Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/22/2017 - RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RP3)DATE: STAFF: August 22, 2017 Seth Lorson, Transit Planner Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to garner direction for the RP3 program in terms of its geographic extent, the establishment of new zones, and the balance between resident and non-resident parking. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Clarify the purpose of the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3). 2. Should the program boundaries be strategically managed? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION June 13, 2017 Work Session At the June 13 Work Session, Council discussed the current status of the RP3 program. Generally, the program does not need a radical overhaul but a few items were asked to be addressed: 1. What is CSU’s parking and transportation strategy? The purpose of the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) needs to be clarified. Is the program intended to eliminate all non-resident parking in RP3 zones or should the program allow for a balanced occupancy in residential neighborhoods? Options: a. *Status quo. The program is currently designed for resident parking as evidenced by the low parking occupancy and few commuter permits issued. b. Increase parking occupancy. Make commuter permits more affordable, evident, and available (up to 70% occupancy). The program boundaries need to be strategically managed. Should the program be limited in geographic scope and employ a strategy to avoid spillover from RP3 zones? Options: a. Status quo. Allow the program to be implemented anywhere and add zones per resident petition and confirmation of 70% parking occupancy. b. *Create an RP3 management area where the program growth would be limited and employ a strategy to avoid spill over from RP3 zones as they are created. c. Initiate, without petitions, expansion of the RP3 zones to the furthest extent of the RP3 management area. *Staff recommendation. August 22, 2017 Page 2 Colorado State University (CSU) CSU staff provided the following overview of their parking and transportation strategy (Attachment 1): Plan The City and University share mobility values. CSU has planned growth with investment in making campus safe, walkable, and multi-modal, while protecting open space and embracing sustainability.  Substantial investment in alternative transportation, including a strong CSU-Transfort partnership providing high ridership services such as “Around the Horn” campus shuttle and other routes directly serving the campus.  Preserving open space in the midst of a building boom on campus and planning parking around the edges of campus. This also enhances campus safety by reducing opportunities for vehicle vs. car or pedestrian collisions. Constraints Due to state statute, parking must pay for itself at CSU. This means that all parking infrastructure and operations costs must be paid for by parking revenue.  Parking cannot be free and is of limited supply due to the university’s footprint. Management CSU Parking Services recently completed a process that was more than a year spent engaging students and employees about parking and transportation options that fit their needs, as well as discussing the parking budget, permit prices, and lower-cost options piloted last year and expanded this year that price parking permits for demand.  The University provides a 50 percent subsidy for its lowest paid employees to offset the cost of a permit.  CSU Parking Services has developed additional creative permit options, such as Monday-Wednesday- Friday permits and Tuesday-Thursday permits, which flex with professor and student class schedules.  In addition to adding lower cost parking areas for permit holders, CSU Parking Services is adding short- term pay-to-park spaces in high-demand areas, providing visitors as well as students and employees with more options for parking for the few hours they may be on campus a day. Status CSU parking and transportation strategy effectiveness.  About 15 percent of the University’s parking inventory is open during day-to-day business. This allows those driving to campus to find parking near their destination (a lack of parking may spur them to park in non-university parking areas) as well as provides for normal changes in parking demand due to time of day and University activities. High school visit, professional meetings, and special events all have an impact on parking on any given day.  Parking space inventory for permit holders and visitors are balanced. While turnover is not measured in all lots, studies show that parking in some areas on campus turn over 2.5 times per day.  The highest-demand parking lots are 85-90 percent occupied.  CSU’s Parking Services has also invested in alternative transportation, bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Students, employees, and guests pedestrian and bike counts at key points on campus and entering campus logged 2.556 million trips from Aug 1, 2016, to May 31, 2017. August 22, 2017 Page 3 RP3 Program Purpose The Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) was a recommendation of the 2013 Parking Plan and added to the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 24, Article V). The program was formed in response to the difficulty of residents finding on-street parking near their homes, primarily in the neighborhoods around Downtown and CSU. In the ordinance, the stated purpose of the program is to reduce “unnecessary personal motor vehicle travel, noise, pollution, litter, crime and other adverse environmental impacts; promote improvements in air quality; reduce congestion and/or hazardous traffic conditions in the neighborhood; increase the use of public mass transit; protect residents from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their property; preserve neighborhood living within an urban environment; maintain the convenience and attractiveness of urban residential living; preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and the property values therein; and safeguard the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.” The program standards require a permit to park except for the first two hours in most zones. Residents and their guests can obtain permits with the first permit free and an escalating fee scale for additional permits. Non-resident commuter permits are also available for $40 per month (only 17 are currently issued, and highest amount issued at any given time was 31 in Spring 2017). In RP3 zones, average parking occupancy has dropped to 36% after implementation, down from an average of 85% before the formation of the zone. With so few commuter permits issued and such low occupancy, the program has effectively made the streets in RP3 zones resident parking only. Options: a. *Status quo. The program is currently designed for resident parking as evidenced by the low parking occupancy and few commuter permits issued. b. Increase parking occupancy. Make commuter permits more affordable, evident, and available (up to 70% occupancy). The Parking Advisory Board recommends this option (Attachment 2). Manage Program Boundaries City Council asked staff to review the program and influences on the program and evaluate how to strategically manage its boundaries and growth. Staff identified two major factors in spillover parking: (1) The parking demand is generated in activity centers with limited or paid parking; and (2) The time/distance convenience of parking in neighborhoods adjacent to the destination outweighs the alternative of paying for parking. (1) Parking demand generating spillover comes from three primary land uses: institutional (CSU), commercial (Downtown), and multi-family residential (student housing). Staff mapped these land uses and “activity centers” - as identified in City Plan - to verify where current and future parking spillover will likely occur. (2) Motorists parking in neighborhoods are then walking or biking to their destination to avoid paying for parking. The walk and bike time from the perimeters of the current RP3 zones was compared against the park-n-ride times from various MAX stations.  1 mile radius from the core of CSU = 30 minute walk and 10 minute bike ride.  MAX Park-n-rides to University Station: o Drake Station = 5 minute MAX ride o Downtown (Civic Center Parking Structure) = 5 minute MAX ride o Swallow Station = 7:15 minute MAX ride o South Transit Center = 15 minute MAX ride Using this information, a boundary was drawn that represents the reasonably expected extent of spillover parking impact. Outside this boundary is far less convenient for a motorist to park and walk/bike than it is to park at one of the City’s park-n-ride facilities. August 22, 2017 Page 4 Staff recommends using the boundary, called the RP3 management area, as a tool for anticipating and managing the impacts of spillover parking. The boundary is useful in a two ways: (1) It will create predictability for neighborhoods and commuters to be able to expect where parking restrictions will occur. (2) Measures can be put in place to prevent spillover from newly created RP3 zones that result in disparate parking occupancies between adjacent blocks. As witnessed from a resident’s images of an empty street (RP3 zone) and a fully parked street one block over (not an RP3 zone). By allowing blocks adjacent to those petitioning to “fast track” into the zone, they will have the option to join an RP3 zone before the expected spillover parking gets to their street. Although the adjacent block may not have the minimum required parking occupancy (70%) and their residents had not petitioned to be included in an RP3 zone, staff will offer them the opportunity to vote into the new zone being created because they can reasonably predict that their block will be the next spillover parking area. Options: a. Status quo. Allow the program to be implemented anywhere and add zones per resident petition and confirmation of 70% parking occupancy. b. *Create an RP3 management area where the program growth would be limited and employ a strategy to avoid spill over from RP3 zones as they are created. c. Initiate, without petitions, expansion of the RP3 zones to the furthest extent of the RP3 management area. The Big Picture According to the Parking Plan, the City’s overall parking philosophy is to “develop and manage parking as a critical component of public infrastructure, and as a tool to promote and sustain economic health.” During the Parking Dialogue of the Downtown Plan, the principal question posed was, “how do we encourage people to park in appropriate locations based on the type of trip they are making?” For instance, two-hour on-street parking is appropriate for shopping in Downtown, while the parking structures are most appropriate for employees working an eight-hour-day. Or, parking on residential streets is appropriate for residents and their guests, while parking on CSU campus or at a MAX park-n-ride is most appropriate for students attending a day of classes. The RP3 program represents one tool in a larger toolbox of mobility management strategies. Other important tools that help alleviate spillover parking and provide parking predictability include offering alternatives such as park-n-rides, bicycle facilities, and new parking options in Downtown. Park-n-rides - Staff is working to provide viable and inexpensive alternatives to driving the entire distance to one’s destination. There are currently four parking areas along the MAX that can be used as park-n-rides: South Transit Center (171 spaces), Swallow Station (16 spaces), Drake Station (75 spaces), and Downtown Civic Center Parking Structure (910 spaces). The park-n-rides south of downtown are free and usually exceeding capacity. Staff is exploring more opportunities to expand and create more park-n-rides. The City received a grant from CDOT to evaluate park-n-ride opportunities along the MAX corridor and partners such as the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) have expressed interest in this effort. Additionally, as development is proposed along the corridor more opportunities for public-private partnerships arise. Downtown - In the near future, downtown will be offering new options to make it easier to find parking in appropriate locations. The new Firehouse Alley Parking Structure will be offering over 200 public parking spaces this fall. In 2018, staff will be launching a parking app that allows motorist to locate available parking and to pay to extend the on-street parking time limit. Follow-up - Staff is preparing a response to questions asked at the Leadership Planning Team (LPT) meeting. A read-before memo will be provided with RP3 policies and procedures and an outline of peer communities’ residential parking programs. August 22, 2017 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. CSU Parking Options Brochure (PDF) 2. Parking Advisory Board Memo - RP3 Program Recommendations (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Parking Options at CSU ATTACHMENT 1 Since the 1970s, the university’s master plan has called for parking to move to the perimeter of campus. Shifting parking from the campus core increases safety in areas dense with pedestrians, bikes and longboarders. It also helps to organize the university’s physical layout by making internal space available for the university’s academic and research focus. The university is experiencing a new level of growth, both physically and in our student, faculty and staff population. We’re also expanding the ways we engage the public, alumni and fans, by bringing them onto campus and sharing our collective university experience. These factors create an environment with a mismatch of growth and parking supply, as well as spark the creation of new options for how people come to and get across campus. Why does the university charge for parking on campus? State statute dictates that parking must pay for itself on campus. This means that no tuition or student fee, university or state funds support any aspect of parking (operations, maintenance, parking lot or garage construction). Students, employees and visitors who park on campus have to pay to park by purchasing parking permits or paying for short-term, metered parking. Parking permit, meter and citation revenue are the primary sources of income to support parking needs on campus. This revenue goes back into building and maintaining parking spaces, parking garages, enforcing parking regulations, and parking and transportation infrastructure. Why are permit rates increasing? Costs are going up. The costs of building and maintaining parking spaces – in a garage or on a surface lot – is ex- pensive, and the university has to keep pace. The majority of permits are increasing by 3 percent, an increase that keeps pace with inflation. But not all permits are increas- ing: This year we’re also introducing some new, low-cost permit options to give commuters a selection. What options are available to me, other than driving to campus and parking? All students and employees receive a free Transfort pass through student fees and Parking and Transportation Services support. You may ride any city bus route or MAX for free with your CSU ID, which acts as your pass. Parking and Transportation also supports multiple alternative transportation options. They’ll match you with a car- or van- pool, help you lay out a plan to commute by bike, on foot or longboard, and even offer flexible permits and programs if you only want to drive to campus occasionally. They’ve invested in miles of bike trail, dozens of transit options and creative solutions to help give any commuter options. How are decisions about parking permit rates made? Parking and Transportation Services has spent about nine months engaging campus to determine how parking will look in the future. The current proposal moving forward to the Board of Governors in May is the result of a shared commu- nity effort to find options and solutions. 2016 REVENUE Student Permits 33% Visitor Permits 3% Other Revenue 4% Citation Revenue 15% Faculty/Staff Permits 23% Short Term/Hourly Revenue 22% 2016 EXPENSES Salaries/Benefits 21% Debt Service 20% Deferred Capital Construction Capital Expenses 15% Transfer to Reserves 3% Operating/Misc 10% Lot Maintenance 5% Overhead 5% Technology 2% 19% Permit and citation fees pay for all parking costs. Those include day-to-day operations, garage and surface lot construction and maintenance, enforcement and equipment. It also funds alternative transportation options and support on campus, such as the Around the Horn shuttle, and transit passes for all employees that can be used on MAX and Transfort. This helps provide options for campus commuters who no longer drive across campus to meetings, or who choose to take alternative transportation to campus, providing parking options for others because the university has only a limited amount of space for parking on campus. Where do my permit and parking citation dollars go? Campus was engaged through four open forums, discussions with employee councils and ASCSU, significant work from the Parking Services Committee (which also is represented by all employee councils, ASCSU, and units from across cam- pus), and feedback from a parking consultant. In partnership with the Center for Public Deliberation, campus members had the chance to vote and comment on options. We worked within our current reality of the impacts of campus growth, congestion, diminishing parking inventory, increasing cost of living, and restrictions on parking in neighborhoods sur- rounding campus. From this feedback, we created a proposal that aims for the greatest good, while also providing options to accommodate the diverse needs of individuals on campus. We worked to match campus growth and diminishing parking spaces with commuting and alternative transportation options, and continue our focus on providing safe and efficient access to parking on campus, all while maintaining financial viability for Parking and Transportation Services. Through this process, we learned that, with a few changes, much of our current permit model best serves the greatest need. We also identified some changes, based on campus voices, such as creating some lower-cost permit options. No one plan will meet all needs, accommodate demand, and keep Parking and Transportation Services fiscally viable. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THE WORK OF AN INCLUSIVE PROCESS TO STRIKE A BALANCE OF MEETING NEEDS FOR OUR CAMPUS COMMUNITY. COSTS UNCHANGED $250 Research Blvd lot permit $12 daily permits $1.75 per hour at short-term pay stations 50% SUBSIDY for employees earning less than $35,000 COSTS INCREASING Faculty and staff annual permits Students who commute Reserved parking Includes current A section at Moby Residence Hall permits (did not increase to proposed rate in 2016) COSTS DECLINING New low-cost section of Moby lot: $400 faculty, staff and off-campus student permit (reduced from $582 or $536) New low-cost Ingersoll lot: $400 residence hall students (reduced from $628) $8 daily permits in Moby lot $6 daily permits in Research lot $1.25 short-term Moby lot Check with Parking and Transportation Services for more information about parking changes on campus, including new weekday permit and expanded reserve space permit options, and changes to permits for government vehicles, employees with more than 30 years of service and retirees. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 2016 TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers FROM: Parking Advisory Board RE: Feedback on Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) and Large Stadium Event Residential Parking During the February 13, Parking Advisory Board (PAB) meeting, City staff presented updates on Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) and Stadium Event Residential Parking Program. In response, board members discussed options for improving the RP3 program, including revisions to commuter permit rules and issues regarding parking in residential neighborhoods during large stadium events. The Board offers the following comments and recommendations to Council on these programs: RP3 Commuter Permits Recommendation: Provide additional opportunities for non-residential parking in RP3 zones by making commuter permits more available. Observations and comments: • Commuter permits currently cost $40 per month. • Staff presented evidence to the board that occupancy in RP3 zones is well below the 70% threshold used to determine eligibility for formation of a zone. Occupied spaces vary from 25% - 50% of the total number available (except for Spring Court, a one-block zone). • The intent of the RP3 zone was not to create “parking deserts” but to allow residents the opportunity for a parking space in their neighborhood. • PAB suggests evaluating the price of commuter permits and lowering the cost depending on the demand for parking. • To reduce the impact on residents, it is suggested to lower the maximum occupancy rate (from 70% to 60%) above which no commuter permits can be sold and to assign commuter permits to block faces. • City staff should do more to promote the availability of commuter permits through signage, education and online access to permits. Large Stadium Event Residential Parking Recommendation: Do not form an RP3 program for CSU Game Days. Attachment C ATTACHMENT 2 PARKING ADVISORY BOARD Chair, Holly Wright Vice Chair, Bob Criswell Observations and comments: • The concept of permit parking with fines for non-permitted vehicles is unwelcoming to visitors to the community. • Parking in neighborhoods that border CSU is a parking resource that will be needed for the potential volume of cars that need to be accommodated for large events. It also may help with traffic congestion after events if cars are spread around the campus. • A permit parking program for large events will prevent gatherings of students and Fort Collins residences at homes in the RP3 zones that wish to assemble and celebrate before and after the games. • If RP3 is offered, large event parking permits must be offered to nonresidents. 1 Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) Seth Lorson August 22, 2017 ATTACHMENT 3 June 13, 2017 - What we heard 1. What is CSU’s parking and transportation strategy? 2. Clarify the purpose of the program. 3. Strategically manage the program boundaries. 2 CSU Parking and Transportation Strategy PLAN: A safe, walkable, bikeable, multi-modal, sustainable campus. CONSTRAINTS: As an enterprise fund, parking must pay for itself. MANAGEMENT: Manage parking resources based on pricing for demand, time of day/week/year, turn-over, and efficiency. STATUS: High transit ridership, high bike mode split. 3 Clarify the Purpose of the Program Is the program intended to eliminate all non-resident parking in RP3 zones or should the program allow for a balanced occupancy in residential neighborhoods? 4 70% Occupancy: RP3 Eligible 5 85% Occupancy: Before RP3 6 36% Occupancy: After RP3 7 50% Occupancy 8 100% Occupancy 0% Occupancy 36% ?70% 85% 9 Strategically Manage RP3 Boundaries Should the program be limited in geographic scope and employ a strategy to avoid spillover from RP3 zones? 9 10 Analysis Parking Demand Generators: • CSU • Commercial • Multi-family • Activity Centers 10 11 Analysis Parking Demand Generators: • CSU • Commercial • Multi-family • Activity Centers 11 12 Analysis Travel time: • Time to walk/bike from neighborhoods: • 30 minute walk • 10 minute bike • Time to ride transit from park- n-rides • 5 minute MAX ride 12 13 Strategically Manage RP3 Boundaries RP3 Management Area • Extent of program growth • “Fast track” adjacent areas into RP3 zone • Creates predictability 13 14 Strategically Manage RP3 Boundaries RP3 Management Area • “Fast track” adjacent areas into RP3 zone 14 Proposed Zone Expansion with >70% occupancy (VOTE) Directly adjacent block with <70% occupancy (VOTE TOO) Outside block with <70% occupancy (MONITOR) EXISTING RP3 ZONE Big Picture 15 Overall Parking Philosophy • Parking Plan and Downtown Plan Ongoing Work • Park-n-rides: CDOT - Station Area Plan • Coordination with CSU • City Plan QUESTIONS 1. Is the program intended to eliminate all non-resident parking in RP3 zones or should the program allow for a balanced occupancy in residential neighborhoods? Options: • *Status quo. The program is currently designed for resident parking as evidenced by the low parking occupancy and few commuter permits issued. • Increase parking occupancy. Make commuter permits more affordable, evident, and available (up to 70% occupancy). 2. Should the program be limited in geographic scope and employ a strategy to avoid spillover from RP3 zones? Options: • Status quo. Allow the program to be implemented anywhere and add zones per resident petition and confirmation of 70% parking occupancy. • *Create an RP3 management area where the program growth would be limited and employ a strategy to avoid spill over from RP3 zones as they are created. • Initiate, without petitions, expansion of the RP3 zones to the furthest extent of the RP3 management area. 16 17 THANK YOU