modes
9. Need to prepare for Mason Corridor impacts
10. Change in community’s culture has more people seeking to utilize alternative
transportation
11. Need to provide different types/design of bike parking
Customer Service (Marketing, Education, Identity)
12. People don’t know about their parking options
13. Wayfinding improvements are needed
On- and Off-Street Parking Management
14. Employees parking on-street
15. Many employees don’t have access to, or are unwilling to use, off-street parking
16. Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots
17. Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage avoidance”
18. Danger of becoming “enforcement zone”
19. Two-hour time-limit not meeting customer needs
20. Some business owners very concerned about lack of Saturday/evening enforcement, but
questionnaire says otherwise
Business Involvement
21. Lack of business involvement and accountability in parking management decisions
22. Need for more collaboration between City and Downtown businesses
Funding
23. Public/private partnerships key to future improvements
24. More parking infrastructure will be needed in the future, but no revenue streams have
been identified to pay for it
November 29, 2011 Page 6
25. Parking is the “giant unfunded liability”
Current Status of the Process – Preliminary Parking Plan Ideas
As a result of the Expert Advisory Panel recommendations, questionnaire responses, field surveys,
and stakeholder meetings, staff has identified the following list of key preliminary ideas to address
parking issues:
1A. Evaluate tools to address parking demand generated by new development.
2A. Explore development of an integrated access management strategy that includes parking,
transit, bikes and pedestrian modes of travel.
3A. Explore the creation of a parking marketing, education, and communication strategy that
provides clear messages and identity for the Downtown parking program.
4A. Explore the creation of a residential parking permit program.
5A. Explore cooperative efforts between the City and employers to reduce on-street parking
by employees in high demand areas.
5B. Explore strategies to promote off-street parking options for longer-term parking.
5C. Evaluate paid on-street parking, to include a pilot program with meters that offer some
amount of free “up front” time.
5D. Explore expanded enforcement into the evening and on Saturdays.
6A. Explore the creation of an enterprise fund for parking.
6B. Explore existing and new funding sources for parking infrastructure and program
development.
6C. Explore ways to involve the business community in parking management decisions such
as an ad-hoc parking committee composed of Downtown public and private stakeholders.
The numbering system corresponds to the list of preliminary ideas in Attachment 1. The Attachment
also contains a discussion of the key ideas and the issues the idea is intended to address.
Staff presented the ideas for feedback to the Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board,
Downtown Development Authority, the Air Quality Advisory Board, and the Bicycle Advisory
Committee (Attachment 5). In general, boardmembers did not have issues with staff exploring the
ideas and they expressed a desire for more information on the ideas.
Staff has also presented these ideas to the UniverCity Connections Transit and Mobility Group, the
Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Business Association. The Downtown business
community appears to be divided in terms of its perception of on-street parking problems and the
strategies needed to resolve them.
Next Steps
City staff and consultants, in cooperation with community stakeholders, will be working on the
following tasks over the next several months:
o Development of task reports, including: 1) summary report of current parking function,
policy and management; 2) analysis of city collected data re: parking occupancy, parking
duration and turnover and land-use data; 3) parking supply/demand summary report; 4)
parking survey analysis summary report; and 5) bike parking report. These documents will
feed into the draft Parking Plan document.
November 29, 2011 Page 7
o Development of a Parking Demand Model. This tool will enable staff to identify potential
parking needs based on future development assumptions. It will include local parking, land
use, and alternative modes data. The model could be used, for example, to evaluate the
parking needs for new development proposals.
o Establishment of a policy framework, including policy choices and guiding principles,
within the policy context of Plan Fort Collins.
o Identify strategies and recommendations, including evaluation of Expert Advisory Panel
recommendations and other potential strategies. The new Triple Bottom Line tool developed
as part of Plan Fort Collins will be employed in the analysis.
o Continue extensive outreach. Meetings will include public open houses, City board and
commission meetings, community stakeholder meetings, and a Council Work Session in
February 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Preliminary Ideas for Further Consideration
2. Map of the Parking Plan Study Area
3. Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel Report (written by the Panel)
4. Power Point Presentation
5. City board and commission meeting minutes
Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods
Preliminary Ideas for Further Consideration
November 29, 2011
The following list of ideas is based on several sources:
Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel process, observations and recommendations
questionnaire results
field data collection
stakeholder input
staff observations and perspectives
The list is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion and analysis of strategies to
improve parking. A few key ideas are discussed in the section titled “Key Idea Discussion,
Questions, and Considerations” beginning on Page 3. These ideas are highlighted because
they have generated the most interest from the community and may require the most discussion
and analysis. While the ideas are presented here as distinct concepts, they are inter-related
and should be considered as integral parts of a complete parking management system.
A more extensive analysis, including costs, will occur between December 2011 and March
2012. The ideas will be developed into policies, strategy options, or recommendations based
on Council feedback, additional staff and consultant analysis, and extensive public outreach.
Preliminary Idea List
1. Explore changes in parking policies and regulations related to
economic health and Downtown development including:
A. New tools to address parking demand generated by new
development. *
Page 3
B. Parking policies to support economic health and neighborhood
livability.
C. Interdepartmental coordination to support parking planning and
parking policy development.
D. Parking strategies for the Mason Corridor, transition area between
commercial and residential uses, and the northern Downtown gateway
and River District.
2. Explore strategies to support travel options that reduce the
demand for parking including:
A. An integrated access management strategy that includes parking,
transit, bikes and pedestrian modes of travel.*
Page 5
B. More options for covered and uncovered bike parking based on
demand.
C. Travel demand management strategies that work in conjunction with
the Mason Corridor.
The asterisks indicate key ideas that are discussed in detail in the next section.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 2 of 25
3. Explore ways to enhance the customer parking experience
including:
A. A parking marketing, education, and communication strategy that
provides clear messages and identity for the Downtown parking
program.*
Page 7
B. Changes in time limits to better address customer needs if on-street
paid parking is pursued.
C. Stronger marketing of the benefits of off-street parking.
D. Changes to parking allocation within public parking lots and structures
as demand for off-street parking grows.
E. Parking effectively integrated into a comprehensive wayfinding
system.
F. New technology employed to enhance the customer experience.
4. Explore strategies to enhance business and community integration
including:
A. A residential parking permit program.* Page 9
B. Public/private partnerships for new parking infrastructure.
C. Cooperative efforts with CSU and other large employers on
neighborhood parking impacts.
5. Explore changes in parking management including:
A. Cooperative efforts between the City and employers to reduce on-
street parking by employees in high demand areas.*
Page 10
B. Strategies to promote off-street parking options for longer-term
parking.*
Page 10
C. Paid on-street parking, to include a pilot program with meters that
offer some amount of free “up front” time.*
Page 13
D. Expanded enforcement into the evening and on Saturdays.*
Page 16
6. Explore new organization and funding options including:
A. An enterprise fund for parking.* Page 17
B. Existing and new funding sources for parking infrastructure and
program development.*
Page 17
C. Ways to involve the business community in parking management
decisions such as an ad-hoc parking committee composed of
Downtown public and private stakeholders.*
Page 19
Exhibits/Attachments to this document
Selected List of Issues, Problems, Comments, and Observations Page 23
Occupancy Map (goes with section 5C) Page 24
On Parking and Transportation Eco-Districts, by L. Dennis Burns,
CAPP (goes with section 2A)
Page 25
* The asterisks indicate key ideas that are discussed in detail in the next section.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 3 of 25
Key Idea Discussion, Questions, and Considerations
This section contains a description of issues related to the more complex and sensitive ideas.
The consultant provided a response to staff questions about the problem that was being
addressed and other potential issues.
1A. Evaluate tools to address parking demand generated by new development
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
5. Need parking-related economic development strategy
6. Not prepared for surge in employment
7. No commercial or residential parking requirements
8. Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods
14. Employees parking on-street
15. Many employees don’t have access to, or are unwilling to use, off-street parking
Discussion
The City’s Land Use Code has no minimum parking amounts for nearly all uses in the Transit
Oriented Development Overlay (TOD). Instead, the Code provides maximum parking
requirements. The idea is that the market is responsible for determining the necessary level of
parking. The maximums are designed to prevent over-parking and to provide a supportive
urban environment for transit, biking and walking.
In the Downtown context, it is not desirable from an urban design perspective, nor is it cost
effective, for every land use to provide its own parking lot or structure. Instead, parking demand
is most effectively addressed through a variety of tools including shared and consolidated
parking arrangements and transportation alternatives. The City has employed some of these
tools already. For example, the City makes permits available to Downtown employees in public
lots and garages, provides bicycle parking, and is building the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid
Transit system which will reduce some of the Downtown parking demand.
One tool missing from the City’s toolbox is a mechanism for creating shared parking
infrastructure. The City is in the best position to facilitate shared parking, but lacks the authority
and funding to do so. Some communities require developers to pay a “fee in lieu” of providing
parking spaces, and use this revenue to finance public parking spaces to replace the private
parking spaces the developers would have been required to provide. Another tool could be
public-private partnerships where the City shares in the cost of constructing new parking
structures in exchange for reserving a certain number of parking spaces for public use.
The development of the Otterbox headquarters was an important learning experience about
how developers deal with Downtown parking in the absence of an effective strategy for
addressing parking demand. The Otterbox site was not large enough to accommodate
sufficient parking to meet its demand, and on-site structured parking was deemed infeasible.
Instead, the company developed a lease agreement for surface parking with a nearby land
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 4 of 25
owner. Employees park both in the leased lot as well as on adjacent streets. This has lead to
spillover impacts from employees parking on neighborhood streets.
Another related issue is the current requirement for bike parking. The amount of bike parking
required is based as a percentage of vehicle parking. However, there may be projects where
the vehicle parking needs are low but the bicycle parking needs are high. City staff is in the
process of re-evaluating its bike parking requirements.
Questions and Considerations for 1A.
a. Does this recommendation mean that the City should require minimums? Would it need
to be implemented city-wide? If the City went back to requiring parking minimums, how
does this reconcile with the city’s vision for market-based parking and a supportive
urban environment for transit, biking and walking?
The Expert Advisory Panel raised several concerns with the current policy. These included:
i. When a community eliminates minimum parking requirements as an economic
development strategy, there is an assumption that the municipality is accepting the
responsibility of providing a certain level of public parking to meet community needs that
are in excess of the private sector or market based parking supply that is created.
ii. Within the downtown parking study area and the “transition” areas (i.e., commercial
areas bordering residential neighborhoods), there are limited public parking assets.
Additional public parking will be required soon as new development opportunities are
realized and the general economy picks up. There is currently no obvious funding
mechanism in place for this needed infrastructure. One person referred to this as a
“huge unfunded liability”.
The Parking Plan will identify needed parking infrastructure development for the near
and mid-term planning horizons (balanced of course with transportation investments and
a range of transportation demand management initiatives). A combination of options
should be considered to create a strategy to fund future parking development needs.
These strategies might include:
A “fee-in-lieu” of parking policy. This could take a variety of forms including a 50%
parking requirement to be built and 50% of the required parking to be provided as a
fee-in-lieu for strategic public investment. Fee-in-lieu programs can also be
integrated with parking minimum/maximum requirements as an option should
developers prefer this choice.
A structured public/private partnership arrangement whereby the City and developers
share costs of foundations, stair towers, elevators, etc. and the City adds xxx number
of spaces to the developer required spaces to provide some supply of public parking
with a goal of promoting adaptive reuse and in-fill development.
iii. If the Otterbox experience was repeated multiple times, the pressures from resulting
parking demand would create neighborhood parking problems so severe as to require
intervention, which would likely fall to the City to solve under the current policy
framework and for which there is no funding source currently in place. Modifying parking
policies/requirements prior to this situation could preempt this potential situation.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 5 of 25
The major transportation investment being made in the Mason Corridor was viewed by the
Panel as forward thinking and an example of good transportation/urban planning. Inherent in
leveraging the full potential of this investment is the realization of the envisioned transit oriented
development (TOD) along the corridor. For the TOD potential to be fully realized, a certain level
of development density (4 to 5 story mixed-use developments) must be achieved. The parking
needed to support this level of density will require structured parking. It is very likely that the
development community will maintain that adding the costs of structured parking to their
development proposals will cause the development projects “not to pencil”. Developers may,
therefore, propose smaller 1 – 3 story buildings that can be supported by surface parking. If this
is allowed to happen, it will decrease the benefits of the TOD and dramatically reduce the
potential property tax base that the transportation investment should generate for decades to
come.
A strategy to refine TOD requirements combined with a structured parking investment strategy
(potentially including tax increment financing resources) may be required, in combination with
other tools, to incentivize the development densities needed to realize the full potential of the
Mason Corridor.
b. Does the expert panel’s recommendation mean that the City would require public-private
partnerships? If so, how do we do this legally, or would this be just an incentive-based
regulation?
The consultant views the utilization of public/private partnerships as a selective, incentive-based
option. It could be utilized when there is an opportunity to invest in some amount of strategically
placed public parking in conjunction with a private development. This could reduce the need
(and costs) for larger, 100% publically-funded parking structures.
The consultant also suggests that the City consider a parking investment strategy that provides
a “5 to 1 return-on-investment”. This concept would be part of a comprehensive economic
health program that uses shared parking to leverage private development. A parking
investment by the City might be warranted if a proposed development fits into a targeted, highly
valued type of development that is part of a City-driven economic health strategy.
2A. Explore development of an integrated access management strategy that includes
parking, transit, bikes and pedestrian modes of travel.
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
9. Need to prepare for Mason Corridor impacts
10. Change in community’s culture has more people seeking to utilize alternative
transportation
11. Need to provide different types/design of bike parking
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 6 of 25
Discussion
Too often parking programs are seen as separate from the larger community goals. In the worst
cases, the approach can be characterized as “Cars go in. Cars go out. We collect money.”
Modern parking professionals are taught to manage both the supply and demand sides of the
transportation equation. Becoming active and participative partners in all aspects of community
access modes is an important shift that should be encouraged and supported.
In many communities, parking functions are horizontally fragmented (i.e., parking functions are
spread across different departments or agencies). While Fort Collins’ parking program is fairly
vertically integrated (i.e., enforcement, off-street parking management and on-street parking
managed by a single department), there are still opportunities to better include parking planning,
economic development, business representation, transportation alternatives, and demand
management into a fully integrated program. This type of approach reinforces several key goals
such as the “triple bottom line” criteria from a sustainability perspective and a greater focus on
parking as a critical element of community infrastructure development.
Questions and Considerations for 2A.
What is an Integrated Access Management Strategy (IAMS)? Can an IAMS be achieved
with a private board, such as the one in Cedar Rapids, or does it require a city
department? What is the range of the powers of governance with respect to an IAMS?
The purpose is to broaden the parking program mission to embrace a more holistic approach to
community access – an approach referred to as “integrated access management” or “mobility
management.” One example is how the Parking Plan is linking bicycle parking planning, policy
and new development requirements.
Both Missoula and Boulder are great examples of programs that have embraced the broader
concepts of integrated access management as part of their core mission. Both programs have
specific elements for supporting and funding transportation alternatives, and managing parking
in ways that reduce or mitigate congestion and single occupant vehicle use while balancing the
needs of the parking public. This has become a fairly well-adopted standard in progressive,
cutting-edge parking management circles.
The most recent advance in this thinking is to place an even more explicit focus on sustainability
goals by transforming parking departments into parking and transportation “eco-districts”. At its
heart, an eco-district is an area with a broad commitment to accelerate large-scale
sustainability. It commits to achieving a community’s sustainability goals by guiding district
investments, focusing community action, and tracking the results over time. A more detailed
description of eco-districts is attached at the end of this document.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 7 of 25
3A. Explore the creation of a parking marketing, education, and communication
strategy that provides clear messages and identity for the Downtown parking
program.
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
12. People don’t know about their parking options
13. Wayfinding improvements are needed
14. Employees parking on-street
17. Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage avoidance”
22. Need for more collaboration between City and Downtown businesses
Discussion
Creating positive impressions of downtown is part of the recipe for creating a thriving and
vibrant center city. Parking, which represents the first and last impression of visitors arriving by
automobile, is an important element for creating positive impressions.
As with any operating unit or business, the creation of a brand identity and effective
communications strategy helps promote a sense of competence and effectiveness in that
program’s management.
This is especially important in the arena of parking management, which impacts so many varied
customer groups and should help to contribute to the success of the businesses that rely on a
well-run parking program.
Developing a consistent and professional brand image, creating a targeted communications and
messaging plan, and effectively managing and cultivating the parking program brand are part of
having a professional parking program. A positive parking image also reflects positively on the
City overall and it benefits the business community as well.
Questions and Considerations for 3A.
What are some examples of branding and communication strategies?
Branding is more than a logo. The concept for the Fort Collins parking program would be a
comprehensive program with multiple levels and objectives.
One objective would be to present a professional image that reflects positively on the program,
the City and the community. This would involve not only a new logo/brand identity concept, but
would tie into a whole program of print, on-line and advertising media. Perhaps the most
important element for Fort Collins would be to extend the new image and design elements into
the facility and wayfinding signage.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 8 of 25
Another key element would be the development of a strategic communications plan. This plan
should be updated annually as messaging needs change as the program continues to develop.
For example, if paid on-street parking moves forward, there are a number of strategic
communications elements that will be very prominent in the plan. A strategic communications
plan process involves the following steps:
a. Goal Setting
What is the Right Outcome?
b. Stakeholder Identification
What is the Right Audience?
c. Audience Analysis
What is the Right Information?
What is the Right Channel?
What is the Right Timing?
d. Project Selection
e. Assessment & Evaluation
A third major element is tying all parking related programs together into an integrated
programmatic structure. The consultant’s favorite example of this is Vancouver, BC’s
“EasyPark” program. The following graphics illustrate both the quality graphic design and the
programmatic structure.
A consulting team specialist in parking graphic design, program marketing and wayfinding
signage believes parking branding and signage needs to:
* Be Memorable * Be Clean and Safe
* Be Positive * Be Easy
* Be Convenient
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 9 of 25
4A. Explore the creation of a residential parking permit program
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
6. Not prepared for surge in employment
7. No commercial or residential parking requirements
8. Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods
14. Employees parking on-street
15. Many employees don’t have access to, or are unwilling to use, off-street parking
Discussion
As businesses begin to locate in the “transition zones” between downtown and the
neighborhoods, and as downtown businesses continue to create additional parking demands,
parking incursion into the residential neighborhoods will increase.
If on-street paid parking is implemented, this will create even more potential for employee
parking in neighborhoods as employees seek “free parking” more aggressively. If the off-street
public parking supply is not increased, this too has the potential to cause more employees to
park in neighborhoods in the future.
The implementation of the Mason Corridor, while primarily a parking demand reducer, could
stimulate a new type of parking demand in neighborhoods near transit corridor nodes.
Having a plan (including a funding and staffing plan) to implement an effective “residential
parking permit” program (RPP) is only prudent.
Questions and Considerations for 4A.
What are the advantages and issues related to a residential parking permit program?
Advantages of a residential parking permit program (RPP)
a. A permit program can decrease parking intrusion on those streets or neighborhoods that
“opt-in”.
b. Once a significant majority of streets opt-in, traffic and parking intrusion would be
expected to decrease to off-peak levels.
c. More parking spaces would be available for local residents during posted hours.
d. It would be easier for neighborhood guests to find nearby parking.
e. Traffic, noise and trash issues typically decrease on those streets posted with permit
parking.
f. While typically these programs are geared toward ensuring parking availability for
residents, these programs can also be structured to better utilize the on-street parking
for employee parking during the day to maximize the overall community benefit from
these public assets. Boulder’s program does this very effectively.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 10 of 25
g. If meters are eventually used as a management strategy, revenue from meters and
violations could help offset enforcement and RPP program operation expenses.
Neighborhood residents could be given special parking privileges over non-residents in
metered spaces that would result in better access to the neighborhoods.
h. The meter fees, operating hours, and time limits can be adjusted to address changing
conditions or influence neighborhood on-street parking use.
i. The residential permit program can be modified as needed to minimize resident impacts
or address specific parking conditions.
Issues related to a residential parking permit program
a. Parking demand can increase on streets that are not currently impacted. This should be
anticipated during the planning and communications processes.
b. Traffic volumes could increase during initial implementation due to “hunting” for open
spaces.
c. A RPP program will need to be developed and additional parking enforcement staff
resources will be required, although the RPP itself could generate revenue to help offset
the new expenses.
d. Some residents that don’t want a permit system would be required to obtain permits for
those streets or neighborhoods that opt-in.
e. Residents will experience some added inconvenience in obtaining, using and renewing
their permits.
f. Residents or guests that do not have or forget their hangtags will be subject to parking
citations.
g. Residents that want to invite a large number of guests will have to make special
arrangements prior to their event.
5A. Explore cooperative efforts between the City and employers to reduce on-street
parking by employees in high demand areas.
and
5B. Explore strategies to promote off-street parking options for longer-term parking.
Issues these ideas address (see page 20)
14. Employees parking on-street
15. Many employees don’t have access to, or are unwilling to use, off-street parking
16. Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots
18. Danger of becoming “enforcement zone”
19. Two hour time-limit not meeting customer needs
20. Some business owners very concerned about lack of Saturday/evening enforcement,
but questionnaire says otherwise
21. Lack of business involvement in decisions
22. Need for more collaboration between City and Downtown businesses
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 11 of 25
Discussion
There is evidence that employees occupy approximately 20% of the on-street parking in the
Downtown core based on data collected during the Downtown Strategic Plan, questionnaire
results, and anecdotal evidence from Downtown business owners and parking enforcement
staff. Although better enforcement has reduced the problem, it is still a major parking issue that
decreases the availability of short-term, convenient customer parking. Downtown employees
have found ways to relocate their vehicles to avoid parking fines, and have taken advantage of
periods when there is no time-limit enforcement (such as in the evenings or on weekends).
Employees may be parking on-street because they have no access to private off-street parking
or are unwilling to use the public lots and garages for a variety of reasons. These reasons may
have to do with realities or perceptions of cost, safety, and convenience.
Currently, public off-street lots are, for the most part, fully utilized at all hours while the top two
floors of both garages are underutilized most of the time. There appears to be available
capacity to shift more employee parking into the garages. Eventually, as the garages fill up,
there may be the need to explore other parking options, including new public parking
infrastructure, cooperative arrangements for use of existing underutilized private lots, and
additional parking demand reduction measures.
Questions and Considerations for 5A and B.
a. What are some strategies that could be used to encourage Downtown employees to park
off-street and leave on-street spaces for customers and visitors?
The most commonly used tools to accomplish this objective are time-limits, which are already in
place in Fort Collins, and on-street pay parking which is discussed under key idea 5C below.
Since this key idea expressly calls for cooperative efforts between the City and employers, it
makes sense to investigate the feasibility of a voluntary program whereby employers require
Downtown employees to park off-street. This could take the form of a permit program where the
City made the permits in the garages even more affordable than they are now, and employers
could split the cost with their employees. Employers have a great deal of influence on where
their employees park. Some Downtown employers already either purchase permits outright for
their employees, or share the cost with them. The City could work with the Downtown Business
Association to help publicize such a program.
There are three obstacles that would have to be considered before this program could be
successful. First, if it is voluntary, some businesses will not participate, either because of the
costs or because they do not think the program is necessary. Second, it is already difficult to
administer the different types of mixed parking that we accommodate in the garages (hourly,
full-service permits and roof-top permits) and adding another permit type would add to the
difficulty. Third, part of the reason the top levels of the garages are not currently being used is
that they are not convenient. It takes almost four minutes to make the 0.6 mile trip from the
LaPorte entrance of the Civic Center garage up to the fifth level. People will compare the
perceived inconvenience of making that trip with the perceived convenience of parking on-street
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 12 of 25
and it is likely the on-street option will continue to be the favored option even if an employer
buys the employee a permit.
Some Downtown business owners have suggested that the City look into some kind of a law or
program that would prohibit Downtown employees from parking on street. Staff currently does
not know if such a program would be legally defensible. This type of program would also
require some kind of enforcement effort which would require more costs and overhead, as well
as a method to identify which vehicles belong to employees and which do not. Staff is not
aware of any similar on-street program in other cities, although there are programs like this on
various campuses around the nation.
Another option that several Downtown business people have proposed is to make the garages
totally free. This would help to address the “upside down” pricing relationship we currently have
between on- and off-street parking, and making the garages free would reduce a great deal of
the costs of operating the garages (for example, booth attendant staff and access control
equipment would no longer be needed.) However, there are other costs that would continue,
and a revenue stream would be needed to continue to cover those costs (lights, cleaning,
maintenance, security, etc.) The business people who like this idea have suggested that GID
and DDA funds could be used to cover the continuing operating costs.
b. What are some strategies for promoting off-street parking options for longer-term
parking?
One obvious and readily available source of off-street parking is private lots. The inventory data
show that about half of the parking in Downtown is in private hands. The occupancy data we
collected shows that much of this private parking is not used efficiently to its maximum capacity.
One reason for this is that most private lot owners put up signs so that no one except for the lot
owner and their employees can use the lot. Often the lot will be bigger than what is required for
the lot owner’s purposes. Another reason many of these lots are not used efficiently is that they
are unimproved dirt or gravel lots with no striping, lights, pedestrian access or safety features.
People may feel the lots are unsafe, dirty, or inconvenient. A third reason for the inefficiency is
that many of these lots are small and each lot has a different owner. Therefore, each owner
feels the need to put up a fence or barricade to delineate their property. IF there are several
adjoining lots that might have the potential to make a decent parking area, the fencing or
barricades put up by each individual make the entire area less usable and less efficient.
During the Downtown Strategic Plan in 2003-04, an idea called the “Downtown Parking
Cooperative” was floated. The idea was that the City would partner with individual lot owners to
aggregate small lots into more usable spaces. The City would make improvements to the
surface, lighting, stripes, signs and pedestrian amenities to make the lots more appealing, safe
and convenient. In return for making these improvements, the City would get the right to sell
permits and generate a revenue stream from these lots. Lot owners would receive a guarantee
that their individual parking needs would continue to be met, but any additional capacity in their
lots would be available for the City-run permit program. This idea ran into obstacles: initial
inquiries to individual lot owners to assess their interest were met with a lackluster response,
and there was no “seed money” in the City budget to get the program launched. However, with
the proper effort and funding, the program may still have merit. If unused private parking could
somehow be brought into the usable parking inventory, it would go a long way toward meeting
the needs of Downtown parking for the near future.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 13 of 25
Another option that could be investigated for more off-street parking would be to turn existing
surface lots into parking structures. The Mason Lot, behind the Rio Grande Restaurant, and the
Oak/Remington, behind the Aggie Theater, are prime examples of where this opportunity could
be explored. Funding is an obvious issue. In addition, there is the question of whether
additional off-street parking would really be used. Would it be free, or would there be a cost to
purchase a permit like we have in our existing garages? The story of Bozeman, Montana,
related under key idea 6C later in this document, tells about a city that built a new downtown
garage in hopes of generating a revenue stream from permit sales. Instead, no one uses the
garage because they prefer to compete for free on-street spaces. We have a similar situation
here in Fort Collins with the unused capacity in our existing garages, and that situation might be
exacerbated by building new off-street capacity that perpetuates the upside-down pricing
arrangement we currently struggle with.
Another factor that should be considered in this discussion is that the City’s parking consultant,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, will be providing the City with a dynamic parking demand
projection model. We do not yet have the results from that model. Once the model is complete,
it can be used to load projected development and future land uses to determine how much and
where additional parking capacity might be needed.
5C. Evaluate paid on-street parking, to include a pilot program with meters that offer
some amount of free “up front” time.
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
14. Employees parking on-street
16. Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots
17. Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage avoidance”
18. Danger of becoming “enforcement zone”
19. Two hour time-limit not meeting customer needs
25. Parking is the “giant unfunded liability”
Discussion
There are a very limited number of tools available to parking management professionals to
achieve the level of turnover required to keep a downtown business district healthy. The two
primary tools are enforcement of time limits and on-street pay parking.
The City uses the enforcement of time limits to create turnover. The consultant acknowledges
that the operational elements of the City’s parking program are well managed and are even
advanced in their use of technologies. Many of the policies, such as the progressive fine
structure for parking enforcement, the first-hour free program for garage parking, etc. are
practices that are being emulated in other communities. However, as businesses continue to
grow and diversify, and the downtown improves, parking demands will continue to increase.
The current management practices will begin to break down and be insufficient to provide the
required turnover to support local businesses. Eventually, the volume of citations required to
promote the needed turnover will begin to generate a much worse public reaction than the small
price required under a paid parking program.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 14 of 25
Parking pricing is recognized in the parking industry as the most effective way to create turnover
and manage on-street parking. Businesses depend on turnover and cannot exist without it,
especially in a high-demand central business district where convenient on-street parking is a
limited resource. Parking pricing is more flexible and less violator-based than the City’s current
system.
Nevertheless, making the transition from unpaid on-street parking to paid on-street parking is
not something to be taken lightly. It would require education about the benefits and drawbacks,
extensive community involvement and dialogue, and assurances such as the pilot program
concept or other safeguards in case something goes wrong.
Questions and Considerations for 5C.
a. Does a pilot program mean putting meters in a limited geographic area? If so, how is the
area determined?
The more-likely meaning of a pilot program is that meters would be installed on a trial basis for a
certain period of time. However, there are geographical considerations that should be
considered, especially sensitivity to not “pushing the problem” into an adjacent area.
From a strictly objective parking management perspective, the size and boundaries of an area
to be controlled by meters would be defined by the areas with documented high levels of
demand (typically defined as above 85% during peak demand periods). Mapping parking
demand, such as in the occupancy map at the end of this document, is the normal starting point
for making these decisions (the areas in red on the map reflect demand in excess of 85%).
Generally speaking, metered areas should be consistently applied (not only on one side of the
street, for example) throughout a logically defined geographic area. Caution needs to be taken
in regards to thinking through potential “unintended consequences”, such as creating
neighborhood parking issues in areas where neighborhoods abut a newly metered area. This
can be mitigated by metering into the neighborhood area, and providing residents with permits
allowing them to park in these zones without having to pay the meter.
The notion of not “pushing the problem” to an adjacent area must be considered throughout the
commercial district as well. Certain areas that have occupancy levels of 100% (which is too
high and causes problems) will attain occupancy levels of 85% when properly managed. Some
of the vehicles that used to park in the 100% areas will move to nearby blocks where the
occupancy is lower. Care must be taken to insure that the new areas where vehicles move are
also metered if the occupancy levels warrant.
One of the most beneficial outcomes of proper parking pricing is that optimum occupancy and
maximum turnover throughout the commercial district can be achieved. Downtown employees
are incentivized to choose an appropriate long-term parking space rather than parking on-street,
and businesses end up with more customers, not less.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 15 of 25
b. What are the pros and cons of on-street pay parking?
Pros of paid on-street parking:
i. Provides a more effective and flexible set of parking management tools and options,
such as allowing customers to purchase more time for extended shopping trips.
ii. The introduction of new technology meters typically improves compliance and reduces
the number of citations issued. Citations create much more ill-will than paying a simple
parking fee.
iii. New technologies remove many of the old frustrations with meters such as having to
have a pocketful of quarters. Now there are systems that will accept different forms of
payment such as credit cards, smart cards, and pay-by-cell phone.
iv. Typically paid on-street parking is capable of being self-funded and even generates
positive cash flow. Paid on-street parking can generate an additional revenue stream
that can be used for a variety of parking and downtown investments. The need to begin
building a parking enterprise fund to build reserves for future parking infrastructure is an
important example.
v. The increased parking demand in the downtown area is a sign that the downtown is
healthy. Time limits are a blunt tool that is only effective up to certain point. Fort Collins
has extended the effective utilization of time limits through the investment in mobile
license plate recognition technology, but the effectiveness of application has been
realized. Paid parking combined with the new technologies will be needed to enhance
enforcement effectiveness and provide new customer and business friendly parking
management strategies.
vi. The enforcement of time-limits requires an intense, expensive and confrontational effort
by staff, and can create a negative image of Downtown as a “citation zone”. Properly-
priced on-street pay parking is more self-enforcing, is less expensive to enforce, and
once it has been in place for awhile, is viewed much less negatively by the public than
receiving an overtime citation.
vii. Given the sensitivity of introducing paid on-street parking, dedicating a percentage of
this new revenue stream to fund other desired downtown or community-based initiatives
may be important. Example investment initiatives might include: Improving downtown
signage and wayfinding, financially supporting a community bike share program,
collaborating on downtown marketing and promotions, etc.
Cons of paid on-street parking:
i. Perception by businesses that paid on-street parking will be bad for business. This can
happen when on-street pay parking is not applied properly. If on-street pay parking is
properly priced and only implemented where it is needed, it actually increases customers
for businesses.
ii. Need for an educational campaign to dispel misperceptions.
iii. It is politically sensitive.
iv. The “middle of the street” parking on College and Mountain will create challenges.
v. Need for upfront capital to implement the new program, although there are programs
where installation can be done with no up-front out-of-pocket expense in return for a
share of the revenue.
vi. Need for realigned program staffing, and additional staff training.
vii. Adds to streetscape clutter, although not so much with multi-space meters.
viii. Possibility that parking could be pushed out to non-metered locations, like
neighborhoods.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 16 of 25
5D. Explore expanded enforcement into the evening and on Saturdays
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
14. Employees parking on-street
15. Many employees don’t have access to, or are unwilling to use, off-street parking
20. Some business owners very concerned about lack of Saturday/evening enforcement,
but questionnaire says otherwise
Discussion
The issue being addressed in this recommendation is the fact (according to stakeholder
feedback, panel observations and parking utilization surveys) that weekend mornings and
evenings all week long have high parking demands. The knowledge that there is no parking
enforcement during these timeframes creates a different parking dynamic, i.e., employees get to
the spaces early and stay for extended periods.
This behavior is not a positive for local businesses; however, the business response in the
recent parking questionnaire was definitely opposed to the idea of expanding enforcement into
the evenings and on weekends. Staff feels this idea would have more merit if an on-street pay
parking system was implemented (see next question) and is probably not something we would
want to pursue if two-hour time limits remain in place.
Questions and Considerations for 5D.
Does the Expert Advisory Panel recommendation for expanded enforcement of time
limits stand alone, or does it have to be tied to implementation of on-street pay parking?
If it is the former, then how do we reconcile with customers’ desires for longer time
limits, especially for dinner?
This idea does not necessarily require paid on-street parking; however, with paid on-street
parking there are additional options for addressing related issues, such as the desire to address
extended lengths of stay for downtown customers.
Without paid parking, the options might include: greater promotion of the parking structures,
longer posted time-limits after 5:00 PM, the development of special employee parking programs
to encourage garage usage and discourage on-street employee parking.
With on-street paid parking, the option of eliminating or extending time limits becomes possible
(keeping the first two-hours very affordable and adding a progressive pricing structure beyond
the first two-hours whereby the hours beyond the initial two are still legal, but progressively
more expensive.) The trick to this strategy is to find the best rate structure that provides a
balance between flexibility and turnover. Albany, NY recently implemented this approach and
is having good success.
If the pay-by-cell-phone option is implemented, this gives customers additional benefits, such as
the ability to receive text messages regarding the status of their parking and the ability to
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 17 of 25
remotely add time. The ability to create parking customer loyalty programs and automatically
distribute e-coupons for local businesses based on the GPS location of a cell phone when
parking is paid for are examples of some of the newest strategies being rolled out across the
country.
6A. Explore creating an enterprise fund
and
6B. Explore existing and new funding sources for parking infrastructure and program
development
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
23. Public/private partnerships key to future improvements
24. More parking infrastructure will be needed in the future, but no revenue streams have
been identified to pay for it
25. Parking is the “giant unfunded liability”
Discussion
The management of parking can, over time and with properly structured revenue streams,
become a fully self-supporting enterprise fund. This essentially takes parking “off the backs of
the taxpayers” and makes it a user-funded enterprise.
The alignment of on-street parking revenues (if available), enforcement revenues, off-street
revenues and potentially other parking revenues such as fee-in-lieu, parking district or other
assessments, etc. into a dedicated and protected parking fund is critical to getting this process
started.
The lack of a clearly defined parking infrastructure investment strategy has been identified as a
critical element that needs to be addressed in Fort Collins. Ultimately, a dedicated funding
mechanism is needed to support transportation demand management, integrated access
management, and other programs valued by the community.
For example, in Boulder, the parking program funds a variety of initiatives including:
a. An “Eco-Pass” program which provides free bus passes for all downtown employees
($750,000 per year)
b. Annual contributions to the Business Improvement District to market downtown
regionally ($100,000 annually)
c. A $3.5 million parking revenue bond used to fund the renovation of the Pearl Street Mall
for its 25th anniversary, public art on the mall, etc.
d. These programs are in addition to fully funding all operational programs, parking
maintenance reserves, and set asides for future facility development.
In Portland, the public parking program funds the street car initiative to the tune of $2,000,000
per year. Examples of the use of parking revenues in Missoula are included in section 1A.b.iii.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 18 of 25
Questions and Considerations for 6A. and 6B.
a. Does “utilize existing funding sources for parking” mean that the City would re-prioritize
its use of General Improvement District (GID) funding so that they would be used
exclusively for parking (rather than other improvements)?
The answer to this question could be “yes”, depending on City priorities. Strategic parking
investments in the near to mid-term could be very important in helping to maintain economic
development momentum and leverage other investments to help ensure that they achieve their
full potential (Mason Corridor, etc.).
This approach would be even more attractive if the parking program fully embraces the
“integrated access management” approach. Under this scenario, GID funds might also be used
to compliment a variety of alternative transportation initiatives such as car share, community
bike programs, etc.
“Existing funding sources” also means parking specific revenues and general fund revenues
currently used to cover parking debt service.
b. Would new sources duplicate existing assessment districts (i.e., TIF and GID)?
This would be a matter of definition and use of revenues. Some people may argue that they are
essentially the same (all being special assessments).
In Charlotte, NC, where a special “Parking Management Collaborative” function was created
because there was no off-street public parking program, it was decided to increase existing
assessment rates rather than creating a new one. Charlotte has a three-tiered assessment
structure. Imagine a target with three concentric rings where the inner most circle is the
downtown core, and is the most dense. If your business or property is in the outer ring, you pay
only the base assessment rate. Businesses or properties in the middle ring pay the base +X
(an additional amount to pay for services not offered in the outer ring). In the core, where urban
design standards and services are most extensive, businesses or property owners pay the base
+ X + Y.
As an alternative to a new parking assessment, existing taxing mechanisms could be
incrementally increased for additional parking and transportation investments.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 19 of 25
6C. Explore ways to involve the business community in parking management
decisions such as an ad-hoc parking committee composed of Downtown public
and private stakeholders.
Issues this idea addresses (see page 20):
21. Lack of business involvement in decisions
22. Need for more collaboration between City and Downtown businesses
Discussion
The mission of the Parking Services department is “To help support the economic vitality of
Downtown Fort Collins by creating on-street parking space turnover and providing parking
alternatives for those with long-term parking needs; and to contribute to safe and orderly traffic
flow and neighborhood quality through the enforcement of parking regulations.”
A successful parking program that supports Downtown vitality requires close involvement of the
business community in parking management decisions. While Parking Services makes
extensive efforts to reach out to businesses, there is a lack of shared accountability and
responsibility for making difficult decisions. Businesses perceive themselves as being on the
outside looking in on the decision rather than a partner who should help provide a solution to
parking problems.
The trend in the parking industry is toward parking management by groups like downtown
business improvement districts, urban renewal agencies, downtown development authorities,
parking commissions, etc. The change represents a shift in perspective away from narrowly
defined management goals such as revenue or violator focused programs to programs in which
parking management is a tool for collaborative, economic sustainability closely involving the
business community. Incorporating both the public and private sectors in parking governance
helps educate each sector and promotes more effective working relationships.
The benefits of a parking organization that includes both the public and private sector include:
Improved relations and shared responsibility between parking management and the
business community.
A broader and more holistic management context where parking is seen both as an
element of a larger access management system and a tool to address economic health,
urban design, and other important community goals.
More effective parking programs by promoting a more responsive system of services
and program development mechanisms.
Some degree of parking revenue reinvestment into the district or area where those
revenues are generated, particularly when this key idea is combined with the ideas
about an enterprise fund and new revenue sources such as on-street pay parking.
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 20 of 25
Questions and Considerations for 6C.
a. What is the makeup and possible levels of authority granted to a parking board?
Generally, a parking board is populated to represent specific community interests. For example,
from the public sector side it might contain city representation from the city manager’s office,
finance, planning, transportation, and economic health. Private sector representation might
include the executive director of the downtown business association, downtown merchants,
downtown property owners, neighborhood residents, large businesses, and cultural institutions,
etc. There may also be specific individuals nominated by the city council or city manager.
The levels of authority granted to any parking board vary from community to community.
Boards can be advisory in nature whose primary role is to review policy recommendations
subject to council approval. Other boards can be a type of parking authority with more power to
control the hiring and firing of staff, parking rates, district boundaries, the creation or elimination
of services, new technology investments, etc.
b. What are the different organizational models of parking boards?
There are many organizational variations to consider. The first organization was identified by
staff based on community feedback. The next three organizational structures were represented
by members of the Expert Advisory Panel that came to Fort Collins:
i. An ad-hoc committee could be created to guide the implementation of policies and
strategies of the Parking Plan. It could be made up of downtown stakeholders and City
representatives. The committee would operate for a limited, set amount of time. The
advantage of this approach is that an ad-hoc committee would have the newly developed
Parking Plan as its only focus, and staff would be able to receive appropriate and timely
feedback on implementation of parking strategies, without the care and feeding needed for
an ongoing City board or authority.
ii. In Cedar Rapids, after years of frustration with the City managed parking program and
with the City now dealing with the results of a catastrophic flood, a parking strategic plan for
the downtown area was authorized. One of the plan’s major recommendations was for the
City to outsource the management of the public parking assets to the Cedar Rapids
Downtown Association. The mechanism for making this transition was a very detailed
“management agreement” which spelled out the responsibilities and liabilities of parties as
well as the overall goals and objectives for making this move. In this case, one of the
primary goals was to provide a more focused program of parking management and
reinvestment. The parking strategic plan provided a detailed road-map and action plan.
The plan had been developed with significant community involvement and business sector
support and included such program elements as new on-street meter technology, parking
garage access and revenue control system replacement, new program development,
program branding, marketing and signage, etc.
ii. Boulder has a General Improvement District appointed by City Council that also
manages all aspects of parking as well as having a specific focus on transportation
alternatives and economic development. The structure of their organizational chart is very
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 21 of 25
revealing. (See diagram below. “DUHMD/PS” stands for Downtown & University Hill
Management Districts/Parking Services).
The nature of the boxes on the Boulder organizational chart above is reflective of the
different perspective that a new organizational model can generate. The perspective can
provide a broader focus than just parking, to include travel demand management and
programs to increase transit use, biking, and walking. The term for this is “integrated
access management” and is further described later in section 2A.
iii. A Tale of Two Cities: Two cities in Montana have a parking commission. The Missoula
Parking Commission (MPC) and the Bozeman Parking Commission (BPC) both were
formed in 1971, and have a director and staff that report to a board of directors appointed by
city council. Both are technically city departments, and the staffs are city employees. Both
collect parking revenue and have a dedicated parking enterprise fund. But that is where the
similarities end.
Missoula has a vibrant, active, thriving downtown. Bozeman is more subdued. Missoula’s
parking program is successful and accomplishes it goals. Both on-street and off-street
parking is well-utilized, customers have a choice of parking options, and can always find a
space within walking distance. Bozeman has high demand for on-street parking, but its new
downtown parking garage is under-used. The parking department in Bozeman has difficulty
getting downtown customers to use the garage, and has even more difficulty freeing up on-
street spaces for customers and visitors. Downtown employees often use those spaces.
Missoula has on-street pay parking and a permit system for off-street parking that is less
expensive than on-street. The revenues all go into an enterprise fund that has been able to
build two downtown parking structures, with a third in the works, all debt free. The Missoula
enterprise fund has significant cash reserves. Bozeman has free on-street parking. The
main source of revenue for the Bozeman parking enterprise fund has been fines from
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 22 of 25
citations and a “cash in lieu” payment required of new development that is designed to
provide for new parking infrastructure. The fines are sufficient to pay the enforcement staff,
but the “cash in lieu” program has not lived up to its purpose. The Bozeman enterprise fund
was able to build four surface lots with the assistance of funds from a special improvement
district. Recently, they were able to build a new 435 space garage in downtown with the
assistance of federal funds and tax increment financing (TIF), but the city cannot get people
to park there. The BPC had hoped to generate a new revenue stream by selling permits in
the garage, but since people can park on-street for free, the permit program has not been
successful.
The Missoula Parking Commission has engaged in partnerships with the Missoula
Redevelopment Agency and a Special Improvement District (SID) over the years to develop
a comprehensive, self-contained parking operation that pays for adding parking inventory,
staff, equipment and other programs. The MPC is governed by a five member Board of
Directors and has authority to buy and sell land, issue revenue bonds and manage the
parking program as necessary to accomplish its mission statement. Being a component unit
of the city, the City Council has the authority to set the boundaries of jurisdiction and
approve the budget of the MPC.
The Bozeman Parking Commission has less authority than its neighbor in Missoula. The
BPC has a board that primarily sets policy. They have a smaller staff, and fewer assets.
The “cash in lieu” program has not been sufficient to allow the BPC to accumulate enough
reserves to build parking infrastructure, and the free on-street parking has undermined the
effectiveness of the new garage built with Federal and TIF funds.
There are (at least) three important lessons here.
This story helps to illustrate that decisions about parking management can have
long-term effects on a community, both positive and negative.
If it is determined that a new governance model has merit, it is important to link that
governance model to an adequate and sufficient revenue stream.
The way a community structures its parking management program must be tailored
to meet the higher-level goals of the community. Because parking can have a
tremendous effect on the direction a community takes, parking management
decisions should never be made casually, or in isolation.
Staff Contact Information:
Timothy Wilder Randy Hensley
Parking Plan Project Manager Parking Services Manager
twilder@fcgov.com rhensley@fcgov.com
(970) 221-6756 (970) 416-2058
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 23 of 25
Selected List of Issues, Problems, Comments, and Observations
The issues listed below are referenced within the preliminary ideas described in the preceding
section. The primary source for them was the Expert Advisory Panel Report, with additions
from the questionnaire, field data, and stakeholder input. For a more complete list, refer to the
Fort Collins Parking Plan - Parking Advisory Panel Report (October 2011), pages 13 – 16.
The Overall Parking Situation
1. Good, but room for improvement
2. Good, but not ready for the future
3. Parking is an aggravation, not yet a real “pain”
4. Unclear future parking needs
New Development and Neighborhood Impacts
5. Need parking-related economic development strategy
6. Not prepared for surge in employment
7. No commercial or residential parking requirements
8. Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods
Alternative Transportation Modes
9. Need to prepare for Mason Corridor impacts
10. Change in community’s culture has more people seeking to utilize alternative
transportation
11. Need to provide different types/design of bike parking
Customer Service (Marketing, Education, Identity)
12. People don’t know about their parking options
13. Wayfinding improvements are needed
On-Street and Off-Street Parking Management
14. Employees parking on-street
15. Many employees don’t have access to, or are unwilling to use, off-street parking
16. Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots
17. Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage avoidance”
18. Danger of becoming “enforcement zone”
19. Two-hour time-limit not meeting customer needs
20. Some business owners very concerned about lack of Saturday/evening enforcement, but
questionnaire says otherwise
Business Involvement
21. Lack of business involvement and accountability in parking management decisions
22. Need for more collaboration between the City and Downtown businesses
Funding
23. Public/private partnerships key to future improvements
24. More parking infrastructure will be needed in the future, but no revenue streams have
been identified to pay for it
25. Parking is the “giant unfunded liability”
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 24 of 25
OCCUPANCY MAP (goes with section 5C)
Parking Plan - Preliminary Ideas Page 25 of 25
Downtown
an Ave
Poudre River
Colorado State University
Laurel St
Mason St
Cherry St
Oak St
W Mountain Ave
Jefferson S
Laporte Ave
S College Ave
W Mulberry St
E Vine Dr
N College Ave
S Shields St
Howes St
Meldrum St
Remington St
Olive St
Magnolia St
Maple St
Mathews St
Peterson St
Whedbee St
Sherwood St
Loomis St
Whitcomb St
Grant St
Washington St
Lincoln
Parking Plan Study Area Map I
Legend
Study Area
Area of Focus (Commercial Area)
Colorado State University
DRAFT - OCTOBER 2011 PREPARED BY
Fort City of Collins P ARKING PLAN
PARKING ADVISORY
PANEL REPORT
1
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
Table of Contents
X INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................2
X PREPARING PANELISTS FOR THE PROCESS ...............................................................2
X THE CHARGE TO THE PARKING ADVISORY PANEL .....................................................3
X PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................4
• #1: Policies and Recommendations ...............................................................................5
• #2: Organization and Funding ........................................................................................6
• #3: Business and Community Integration ......................................................................7
• #4: Parking Management ...............................................................................................8
• #5: Alternate Modes of Transportation .........................................................................10
• #6: Customer Experience.............................................................................................11
X OBSERVATIONS AND COMMUNITY INPUT ...................................................................12
X CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................17
2
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
Introduction
Many people who live in The City of Fort Collins consider it a “magical” city; and the panelists
who came to town to advise the City on downtown parking quickly came to understand why.
Few cities this size have a downtown as attractive, human scale, pedestrian friendly, and
lively as Fort Collins does. Few cities have the climate and the spectacular backdrop of the
mountains. The presence of a major university nestled along the southern edge of downtown
brings a sense of youth and vitality to the whole city.
And the bikes! Everywhere you look, you see bicycles,
either being ridden or parked on sidewalks and in
special on-street parking places.
Fort Collins shows up on more “best of” lists than
practically any other city. Not only do local residents
appreciate what they have, it seems the outside world
long ago discovered the spectacular quality of life that
Fort Collins’ residents enjoy.
Of course, like most good things, perfection is never
quite achieved. As the City Manager is fond of
saying, “Fort Collins needs to go from good to great.”
Managing the downtown parking system is one aspect
of community life that many see as an opportunity to
go from good to great. That challenge was given to the
Parking Advisory Panel.
Preparing Panelists
for the Process
The Parking Advisory Panel was co-facilitated by
David Feehan, Civitas Consultants, and Dennis Burns,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The panelists were
Eric Anderson, Tacoma, Washington; Anne Guest,
Missoula, Montana; Vanessa Rogers, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Molly Winter, Boulder, Colorado.
(Complete bios are included in the appendices, as is a document outlining the panel process and
schedule.) Each of the panelists came from cities that had achieved parking excellence in one
way or another; and each brought a unique set of experiences and knowledge to Fort Collins.
Panelists were provided with an extensive packet of background information, and they toured
the downtown and parking facilities as well as the Colorado State University (CSU) campus and
surrounding neighborhoods before the formal panel process got underway.
The Advisory Panel is part of a larger project initiated by the City of Fort Collins, which engaged
Kimley-Horn to develop a strategic parking plan; and, as part of the plan, to create a new
“parking demand model”—a tool that can be used well into the future to forecast and plan for
parking needs in and around the downtown.
3
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
The Charge to the Parking
Advisory Panel
It was clear from the outset that the downtown
parking system is well-managed and, given existing
constraints, providing the City and the community
with safe, clean, and well maintained parking
options. It also became clear that, in addition to
specific questions posed by City staff, a major
question emerged: Given changes in the economy,
in local and regional demographics, in lifestyle
choices, and especially in areas around the borders of downtown (CSU, the new Fort Collins
Museum and Discovery Science Center, and Otterbox, in particular), how can the City and the
downtown parking system respond to and provide for anticipated parking demand?
City staff members who manage and plan for public parking are grappling with a number of
specific issues:
• How to accommodate the varying needs of different customers—downtown visitors,
employees, and residents—in ways that best serve each segment of downtown users
• How to ensure that these various user groups know about and utilize parking that is most
appropriate for their use and that each group does not diminish parking opportunities for
other groups (e.g., downtown employees parking in high-value, on-street spaces more
appropriate for shoppers and diners)
• How to pay for the costs of managing, maintaining, and funding future public parking
system development
• How to resolve conflicts as more downtown visitors and employees park in adjoining
neighborhoods
• How to take advantage of the high utilization of bicycles as an alternative to automobiles
and further reinforce a balanced parking and transportation solution
• How to anticipate and maximize the community benefits of investment in new
transportation options and technologies, such as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on the
Mason Corridor and new technologically advanced parking management tools
• What policy level decisions are needed to best position the City in leveraging the potential
benefits of transit oriented development along the Mason corridor. What role might parking
play as a tool for community and economic development
• How to create vertical integration of parking functions either within a City departmental
structure or in an entity like a parking authority
Given these questions, the Parking Advisory Panel purpose was defined as:
• Examining and assessing current parking issues in downtown Fort Collins
• Discussing and comparing best practices and successful parking strategies employed by other
cities, particularly with regard to downtown (office, tourism, residential, and retail development
4
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
• Identifying opportunities for new parking and transportation program initiatives that will
promote and support larger community strategic and economic development goals
• Developing a framework action plan from the findings and recommendations of the Panel
contributing to a strategic and sustainable parking plan built on a “triple bottom-line approach”
The Parking Advisory Panel reviewed numerous documents before
they arrived on site, toured downtown including all of the public
parking structures, the CSU campus, and adjoining neighborhoods,
and met with dozens of local stakeholders—business and property
owners, City elected officials, managers and employees, downtown
and neighborhood residents, and other downtown users—and
arrived at a number of recommendations. This report outlines
those recommendations and provides additional observations and
analysis. It is intended as a way of capturing both the quantity and
quality of public input, and the invaluable wisdom and insights of the
panel members.
The report begins with a description of the qualities that framed
our recommendations, a summary of those recommendations, as
well as observations and findings of the panel. We conclude with a
brief summary and appendices.
Qualities by which we measured each recommendation:
• Comprehensive—does the recommendation focus on the “big picture?” Will the ultimate parking
plan be considered holistic and comprehensive in its scope (not a fragmented approach)?
• Strategic—is the recommendation geared to longer-range outcomes and not just a tactical
or “Band-Aid” approach?
• Common sense—is the recommendation one that makes sense to the average user; and
it is understandable by that user?
• Data Driven—is the recommendation based on reliable and applicable empirical evidence?
Are there systems in place for on-going performance monitoring and benchmarking?
• Motivating—does the recommendation inspire action sufficiently so it overcomes natural inertia?
Does the overall plan contribute to meaningful outcomes that the community can support?
• Community and Self Interest—it is at the nexus of community and self interest that major
changes can occur; does the recommendation meet this test?
• Triple Bottom-Line: Social, Economic, and Environmental—given the City’s commitment
to a “triple bottom-line” approach, does the recommendation address all three elements?
• Accountable—transparency and accountability are important, even vital, in all aspects
of governance; does the recommendation propose an action or program that has built-in
accountability?
• Implementable—can the recommendation meet the test of public acceptance, and are
funding, technology, and other requirements available?
5
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
Preliminary Recommendations
#1: POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
a. Develop parking policies to support economic development and neighborhood
livability. Panelists heard two consistent themes from local residents and downtown
stakeholders. One, economic development and the jobs that result from economic
development are crucial to the future of Fort Collins; and two, the City can only maintain
its high quality of life and “magical” identity if it maintains and enhances its neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods around downtown are now
coming under increased pressure from growth
in commercial uses in the “transition zone” on
the border of downtown, and from the growing
presence of CSU to the south of downtown.
Furthermore, the need for affordable,
multi-family housing in these adjoining
neighborhoods is increasing in density and is
exacerbating neighborhood parking issues.
b. Reevaluate parking requirements and
regulations for new development. Currently,
developers are not required to provide parking.
But as new development continues in both
the core and periphery of downtown, the
City does not have sufficient financial tools
or revenue streams to address the needs of
these developments. Developers, on the other hand, realize that the cost of constructing
structured parking can make downtown projects less competitive. Public-private
partnerships are one way to address the parking needs of new development. Other
potential options include a combination of parking minimums and parking maximums
(currently the City only has parking maximums), some version of a parking “fee-in-lieu”
policy that could give developers the option of building parking as part of their development
plans, or they could contribute a fee in lieu of building parking that would go into a parking
development fund managed by the City for future parking infrastructure development.
Parking and transportation demand reduction strategies should also be thoroughly
explored.
c. Encourage interdepartmental coordination to support parking planning and parking
policy development. The panel recognized the efforts of the City Manager, the Parking
Services Manager, and others within the City government structure, to reduce the “silos”—
the tendency within large public and private organizations to communicate with and work
with only those within a particular department—but panelists heard from several people
both inside and outside city government that silos continue to exist and impede creative
solutions to parking problems.
d. Develop parking strategies for the Mason Corridor, the downtown transition area,
and development opportunities in the northern downtown gateway and River
District. Panelists strongly believe that the opportunities and challenges around the edges
of downtown are going to accelerate and the City needs to develop effective strategies and
6
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
policies for these areas now. Businesses like Otterbox will locate in and near downtown
only if parking and transportation options meet their needs. The Mason Corridor offers
opportunities to help solve transition area access needs and could generate a significant
amount of transit-oriented development. One significant issue related to these strategic
transit-oriented development opportunities is the recognition that structured parking will
be needed to support the development densities required to achieve the full potential of
these opportunities. However, the financial realities of structured parking will likely limit
the development densities desired by the City as the developers may well opt for smaller,
less dense development plans that can be supported by surface parking. This approach
would mean lesser development options might be proposed that could potentially squander
opportunities for true transit-oriented development for 50 years or more. A public-private
parking investment strategy that could leverage tax increment financing resources,
combined with density bonuses and other inducements, could incentivize the desired types
of development and help the City realize the full potential of the investments being made
along the Mason Corridor. Likewise, the northern downtown gateway and River District
could see new mixed-use development in the near future. However, these opportunities
could be lost if the City is not prepared to solve immediate and mid-term parking problems.
#2: ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
a. Create a parking organization with a governance board composed of downtown
public and private stakeholders. One of the trends panelists have observed in many
cities is a trend toward involving private sector representatives in managing downtown
parking. This trend has benefits for both the City and downtown stakeholders. The City
benefits from the information, experience and wisdom of business leaders, and at the
same time, develops a “support group” that can communicate with other business owners
and residents. Private sector representatives on a governance board have a vehicle for
communicating ideas and concerns, and also have a greater sense of ownership in a
system that is vital to their needs.
i. Other parking management organizational models are also emerging around the country
that could help the City achieve other stated goals such as sustainability. Incorporating the
governance board concept noted above, parking could be organized into a “parking and
transportation eco-district model.” This approach provides all the benefits of a vertically
integrated parking program (centralized management of all aspects of parking, with all parking
related revenues going into a dedicated enterprise fund), combined with greater community
involvement through a public/private governance board; it also adds sustainability as a key
guiding principle or lens through which all operational and strategic decisions are considered.
This organizational
change can provide a
shift in attitude and an
approach that will change
the way parking is viewed
and can be an effective
way of achieving the “triple
bottom-line” approach
(social, economic,
and environmental
sustainability) to parking
management.
7
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
b. Establish an enterprise fund for parking. One of the more obvious, yet largely unappreciated,
truths in the field of parking is that parking is never free—it costs money to acquire land, build
structures, and provide ongoing maintenance and management. The same applies to on-street
parking. Experience has shown that cities with dedicated enterprise funds that capture all parking-
related revenues—from garage revenue and neighborhood permit programs to meter and
enforcement revenue—are able to provide the quality, service, and safety that users demand,
while also setting aside funds for maintenance reserves and future infrastructure development.
Without a secure and segregated enterprise fund, the City’s general fund becomes the
repository for parking revenues, as well as the main, and often only, funding source that
officials turn to when parking revenues are not meeting parking needs. Parking has the
potential, over time, to become a self-supporting fund supported by user fees.
c. Utilize existing and create additional dedicated funding sources for parking
infrastructure development. As the panel noted frequently during the analysis and
evaluation process, parking is not free. The panel believes that surface lots are not the
long-term answer to meeting increased parking demand in downtown, and that current
revenues from parking alone cannot support the construction of new parking facilities.
Judicious use of current revenues combined with new, dedicated sources will be needed.
TIF districts, parking development in-lieu fees, special assessment districts, and installation
of paid on-street parking are some possible ways of creating new revenue.
#3: BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY INTEGRATION
a. Evaluate pros and cons of a residential parking permit zone program. Two of the
panelists have considerable experience with residential parking permit programs that work
well. Well-managed permit programs generally accomplish the intended purpose—keeping
on-street parking available for local residents, while also leveraging these resources for
other users during mid-day timeframes. However, in some towns these programs have
run into opposition from those who do not think they should have to pay anything to
park in front of their house or apartment. Handling issues like visitors and parties can be
problematic. However, the panel
recommended that the City,
in coordination with adjoining
neighborhood residents and
groups, seriously examine a
permit program, particularly
on the southern and western
borders of downtown.
b. Initiate public/private
partnerships for parking.
Today, the cost of constructing a
single parking space in a parking
structure can run anywhere
from $25,000 per space to more
than $50,000. Managing and
maintaining that single space can
easily cost $500 per year. In the
context of downtown Fort Collins,
8
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
a single space would need to generate $200-$300 per month to pay for construction and
management. This is well above what current parking rates can support. One way of
bringing costs and revenues more in line is through public/private partnerships or PPPs, as
they are commonly known. If both the public sector and private sector can share the cost of
construction, operating costs can be more in line with local market realities.
c. Work with CSU and other large employers on neighborhood parking impacts.
Specific comments were heard from people who participated in the panel that students,
and perhaps faculty and staff, were parking in neighborhoods close to the campus.
Employees of downtown companies and organizations are also seen parking in these
close-in neighborhoods. The City’s Parking Services Department should initiate or
expand efforts with CSU and major employers, including the City and County, to reduce
or eliminate both the reality and perception that non-residents are causing problems for
residents who need to park close to where they live.
#4: PARKING MANAGEMENT
a. Evaluate pros and cons of paid on-street parking with a parking governance board,
including the potential of a pilot program and free time. Perhaps the most sensitive
issue raised during the panel process was paid on-street parking. Yet participants agreed
that employee parking in on-street locations is still a problem, though it has diminished
because of new technologies and effective parking enforcement practices implemented
following the 2004 downtown strategic plan. Installing pay stations could have several
benefits—increasing turnover, providing revenue for construction and maintenance of
parking structures, and reducing overtime citations. There is, however, strong resistance
to paid on-street parking, unless such a program includes free time on the front end,
portability, pay-by-cell and credit cards, and other customer-friendly features. The private
sector-led governance board should carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of paid on-street parking and should provide strong leadership if a decision to advance this
recommendation is made.
b. Work with employers to reduce on-street parking by employees. Regardless of what
methods are used to increase turnover at on-street parking spaces and reduce abuse by
employees, the Parking Services Department
should initiate and maintain an ongoing program
to educate downtown employers about this
issue and develop effective ways for employers
to reduce or eliminate abuses.
c. Better promote off-street parking options
for longer-term stays and continue to
enhance pedestrian amenities. Fort Collins
has very convenient, clean, and safe off-street
public parking options. However, most locals
expressed that their habit is to cruise College Avenue two or three times for a free on-street
space and if one is not available, then they will go to a parking lot or structure. This is
not uncommon in small to mid-sized communities. This phenomenon is partly fueled by
the acknowledged “upside down” parking pricing structure (where the most convenient
on-street spaces are free and the less convenient off-street spaces require payment.
9
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
There are several potential action items related to these issues:
i. Educate frequent downtown users on the benefits of off-street parking (very affordable, no
time-limits, no risk of a citation, etc.).
ii. Improve parking signage and wayfinding
for visitors. Most visitors, if they are
unfamiliar with an area, will naturally
follow signage to parking facilities if that
signage is clear and easy to understand.
iii. Correct the “upside down” character of
the current parking pricing (see previous
recommendation #4a).
iv. Consider the development of a “parking
app” that can promote parking options
and provide information of parking
availability—evaluate programs such as
the “Parking in Motion” application.
v. Continue to upgrade alleyways and other
improvements to pedestrian amenities to
improve connectivity to off-street parking and transit nodes. Consider creating “walking tours”
that highlight things like architectural history, public art, etc.
d. Explore expanding enforcement to evenings and Saturdays. By some estimates,
more than half of all retail sales occur on weekends and evenings. Yet, because there is no
enforcement on Saturdays, a prime shopping day in downtown, employees who arrive early
are able to take prime parking spots without fear of receiving a ticket. Parking Services
should look at extending enforcement to Saturdays and perhaps into evening hours, though
these two should be considered separately. Evening visitors to downtown may do some
shopping, but the sense of many is that they are coming for dining and entertainment.
Once again, consulting the governance board of a new parking entity, along with other
merchants and property owners, is recommended.
e. Explore modifications to parking time limits and pay-by-cell phone, if paid on-street
parking is pursued. Parking time limits are an important tool in promoting on-street space
turnover. They are especially important in communities where the more effective tool of
paid parking is not utilized. However, one of the unintended consequences of time limits
is that while they are effective in helping to reduce the abuse of employee parkers taking
up what should be short-term parking resources, they also create anxiety in the minds of
customers who might prefer to continue shopping, but leave to avoid a potential parking
citation. If the option of paid parking is considered, this opens up several possibilities that
can give shoppers more options. Some examples include: In Albany, NY, in conjunction
with adding new multi-space parking meters, they have eliminated time limits and added
what is known as “progressive pricing”. This means that the first two hours are still very
reasonably priced, but you are no longer restricted to only two hours. Instead, the rates
for the additional hours escalate at a higher rate. For customers that opt for more time,
accepting the fact that the extra time will be more expensive, this gives them the option of
more shopping time without the fear of a citation. The key is to set the rates to discourage
employee abuse. If the “pay-by-cell phone” option is also included, then customers can get
10
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
text messages notifying them that their time is about expire and giving them the option to
add more time from wherever they are. In some communities, groups like the Downtown
Business Association partner with the parking program to create e-coupons from local
businesses that can be sent automatically to pay-by-cell phone parkers based on where
they parked as a way to support local businesses.
#5: ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
a. Support an integrated access management strategy that includes parking, transit,
bikes, and pedestrian modes of travel. An increasingly common slogan among urban
transportation experts is “park once, pedestrians first.” Considering parking in a vacuum is
no longer a viable option, particularly in a city
like Fort Collins. Developing a strategy focused
on the user and making the transition from
one mode to another as easy as possible will
yield major benefits for the entire community.
Examples already exist. The City has bicycles
in its vehicle pool, so employees who need to
move around downtown during the day can do
so without retrieving their car or signing out a
city vehicle. Trolleys or shuttle buses can be
part of the strategy, particularly as a way of
connecting the CSU campus with downtown
and maximizing the impact of the Mason
Corridor BRT system.
b. Expand covered and uncovered bike parking options based on demand. While
there was universal support for increasing the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of
transportation, participants in panel sessions were of different opinions as to how best to
provide parking options for bikes. Panelists evaluated comments from participants together
with experiences from their own cities and recommend that a demand-based approach
makes the most sense. Covered spaces involve more expense to build and maintain if they
are free-standing, and require secure locations in parking structures. On-street designated
bike parking seems to be popular, but considering the demand for these spaces, there
might be some resistance. However, if the loss of one on-street space can be shown to
accommodate 30 or more bicycle trips on an average day, the auto trip reduction benefits
can be easily justified.
c. Develop travel demand management strategies in conjunction with the Mason
Corridor Project. While the panel was excited by and enthusiastic about the potential
of the Mason Corridor project, there was also concern that additional thought should
be given to park-and-ride, bike-and-ride, and transportation-oriented development
(TOD) opportunities. As the project is approved and should debut in 2014, the panel
recommended developing a strategy now.
11
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
# 6: CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
a. Re-evaluate time limits in the
context of on-street paid parking.
The two-hour time limit downtown
was a source of considerable
discussion and criticism. Panelists
and participants recognized that
extending the time limit to three or
four hours would further encourage
abuse by downtown employees;
however, this might also encourage
shoppers to stay longer and spend
more. Some participants indicated
that extended time limits without fear
of getting a ticket might make them
more amenable to on-street paid
parking, if it were coupled with free time on the
front end.
b. Market the benefits of off-street parking.
Parking structures in downtown Fort Collins almost
always have space available, if only on the top
floor. These structures are only a block or two from
College Avenue. Structures are clean and well lit.
The City and downtown merchants would benefit if downtown employees and shoppers
who anticipated needing more than two hours parked in these facilities.
c. As demand for off-street parking grows in the short to mid-term, reassess parking
allocation within the public parking lots and structures. Prioritization of parking
system users and how parking resources are allocated is something that all parking
systems must continuously re-evaluate. As economic conditions improve and parking
demands increase, parking for downtown customers may need to be prioritized. This
could mean that the public institutions such as the City and County might be able to
create surface parking options for their staff, such as in the green space behind the City
building at 215 N. Mason. If this could create 25 to 30 staff parking spaces, that would
be the equivalent of $500,000 - $600,000 in investment in structured parking spaces if
constructed at a cost of $20,000 per space.
d. Effectively integrate parking into a comprehensive wayfinding system. Panelists
observed that downtown signage ranged from good to not so good. For example, on
College Avenue, there is a prominent sign on a light pole indicating the location of public
restrooms. What appears to be missing is a comprehensive and integrated wayfinding
system that is focused on helping downtown patrons access convenient on- and off-street
parking options. Also, panelists noted that parking staff are considering several changes to
internal parking structure and parking rate signage.
e. Develop a parking system brand identity and communication strategy. The panel
observed that there seemed to be no real “brand” for downtown parking, especially given
that the City wants to communicate that downtown parking is available, convenient, friendly,
12
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
and safe. Developing a brand is not the same as having a slogan or a logo, though these
may or may not be part of a brand. The first step should be to create and carefully define a
communications strategy, and then let the brand flow from the strategy.
f. Leverage new technology. Fort Collins is a city that often finds itself on the cutting edge
of many trends, given the high level of education and concern for quality of life. By utilizing
a range of new technologies, the City can deliver a “revamped” parking system that gives
the user more value, convenience, and user-friendliness. The full Kimley-Horn report will
outline a number of options and recommendations in terms of new technologies and how
they can best be utilized.
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMUNITY INPUT
Over the period of a day-and-a-half, panel members met with dozens of people from all walks of
the community to listen and ask questions. The following observations provided material for the
analysis working session the panel engaged in before developing recommendations. The panel
grouped the observations into 10 categories, listed below. Many of the observations fit into more
than one category, so they are not grouped according to category.
X CATEGORIES
1. Policies, Planning, and Regulation
2. Staffing and Organization
3. Pricing and Finance Issues
4. Business Concerns
5. Parking Operations and
Management
6. Alternative Modes of
Transportation
7. Customer Experience
8. Quality of Life
9. Environmental Issues
10. Attitudes and Perceptions
13
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
» No commercial parking requirements—
developers are depending on the City to
provide parking in many cases. This appears
to be exacerbating downtown parking
problems now, but could lead to severe
shortages in the future.
» Parking facilities operated by the City and
CSU are clean and well managed. Most
participants agreed with that assessment.
» Some participants believe the Mason
Corridor BRT will have the biggest impact on downtown parking of any anticipated
developments, but that impact is undefined.
» Lots of bikes! Panelists were awestruck with the number of bicycles seen in and around
downtown. Fort Collins is in the forefront of converting to a non-polluting, healthy, and
sustainable form of transportation.
» Downtown is suffering from “upside down” parking pricing. According to established
practice, on-street parking is more desirable and should be more expensive than
off-street parking; however, in Fort Collins, the opposite is true.
» The two-hour parking limit for on-street downtown parking may not be meeting the
needs of downtown users and merchants.
» Local residents take pride in the magical quality
and uniqueness of downtown, and with good
reason; few downtowns can measure up to Fort
Collins in terms of vitality and quality of life.
» Downtown employees and CSU students are
overflowing into adjacent neighborhoods. Local
residents expressed frustration and are looking
for ways to alleviate this condition.
» Wayfinding improvements are needed. Signage
in downtown is good in some places, but a comprehensive wayfinding system that
includes signage and other elements is missing.
» Parking facilities are generally in good condition, clean, well lit, and well maintained.
» Employee abuse of on-street parking is a major problem. Parking Services has
recently expanded enforcement activities and this has helped, but several interviewees
described ways they and others are still parking on the street.
» Fort Collins has an urban and rural customer base; this provides both challenges and
opportunities, but rural customers may find downtown parking more intimidating.
14
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
» Despite clean, well-lit structures, there is a hesitancy to use off-street facilities. Some
still worry about safety; others just do not like garages.
» Is there a need for Saturday and evening enforcement? Some participants suggest
that employees are getting downtown early on Saturday and taking the best parking on
street for the entire day. Others say the same about evening hours. No one, however,
has a good solution for how to enforce in the evening without discouraging downtown
dining traffic.
» The price of downtown parking, when compared with other comparably-sized cities, is
really inexpensive, but unappreciated by many
local downtown users.
» A real need exists to identify, define, and
calculate future parking needs. Growth of
CSU, downtown businesses, and downtown
attractions will put pressure on downtown
parking resources in the future.
» According to one participant, “Parking’s not a
problem—I just troll for spots.” Several others
offered similar comments. Driving around the
block until a parking space comes open is
common practice in Fort Collins.
» Another participant offered this thought:
“Keep Fort Collins ‘non-standard.’” There was some sentiment among participants that
Fort Collins did not need to follow the crowd. Some really like the fact that there are few
national chains in downtown.
» CSU is a major asset, but not fully exploited. Faculty, staff, and students might all
contribute in some way. However, the City is using a number of CSU interns and has
had good luck doing so.
» Transition areas may become major employment corridors. The expansion of Otterbox
is hopefully the first of many companies whose employees really enjoy the downtown
atmosphere and would consider a transition area location.
» A businessperson said, “Parking relates to profitability.” Downtown merchants and
property owners have a clear sense of the importance of safe, convenient parking to
the success of their endeavors.
» Fort Collins does not have a lot of experience with PPPs. Other communities are
experimenting in creative ways with PPPs as a way of providing parking when neither
the public nor private sector could do so or is willing to do so independently.
» Demographics are changing in Fort Collins. The growth of CSU is one factor, but there
are others. However, in terms of ethnicity, Fort Collins is approximately 90 percent
white.
15
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
» One community leader said “We are doing well now, but to do better we have to
do something big.” There seems to be a recognition that status quo is not good
enough, and that the status quo could result in the loss of the sense that this is a
“magical” place.
» Another community leader added, “We need to constantly fine tune the machine.”
There is recognition that the Deming Cycle of Continuous Improvement has important
applications here.
» Jefferson Street, which is a state highway, is a problem zone. Pedestrian traffic is
minimal, and the lack of on-street parking has negatively impacted businesses along
the street.
» According to one participant, “SOVs (single occupancy vehicles) do not fit our vision of
ourselves.” The community’s culture has changed, and more people are seeking ways
to utilize alternative transportation modes.
» The City and the community are committed to a focus on the “Triple Bottom-Line”—
economic, social, and environmental—and this ripples through many, if not most, public
policy decisions.
» Some expressed a fear of “losing downtown again”—driven by a memory of times
past when downtown was far less vibrant. This fear is driven by a strong concern that
people will not be able to find parking and will stay away.
» Downtown Fort Collins is blessed with low crime rates and a feeling of safety. This
mirrors a national trend of declining crime in urban areas.
» Fort Collins, and downtown in particular, benefit from factors of place and climate. Proximity
to the mountains and to a river, and a mild, four-seasons climate make this a very desirable
place to live, as evidenced by multiple and recurring “best place for…” awards.
» Downtown, because of the City’s
enforcement of numerous regulations,
is in danger of becoming perceived as
“the enforcement zone.”
» There is a perceived need to provide
both covered and non-covered bike
parking; but there is not a clear
consensus on which works best.
» One quote the panel particularly
found perceptive was “Parking is
personal.” It is not just a matter of
numbers, technology, structures, and
locations.
16
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
» One participant seemed to reflect the feelings of many by pointing out that “parking
is an aggravation, but not yet a real pain.” There is a sense that parking is a minor
annoyance, but it could get worse.
» The enhanced enforcement program has achieved good results. Many people
indicated that the problem of downtown employees parking on the street is
diminishing. Parking enforcement staff echoed this conclusion.
» Business and property owners suggested that there is a need for enhanced
collaboration between parking management and the business community.
» The City’s Parking Services management has limited tools. There is recognition that
on-street paid parking is an effective way to manage the parking supply, but there
are also other tools that would help. Financial tools in particular will be needed in the
future. Pricing—one of the most powerful parking management tools—is currently off
the table.
» One participant captured the consensus of most groups by pointing out that “every
space counts.” Currently, downtown users can find a place to park; but the number
of vacant spaces is diminishing, and for a business, every space does count.
» City government and downtown in general are not prepared for a surge of primary
employment in downtown. The addition of another company the size of Otterbox, or
a significant expansion in an existing company, would put severe strain on the
parking system.
» Going forward, parking is going to be a critical factor. Demand factors and continuing
changes in how people travel will require careful planning, additional resources,
and additional tools. Important opportunities could be lost if the community is not
prepared.
» There is a need for a clearly defined, parking-related economic development
strategy. Parking should not be planned in a vacuum. It must be connected to
economic development and to the Triple Bottom-Line. How much new development
is anticipated? What kind? Where and when? These are questions that any parking
plan must address.
» A particularly prescient participant asserted that “parking is the giant unfunded
liability.” Panelists agreed with this assertion. More parking will be needed, but the
revenue streams to pay for this parking have not yet been identified and committed.
17
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
Conclusion
One of the panelists suggested that Fort
Collins was like a bicyclist on a single-speed,
balloon-tired Schwinn cruising on College
Avenue but headed for mountain trails.
The cyclist may need to switch to a Black
Sheep mountain bike in preparation for more
challenging terrain seen on the horizon.
The analogy was clear: Fort Collins has an
organizational vehicle in terms of its Parking
Services department that is adequate for
today but insufficient for the challenges that
lie ahead.
Those challenges could be formidable. CSU is growing and will continue to grow as the US
population grows and becomes younger and more diverse. Primary employment companies
like Otterbox will either find attractive locations and services in the city or will go elsewhere.
More people are looking to live downtown, especially empty nesters and young singles, but
even some families with children. Downtown becomes an absolutely essential part of the
triple bottom-line—social, economic, and environmental—for Fort Collins, but the current
organizational structure is insufficient to provide for Fort Collins’ future needs.
While this panel report cannot provide a complete and detailed plan for the future of parking
in downtown Fort Collins, the outline of such a plan is becoming clear; and the larger study of
which this panel report is a part will flesh out many more details.
The panel recommends strongly that the City of Fort Collins create new organizational and
funding vehicles to manage and supply downtown parking. A board of stakeholders should
govern this new entity, with a majority coming from the private sector. This should be the first
order of business.It will be difficult to achieve the other recommendations in this report without
a fundamental and substantial change in the way parking is managed and organized. This
should not be construed as a criticism of the current parking management program. In fact, the
panel loudly applauds the work of City staff and the quality of the overall parking management
program in Fort Collins.
The new parking management entity should have control over its own finances and this should
be accomplished through the establishment of a parking enterprise fund. All parking revenues—
garage revenues, enforcement revenues, surface lot revenues—and yes, on-street paid parking
revenues if a decision is made in favor of this step—should be directed to the parking enterprise
fund, which will then be better able to meet future needs. The development of additional revenue
streams may also be required to meeting the parking needs of the future.
Within the context of and under the direction of the new parking entity, current parking policies and
procedures should be thoroughly reviewed. Among the priority issues this entity should
consider are minimum and maximum requirements for developers, residential permit
programs, and on-street paid parking.
18
PARKING ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
Fort City of Collins
P ARKING PLAN
The issue of on-street paid parking is an important and emotional issue. The panel heard many
people express strong opinions on this question, and most who spoke were opposed. Yet
several indicated that they might support such a decision if the right conditions were attached,
such as meters that accepted credit cards and cell phone payments, and some allowance for
free time on the front end.
The City of Fort Collins should provide a clear set of policies and a fair and equitable parking
program for its own employees. There is a sense by many that City employees are taking
unfair advantage of the parking system by virtue of their employment. While the panel did
not find widespread abuse, there were verified examples that tend to create this perception.
A re-examination of City employee parking should be undertaken, and it should begin
by recognizing that City employees should be accorded the same opportunities as other
employees, but not preferential treatment. If the business community and the public are going to
support other changes, this issue should be addressed.
Finally, the City Manager has often proposed that the City move from “good to great.” The panel
heartily concurs that downtown is indeed a magical place, but that achieving greatness will only
occur if the twin experiences of arrival and departure—whether by auto, bicycle, bus, trolley, or
on foot—are of the highest quality.
1
Parking Parking Plan: Plan: Downtown Downtown and and
Surrounding Surrounding Neighborhoods Neighborhoods
City Council Work Session
November 29, 2011
ATTACHMENT 4
2
General General Direction Direction Sought Sought and and Specific Specific
Questions Questions to to be be Addressed Addressed
• Does the Council have any questions or
comments about the Parking Plan process?
• Regarding the preliminary Parking Plan ideas
listed in Attachment 1, does the Council have
any additional ideas that it would like staff to
explore, or ideas that it would like staff to revise
or remove from the list?
ATTACHMENT 4
3
Why Why Prepare Prepare a a Parking Parking Plan Plan Now? Now?
• Address issues related to changing Downtown
conditions:
– Increased vitality
– New development
• Growing concern over parking issues
• Provide clearer direction on some issues
• Prepare for the future
ATTACHMENT 4
4
Background Background
• Downtown Strategic Plan
• “Triple bottom line” of
parking
– economic vitality of
Downtown
– urban environment
– air quality
– transit, biking and
walking
ATTACHMENT 4
5
Planning Planning Process Process
April 17, 2012 Plan adoption Council hearing
Stakeholders,
boards, public,
Council work
sessions
Parking model, idea
analysis, guiding
principles, strategies,
draft report
Dec. 2011 – Mar.
2012
Advisory panel,
stakeholder,
boards, Council
Field surveys,
questionnaire, issues
refinement
July - Nov. 2011
Stakeholders,
boards
Identify issues,
existing conditions
March - June
2011
Timeframe Tasks Meetings
ATTACHMENT 4
6
Recent Recent Tasks Tasks
• Issue identification
• Inventory of spaces
• Occupancy data collection
• Turnover data collection
• On-line questionnaire
• Expert Advisory Panel
• Stakeholder input
ATTACHMENT 4
7
Inventory Inventory of of Parking Parking Spaces Spaces
On-street spaces 3,590
Off-street public 1,982
Off-street private 5,428
Total downtown 11,000
Public spaces 5,572
Private spaces 5,428
Total downtown 11,000
ATTACHMENT 4
8
Occupancy of over
85% at any time
Parking Parking Areas Areas
of of High High
Occupancy Occupancy
Cherry
Mountain
Linden
College
Mulberry
Meldrum
Walnut
public
garage
I
ATTACHMENT 4
9
Turnover Turnover Data Data
100 Mathews
(no time limits)
100 S. College
(time limits)
1.1 hrs
0.9 hrs
Weekend 4.3 hrs
Weekday 3.7 hrs
Average Length of Stay
• Data from 5 representative block faces
• Where enforced, there is good amount of turnover
• Turnover is lower on weekends (no time limit enforcement)
ATTACHMENT 4
10
On-On -Line Line Questionnaire Questionnaire
• 1,047 responses
– 858 community
– 189 business
• Advertised through multiple means
• Not verified for statistical representation
ATTACHMENT 4
11
Community Responses
What is the most frequent reason
you go Downtown?
ATTACHMENT 4
12
Community Responses
How How do do you you typically typically get get Downtown? Downtown?
38.1%
38.0%
15.6%
2.2%
3.1%
2.4% 0.5%
Drive with other people
Drive alone
Bike
Walk
Other
Live Downtown
Bus
ATTACHMENT 4
13
Community Responses
If parking is not available near your destination,
what would you be most likely to do?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Park on
the street
a block or
two away
Park in a
garage or
lot
Circle the
block
looking for
a space
Leave
downtown
and go
elsewhere
Other Not an
issue for
you
123
ATTACHMENT 4
14
Community Responses
Are you willing to pay a small amount for a
convenient space close to your destination?
ATTACHMENT 4
15
Community Responses
Which potential parking improvement
is most important to you?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Make more off-street parking available
Alternatives such as transit, biking, walking
No improvements or changes
Other
Less parking enforcement
Increase turnover of on-street parking
Better parking signage and wayfinding
Safer parking facilities
More enforcement of time-limits
ATTACHMENT 4
16
Community Responses
Which potential BIKE parking improvement is
most important to you?
ATTACHMENT 4
17
Business Responses
Which potential parking improvement
is most important to you?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Make more off-street parking available
Other
Better parking signage and way-finding
Alternatives such as transit, biking, walking, etc.
Less parking enforcement
Increase the turnover of on-street parking
No improvements or changes
Safer parking facilities
More enforcement of time-limits
ATTACHMENT 4
18
Business Responses
What What is is your your 1st 1st choice choice for for a a parking parking
management management strategy? strategy?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
More efficient use of existing parking
Pay parking on-street
Enforcement of 2-hour time limits
Better education and information
Less management
Alternatives to driving and parking
Other
No preference
ATTACHMENT 4
19
Business Responses
Do Do you you think think the the City City should should provide provide
evening evening or or Saturday Saturday enforcement? enforcement?
ATTACHMENT 4
20
Discussion Discussion of of Key Key Ideas Ideas
Information Information Sources Sources
• Expert Advisory Panel
• Questionnaire results
• Field data collection
• Stakeholder input
• Staff observations
ATTACHMENT 4
21
Issues, Issues, Problems Problems
Comments, Comments, Observations Observations
1. Good, but room for improvement
2. Good, but not ready for the future
3. Parking is an aggravation, not yet a real “pain”
4. Unclear future parking needs
ATTACHMENT 4
22
Issues, Issues, Problems Problems
Comments, Comments, Observations Observations
5. Need parking-related economic development
strategy
6. Not prepared for surge in employment
7. No commercial or residential parking
requirements
8. Downtown employees and CSU students impact
neighborhoods
ATTACHMENT 4
23
9. Need to prepare for Mason Corridor impacts
10.Change in community’s culture has more people
seeking to utilize alternative transportation
11.Need to provide different types/design of bike
parking
12.People don’t know about their parking options
13.Wayfinding improvements are needed
Issues, Issues, Problems Problems
Comments, Comments, Observations Observations
ATTACHMENT 4
24
14.Employees parking on-street
15.Many employees don’t have access to, or are
unwilling to use, off-street parking
16.Very high occupancies of core on-street parking
and public surface lots
17.Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage
avoidance”
18.Danger of becoming “enforcement zone”
Issues, Issues, Problems Problems
Comments, Comments, Observations Observations
ATTACHMENT 4
25
Issues, Issues, Problems Problems
Comments, Comments, Observations Observations
19.Two-hour time-limit not meeting customer needs
20.Some business owners very concerned about
lack of Saturday/evening enforcement, but
questionnaire says otherwise
21.Lack of business involvement and accountability
in parking management decisions
22.Need for more collaboration between City and
Downtown businesses
ATTACHMENT 4
26
23.Public/private partnerships key to future
improvements
24.More parking infrastructure will be needed in the
future, but no revenue streams have been
identified to pay for it
25.Parking is the “giant unfunded liability”
Issues, Issues, Problems Problems
Comments, Comments, Observations Observations
ATTACHMENT 4
27
Discussion Discussion of of Key Key Ideas Ideas
• These are not recommendations
• Many of these are linked or inter-related
• It’s a community decision – do we:
– Leave these on the table?
– Take them off the table?
– Modify? Change? Augment?
• What’s missing?
ATTACHMENT 4
28
1A. Explore new tools to address parking
demand generated by new development.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
New New Development Development
ATTACHMENT 4
29
2A. Explore development of an
integrated access management
strategy that includes parking,
transit, bikes and pedestrian
modes of travel.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Integrated Integrated Access Access Management Management
ATTACHMENT 4
30
3A. Explore the creation of a
parking marketing,
education, and
communication strategy that
provides clear messages
and identity for the
Downtown parking program.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Marketing, Marketing, Education, Education, Identity Identity
ATTACHMENT 4
31
4A. Explore the creation of a
residential parking permit
program.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Residential Residential Permits Permits
ATTACHMENT 4
32
5A. Explore cooperative efforts
between the City and employers
to reduce on-street parking by
employees in high demand areas.
And
5B. Explore strategies to promote off-
street parking options for longer-
term parking.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Employee Employee Parking Parking
ATTACHMENT 4
33
5C. Evaluate paid on-street
parking, to include a pilot
program with meters that
offer some amount of free
“up front” time.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
On-On -Street Street Pricing Pricing
ATTACHMENT 4
34
5D. Explore expanded
enforcement into the
evening and on Saturdays.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Expanded Expanded Enforcement Enforcement
ATTACHMENT 4
35
6A. Explore the creation of an
enterprise fund for
parking.
6B. Explore existing and new
funding sources for
parking infrastructure and
program development.
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Funding Funding
Maple
Jefferson
Meldrum
Peterson
Mulberry
THE GID
I
ATTACHMENT 4
36
Key Ideas for Further Discussion
Organization Organization
6C. Explore ways to involve the business
community in parking management
decisions such as an ad-hoc parking
committee composed of Downtown public
and private stakeholders.
ATTACHMENT 4
37
Recap Recap of of Key Key Preliminary Preliminary Ideas Ideas
1A. New Development
2A. Integrated Access Management
3A. Marketing, education, identity
4A. Residential permit program
5A.B. Employee Parking
5C. On-Street Pricing
5D. Expanded enforcement
6A.B. Funding
6C. Organization
ATTACHMENT 4
38
Next Next Steps Steps
• Analysis of preliminary Parking Plan ideas
• Prepare guiding principles and strategies
• Continue public outreach
• Boards and commission meetings
• Council Work Session February 2012
• Council considers approval April 17
ATTACHMENT 4
39
General General Direction Direction Sought Sought and and Specific Specific
Questions Questions to to be be Addressed Addressed
• Does the Council have any questions or
comments about the Parking Plan process?
• Regarding the preliminary Parking Plan ideas
listed in Attachment 1, does the Council have
any additional ideas that it would like staff to
explore, or ideas that it would like staff to revise
or remove from the list?
ATTACHMENT 4
Excerpt from the October 17, 2011, Air Quality Advisory Board Minutes:
Parking Plan Update
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner in Advance Planning, provided an informational
update to the AQAB on the Parking Plan project. He will be sharing initial findings from
the Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel.
Timothy Wilder reported that there are several parking issues that need to be
addressed:
o Long-term parking
o On-street parking in downtown core
o Funding
o Customer experience
o Neighborhood impacts
o People trolling for parking
Nancy York has observed trolling and suggested further study.
Timothy Wilder stated it is hard to verify how much time people
spend trolling. Some of the information came from his survey.
Hugh Mackay stated the City’s anti-idling campaign cites the
amount of greenhouse gases put into the air by vehicles that are
idling. He asked if a data point like that is available for people
who are trolling. Timothy Wilder stated it would have to be an
estimated number based on various assumptions. Lucinda Smith
clarified the idling numbers are estimates also.
Who currently pays for free parking is a long time debate
o Dennis Georg asked if the City has insight on what is the dollar impact to
business for parking spaces. Timothy stated it was estimated in the past
by a consultant as 25 % of sales.
Currently there is no source of funding for the parking program. It is self funded
but only supports the basic program
They are looking at how to expand the customer experience and downtown
experience.
They are also looking at neighborhood impacts and what are the impacts of CSU
and downtown development.
Parking Data collection of :
o Inventory of all parking spaces
o Occupancy counts
o Turnover of on-street parking areas for representative blocks
o Bike parking
o Parking demand model
o Dennis Georg suggested this data be part of the model and something to
inform what we think the growth will be.
Timothy Wilder stated this tool will allow us to have local land
use and development data and be able to look at what the
generators are today in the downtown area, also what are
alternative modes.
ATTACHMENT 5
1
Parking inventory
o 11,000 parking spaces
o 7410 off street, 1,982 public, 6,428 private, 3,690 on street
o Dennis Georg stated that knowing how many private parking spots are
reserved for customers would be a good number to have to help
understand the depth of the problem we really have.
Timothy Wilder stated they do not have that information but most
is employee parking. He also does not have a map of the spaces
that are under-utilized. He stated he was not sure, but thought those
parking spaces exist because the previous land use code required
them.
Dennis suggested number of employees be taken out of the data.
They did a bike rack count that shows how heavily occupied they are.
The on-line questionnaire had 1,047 responses, 858 non-business and 189
businesses. Questions and most common answers included:
o How often do you visit downtown and the most frequent reason you go
downtown - Dining
o How do you get downtown? – car and bike
o How long do you need to park. 1 – 2 hours
o If parking isn’t avail near destination what do you do - Park blocks away
and in garage
o Describe parking in downtown – most feel pretty good – biking good
o How convenient is parking in downtown for businesses – Convenient -
businesses, restaurant; inconvenient – services; retail was equal
To answer Dennis George who asked if they have data as to what
businesses provide parking, Timothy Wilder stated they do not.
o Choice of improvements for both businesses and non-businesses – wanted
more off-street parking, better parking signage and way finding
o Most people said they did not want to pay for on-street parking.
o First choice for parking management strategy - more efficient use of
existing parking – paid parking on street with lower prices in garage and
lots
o Most people did not want parking enforcement after 5 pm and on
Saturday.
o How to improve bike parking - better bike rack design
The parking panel invited six experts from around the country to look at situation
from an outside perspective. They spent three days interviewing people and
collecting information to get a handle on the situation. Their conclusions
included:
o The current parking plan is good, but there is room for improvement
o Parking management has limited tools
o Emphasis on customer service
o Upside down parking pricing
o Two hour parking may not be meeting needs
o Employee parking abuse of on-street parking is a major problem
ATTACHMENT 5
2
o Need for enhanced collaboration between parking management and
business community.
Parking panel recommendations included:
o Create a parking organization with a governance board composed of
downtown public and private stakeholders. Timothy Wilder stated there is
a parking organization in Cedar rapids that is comprised of city officials,
businesses and other stakeholders.
Dennis Georg wanted to know, since they will be using city funds,
who the governance board will be accountable to. Timothy Wilder
stated they report to City Council and their budget decisions are
approved by Council.
o Evaluate pros and cons of paid on-street parking with parking governance
board including the potential of a pilot program and free time.
o Revaluate parking requirements and regulations for new development.
Dennis Georg asked why this is not done currently. Timothy
Wilder stated they consider minimum parking requirements should
be market based, versus dictated by planning metrics.
Dennis wanted to know how parking will be dealt with that is not
generated by new development. Timothy Wilder stated if the
business doesn’t create the parking, the public role is not defined
yet.
o Establish an enterprise fund for parking; utilize existing and create
additional dedicated funding sources for parking infrastructure
development
o Develop a parking system brand identity and communication strategy.
o Explore expanding enforcement to evenings and Saturdays.
o Evaluate pros and cons of a residential parking permit zone program.
Dennis Georg stated North Cherry Creek had a similar program
because a lot of older homes had no parking.
Nancy York saw a report suggesting taking parking lines away
would create more efficient parking. Timothy Wilder stated that
is more suitable to parallel parking.
Discussion:
To answer Scott Groen, Timothy Wilder stated the parking structures’ top two
floors are not typically full on the weekends.
Rich Fisher suggested a different, out-of-the-box model where a bus could loop
around downtown at night and shuttle people downtown who park outside the
area. It could maximize the use of the downtown area for purposes other than cars
and help air quality.
o Timothy Wilder stated this was discussed at the university as a more
complete system of access; not just parking vehicles. We have plenty of
parking but we have a demand issue. We’re talking about a more
integrated complete system to access downtown.
Dennis Georg stated he does not like the concept of a parking organization and
suggested looking at it from a total transportation aspect with a more wholistic
ATTACHMENT 5
3
view of what the City needs. If you call it parking, people will park.
Transportation means other means of transit.
Hugh Mackay stated buses would be a disadvantage if you are shopping and
carrying purchases. It would be better for people going to restaurants.
Nancy York stated she though the people who shop are mainly visitors. She also
wondered about parking at bank lots in the evening. Timothy Wilder stated the
only way to create more parking spaces is to build parking structures.
Hugh Mackay stated he would like to see parking garages free and paid street
parking. He also liked the idea of giving another alternative like a circulating
trolley so people don’t have to park downtown.
Dennis Georg stated he agreed with having paid on-street parking because it is
one way to train people and is a fair system.
Timothy Wilder stated a report would be available by the end of the month and
can share with the AQAB. He would like to come back to the AQAB in January.
In the interim he invited the board to share any more comments by memo or
email.
ATTACHMENT 5
4
1
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 10, 2011
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238
Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970‐416‐2411
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn
Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim Anderson
Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Josh Kerson
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board: Kathryn Grimes
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Glen Colton
Parks and Recreation Board: Bruce Henderson
Poudre School District: MacKenzie Mushel
AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
ABSENT
At Large: TBD
At Large: TBD
Colorado State University: Joy Childress
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Transportation Board: Shane Miller
Senior Advisory Board: TBD
UniverCity Connections: TBD
City of Fort Collins:
David Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning
Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordinator
Craig Horton, Police Sergeant
Michael Trombley, Lieutenant
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner
ATTACHMENT 5
5
2
Call to order:
Meeting called to order at 6:03 PM.
Meeting officially called to order at 6:20 PM. (We reached a quorum.)
Action Items:
I. Downtown Parking Plan Update/Bike Park Element
Timothy Wilder –
I was here a few months ago with Matt Wempe, former Transportation Planner. As I
said before, it is a good thing that there is congestion for parking in our downtown.
REFER TO POWERPOINT
Dan Gould –
We are positioned well to balance bike parking with car parking. We have already
built parking infrastructure so that we have flexibility – for example, we could
convert car parking in garages to covered bike parking if there is demand for it.
Josh Kerson –
When we moved here, we noticed the New Belgium sponsored on‐street parking. I
love that part of our downtown; it shows that bike parking is a priority in this city. I
wonder if they are in jeopardy. I would suggest that they remain and be built upon.
David Kemp –
It is important to understand how those came about. We had a public/private
funding opportunity for the on‐street racks. Then we created a policy to determine
when and where we will implement on‐street bike racks in the future. There are a
lot of criteria – patio furniture, bike traffic, etc. Future on‐street bike parking will
use city funds unless they are unavailable. In that case, we will seek out a private
partnership that will be advertised discretely.
Rick Price –
Have you considered having a bike stand outside of every business? There are a lot
of new wrought iron patio fences that are, in my opinion, bike racks. I think we
should require businesses to not only allow, but encourage their use as bike racks.
Kathleen Bracke –
Previously, if a new business provided parking spaces for cars, they were required
to provide a percentage of those spaces in bike parking. These days, it doesn’t work
because downtown businesses are not providing car parking. Instead, we are
considering a new policy – bike parking will be a percentage of daily motorized
vehicle trips to the business.
Rick Price –
Can you require that a fence in the public right‐of‐way incorporates bike parking?
ATTACHMENT 5
6
3
Dan Gould –
Coopersmith’s has grain bin parking. That should count. When bikes are tied to
trees, there can be damage. We talked about providing a fence around trees as
multi‐use protection for trees and to create bike parking.
Josh Kerson –
Is there another bike rental program that might hit the streets?
David Kemp –
There are no plans for that at this time.
Rick Price –
Tim, what other comments do you need from us?
Timothy Wilder –
Anything else. I don’t need recommendations, just your thoughts.
Glen Colton –
We need to keep our downtown healthy. Is the free parking causing other parts of
town to have less dining and business opportunities?
Timothy Wilder –
You are getting into the parking fee issue, which is very contentious. We can
manage parking by using time or money. Fee options will be discussed because it is
an important way to manage parking. Low demand areas can be priced differently.
As far as affecting business in the north versus south sides of Fort Collins, I’m not
sure it plays into that. We are not at max capacity for parking in downtown yet.
Kathryn Grimes –
I’m against paid parking. I think it’s inconvenient and the pay stations are a visual
nightmare.
Timothy Wilder –
New technology is more flexible now than it ever was. Pay stations don’t need to be
visually obtrusive. We need to look at all of the pros and cons of paid parking.
Mackenzie Mushel –
As far as paying for parking, I think it should be on the table. You can purchase
more time to stay in downtown and certain times can be free. We are lucky to not
have paid parking, but it is a luxury and it can’t remain that way as we grow.
Rick Price –
I’d like to see a coffee shop and a bar at the top of each parking structure. There
should be free parking in the structures and paid parking on downtown streets.
ATTACHMENT 5
7
ATTACHMENT 5
8
***DRAFT***
MINUTES
of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
October 19, 2011
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557
Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224.4864
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Policy, Budget, & Communications Manager, 416.2029
Ed Robert, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Sid Simonson Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager, 416.2058
Olga Duvall Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner, 221.6756
Gary Thomas Rick Richter, Engineering & Capitol Projects Manager, 221.6798
Pat Jordan Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director, 221.6140
Clint Skutchan
Shane Miller
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Councilmember Ben Manvel Dale Adamy, Citizen, 206.1875
John Lund
Sara Frazier
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Parking Plan Update – Timothy Wilder/Randy Hensley
This is the second of three presentations to this Board.
Responses to Dale Adamy’s concerns:
If bikes are left for more than 30 days we have the right to remove them, as it is not a storage facility,
but this is not a hard and fast rule. People who have automobile permits can leave their bike in the
cage for free. There is also a combo pass. Open bike racks are available at no charge.
Mason Corridor impacts are being evaluated (ridership, demand for parking for north to south riders).
Planning Process: Summer – Fall 2011 we are in demand modeling, surveys, issue analysis, holding
meetings with advisory panel, stakeholders, Boards, Council.
Recent Tasks: Triangulation of data rather than over-reliance on one source; Expert Advisory Panel &
stakeholder input; online questionnaire; data collection.
ATTACHMENT 5
9
-DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
October 19, 2011
Data Collection:
Inventory of all parking spaces (11,000 in the downtown area)
Occupancy counts (85% of on-street parking is occupied at any given time)
Turnover data
Bike parking
Parking demand model
Online Questionnaire:
1,047 responses (858 non-business; 189 business)
Advertised through multiple means.
Not verified for statistical representation.
Most non-business respondents frequent downtown 1 – 3 times per week.
Most frequent reason to come downtown was dining, followed by working.
Most people drove alone or with someone else to get downtown. Bikers came in third.
Most people/customers need to park 1 – 2 hours at a time.
When unable to find a close-in parking space, most people park a block or two away. Parking in a
garage or lot came in second, followed by circling the block looking for a space.
Most people found downtown parking to be very convenient.
The service industry is least satisfied with parking convenience.
Make more off-street parking available is the 1st choice of parking improvements desired by both
business and non-business respondents.
Over 60% of non-business respondents are not willing to pay a small amount to park close to their
destination.
Business respondents want more efficient use of existing parking.
Should the City enforce after 5p and on Saturdays? NO!
Better bike rack design was a clear choice for improving bike parking downtown.
Expert Parking Panel:
Six experts from around the country were invited to participate. They interviewed a great number of
people in a short amount of time.
Recommendations:
Organization: Create a parking organization with a governance board composed of downtown public
and private stakeholders. Questions: What is the model? Scope of authority?
Parking Pricing: Evaluate pros and cons of paid on-street parking with parking governance board
including the potential of a pilot program and free time.
New Development: Reevaluate parking requirements and regulations for new development.
Funding: Establish an enterprise fund for parking; utilize existing and create additional dedicated
funding sources for parking infrastructure development.
Customer Service: Develop a parking system brand identity and communication strategy.
Enforcement: Explore expanding enforcement to evenings and Saturdays.
Neighborhoods: Evaluate pros and cons of a residential parking permit zone program.
Miller: If you are not enforcing after 5p or on Saturdays & Sundays, it should be communicated,
because people leaving bars are being encouraged to move their cars, which seems to encourage
drunk driving.
Hensley: If vehicle owners let Parking Services know that they left their car overnight we extend the
courtesy of leaving their car alone and not ticketing them, so they can move it the next day. In the
context of the Parking Plan recommendations, this is a relatively small issue.
Miller: There is not a lot of motivation from the business element to have you do enforcement in the
evenings. Are they unaware that it could make the system better for them? Are they unaware?
ATTACHMENT 5
10
-DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3
October 19, 2011
Hensley: This is the recommendation of the Expert Panel. We won’t do anything that the business
community is strongly against.
Miller: One of your chart shows that parking on neighborhood streets is a possible solution. I don’t
like neighborhood permitting, but it does show that not mitigating downtown parking issues will
make it the option of choice. People are willing to walk further as parking prices increase.
Thomas: There is a double “gotcha” in the evening. Garages still require payment at night, although
on-street parking is free with no evening enforcement. Is the revenue worth it?
Hensley: The revenue is worth it. Incentive is the question.
Thomas: You opened with the comment of a new authority. The first thought that comes to mind is
added cost. If it is neutral or a cost savings it is worth it. If it is an additional expense, it seems to be a
non-starter.
Skutchan: What would this entity give you that you couldn’t get from T-Board, the DBA, and the
DDA?
Hensley: We would get accountability from a partnership with the businesses we serve. It is part of
our mission statement.
Skutchan: I get branding, but I’m not seeing how services will improve with a sweet little logo. How
does the branding change the need for usage? The wayfinding aspect is the most important.
Hensley: Branding is a starting point for messaging. It creates an image with the public and gives a
reminder that there are parking garages and surface lots within walking distance.
O’Toole: Regarding branding, the money could be used in a smart phone system that will let people
know where parking is available.
Hensley: I am in contact with the people who provide that app. We still need branding to get the
message out about the availability of the app.
O’Toole: This study relates to downtown. As a bike commuter, charging for parking encourages
alternative modes. If we do too much toward charging customers we begin to discourage use of the
downtown businesses.
Wilder: Integrated access management looks beyond parking to travel demand management tools.
Hensley: It is a common myth that paid parking scares people away. Improperly priced parking does.
Properly priced parking creates more good than time limits.
Jordan: I am for signage. Once in awhile I drive, and signage lets you know ahead of time if you can
park there or not.
Robert: We have two garages for public use. A third garage is on the board somewhere. If you had a
third one, would that help the situation?
Hensley: We are considering that in this Plan as a public/private partnership.
Bracke: The Downtown Circulator Shuttle was included in discussions as a way to connect outlying
parking structures with downtown.
Simonson: What is the time frame to implement this?
Hensley: April 2012 the Plan will go to Council. Changes to Codes would come after Council
adoption.
Skutchan: What does the funding model conversation look like?
Wilder: There will be follow-up action on that. We may make a recommendation, but additional work
will be required to come up with a funding structure.
ATTACHMENT 5
11