Short Street Garage Study

PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
SHORT STREET
COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
Prepared for:
KEN KOOPMANS
CITY OF COLUMBIA
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER
DECEMBER 2010
850 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite 310
Chicago, IL 60607
Voice: 847.697.2640
Fax: 847.697.7439
www.walkerparking.com
December 3, 2010
Mr. Ken Koopmans

Transportation Manager
City of Columbia
126 North Tenth Street
Columbia, MO 65205-6015
Re: Short Street Supply Demand Study

Columbia, Missouri
Project No. 31-6849.60
Dear Mr. Koopmans:
Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to provide the enclosed supply/demand and shared
parking analysis for the City of Columbia, Missouri. This report documents our findings and
recommendations regarding both the existing and future parking supply conditions in the North
Village Eco-Arts District of Downtown Columbia, MO.
We look forward to your comments and questions regarding the material provided herein and
also to discussing this report with the appropriate City representatives in the near future.
Finally, we appreciate the opportunity to serve both you and the City of Columbia.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
David W. Ryan P.E. Phill Schragal

Director of Operations Director of Operations Consulting
Enclosure
SHORT STREET
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I

Critical Findings ...........................................................................................................................ii
Parking Supply (curent) ..............................................................................................................ii
Parking Demand (current) ...........................................................................................................ii
Parking Adequacy (current) ........................................................................................................iii
Parking Demand (future) ............................................................................................................iii
Parking Supply (future) ...............................................................................................................iii
Parking Adequacy (future) ..........................................................................................................iv
INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................................2
Study Methodology.......................................................................................................................3
CURRENT CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Parking Supply (current) ................................................................................................................4
Effective Parking Supply ................................................................................................................5
Parking Demand...........................................................................................................................7
Parking Adequacy ........................................................................................................................8
Parking Adequacy Conclusions ...................................................................................................9
Parking Demand Ratio ..................................................................................................................10
FUTURE CONDITIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Future Land Uses ..........................................................................................................................11
Summary of Future Development Scenarios ..................................................................................11
Future Parking Demand .................................................................................................................14
Changes to Future Parking Supply ..................................................................................................16
Future Parking Adequacy ..............................................................................................................17
Walking Distance .........................................................................................................................18
CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------- 40
SHORT STREET
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Figure 2: On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Figure 3: Parking Demand (Current) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Figure 4: Components of the Preferred Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
Figure 5: Future Parking Supply (On and Off-Street) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Figure 6: Study Area ----- Walking Distances ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20
Figure 7: Study Area Block Designations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
Figure 8: On-Street Supply (Current) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
Figure 9: Off-Street Supply (Current) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
Figure 10: On-Street Demand (Current) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
Figure 11: Off-Street Demand (Current) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
Figure 12: Combined Demand (Current) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29
Figure 13: On-Street Parking Adequacy (Current) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
Figure 14: Off-Street Parking Adequacy (Current) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Figure 15: Combined Parking Adequacy (Current)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
Figure 16: Combined Parking Adequacy (Future) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Parking Supply (Current) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Table 2: Effective Parking Supply ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Table 3: Parking Demand (Current)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
Table 4: Parking Adequacy Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
Table 5: Parking Adequacy by Block (Current) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
Table 6: Summary of Proposed Future Land-Uses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13
Table 7: Proposed Future Land-Uses by Block ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Table 8: Base Parking Demand Ratios ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Table 9: Future Parking Demand Summary (Proposed Development Only) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Table 10: Future Parking Demand by Land-Use --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
Table 11: Future Parking Supply (Projected) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Table 13: Future Parking Adequacy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Table 12: General Standards for Level of Service (‘‘LOS’’) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
Table 14: Parking Adequacy by Block (Level of Service) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
Table 15: Parking Demand ----- Hourly Counts (Current) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
Table 16: Land-Use Information (Current)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
Table 17: Land Use Information (Future) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 36
Table 18: Shared Parking Demand (Future) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
Table 19: Parking Demand by Block (Future) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
SHORT STREET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Columbia, Missouri is contemplating the construction of a free-standing parking structure
(‘‘Structure’’) on Walnut Street and Short Street in the North Village Eco-Arts District of Downtown Columbia. In
an effort to properly size the Structure, the City engaged Walker to complete a supply/demand parking
analysis to assess existing conditions; also to develop a shared parking model using development data
provided by the City to project future conditions. Once constructed, the proposed Structure will reside in
blocks seven and twelve of the study area, as shown on the study area map included in Appendix “A” of this
report.
To best assess parking requirements in and around the proposed Structure, we used walking distance level of
service conditions to assess the overall parking adequacy within the core study area that will be served by the
proposed Structure.
Study Area: As Depicted in the 2010 Charrette Report
Source: Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010 and Walker Parking Consultants
i
SHORT STREET
Assuming full development, as outline in the 2010 Charrette Report provided by the City, a deficit of
approximately 524 spaces will exist in the level of service “A” walking distance area. This deficit shrinks to
422 spaces in the level of service “B” walking distance area, and expands to a deficit of 827 and 977
respectively, as you progress away from the proposed Structure into walking distances that are representative
of level of service “C” and “D” walking distances.
Based upon our analysis, the number of spaces required in the proposed Structure should range from
approximately 422 to 524 spaces. This assumes that all of the proposed development projects discussed
in this report will be completed in the future.
CRITICAL FINDINGS
The supply/demand study revealed that under current conditions, the North Village Eco-Arts District (study area)
experiences a high level of on-street parking demand during peak weekday periods; moreover, the on-street
parking adequacy on several blocks within the study area is deficient or greater than 85 percent occupied.
This level of occupancy represents the approximate maximum level at which conditions begin to deteriorate
and parkers perceive problematic conditions within the system. Using this study as a barometer, we anticipate
that parking adequacy both on and off-street will deteriorate even further as future growth and development
occurs in downtown Columbia.
We completed our study of the supply/demand conditions on a typical weekday in October during a non-
event period in which the observed activity was representative of typical weekday activity in downtown
Columbia. The following summarizes the critical findings resulting from Walker’s supply/demand study and
shared parking analysis.
PARKING SUPPLY (CURENT)
A total of 2,522 ± parking spaces are located in the study area; 585 ± or 23 percent are located on-street
and 1,937 ± or 77 percent are located off-street. We assumed an 85 percent effective supply for all on-
street spaces and 95 percent for all off-street facilities. In total, 185 spaces or fifteen percent of the on-street
and five percent of the off-street spaces constitute the effective supply cushion assumed for this study.
PARKING DEMAND (CURRENT)
To determine the peak parking demand, occupancy counts were conducted at regular intervals on October
27th and 28th, 2010, beginning at 9:00 AM; subsequent counts were also taken at 11:00 AM, 1:00 PM,
and 3:00 PM with a final count conducted at 6:00 PM in the evening.
The off-street demand peaked at 11:00 AM when over 65 percent of the off-street effective supply was
occupied; on-street demand peaked at 6:00 PM when over 92 percent of the on-street effective supply was
occupied. Assuming peak demand conditions (using only the observed peak hour demand counts), over 75
percent of all spaces were occupied (97 percent on-street and 69 percent off-street).
ii
SHORT STREET
PARKING ADEQUACY (CURRENT)
On the weekday survey dates, the study area exhibited a surplus of 565 spaces as slightly over 69 percent of
the effective parking supply was occupied. Examined on a block-by-block basis, 74 percent of the on-street
blocks exhibited peak demand rates that exceeded 95 percent of capacity and over 84 percent of the on-
street blocks were greater than 85 percent occupied. Slightly over 37 percent of the blocks studied (seven of
nineteen blocks), contained off-street parking facilities that exhibited 85 percent occupancy or greater.
While the study area parking supply is adequate overall, several on-street block faces are heavily used during
peak hours, which may cause parkers to ‘‘cruise’’ for parking. To address these heavily used on-street
conditions, the City should consider adjusting meter rates to encourage turn-over and to also discourage long-
term use of these spaces, which are the most desired spaces in the system. In the future, the City should strive
to accommodate long-term employee parking in the off-street parking facilities. To this end, the City should
also clearly sign and market all off-street parking facilities to the public as convenient parking alternatives.
PARKING DEMAND (FUTURE)
We used future land-use information provided by the City, as well as future land-use data contained in the
2010 Charrette Report, to project future parking demand, also to project the approximate number of spaces
required for the proposed Structure. We developed base parking ratios using the current observed demand
as well as Shared Parking1, to project the future parking demand on weekdays and weekends.
The resulting future parking demand projected for the study area is 2,656 vehicles on peak weekdays. This
number includes a projected demand of 1,098 vehicles for the proposed future development projects, which
is equal to 0.92 vehicles per ksf of occupied land-use space (consistent with Shared Parking’s future
projection), and 1,558 vehicles for the current land-uses that will remain in the future; calculated using the
current parking demand ratio of 0.95 vehicles per ksf of occupied land-use space.
PARKING SUPPLY (FUTURE)
Assuming the proposed developments are constructed, changes will occur to the current parking supply. We
estimate the off-street parking capacity will be reduced by approximately 693 spaces, resulting in a total on
and off-street parking supply of 1,829 spaces compared to the current supply of 2,522 spaces.
While we project a loss of parking spaces attributed to this new development, we intentionally did not project
a corresponding gain in the number of parking spaces, as we believe the City will consider zoning variances
for new development that resides within close proximity to the proposed Structure.
1
ULI and Walker Parking, Shared Parking, 2005, revised November 2008
iii
SHORT STREET
PARKING ADEQUACY (FUTURE)
In conclusion, the projected future supply and demand was combined with the peak observed demand
(current) to project the future study area parking adequacy for a peak weekday. Assuming the proposed
developments are constructed as outlined in our analysis, a deficit of approximately 977 ± spaces is projected
to occur in the future. Finally, if the City requires future developments that reside outside an acceptable level of
service area (e.g. walking distance from the proposed Structure) to meet the appropriate zoning requirements
for parking, the projected future parking deficit could effectively be reduced.
iv
SHORT STREET
INTRODUCTION
The North Village Eco-Arts District (‘District’’) or study area is focused on the intersection of College Avenue
and Broadway, encompassing portions of Columbia’s three college and university campuses. Surrounded by
vibrant, historic neighborhoods including North Central and the Benton-Stephens Neighborhood, the District is
a predominantly residential area with consolidated sections of obsolete light industrial development2.
The future concept for the District priority area is to create a new gateway to Downtown by enhancing the
existing character of institutional development at the entry points and edges of the node; completing and
extending the street network to form new connections; and establishing a neighborhood centered on a new
park and market, well served by multiple modes of transportation, and defined by a diversity of housing, and
3
an eclectic composition of people .
In conjunction with the future planning outlined in the Charrette Report, the City of Columbia (‘‘City’’) is
contemplating the construction of a free-standing parking structure to be located within the District on Walnut
Street and Short Street (‘‘Structure’’). In an effort to properly size the Structure, the City engaged Walker
Parking Consultants (‘‘Walker’’) to complete a supply/demand parking analysis to assess existing parking
conditions; also to develop a shared parking model using future development data provided by the City to
project future parking conditions within the District.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this study is to quantify the following: 1) the current parking supply/demand
conditions, 2) the impact of changes in parking conditions relative to future potential development within the
District or study area, 3) future parking demand based upon Walker’s Shared Parking model, and finally 4)
the approximate number of parking spaces required in the proposed Structure.
STUDY AREA
The study area consists of nineteen city blocks, loosely bound by Rogers Street on the north, Locust Street on
the south, St. James, Ripley and Willis Streets on the east, and Ninth Street on the west. Portions of the
Stephens and Columbia College campuses and the University of Missouri campus reside within the study area,
as well as core businesses, retail and entertainment establishments, and residential neighborhoods. Figure 1
in Appendix “A” provides an aerial photo of the study area and the block number assignments used for this
analysis.
2
Charrette Report, The City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010, prepared by: the City of Columbia and the Downtown Leadership Council by
H3 Studio.
3
Ibid.
1
SHORT STREET
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Several terms used throughout this report have unique meanings when used throughout the parking industry. To
clarify these terms and enhance reader understanding, definitions for some of the terms are provided below.
o Demand ----- The number of spaces required to satisfy the visitor, employee and resident parking
requirements on a given day.
o Demand Generator ----- Any building, business, retail establishment or attraction that brings individuals
into the study area, thereby increasing parking demand and occupancy.
o Effective Supply ----- The effective supply accounts for the fact that 100 percent of the total parking
supply or capacity is not always usable, due to the need to find parking by circulating within a facility
or around a block, also to accommodate maneuvering into and out of spaces. Effective supply
generally ranges from 85 percent to 95 percent of the total supply. For the purposes of this study, an
85 percent effective supply is assumed for on-street facilities (accounting for higher visitor use) and 95
percent is assumed for off-street facilities (accounting for a higher share of monthly contract or permit
parkers).
o Inventory ----- The total number of parking spaces counted and verified during field observations; used to
account for all parking observed within the defined geographical study area.
o Occupancy (Counts) ----- The number of vehicles observed as parked during the field survey.
o Parking Adequacy ----- The difference between the effective parking supply and the observed or
projected demand.
o Private Parking – A parking space that is restricted from public access and primarily used to satisfy
private parking requirements, regardless of ownership.
o Public Parking – A parking space that is available for use by the general public on an hourly, daily
and/or monthly basis.
o Survey Day(s) ----- The day(s) when parking inventory and occupancy counts were field verified within the
study area.
2
SHORT STREET
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Walker field verified the inventory of parking spaces within the study area and subsequently adjusted the
supply to an “effective” parking supply. We also tabulated the inventory by block and categorized the supply
as on-street, off-street, public, permit or private. The actual parking demand within the study area was
determined by conducting a field survey of actual parking occupancy on October 27th and 28th and recording
the number of vehicles observed in parking spaces on a block-by-block basis. Counts were conducted at
regular intervals beginning at 9:00 AM, with subsequent counts taken at 11:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 3:00 PM
with a final count conducted at 6:00 PM in the evening. These counts were used to determine the peak
parking demand and occupancy as well as the parking adequacy (by block) and parking demand ratio.
Parking adequacy is determined by comparing the observed peak parking demand against the calculated
effective parking supply; the parking demand ratio is the peak hour ratio of parked vehicles per one thousand
square feet of building area or leasable building area.
The City provided the aforementioned Charrette Report that Walker used to project future land-uses attributed
to development. We also used this data to project the impact on the future parking supply and parking
demand. To assess the overall future parking adequacy, we applied Shared Parking’s recommended parking
demand ratios to the proposed future land uses, assumed similar parking demand to today on the existing
land-uses that will remain, and finally we added or subtracted from the future parking supply, considering the
block and future development type. The flow chart below summarizes the steps taken to project existing and
future parking conditions in the study area.
Figure 1: Study Methodology
Identify future
Inventory parking Conduct parking
developments and
supply occupancy counts
characteristics
Classify parking Quantify the parking

Determine peak
supply: Public, demand for future
parking demand
Private, On-Street developments
Determine the Compare the peak

Calculate the future
"effective" parking occupancy to the
parking conditions
supply effective supply
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
3
SHORT STREET
CURRENT CONDITIONS
This section of the report documents our field study of observed conditions with regard to the current parking
supply and demand characteristics within the study area. The information contained herein serves as the basis
for our analysis; moreover, in this section we discuss the parking supply, effective parking supply, observed
parking demand, current parking adequacy and dynamics of the overall parking system.
PARKING SUPPLY (CURRENT)
The foundation of a parking supply and demand study is an inventory of the existing supply. By examining the
parking supply and comparing it to the parking demand, we quantify the parking surplus or deficit that exists
or potentially will exist with future development.
The City provided Walker with a detailed inventory of the existing parking supply for this study. We field
verified the study area supply and made minor changes to the stated totals based upon the field survey results.
Assuming our adjusted totals as shown in the table below, a total of 2,522 ± parking spaces reside within the
4
study area .
Table 1: Parking Supply (Current)
Parking Supply (Current)

Off-Street On-Street Combined
Type Spaces Location Spaces Spaces
Private 951 North Side 128
Permit 807 South Side 183
Public 179 East Side 143
West Side 131
Total 1,937 585 2,522
77% 23%
We categorized the inventoried supply as either on-street (located on the north, south, east or west side of
each street respectively) or off-street (public, private or permit as designated). Figure 2 on the following page
graphically depicts the percentage of spaces allocated to on and off-street parking.
Itemized by type, the actual study area spaces are as follows: 585 ± or 23 percent on-street and 1,937 ± or
77 percent off-street (951 private, 807 permit and 179 public spaces). The private and permitted off-street
spaces (1,758 ±) are signed for restricted-use and are meant to serve a particular business, group of
businesses or permit holder.
4
The inventory does not include private residential off-street parking.
4
SHORT STREET
Figure 2: On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply
WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƵƉƉůǇ;ƵƌƌĞŶƚͿ
Ϯϯй
ϳϳй
KĨĨͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚ KŶͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
Overall, just over 30 percent of the total parking spaces are available to the general public (585 on-street and
179 off-street), while the remaining spaces (70%) are located off-street in private lots that are restricted to
private (951 spaces) or permitted (807 spaces) users. In addition to the figure shown above, Figure 8 and
Figure 9 in Appendix “A” depict the existing on and off-street parking space inventory on a block-by-block
basis for the entire study area.
EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY
The effective parking supply accounts for the fact that 100% of the total parking supply or capacity is not
always usable due to the need to find parking by circulating within a facility or around a block; also to
accommodate maneuvering into and out of spaces. The effective supply generally ranges from 85 percent to
95 percent of the total system capacity.
For the purpose of this study, an 85 percent effective supply will be assumed for on-street facilities (accounting
for higher visitor use) and 95 percent for off-street facilities (accounting for a higher share of restricted areas
that serve monthly contract or permit parkers).
Typically, a parking system operates at peak efficiency when the actual occupancy is less than the total
supply; moreover, when occupancy exceeds this level, patrons may experience delays and frustration when
searching for a space. When these conditions exist, the parking supply may be perceived as inadequate,
even though spaces are available within the system. As a result, we use an effective supply when analyzing
the adequacy of a parking system rather than the total capacity or inventory of spaces. The following factors
affect efficiency within a parking system:
5
SHORT STREET
o Size: Large, scattered surface lots operate less efficiently than more compact facilities such as a
double-threaded helix parking structure, which offers one-way traffic that passes each available
parking space one time. Additionally, it is more difficult to find an available space in a widespread
parking area rather than in a centralized parking area.
o Type of User: Monthly contract or regular parking patrons typically find the available spaces within a
facility more efficiently than infrequent visitors because they are familiar with the layout of the parking
facility. Daily users typically know where spaces are available due to their familiarity with the system.
o On-street vs. Off-street: On-street parking is less efficient than off-street due to the time it takes patrons to
find the last few vacant on-street spaces. Space availability is also typically limited to one side of the
street and patrons must often parallel park in traffic to use on-street parking spaces. A large majority of
the on-street spaces are also not striped or are signed in a confusing manner, which often leads to lost
spaces and/or frustrated patrons.
The table below details the effective parking supply calculated for this study on a block-by-block basis. In
total, 185 spaces (88 or fifteen percent of the on-street and 97 or five percent of the off-street spaces) or about
seven percent of the total supply, constitute the effective supply cushion.
Table 2: Effective Parking Supply

Parking Supply (Current)
Summary
On-Street Off-Street 85% 95%
1 2
On-Street On-Street Off-Street Off-Street Total Total
Block North South East West Private Permit Public Supply Eff. Supply Supply Eff. Supply Supply Eff.Supply
1 0 8 7 5 90 0 0 20 17 90 86 110 103
2 8 10 9 9 22 46 19 36 31 87 83 123 113
3 10 14 12 10 22 0 0 46 39 22 21 68 60
4 17 8 11 12 0 0 0 48 41 0 0 48 41
5 9 6 9 12 25 0 0 36 31 25 24 61 54
6 0 8 16 7 83 56 13 31 26 152 144 183 171
7 11 22 0 6 154 0 14 39 33 168 160 207 193
8 15 6 0 8 53 0 0 29 25 53 50 82 75
9 8 5 2 8 38 164 112 23 20 314 298 337 318
10 0 9 18 0 11 0 0 27 23 11 10 38 33
11 0 0 0 16 90 71 0 16 14 161 153 177 167
12 0 11 0 0 136 0 0 11 9 136 129 147 139
13 30 18 10 0 44 151 14 58 49 209 199 267 248
14 10 14 0 25 10 0 0 49 42 10 10 59 51
15 0 40 0 13 50 101 0 53 45 151 143 204 189
16 0 0 10 0 4 31 0 10 9 35 33 45 42
17 10 0 0 0 0 79 0 10 9 79 75 89 84
18 0 0 23 0 6 108 0 23 20 114 108 137 128
19 0 4 16 0 113 0 7 20 17 120 114 140 131
Totals 585 497 1,937 1,840 2,522 2,337
Notes:
1
On-Street effective supply is calculated as 85% of the total available supply.
2
Off-Street effective supply is calculated as 95% of the total available supply.
6
SHORT STREET
PARKING DEMAND
Parking occupancy counts were conducted at regular intervals on October 27th and 28th beginning at 9:00
AM. Subsequent counts were taken at 11:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 3:00 PM with a final count conducted at
6:00 in the evening. These counts were used to determine the peak parking demand depicted below in
Figure 3, as well as the current on-street, off-street and combined parking demand that is depicted on a block
by block basis in Figure 10 through Figure 12 in Appendix “A”. In addition to the hourly counts, we also
graphed the peak observed demand in each survey hour, this in an effort to depict conditions that could
transpire if peak demand levels occurred simultaneously throughout the study area.
Figure 3: Parking Demand (Current)
WĂƌŬŝŶŐĞŵĂŶĚ;ƵƌƌĞŶƚͿ
Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ
ϭ͕ϱϬϬ
^ƉĂĐĞƐ
ϭ͕ϬϬϬ
ϱϬϬ
Ͳ
ϵ͗ϬϬD ϭϭ͗ϬϬD ϭ͗ϬϬWD ϯ͗ϬϬWD ϲ͗ϬϬWD WĞĂŬ
ĨĨ͘^ƵƉƉůǇ;KĨĨͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚͿ ĨĨ͘^ƵƉƉůǇ;KŶͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚͿ
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, field survey October 27 and 28, 2010
The chart above shows the observed hourly demand within the study area (on-street and off-street), in
comparison to the calculated effective parking supply. A detailed accounting of the hourly counts is also
included in Table 15 of Appendix “A.”
Overall, off-street demand peaked at 11:00 AM when over 65 percent of the off-street effective supply was
occupied, while on-street demand peaked at 6:00 PM when over 92 percent of the on-street effective supply
was occupied. Finally, assuming peak demand conditions (using only the peak counts from any hour), over
73 percent of all spaces were occupied (94 percent on-street, and 68 percent off-street).
Finally, while the overall demand does not in itself indicate a parking shortage, when the figures are examined
on a block-by-block basis, several blocks experience a level of demand that indicates a parking shortage
during peak periods. Table 3 on the following page shows the on-street, off-street and combined peak
demand on a block-by-block basis.
7
SHORT STREET
Table 3: Parking Demand (Current)
Combined
Block On-Street Peak Off-Street Peak Peak Demand
1 18 66 84
2 36 71 107
3 42 19 61
4 48 0 48
5 36 14 50
6 24 90 114
7 33 89 122
8 27 28 55
9 23 151 174
10 22 11 33
11 14 130 144
12 3 67 70
13 46 143 189
14 22 3 25
15 26 96 122
16 10 32 42
17 10 61 71
18 23 106 129
19 18 98 116
Totals 481 1,275 1,756
PARKING ADEQUACY
Parking adequacy is defined as the ability of the parking supply to accommodate demand. The peak
demand, which is based upon the observed occupancy levels, is subtracted from the effective parking supply
to determine the parking adequacy in the study area. The overall study area parking adequacy is summarized
below in Table 4 .
Table 4: Parking Adequacy Summary

Parking Adequacy Summary (Current)
Type Eff. Supply Demand Adequacy % Occupied
On-Street 497 481 16 97%
Off-Street 1,840 1,275 565 69%
Total 2,337 1,756 581 75%
Examined in its entirety, the study area exhibited a surplus of 581 spaces during our field survey. Examined
on a block-by-block basis, Table 5 shows that 74 percent of the on-street blocks studied exhibited peak
demand rates that exceeded 95 percent of capacity; moreover, over 86 percent of the on-street blocks were
greater than 85 percent occupied. Additionally, 37 percent or seven of the nineteen blocks surveyed
contained off-street parking facilities that exhibited 85 percent or greater occupancy.
8
SHORT STREET
Table 5: Parking Adequacy by Block (Current)
On-Street Combined
1 2 3
Surplus (On-Street) Off-Street Surplus (Off-street) Combined Surplus (Combined)
Block On-Street Peak (Deficit) Occupancy Off-Street Peak (Deficit) Occupancy Peak Demand (Deficit) Occupancy
1 18 (1) 105.9% 66 20 77.2% 84 19 82.0%
2 36 (5) 117.6% 71 12 85.9% 107 6 94.5%
3 42 (3) 107.4% 19 2 90.9% 61 (1) 101.7%
4 48 (7) 117.6% 0 0 48 (7) 117.6%
5 36 (5) 117.6% 14 10 58.9% 50 4 92.0%
6 24 2 91.1% 90 54 62.3% 114 57 66.8%
7 33 0 99.5% 89 71 55.8% 122 71 63.3%
8 27 (2) 109.5% 28 22 55.6% 55 20 73.3%
9 23 (3) 117.6% 151 147 50.6% 174 144 54.7%
10 22 1 95.9% 11 (1) 105.3% 33 0 98.8%
11 14 (0) 102.9% 130 23 85.0% 144 23 86.5%
12 3 6 32.1% 67 62 51.9% 70 69 50.5%
13 46 3 93.3% 143 56 72.0% 189 59 76.3%
14 22 20 52.8% 3 7 31.6% 25 26 48.9%
15 26 19 57.7% 96 47 66.9% 122 67 64.7%
16 10 (2) 117.6% 32 1 96.2% 42 (0) 100.6%
17 10 (2) 117.6% 61 14 81.3% 71 13 85.0%
18 23 (3) 117.6% 106 2 97.9% 129 (1) 100.9%
19 18 (1) 105.9% 98 16 86.0% 116 15 88.5%
Totals 481 16 96.7% 1,275 565 69.3% 1,756 581 75.1%
4
Blocks >= 85% Occupied Total s.f 1,842,463
5
Blocks >= 95% Occupied Demand Ratio / ksf 0.95
Notes:
1
On-Street occupancy percentages calculated compared to the effective supply figure, not the actual supply.
2
Off-Street occupancy percentages calculated compared to the effective supply figure, not the actual supply.
3
Occupancy percentages greater than 85% on-street and 95% off-street are less efficient.
4
Assume total s.f. (land-use) that is currently occupied; vacant space is excluded.
5
Assume parking demand ratio based upon peak observed activity during Walker's field study; October 27 and 28, 2010.
Using colors to graphically represent the various levels of parking adequacy Figure 13 through Figure 15 in
Appendix “A” depict the on-street, off-street and combined adequacy on a block-by-block basis. In these
figures, the blocks highlighted in white indicate occupancy levels at or below 85 percent, indicating no
parking problem; blocks highlighted in yellow indicate occupancy that ranges from 85 to 95 percent or
marginal parking conditions; blocks highlighted in red were over 95 percent occupied; indicating a cause for
concern as patrons may consider these areas deficient and possibly problematic.
PARKING ADEQUACY CONCLUSIONS
As discussed, most parking systems typically operate at peak efficiency when the occupancy level is less than
the available supply; moreover, when occupancy exceeds this level patrons experience delays and frustration
in searching for a space.
9
SHORT STREET
While the study area parking supply is adequate overall, the on-street spaces on several blocks within the
study area are heavily used during peak hours. This may cause parkers to “cruise” for parking and also can
result in added traffic, increased congestion and vehicle emissions.
Strategies to consider that address conditions in these heavily used on-street parking areas include the
following:
o Aggressively enforced time-limits,
o Increased over-time fine structure,
o Implementing higher on-street parking meter rates that encourage turn-over, and also encourage the use
of the available spaces located in off-street public parking facilities, which reside within the study area
and are often under-utilized.
In conclusion, the City should consider adjusting meter rates to encourage turn-over. Higher meter rates will
discourage long-term use of the most convenient and desired on-street spaces in the system and will also help
support the use of the convenient available off-street parking options. Finally, all of the off-street parking
facilities must be clearly signed and marketed to the public as convenient alternatives to on-street parking.
PARKING DEMAND RATIO
The City provided Walker with a block-by-block list of all current land-uses that reside in the study area. For
reference purposes, a complete summarized list of the current land-uses (in square feet) is included in Table 16
of Appendix “A.” We used the land-use data to calculate the current parking demand ratio per 1,000 s.f. of
land-use (“ksf”) shown in Table 5 on page 9.
The current parking demand ratio (0.95/ksf) was calculated using the following formula: Total Land-Use (s.f.)
divided by 1,000, divided by Peak Parking Demand = Parking Demand Ratio (e.g. ((1,842,463/1,000) /
1,756)) = 0.95 vehicles/ksf of land-use space). The calculated current parking demand ratio is critical to
projecting the future parking demand. It is used to calculate the parking demand on the land-uses that will
remain in the future, in conjunction with the future parking demand ratio that we project for the proposed new
development, to project the number of spaces that will be required in the proposed Structure.
10
SHORT STREET
FUTURE CONDITIONS
As discussed, the City is contemplating the construction of a free-standing parking structure within the
boundaries of the study area. In an effort to proper size the proposed structure, the City engaged Walker to
complete the previously discussed supply/demand analysis to assess existing parking conditions and also to
develop a shared parking model that utilizes future development data to project future parking conditions
within the study area.
FUTURE LAND USES
Downtown Columbia is home to a number of restaurants, shops, nightclubs and businesses; local government
is also a large employer within the Downtown corridor. The Downtown district contains the County
Courthouse and City Hall buildings as well as both Stephens and Columbia College. The City is also home to
the University of Missouri, which resides within close proximity to the area studied by Walker for this report.
Local residents and students of these institutions regularly frequent the local government buildings and
downtown establishments, resulting in a vibrant atmosphere on weekdays and during the evening.
Additionally, when the University of Missouri hosts major events, Downtown Columbia attracts numerous out-of-
town tourists that also utilize Columbia’s array of downtown establishments.
The City is considering incentives for developers to redevelop unused or abandoned parcels of land as well as
parcels of land that currently contain surface parking lots to further enhance the Downtown area. With
potential development likely, and as the Downtown corridor expands, the future land-uses developed (i.e.
fine/casual dining, residential, office, and retail space, etc.) could have a profound effect on the existing
parking supply. To this end, Walker used future land-use information provided by the City as well as the future
land-use data contained in the 2010 Charrette Report to develop the future land-use table shown in Table 17
of Appendix “A.” We used information from the Charrette that pertains specifically to future plans for the
North Village Eco-Arts District, which basically mirrors the area studied by Walker, to project the future parking
demand as well as the approximate number of spaces required for the proposed free-standing parking
Structure planned for construction within the study area.
For this study, we itemized the future land-use data with regard to the approximate block in which the potential
development sites will reside, as well as to the likely future land-use. We also realize that many of the
development scenarios are speculative in nature with no specific timeline, while some may be closer to
becoming reality and are being discussed with the City in more defined detail.
In the sections that follow, we assess the impact that these future development projects may have on the study
area parking supply, parking demand and future parking adequacy, assuming the projects come to fruition.
SUMMARY OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Based on the 2010 Charrette Report, multiple development scenarios are discussed for the North Village Eco-
Arts District (study area). The concepts discussed in the Charrette include plans to create a new gateway to
Downtown by enhancing the existing character of institutional development at the entry points and edges of the
11
SHORT STREET
area; completing and extending a street network to form new connections; and establishing a neighborhood
centered on a new park and market, well served by multiple modes of transportation, and defined by a
5
diversity of housing and an eclectic composition of people. Within the preferred plan, there are a number of
more detailed key recommendations that are highlighted below in Figure 4 .
Figure 4: Components of the Preferred Plan
Source: Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, pg. 19, October 8, 2010
While it is highly unlikely that all of the scenarios outlined in the Charrette will occur exactly as described, it is
possible that other alternative scenarios may also arise over time. The list provided in the Charrette was used
as a tool to consider various options and the potential impact on the overall parking system. Table 6 on the
following page summarizes the proposed land-uses discussed in the Charrette Report, while Table 7
approximates the proposed land-uses by block within the study area.
5
Charrette Report ---- pg. 1.
12
SHORT STREET
Table 6: Summary of Proposed Future Land-Uses

Future Programming Summary (Projected)
Land Use Unit Total

Office s.f 141,400
Retail s.f. 63,400
Residential 1 s.f. 928,500
Hotel 2 (2,000 s.f. banquet space) rooms 112
Notes:
1
Assume 1,500 s.f. requirement per each residential unit developed;
assume 70% rental units, 30% owned units.
2
Assume 58,000 total s.f.; includes 2,000 s.f. banquet space per
conversation with Developer.
Source: Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010
Table 7: Proposed Future Land-Uses by Block

Future Programming (Projected) 1
Projected Displaced
Block Land Use Size Unit Displaced s.f. Spaces Added Spaces 3
1 Office 8,500 s.f. - 24 0
6 Office 16,800 s.f. 7,000 20 0
7 Office 12,700 s.f. 39 0
7 Retail 25,000 s.f. 15 0
7 Hotel 4 112 rooms 57,845 63 0
10 Residential 2 60,000 s.f. 16,684 11 0
11 Residential 2 277,500 s.f. 8,000 104 0
12 Office 29,700 s.f. 26 0
12 Retail 10,000 s.f. 7,780 10 0
12 Residential 2 112,500 s.f. 45,809 100 0
14 10 0
15 Office 73,700 s.f. 4,718 50 0
15 Retail 28,400 s.f. 35,744 50 0
15 Residential 2 366,000 s.f. 67,248 51 0
19 Residential 2 112,500 s.f. 120 0
Totals 1,191,300 250,828 693
Notes:
1
Future programming based upon Charrette Report, City of Columbia Downtown Leadership Council,
H3 Studio, October 08, 2010.
2
Assume 1,500 s.f. requirement per each residential unit developed; assume 70% rental units, 30% owned units.
3
Assume spaces required per code for each new development will be determined by City Plan Commission;
quantities unknown at this time.
4
Assume 58,000 total s.f.; includes 2,000 s.f. banquet space per conversation with Developer.
Source: Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010
13
SHORT STREET
FUTURE PARKING DEMAND
Each of the proposed development scenarios will generate its own unique parking demand that will be
predicated upon land-use type and size. Typically, parking demand ratios are used to project future parking
demand; these ratios are based on primary data collected from research by Walker, the Urban Land Institute
(ULI), and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The table below details the base parking demand
ratios (by land-use) used to project the future study area parking demand generated from the previously
discussed future development scenarios. Changes to the proposed land use assumptions may affect the
outcome of this analysis; however, for this report we assume the proposed land-uses discussed in the Charrette
Report and detailed herein will be implemented.
Table 8: Base Parking Demand Ratios

Weekday Saturday
Land Use Base Ratio Unit Base Ratio Unit
Retail (<400 ksf) 2.90 /ksf GLA 3.20 /ksf GLA
Employee 0.70 0.80
Hotel-Business 1.00 /room 0.90 /room
Employee 0.25 /room 0.18 /room
Meeting/Banquet 20.00 /ksf GLA 10.00 /ksf GLA
Office/Visitor 0.24 /ksf GLA 0.02 /ksf GLA
Employee 3.09 0.31
Residential/Condo 1.00 /unit 1.00 /unit
Visitor 0.15 0.15
Residential/Rental 0.60 /unit 0.60 /unit
Visitor 0.15 0.15
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model
We developed a Shared Parking6 model to project the future parking demand on weekdays and weekends
using land-use information provided by the City, data contained in the 2010 Charrette, and the base parking
ratios shown in Table 8 . The resulting parking demand (1,098 spaces) for the proposed developments is
summarized in Table 9 and detailed in the Shared Parking model (Table
Table 18)
18 shown in Appendix “A.”
Table 9: Future Parking Demand Summary (Proposed Development Only)

Future Parking Demand (Summary)
Office - Projected 130
Retail - Projected 58
Residential - Projected 856
Hotel - Projected 53
Sub- Total (Proposed Spaces) 1,098
6
ULI and Walker Parking, Shared Parking, 2005, revised November 2008
14
SHORT STREET
Similar to the parking demand ratio for the current system that was calculated using current land-use
information, we developed a parking demand ratio for the future land-uses using the same formula: Total
Projected Land-Use (s.f.) divided by 1,000, divided by Projected Peak Parking Demand (from Shared Parking)
= Parking Demand Ratio (e.g. ((1,191,300/1,000) / 1,098)) = 0.92 vehicles/ksf of land-use space). We
used the future parking demand ratio (0.92/ksf) combined with the current parking demand ratio (0.95/ksf) to
project the overall future parking demand for the entire study area as shown below in Table 10.
10
Table 10: Future Parking Demand by Land-Use
Parking Demand Future (Spaces)

Use Spaces S.F. Ratio/ksf
Office 158 165,690 0.95
Medical Office 9 9,760
Residential 225 235,798
Restaurant - Fast Food 49 51,772
Restaurant - Casual 35 36,654
Church 147 154,404
Retail 234 245,105
Bank 18 18,738
Nightclub 49 51,003
Government Administrative 27 28,744
Hotel - -
Cinema 13 13,640
School 12 12,846
Industrial Complex - -
Educational - College 466 489,021
Educational - Residential (Dorms) 65 68,316
Educational - College - Special Events 51 53,324
Sub- Total (Land Use) 1,558 1,634,815
Office - Projected 130 141,400 0.92

Retail - Projected 58 63,400
Residential - Projected 856 928,500
Hotel - Projected 53 58,000
Sub- Total (Proposed Spaces) 1,098 1,191,300
Total 2,656 2,826,115
Using Shared Parking to calculate the future parking demand ratio (.92 vehicles/ksf) generated from the
proposed developments and the current parking demand ratio (.95/ksf) to calculate demand on the current
land-uses that will remain in the future, the projected future parking demand for the study area is 2,656
vehicles on peak weekdays throughout the year.
15
SHORT STREET
CHANGES TO FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY
Assuming the proposed developments are constructed, changes will occur to the current parking capacity. We
estimate that the off-street parking supply will be reduced by approximately 693 spaces, resulting in a total on
and off-street parking supply of 1,829 spaces compared to 2,522 today, as shown in Table 11. 11 The
projected future percentage breakdown of the on-street (68 percent) and off-street (32 percent) parking
inventory is also graphically depicted in Figure 5 .
Table 11: Future Parking Supply (Projected)

Parking Supply (Future - Projected)
Off-Street On-Street Combined
Type SpacesLocation Spaces Spaces
Private 451 North Side 128
Permit 635 South Side 183
Public 158 East Side 143
West Side 131
Total 1,244 585 1,829
Figure 5: Future Parking Supply (On and Off-Street)
WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƵƉƉůǇ;&ƵƚƵƌĞͿ
ϯϮй
ϲϴй
16
SHORT STREET
FUTURE PARKING ADEQUACY
The future parking adequacy projections shown below assume completion of the previously discussed
development projects. The future parking supply and the projected demand (calculated using Shared Parking),
is combined with the peak observed demand (current) to project the future parking adequacy within the study
area. The shared parking methodology takes into account that peak periods occur at different times of day for
different land uses (e.g. rather than add the entire 117 vehicle demand projected for a restaurant on block 14
during the observed Tuesday 2:00 PM peak period, only 65% of the demand is added during this hour due to
the fact that the restaurant is projected to experience peak occupancy later in the evening between 7:00 and
9:00 PM)
Table 12 identifies the projected future parking adequacy on a block-by-block basis for a peak weekday,
assuming the proposed developments are constructed as outlined in our analysis. In total, a deficit of
approximately 977 ± spaces is projected to occur in the future. Figure 16 in Appendix “A” depicts the
projected future surplus and/or deficit in the study area on a block by block basis.
Table 12: Future Parking Adequacy

Parking Adequacy Future - Projected Surplus/Deficit (Spaces)
Effective Effective Effective
Supply Supply Supply Combined Surplus/
Block On-Street On-Street Total Peak Demand (Deficit)
1 17 63 80 36 44
2 31 83 113 56 57
3 39 21 60 88 (28)
4 41 0 41 115 (75)
5 31 24 54 66 (12)
6 26 125 152 96 56
7 33 48 82 203 (121)
8 25 50 75 74 1
9 20 298 318 33 285
10 23 0 23 55 (32)
11 14 54 68 323 (255)
12 9 0 9 157 (147)
13 49 199 248 143 105
14 42 0 42 99 (57)
15 45 0 45 436 (391)
16 9 33 42 239 (197)
17 9 75 84 171 (87)
18 20 108 128 98 29
19 17 0 17 167 (150)
Totals 497 1,182 1,679 2,656 (977)
17
SHORT STREET
WALKING DISTANCE
To best assess demand in and around the proposed Structure, we considered some general rules of thumb
regarding acceptable walking distances between parking location and destination. These rules are detailed in
an article authored by two of Walker’s senior team members, and titled “How Far Should Parkers Have to
Walk?7” The article was published in several trade publications including the Urban Land magazine and
Parking magazine. The article presents the concept that acceptable walking distance between parking and a
destination is based on several factors that include the following:
o Walking environment,
o Type of user,
o Desired level of service, as well as
o Market standards for acceptable walking distance.
Initially, the walking environment can dramatically increase or decrease how far a person is willing to walk; by
example, if the weather is fair, the surrounding neighborhood is safe, and the walking path affords easy
access, the acceptable walking distance can be maximized. Conversely, if the weather is poor, the
surrounding area appears unsafe or unwelcoming, and the path of travel is subject to severe grade changes or
multiple obstacles, the acceptable walking distances can be greatly reduced.
The type of user that will utilize a structure or lot also impacts acceptable walking distance; generally, there
are three types of end-users:
o Discretionary,
o Mandated, and
o Resident.
Discretionary users are usually customers, visitors or guests; moreover, they are usually unfamiliar with an area
or site and are normally coming to an institution or business by their own choice. Discretionary users typically
require parking within line of sight of an intended destination in order to successfully foot travel between
parking and destination. Because discretionary users can be easily dissuaded from returning to an institution or
business if their first experience is negative, they are normally afforded the closest spaces to common or
popular destinations.
Mandated users are people who must park at a location as part of other non-discretionary business. These
users are typically employees that drive to and from a location to work. Mandated users may be very familiar
with the area and thus do not require line of sight connections between parking and destination; moreover,
mandated users typically require some minimal level of proximity and ease of access between parking and
destination. This ease of access is needed to guarantee a smooth transition between home and work, or to
ensure quick retrieval of their vehicle when they must travel for meetings or other business.
Resident users are typically captive within a site or institution and these people do not need a vehicle to access
the site each day, but may require access to their vehicle from time to time to do business away from the site
or institution. These movements tend to be infrequent and planned; as a result, resident users do not require
7
How Far Should Parkers Have to Walk?, Mary S. Smith & Tom A. Butcher, Parking Magazine, September 1994
18
SHORT STREET
parking within close proximity of their destination to maximize speed of retrieval. Additionally, resident users
tend to be very familiar with the area and can be placed some distance from their destination without losing
their way.
Level of service (LOS) relates closely to end-user type and walking distance between parking location and
destination. Level of service is normally recognized as the walking distance between the parking location and
final destination relative to the predominating environmental conditions. Level of service for user-groups is
generally defined as follows:
o Discretionary users want and need parking proximate to their destination and are normally accorded
the highest level of service (LOS “A”).
o Mandated users do not need to be within line of sight of a destination, but need to be able to get from
their destination to their parked vehicle or the inverse in relatively short order (LOS “B” or “C”).
o Resident users need parking but know the area well and normally do not require parking within close
proximity to their destination to maximize speed of retrieval (LOS “D”).
Table 13: General Standards for Level of Service (‘‘LOS’’)
Environmental Condition LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D

Acceptable Walking Distances
Climate Controlled 1,000͛ 2,400’ 3,800’ 5,200’
Outdoor/Covered 500’ 1,000͛ 1,500’ 2,000’
Outdoor/Uncovered 400’ 800’ 1,200͛ 1,600’
Through a Surface Lot 350’ 700’ 1,050’ 1,400͛
Inside a Parking Structure 300’ 600’ 900’ 1,200’
These distances are based on general standards and do not incorporate market standards. Market standards
are variables specific to a location that may increase or decrease acceptable walking distance. For example,
in a small community’s central business district with limited competition for available parking spaces, and free
parking, acceptable walking distances may be half the standards shown in the preceding table; moreover, in
a major urban center with many users competing for a limited number of spaces, and parking priced at a
premium, acceptable walking distances may be double the standard shown above.
Acceptable walking distances can also be influenced by temporary conditions such as inclement weather. The
distance a user is willing to walk on a warm sunny day versus a cold rainy day, can vary significantly. In
locations where climatic conditions vary substantially, acceptable walking distance is often gauged by direct
observation of user behaviors during bad conditions.
For this analysis, Walker adopted the standard set forth in the 1996 study, which indicated that primary
parking facilities are considered Level of Service (LOS “A”) and should be allocated for the exclusive use of
customers and visitors. Secondary facilities (LOS “B”) should be allocated to visitor use first, and employee use
as capacity permits. Perimeter facilities (LOS “C”) should never be allocated to visitor use unless no other
alternatives exists and should be primarily designated as employee parking. Finally, based on the
characteristics of the study area we recommend striving for LOS “A” walking distances for patrons and LOS
19
SHORT STREET
“A” to “B” for employees that will utilize the new Structure planned for Downtown Columbia. Considering the
typical block size surveyed, this generally equates to one block for patrons and two to three blocks for
employees as depicted in the figure below.
Figure 6: Study Area ----- Walking Distances
20
SHORT STREET
CONCLUSION
The projected parking deficit (977 spaces) assumes future parking conditions will be directly impacted by the
number and type of development projects implemented over time. In Table 7 on page 13 we discuss the
impact of new development and project the number of spaces lost and added that will be attributed to the
proposed development projects. While we project a loss of space attributed to new development, we did not
project a corresponding gain in the number of parking spaces in regard to the proposed development
projects. This omission is intentional, as we feel the City will consider zoning variances for new development
that resides within close proximity to the proposed parking structure; moreover, the City will require future
developments that reside outside an acceptable level of service area (e.g. walking distance from the proposed
structure) to meet the appropriate zoning requirements for parking, which should effectively reduce the overall
projected study area parking deficit.
To best assess parking requirements in and around the proposed Structure, we used the walking distance level
of service conditions discussed herein to assess overall parking adequacy within the core area that will be
served by the proposed Structure.
Table 14: Parking Adequacy by Block (Level of Service)

Level of Service Future - Projected Surplus/Deficit by Block (Spaces)
1 2 3 4
Block LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
1 44
2 57
3 (28)
4 (75)
5 (12)
6 56
7 (121)
8 1
9 285
10 (32)
11 (255)
12 (147)
13 105
14 (57)
15 (391)
16 (197)
17 (87)
18 29
19 (150)
Sub-Totals (524) 101 (404) (150)
Cumulative (422) (827) (977)
Notes:
1
Level of Service A: Walking Distance = 300 to 400 ft.
2
Level of Service B: Walking Distance = 600 to 800 ft.
3
Level of Service C: Walking Distance = 900 to 1,200 ft.
4
Level of Service D: Walking Distance = 1,200 to 1,800 ft.
21
SHORT STREET
Once constructed, the Structure will reside in blocks 7 and 12 (refer to Figure 6 on page 20) 20 of the study
area. The parking adequacy depicted in Table 14 shows the projected level of service for the various
walking distances in relation to the proposed parking structure. Assuming full development, a deficit of
approximately 524 spaces will exist in the level of service “A” walking distance. This deficit shrinks to about
422 spaces in the level of service “B” walking distance and expands to a deficit of about 827 and about
977 respectively, as you progress away from the structure into walking distances that are representative of
level of service “C” and “D”.
In conclusion, based upon the results of our analysis, the number of spaces required in the proposed parking
structure should range from approximately 422 to 524 spaces. This assumes that all of the
aforementioned development projects discussed will be completed in the future.
22
PROJECT NAME (HEADER STYLE)
STUDY OR REPORT TYPE (HEADER 2 STYLE)
DATE OR PROJECT NUMBER (HEADER 3 STYLE)
SECTION TITLE
APPENDIX A
1
APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010
Figure 7: Study Area Block Designations
24
APPENDIX A
Figure 8: On-Street Supply (Current)
25
APPENDIX A
Figure 9: Off-Street Supply (Current)
26
APPENDIX A
Figure 10: On-Street Demand (Current)
27
APPENDIX A
Figure 11: Off-Street Demand (Current)
28
APPENDIX A
Figure 12: Combined Demand (Current)
29
APPENDIX A
Figure 13: On-Street Parking Adequacy (Current)
30
APPENDIX A
Figure 14: Off-Street Parking Adequacy (Current)
31
APPENDIX A
Figure 15: Combined Parking Adequacy (Current)
32
APPENDIX A
Figure 16: Combined Parking Adequacy (Future)
33
APPENDIX A
Table 15: Parking Demand ----- Hourly Counts (Current)
Summary - Parking Demand - Hourly Counts (Current)

Off-Street - Parking Demand
Location Supply Eff. Supply 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM Peak % of Total
Private 951 903 518 57.3% 554 61.3% 569 63.0% 463 51.2% 349 38.6% 569 63.0%
Permit 807 767 547 71.3% 556 72.5% 528 68.9% 525 68.5% 426 55.6% 556 72.5%
Public 179 170 74 43.5% 95 55.9% 75 44.1% 67 39.4% 131 77.0% 131 77.0%
Sub-Total (Off-Street) 1,937 1,840 1,139 58.8% 1,205 65.5% 1,172 60.5% 1,055 57.3% 906 46.8% 1,256 68.3%
On- Street - Parking Demand
Location Supply Eff. Supply 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM Peak % of Total
North Side 128 109 83 76.3% 90 82.7% 93 85.5% 88 80.9% 117 107.5% 117 107.5%
South Side 183 156 118 75.9% 121 77.8% 127 81.6% 112 72.0% 118 75.9% 127 81.6%
East Side 143 122 104 85.6% 97 79.8% 107 88.0% 95 78.2% 121 99.5% 121 99.5%
West Side 131 111 86 77.2% 83 74.5% 94 84.4% 88 79.0% 104 93.4% 104 93.4%
Sub-Total (On-Street) 585 497 391 78.6% 391 78.6% 421 84.7% 383 77.0% 460 92.5% 469 94.3%
Total - Combined 2,522 2,337 1,530 65.5% 1,596 68.3% 1,593 68.2% 1,438 61.5% 1,366 58.4% 1,725 73.8%
Effective Supply Factor 95% Off-Street

85% On-Street
34
APPENDIX A
Table 16: Land-Use Information (Current)
Land Use Summary - Current Land-Use by Block - Current

Use Square Footage Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Block 7 Block 8 Block 9 Block 10 Block 11 Block 12 Block 13 Block 14 Block 15 Block 16 Block 17 Block 18 Block 19
Office 158,191 11,829 - 3,100 49,228 - 20,509 10,739 41,314 - - 12,113 4,641 - - 4,718 - - - -
Medical Office 9,760 - - 5,062 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,698
Residential 322,244 5,449 - 1,600 15,676 33,383 8,140 - 7,515 30,904 2,059 47,810 45,809 8,772 - 34,973 - - 31,565 48,589
Restaurant - Fast Food 46,918 - - 4,089 4,573 7,080 - 15,069 - - - - 12,607 3,500 - - - - - -
Restaurant - Casual 36,654 - - - - 10,446 12,649 - 13,559 - - - - - - - - - - -
Church 154,404 - 50,979 10,542 - - - - - - - - - 92,883 - - - - - -
Retail 293,419 18,632 - 40,959 41,578 9,459 13,665 41,991 13,706 3,921 - 14,984 800 18,331 - 67,248 - - - 8,145
Bank 18,738 - - 18,738 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nightclub 51,003 1,908 - - 10,020 9,330 - 27,833 1,912 - - - - - - - - - - -
Government Administrative 28,744 - - - - - 28,744 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hotel 57,845 - - - - - - 57,845 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cinema 13,640 - - - - - - - - - - - - 13,640 - - - - - -
School 12,846 - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,846 - - - - - -
Industrial Complex 14,625 - - - - - - - - - 14,625 - - - - - - - - -
Educational - College 501,792 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103,624 12,771 182,550 125,737 71,654 5,456
Educational - Residential (Dorms) 68,316 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68,316 - - -
Educational - College - Special Events 53,324 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53,324 - -
Sub- Total (Land Use) 1,842,463 37,818 50,979 84,090 121,075 69,698 83,707 153,477 78,006 34,825 16,684 74,907 63,857 149,972 103,624 119,710 250,866 179,061 103,219 66,888
Restaurant - Vacant 4,854 - - 4,854 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Retail - Vacant 29,710 - - 3,183 - - 8,140 18,387 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office - Vacant 7,499 - - - - - - 6,382 - - - 1,117 - - - - - - - -
Residential - Vacant 1,117 - - - - - - - - - - 1,117 - - - - - - - -
Sub- Total (Vacant Space) 43,180 - - 8,037 - - 8,140 24,769 - - - 2,234 - - - - - - - -
Total 1,885,643 37,818 50,979 92,127 121,075 69,698 91,847 178,246 78,006 34,825 16,684 77,141 63,857 149,972 103,624 119,710 250,866 179,061 103,219 66,888
Source: City of Columbia, MO
35
APPENDIX A
Table 17: Land Use Information (Future)

Land Use Summary - Future Land-Use by Block - Future
Use Square Footage Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Block 7 Block 8 Block 9 Block 10 Block 11 Block 12 Block 13 Block 14 Block 15 Block 16 Block 17 Block 18 Block 19
Office 165,690 11,829 - 3,100 49,228 - 20,509 17,121 41,314 - - 13,230 4,641 - - 4,718 - - - -
Medical Office 9,760 - - 5,062 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,698
Residential 235,798 5,449 - 1,600 15,676 33,383 8,140 - 7,515 30,904 - 44,205 - 8,772 - - - - 31,565 48,589
Restaurant - Fast Food 51,772 - - 8,943 4,573 7,080 - 15,069 - - - - 12,607 3,500 - - - - - -
Restaurant - Casual 36,654 - - - - 10,446 12,649 - 13,559 - - - - - - - - - - -
Church 154,404 - 50,979 10,542 - - - - - - - - - 92,883 - - - - - -
Retail 245,105 18,632 - 44,142 41,578 9,459 14,243 60,378 13,706 3,921 - 12,570 - 18,331 - - - - - 8,145
Bank 18,738 - - 18,738 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nightclub 51,003 1,908 - - 10,020 9,330 - 27,833 1,912 - - - - - - - - - - -
Government Administrative 28,744 - - - - - 28,744 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hotel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cinema 13,640 - - - - - - - - - - - - 13,640 - - - - - -
School 12,846 - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,846 - - - - - -
Industrial Complex - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Educational - College 489,021 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103,624 - 182,550 125,737 71,654 5,456
Educational - Residential (Dorms) 68,316 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68,316 - - -
Educational - College - Special Events 53,324 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53,324 - -
Sub- Total (Land Use) 1,634,815 37,818 50,979 92,127 121,075 69,698 84,285 120,401 78,006 34,825 - 70,005 17,248 149,972 103,624 4,718 250,866 179,061 103,219 66,888
Office - Projected 141,400 - 8,500 - - - 16,800 12,700 - - - - 29,700 - - 73,700 - - - -

Retail - Projected 63,400 - - - - - - 25,000 - - - - 10,000 - - 28,400 - - - -
Residential - Projected 928,500 - - - - - - - - - 60,000 277,500 112,500 - - 366,000 - - - 112,500
Hotel - Projected 58,000 - - - - - - 58,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sub- Total (Projected Land-Use) 1,191,300 - 8,500 - - - 16,800 95,700 - - 60,000 277,500 152,200 - - 468,100 - - - 112,500
Total 2,826,115 37,818 59,479 92,127 121,075 69,698 101,085 216,101 78,006 34,825 60,000 347,505 169,448 149,972 103,624 472,818 250,866 179,061 103,219 179,388
Source: City of Columbia, MO and Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010
36
APPENDIX A
Table 18: Shared Parking Demand (Future)

Shared Parking Demand - Future Programming Only
Weekday Saturday
Land Use Base Ratio Unit Un-Adj Demand Mo. Adj Peak Hr. Adj. Non-Captive Drive Ratio Shared Demand Base Ratio Unit Un-adj Demand Mo. Adj Peak Hr. Adj. Non-Captive Drive Ratio Shared Demand
Retail/Customers 2.90 /ksf GLA 184 100% 100% 100% 100% 184 3.20 /ksf GLA 203 100% 75% 100% 100% 152
Employee 0.70 44 100% 100% 100% 100% 44 0.80 51 100% 80% 100% 100% 41
Hotel-Business 1.00 /room 112 67% 60% 100% 66% 30 0.90 /room 101 67% 75% 100% 77% 39
Employee 0.25 /room 28 100% 100% 100% 100% 28 0.18 /room 20 100% 55% 100% 100% 11
Meeting/Banquet (30 s.f./rm) 20.00 /ksf GLA 40 60% 100% 60% 75% 11 10.00 /ksf GLA 20 60% 30% 70% 75% 2
Office/Visitor 0.24 /ksf GLA 34 100% 100% 100% 100% 34 0.02 /ksf GLA 3 100% 0% 100% 100% -
Employee 3.09 437 100% 100% 100% 100% 437 0.31 44 100% 0% 100% 100% -
Residential/Condo 1.00 /unit 186 100% 70% 100% 100% 130 1.00 /unit 186 100% 97% 100% 100% 180
Visitor 0.15 28 100% 20% 100% 100% 6 0.15 28 100% 100% 100% 100% 28
Residential/Rental 0.60 /unit 260 100% 70% 100% 100% 182 0.60 /unit 260 100% 97% 100% 100% 252
Visitor 0.15 65 100% 20% 100% 100% 13 0.15 65 100% 100% 100% 100% 65
Total Spaces 1,418 1,098 980 770
1 1
Total s.f 1,191,300 Total s.f 1,191,300
2 2
Demand Ratio / ksf 0.92 Demand Ratio / ksf 0.65
Notes:
1
Assume total s.f. for future programming only.
2
Assume future parking demand ratio for future programming only.
37
APPENDIX A
Table 19: Parking Demand by Block (Future)

Parking Demand Future (Spaces) Future Parking Demand by Block (Spaces)
Use Spaces Demand Ratio Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Block 7 Block 8 Block 9 Block 10 Block 11 Block 12 Block 13 Block 14 Block 15 Block 16 Block 17 Block 18 Block 19
Office 158 0.95 11 - 3 47 - 20 16 39 - - 13 4 - - 4 - - - -
Medical Office 9 - - 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
Residential 225 5 - 2 15 32 8 - 7 29 - 42 - 8 - - - - 30 46
Restaurant - Fast Food 49 - - 9 4 7 - 14 - - - - 12 3 - - - - - -
Restaurant - Casual 35 - - - - 10 12 - 13 - - - - - - - - - - -
Church 147 - 49 10 - - - - - - - - - 89 - - - - - -
Retail 234 18 - 42 40 9 14 58 13 4 - 12 - 17 - - - - - 8
Bank 18 - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nightclub 49 2 - - 10 9 - 27 2 - - - - - - - - - - -
Government Administrative 27 - - - - - 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hotel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cinema 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 - - - - - -
School 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - -
Industrial Complex - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Educational - College 466 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99 - 174 120 68 5
Educational - Residential (Dorms) 65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65 - - -
Educational - College - Special Events 51 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51 - -
Sub- Total (Land Use) 1,558 36 49 88 115 66 80 115 74 33 - 67 16 143 99 4 239 171 98 64
Office - Projected 130 0.92 - 8 - - - 15 12 - - - - 27 - - 68 - - - -

Retail - Projected 58 - - - - - - 23 - - - - 9 - - 26 - - - -
Residential - Projected 856 - - - - - - - - - 55 256 104 - - 337 - - - 104
Hotel - Projected 53 - - - - - - 53 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sub- Total (Proposed Spaces) 1,098 - 8 - - - 15 88 - - 55 256 140 - - 432 - - - 104
Total 2,656 36 56 88 115 66 96 203 74 33 55 323 157 143 99 436 239 171 98 167
38
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX D
WPC PROJECT NO.13-2929.00 NOVEMBER 2010
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part.

2. Walker’s report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining to the future
performance of the local economy and other factors typically related to individual user
characteristics that are either outside Walker’s control or that of the client. To the best of
Walker’s ability we analyzed available information that was incorporated in projecting future
performance of the proposed subject site.
3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in visualizing
the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is within the boundaries
of the property described, and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted.
4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Walker Parking
Consultants/Engineers, Inc. are assumed to be true and correct. We can assume no liability
resulting from misinformation.
5. Unless noted, we assume that there are no encroachments, zoning, violations, or building
violations encumbering the subject property.
6. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless
specified otherwise.
7. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission, and the
report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or
other media.
8. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to the date
of our field inspections.
9. The estimated operating results presented in this report were based on an evaluation of the
overall economy, and neither take into account nor make provisions for the effect of any sharp
rise or decline in local or national economic conditions. We do not warrant that the projections
will be attained, but they have been prepared on the basis of information obtained during the
course of this study and are intended to reflect the expectations of a typical parking patron.
10. Many of the numeric figures presented in this report were generated using computer models that
make calculations based on numbers carried out to three decimal places. In the interest of
simplicity, most numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Thus, these figures may
be subject to small rounding errors.
11. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants. All opinions, recommendations, and
conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment are rendered by the staff of Walker
Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as individuals.
12. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were reached based on Walker’s
analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information furnished
by others, upon which portions of this study are based, is believed to be reliable; however, it
has not been verified in all cases. No warranty is given to the accuracy of such information.
40

Short Street Garage Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Short Street Garage Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY

Mr. Ken Koopmans

Re: Short Street Supply Demand Study

Dear Mr. Koopmans:

WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS

David W. Ryan P.E. Phill Schragal

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 1: Study Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Table 1: Parking Supply (Current) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Study Area: As Depicted in the 2010 Charrette Report

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PARKING SUPPLY (CURENT)

PARKING DEMAND (CURRENT)

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PARKING ADEQUACY (CURRENT)

PARKING DEMAND (FUTURE)

PARKING SUPPLY (FUTURE)

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PARKING ADEQUACY (FUTURE)

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 1: Study Methodology

Classify parking Quantify the parking

Determine the Compare the peak

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PARKING SUPPLY (CURRENT)

Table 1: Parking Supply (Current)

Parking Supply (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 2: On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 2: Effective Parking Supply

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 3: Parking Demand (Current)

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 3: Parking Demand (Current)

Table 4: Parking Adequacy Summary

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 5: Parking Adequacy by Block (Current)

PARKING ADEQUACY CONCLUSIONS

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

PARKING DEMAND RATIO

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

FUTURE LAND USES

SUMMARY OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 4: Components of the Preferred Plan

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 6: Summary of Proposed Future Land-Uses

Land Use Unit Total

Source: Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010

Table 7: Proposed Future Land-Uses by Block

Source: Charrette Report, City of Columbia, MO, October 8, 2010

PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

FUTURE PARKING DEMAND

Table 8: Base Parking Demand Ratios