P. 1
Short Street Garage Study

Short Street Garage Study

|Views: 368|Likes:
Walker Parking Consultants study of Short Street Garage for City of Columbia
Walker Parking Consultants study of Short Street Garage for City of Columbia

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: The Columbia Heart Beat on Apr 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/29/2012

pdf

text

original

Sections

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. Director of Operations

Phill Schragal Director of Operations Consulting

Enclosure

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 nonevent 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 onstreet 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 SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 onstreet 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 longterm 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 SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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. Demand Generator ---- Any building, business, retail establishment or attraction that brings individuals into the study area, thereby increasing parking demand and occupancy. 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). 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. Occupancy (Counts) ---- The number of vehicles observed as parked during the field survey. Parking Adequacy ---- The difference between the effective parking supply and the observed or projected demand. Private Parking – A parking space that is restricted from public access and primarily used to satisfy private parking requirements, regardless of ownership. Public Parking – A parking space that is available for use by the general public on an hourly, daily and/or monthly basis. Survey Day(s) ---- The day(s) when parking inventory and occupancy counts were field verified within the study area.

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

2

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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
Inventory parking supply Conduct parking occupancy counts Identify future developments and characteristics

Classify parking supply: Public, Private, On-Street

Determine peak parking demand

Quantify the parking demand for future developments

Determine the "effective" parking supply
Source: Walker Parking Consultants

Compare the peak occupancy to the effective supply

Calculate the future parking conditions

3

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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%

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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

W

^ 

K ^

K ^

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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. 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. 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.

o

o

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
1

85%
2

95%

Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Totals Notes:
1 2

North South East West Private Permit Public 0 8 7 5 90 0 0 8 10 9 9 22 46 19 10 14 12 10 22 0 0 17 8 11 12 0 0 0 9 6 9 12 25 0 0 0 8 16 7 83 56 13 11 22 0 6 154 0 14 15 6 0 8 53 0 0 8 5 2 8 38 164 112 0 9 18 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 16 90 71 0 0 11 0 0 136 0 0 30 18 10 0 44 151 14 10 14 0 25 10 0 0 0 40 0 13 50 101 0 0 0 10 0 4 31 0 10 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 23 0 6 108 0 0 4 16 0 113 0 7

On-Street On-Street Off-Street Off-Street Total Total Supply Eff. Supply Supply Eff. Supply Supply Eff.Supply 20 17 90 86 110 103 36 31 87 83 123 113 46 39 22 21 68 60 48 41 0 0 48 41 36 31 25 24 61 54 31 26 152 144 183 171 39 33 168 160 207 193 29 25 53 50 82 75 23 20 314 298 337 318 27 23 11 10 38 33 16 14 161 153 177 167 11 9 136 129 147 139 58 49 209 199 267 248 49 42 10 10 59 51 53 45 151 143 204 189 10 9 35 33 45 42 10 9 79 75 89 84 23 20 114 108 137 128 20 17 120 114 140 131 585 497 1,937 1,840 2,522 2,337

On-Street effective supply is calculated as 85% of the total available supply. Off-Street effective supply is calculated as 95% of the total available supply.

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

6

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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)

W  

^

D K ^  ^

D

WD K ^

WD

WD

W

K ^ 

^

K ^

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 3: Parking Demand (Current)
Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Totals Combined On-Street Peak Off-Street Peak Peak Demand 18 66 84 36 42 48 36 24 33 27 23 22 14 3 46 22 26 10 10 23 18 481 71 19 0 14 90 89 28 151 11 130 67 143 3 96 32 61 106 98 1,275 107 61 48 50 114 122 55 174 33 144 70 189 25 122 42 71 129 116 1,756

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, field survey October 27 and 28, 2010

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 On-Street Off-Street Total Eff. Supply 497 1,840 2,337 Demand 481 1,275 1,756 Adequacy % Occupied 16 97% 565 69% 581 75%

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, field survey October 27 and 28, 2010

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 5: Parking Adequacy by Block (Current)

Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Totals

On-Street Peak 18 36 42 48 36 24 33 27 23 22 14 3 46 22 26 10 10 23 18 481

On-Street Surplus (Deficit) (1) (5) (3) (7) (5) 2 0 (2) (3) 1 (0) 6 3 20 19 (2) (2) (3) (1) 16

1

(On-Street) Off-Street Surplus Occupancy Off-Street Peak (Deficit) 105.9% 66 20 117.6% 107.4% 117.6% 117.6% 91.1% 99.5% 109.5% 117.6% 95.9% 102.9% 32.1% 93.3% 52.8% 57.7% 117.6% 117.6% 117.6% 105.9% 96.7% 71 19 0 14 90 89 28 151 11 130 67 143 3 96 32 61 106 98 1,275 12 2 0 10 54 71 22 147 (1) 23 62 56 7 47 1 14 2 16 565

(Off-street) Combined Occupancy Peak Demand 77.2% 84 85.9% 90.9% 58.9% 62.3% 55.8% 55.6% 50.6% 105.3% 85.0% 51.9% 72.0% 31.6% 66.9% 96.2% 81.3% 97.9% 86.0% 69.3%
4 5

2

Combined Surplus (Deficit) 19 6 (1) (7) 4 57 71 20 144 0 23 69 59 26 67 (0) 13 (1) 15 581

3

(Combined) Occupancy 82.0% 94.5% 101.7% 117.6% 92.0% 66.8% 63.3% 73.3% 54.7% 98.8% 86.5% 50.5% 76.3% 48.9% 64.7% 100.6% 85.0% 100.9% 88.5% 75.1% 1,842,463 0.95

107 61 48 50 114 122 55 174 33 144 70 189 25 122 42 71 129 116 1,756 Total s.f Demand Ratio / ksf

Blocks >= 85% Occupied Blocks >= 95% Occupied Notes:
1 2 3 4 5

On-Street occupancy percentages calculated compared to the effective supply figure, not the actual supply. Off-Street occupancy percentages calculated compared to the effective supply figure, not the actual supply.

Occupancy percentages greater than 85% on-street and 95% off-street are less efficient. Assume total s.f. (land-use) that is currently occupied; vacant space is excluded. Assume parking demand ratio based upon peak observed activity during Walker's field study; October 27 and 28, 2010.

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, field survey 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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 o o Aggressively enforced time-limits, Increased over-time fine structure, 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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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-oftown 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 EcoArts 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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 6: Summary of Proposed Future Land-Uses
Future Programming Summary (Projected) Land Use Office Retail Residential 1 Hotel 2 (2,000 s.f. banquet space) Notes:
1

Unit s.f s.f. s.f. rooms

Total 141,400 63,400 928,500 112

Assume 1,500 s.f. requirement per each residential unit developed; assume 70% rental units, 30% owned units. Assume 58,000 total s.f.; includes 2,000 s.f. banquet space per conversation with Developer.

2

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

Table 7: Proposed Future Land-Uses by Block
Future Programming (Projected) 1 Projected Size Unit Displaced s.f. 8,500 16,800 12,700 25,000 112 60,000 277,500 29,700 10,000 112,500 73,700 28,400 366,000 112,500 1,191,300 s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. rooms s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. 250,828 7,780 45,809 4,718 35,744 67,248 57,845 16,684 8,000 7,000 Displaced Spaces 24 20 39 15 63 11 104 26 10 100 10 Office Retail Residential 2 Residential 2 50 50 51 120 693

Block 1 6 7 7 7 10 11 12 12 12 14 15 15 15 19 Totals Notes:
1

Land Use Office Office Office Retail Hotel 4 Residential 2 Residential 2 Office Retail Residential 2

Added Spaces 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Future programming based upon Charrette Report, City of Columbia Downtown Leadership Council, H3 Studio, October 08, 2010. Assume 1,500 s.f. requirement per each residential unit developed; assume 70% rental units, 30% owned units. Assume spaces required per code for each new development will be determined by City Plan Commission; quantities unknown at this time. Assume 58,000 total s.f.; includes 2,000 s.f. banquet space per conversation with Developer.

2 3

4

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

13

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 Land Use Retail (<400 ksf) Employee Hotel-Business Employee Meeting/Banquet Office/Visitor Employee Residential/Condo Visitor Residential/Rental Visitor Base Ratio 2.90 0.70 1.00 0.25 20.00 0.24 3.09 1.00 0.15 0.60 0.15 /unit /unit /room /room /ksf GLA /ksf GLA Unit /ksf GLA Saturday Base Ratio 3.20 0.80 0.90 0.18 10.00 0.02 0.31 1.00 0.15 0.60 0.15 /unit /unit /room /room /ksf GLA /ksf GLA Unit /ksf GLA

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 18 shown in Appendix “A.” Table 18)
Table 9: Future Parking Demand Summary (Proposed Development Only)
Future Parking Demand (Summary)

Office - Projected Retail - Projected Residential - Projected Hotel - Projected Sub- Total (Proposed Spaces)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model

130 58 856 53 1,098

6

ULI and Walker Parking, Shared Parking, 2005, revised November 2008

14

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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. Office 158 165,690 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

Ratio/ksf 0.95

Office - Projected Retail - Projected Residential - Projected Hotel - Projected Sub- Total (Proposed Spaces) Total
Source: Walker Parking Consultants

130 58 856 53 1,098 2,656

141,400 63,400 928,500 58,000 1,191,300 2,826,115

0.92

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 The 11. 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 Type Private Permit Public Total
Source: Walker Parking Consultants

Spaces 451 635 158

On-Street Combined Location Spaces Spaces North Side 128 South Side 183 East Side 143 West Side 131 1,244 585 1,829

Figure 5: Future Parking Supply (On and Off-Street)

W

^

&

K ^

K ^

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

16

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Totals 31 39 41 31 26 33 25 20 23 14 9 49 42 45 9 9 20 17 497 83 21 0 24 125 48 50 298 0 54 0 199 0 0 33 75 108 0 1,182 113 60 41 54 152 82 75 318 23 68 9 248 42 45 42 84 128 17 1,679 56 88 115 66 96 203 74 33 55 323 157 143 99 436 239 171 98 167 2,656 57 (28) (75) (12) 56 (121) 1 285 (32) (255) (147) 105 (57) (391) (197) (87) 29 (150) (977)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

17

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 o o o Walking environment, Type of user, Desired level of service, as well as 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 o o Discretionary, Mandated, and 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 SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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 o o Discretionary users want and need parking proximate to their destination and are normally accorded the highest level of service (LOS “A”). 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”). 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 Climate Controlled Outdoor/Covered Outdoor/Uncovered Through a Surface Lot Inside a Parking Structure
Source: Walker Parking Consultants

LOS A 1,000 500’ 400’ 350’ 300’

LOS B

LOS C

LOS D 5,200’ 2,000’ 1,600’ 1,400 1,200’

Acceptable Walking Distances 2,400’ 3,800’ 1,000 1,500’ 800’ 1,200 700’ 1,050’ 600’ 900’

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
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

“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 -

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

20

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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)

Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sub-Totals Cumulative

LOS A

1

LOS B 57 (28)

2

LOS C 44

3

LOS D

4

(75) (12) 56 (121) 1 285 (32) (255) (147) 105 (57) (391) (197) (87) 29 (524) 101 (422) (404) (827) (150) (150) (977)

1 2 3 4

Notes: Level of Service A: Walking Distance = 300 to 400 ft. Level of Service B: Walking Distance = 600 to 800 ft. Level of Service C: Walking Distance = 900 to 1,200 ft. Level of Service D: Walking Distance = 1,200 to 1,800 ft.

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

21

SHORT STREET
PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO.31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Once constructed, the Structure will reside in blocks 7 and 12 (refer to Figure 6 on page 20 of the study 20) 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

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

24

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 8: On-Street Supply (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

25

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 9: Off-Street Supply (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

26

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 10: On-Street Demand (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

27

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 11: Off-Street Demand (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

28

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 12: Combined Demand (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

29

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 13: On-Street Parking Adequacy (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

30

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 14: Off-Street Parking Adequacy (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

31

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 15: Combined Parking Adequacy (Current)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

32

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Figure 16: Combined Parking Adequacy (Future)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

33

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 15: Parking Demand ---- Hourly Counts (Current) Summary - Parking Demand - Hourly Counts (Current) Off-Street - Parking Demand Location Private Permit Public Sub-Total (Off-Street) Location North Side South Side East Side West Side Sub-Total (On-Street) Total - Combined Effective Supply Factor Supply Eff. Supply 951 903 807 767 179 170 1,937 1,840 Supply Eff. Supply 128 109 183 156 143 122 131 111 585 497 2,522 2,337 9:00 AM 518 57.3% 547 71.3% 74 43.5% 1,139 58.8% 9:00 AM 83 76.3% 118 75.9% 104 85.6% 86 77.2% 391 78.6% 1,530 65.5% 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 554 61.3% 569 63.0% 556 72.5% 528 68.9% 95 55.9% 75 44.1% 1,205 65.5% 1,172 60.5% On- Street - Parking Demand 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 90 82.7% 93 85.5% 121 77.8% 127 81.6% 97 79.8% 107 88.0% 83 74.5% 94 84.4% 391 78.6% 421 84.7% 1,596 68.3% 1,593 68.2% 3:00 PM 463 51.2% 525 68.5% 67 39.4% 1,055 57.3% 3:00 PM 88 80.9% 112 72.0% 95 78.2% 88 79.0% 383 77.0% 1,438 61.5% 6:00 PM 349 38.6% 426 55.6% 131 77.0% 906 46.8% 6:00 PM 117 107.5% 118 75.9% 121 99.5% 104 93.4% 460 92.5% 1,366 58.4% Peak 569 556 131 1,256 Peak 117 127 121 104 469 1,725 % of Total 63.0% 72.5% 77.0% 68.3% % of Total 107.5% 81.6% 99.5% 93.4% 94.3% 73.8%

95% Off-Street 85% On-Street

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, field survey October 27 and 18, 2010

34

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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

Restaurant - Vacant Retail - Vacant Office - Vacant Residential - Vacant Sub- Total (Vacant Space) Total

4,854 29,710 7,499 1,117 43,180 1,885,643

37,818

50,979

4,854 3,183 8,037 92,127

121,075

69,698

8,140 8,140 91,847

18,387 6,382 24,769 178,246

78,006

34,825

16,684

1,117 1,117 2,234 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
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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

Office - Projected Retail - Projected Residential - Projected Hotel - Projected Sub- Total (Projected Land-Use) Total

141,400 63,400 928,500 58,000 1,191,300 2,826,115

37,818

8,500 8,500 59,479

92,127

121,075

69,698

16,800 16,800 101,085

12,700 25,000 58,000 95,700 216,101

78,006

34,825

60,000 60,000 60,000

277,500 277,500 347,505

29,700 10,000 112,500 152,200 169,448

149,972

103,624

73,700 28,400 366,000 468,100 472,818

250,866

179,061

103,219

112,500 112,500 179,388

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

36

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

Table 18: Shared Parking Demand (Future)
Shared Parking Demand - Future Programming Only Weekday Land Use Retail/Customers Employee Hotel-Business Employee Meeting/Banquet (30 s.f./rm) Office/Visitor Employee Residential/Condo Visitor Residential/Rental Visitor Total Spaces Base Ratio Unit 2.90 0.70 1.00 /room 0.25 /room 20.00 0.24 3.09 1.00 /unit 0.15 0.60 /unit 0.15 /ksf GLA /ksf GLA /ksf GLA Un-Adj Demand Mo. Adj Peak Hr. Adj. Non-Captive 184 44 112 28 40 34 437 186 28 260 65 1,418
1 2

Saturday Drive Ratio Shared Demand Base Ratio Unit 100% 100% 66% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 184 44 30 28 11 34 437 130 6 182 13 1,098 1,191,300 0.92 3.20 0.80 0.90 /room 0.18 /room 10.00 0.02 0.31 1.00 /unit 0.15 0.60 /unit 0.15 /ksf GLA /ksf GLA /ksf GLA Un-adj Demand Mo. Adj Peak Hr. Adj. Non-Captive Drive Ratio Shared Demand 203 51 101 20 20 3 44 186 28 260 65 980
1 2

100% 100% 67% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 70% 20% 70% 20%

100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total s.f

100% 100% 67% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

75% 80% 75% 55% 30% 0% 0% 97% 100% 97% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 70% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total s.f

100% 100% 77% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

152 41 39 11 2 180 28 252 65 770 1,191,300 0.65

Demand Ratio / ksf

Demand Ratio / ksf

Notes:
1 2

Assume total s.f. for future programming only. Assume future parking demand ratio for future programming only.

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model

37

APPENDIX A
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
PROJECT NO. 31-6849.60 DECEMBER 2010

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

Office - Projected Retail - Projected Residential - Projected Hotel - Projected Sub- Total (Proposed Spaces)

130 58 856 53 1,098

0.92

-

8 8

-

-

-

15 15 -

12 23 53 88

-

-

55 55

256 256

27 9 104 140

-

-

68 26 337 432

-

-

-

104 104

Total

2,656

36

56

88

115

66

96

203

74

33

55

323

157

143

99

436

239

171

98

167

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model

38

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX D
SHORT STREET SUPPLY DEMAND STUDY
WPC PROJECT NO.13-2929.00 NOVEMBER 2010

STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. 2. This report is to be used in whole and not in part. 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. 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. 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. Unless noted, we assume that there are no encroachments, zoning, violations, or building violations encumbering the subject property. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless specified otherwise. 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. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to the date of our field inspections. 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.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->