The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-01-27 Board of Selectmen Handout(5) the intervals of space to be maintained between the parade's units. The applicant shall provide such further information as the Board of Selectmen shall find reasonably necessary for a fair determination as to whether a permit should be issued. The Board of Selectmen shall issue a permit unless it finds that the conduct of the parade is reasonably likely to (1) cause injury to persons or property, provoke disorderly conduct or create a disturbance, (2) interfere unduly with proper fire and police protection for, and ambulance service to, areas contiguous to the proposed line of march or other areas in the Town, or (3) substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of other traffic contiguous to the parade route. The Board of Selectmen shall promptly notify the applicant and the Town Counsel of its decision, including the terms of the permit issued or the reasons for any denial or revocation of such a permit. Immediately upon the issuance of a parade permit, the Board of Selectmen shall send a copy thereof to the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Director of Public Works. 5.2.3 The Director of Public Works, for the purpose of removing or plowing snow or removing ice from any way within the limits of the Town and from the Town parking areas and from any other land owned or used by the Town, may remove or cause to be removed to some public garage or other convenient place any vehicle parked upon such highway, parking area or land and interfering with such work, and the storage charges and outer cost of such removal shall be borne and paid by the owner of the vehicle. 5.2.4 No person shall-riove_or_remove...snow or ice'from private lands upon any public street, sidewalk-.or common land of the _ Town. in such, a :manner;-as to obstruct or -impede the free passage of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon the street, sidewalk or common land of the Town, unless he has first obtained a permit therefore issued by the Director of Public Works. No person-shall lay, throws place; or cause to °be placed any ice or snow; so as.to-obstruct or-impede -the free passage of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, on that portion of any street, sidewalk, or common land within the Town which has been-cleared or plowed for travel.- 5.2.5 No person shall, during the period from November 15 to April 15 inclusive, discharge or pipe, or cause to be discharged or piped, any ground water onto a public way or sidewalk within the limits of the Town unless he has first obtained a permit therefore issued by the Director of Public Works. 5.2.6 No person shall make or construct a driveway or other means of access or exit for motor vehicles onto a public way or across a sidewalk, unless he has first obtained a permit therefore issued by the Director of Public Works. l2~/ b ~I General Bylaws 27 Amended through July 2007 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Maureen Hanifan [mhanifan@RMLD.com) Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:58 AM To: Vincent Cameron; Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Fournier, Bob; Laurie Cavagnaro Subject: Customer follow up Good morning, I called Mrs. Giles a few days ago and left her a lengthy voice mail message explanation. (She was the customer that was trying to change her middle initial by marking it on her payment stub.) I explained to Mrs. Giles that the payments and the stubs go to a lock box and are posted by Century Bank. The folks at the bank do not make any corrections to the data. I explained that I changed her middle initial when I received a copy of her email. I called her again today to make sure she understood and was satisfied. Her daughter, Susan, answered and explained that Mrs. Giles had had hip surgery and was in a rehab. Susan explained the situation to her 88 year old mother. Mrs. Giles was thrilled that we changed the initial and that we called her twice. Regards, mkh r 1/27/2009 '~7i Sidewalks on Fox Run Lane Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Monette Verrier [mdverrier@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:21 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Sidewalks on Fox Run Lane Hi Peter. I wanted to let you know about a very unsafe situation on Fox Run Lane. I walk my daughter to and from the Wood End School each day. I often go up Emerson St and in the back gate to the school. As you know, Emerson Street does not have sidewalks and lately MANY cars are traveling up Emerson Street at school pick up time. As you know, Emerson is a one way at this time and has signage to support that, however, many drivers are violating these signs and making our walk home unsafe. Today I decided to walk down to Fox Run Lane and enter the school via the path, assuming this was a safer choice since Fox Run Lane has sidewalks. While I was able to travel on the Franklin Street sidewalks to Fox Run Lane, once I got there my daughter and I were in the middle of the road. Only one resident on Fox Run Lane had shoveled their sidewalk. Many parents park on Fox Run Lane to pick up their children from school so there are a number of cars on this street. All of us were walking in the middle of road while others were coming and others going. It was EXTREMELY unsafe and nail biting. I do not understand why the residents are not shoveling their sidewalks and why the town is not enforcing this. I realize that last year the selectman voted against mandatory sidewalk snow removal. 1 hope that you will forward them all my email so that they understand how dangerous a decision that was. I am not asking that these residents do anything I wouldn't do. We have a sidewalk in front of our home and shovel it every storm as do all of our neighbors. I am going to call you tomorrow to talk about this in person. I would appreciate any safe suggestions that you have. Thank you, Monette Verrier 30 Kurchian Lane 1/27/2009 0 Or nip c ytan ,63'9j/NCORpp4P~ Reading Public Schools Patrick A. Schettini, Jr., Superintendent John Doherty, Assistant Superintendent Joshua Eaton School A Blue Ribbon Lighthouse School 365 Summer Avenue . Reading, MA 01867 (781) 942-9161 9 Fax (781) 942-9053 January 23, 2009 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Peter, Patricia A. de Garavilla, Principal pdegaravi11a@reading.k12.ma.us Please accept this letter as support of the Selectmen's January 27th meeting agenda item regarding sidewalk plowing of Summer Avenue across from Joshua Eaton School. We have many students who walk and cross at the corner of Victoria Avenue and Summer Avenue for both Joshua Eaton School and Parker Middle School. When the snowbanks are high and sidewalks snow covered, it becomes a safety issue for students walking in this area. Other parents have shared concerns with children having to cross at Knollwood without a crossing guard as the sidewalk isn't cleared for them to walk on the east side of the street and cross with the crossing guard at Buckingham. Joshua Eaton parents Paul and Karen Millett have been advocating for this to be addressed for several years and are hopeful that with the Board's support, we can work with the DPW to make this change. Please feel free to contact me if you need any other information regarding Mr. and Mrs. Millett's request. Thank you very much for your attention to this important safety issue. Sincerely, Patricia de Garavill~v Principal Cc: Joe Huggins Ted McIntire Pat Schettini Mr. and Mrs. Millett 41 r-a N cr ro Recommendations The analysis conducted for Reading's Comprehensive Parking Program has demonstrated that there is plenty of parking supply in the downtown to support all existing uses as well as a substantial amount of future growth. However, this ideal scenario is only possible through the efficient management and sharing of all parking resources in public and private hands. While it is not likely that all existing parking resources can be utilized to their maximum extent during all hours of the week, many communities in America have made great strides at sharing this valuable land resource among a variety of users. Inherent to improved sharing is an improved parking management program. The analysis of Reading's downtown parking supply. makes it clear that significant parking resources that are available to the general public are entirely underutilized during periods of peak demand. Even if the cost of a new parking structure were not prohibitive, simply increasing off-street supply would not eliminate the persistent parking problems experienced by Reading's residents, employees and visitors today. Reading does not have an undersupply of parking; it has a supply management problem. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Some of the most successful small downtowns in America are benefitted by a mixed-use core with a welcoming walking environment that allows residents, employees and visitors alike to experience most of the downtown's services and entertainment by parking only once and walking between destinations. Even in communities where parking is mismanaged and visitors are forced to search for spaces or park remotely, walking connections are welcoming, well-signed and safe. This creates an environment that people enjoy being a part of - even if they must walk a couple minutes to get to their destination. In communities that manage their parking well, visitors easily find convenient parking spaces, helping to encourage activity while minimizing traffic congestion created by the hunt for parking. Communities like Reading that seek to boost economic activity in their downtowns can learn a lot from the experiences of communities that manage their parking well. The recommended parking management program below includes several best practices from around the United States that can serve Reading's goals very well. These best practices include some of the most progressive transportation demand management (TDM) programs available, which have helped to significantly reduce parking demand and congestion while improving the attractiveness of walking, biking and transit. These elements are designed to meet several goals: Provide shoppers, employees and residents with sufficient parking, in a manner that is convenient and cost-effective. Provide additional transportation choices, including transit, carpool, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and services. Advance the broader goals of Reading by creating a neighborhood that is genuinely oriented towards transit, walking and bicycling. It is important to keep in mind that parking and transportation policies have powerful effects not merely on parking demand, but on development feasibility, housing affordability, the amount of traffic produced by new developments, the quality of urban design, and many other fundamental aspects that make downtown Reading a place. Phased Implementation Plan The following recommended programs and policies have been organized in a phased action plan with short, medium and long term actions. This organization recognizes that certain changes to policy or infrastructure can take some time to plan, finance and/or implement. However, several short-term actions have been identified that could be implemented immediately by the Town, resolving critical issues while creating some momentum for further action. O Short-Term Actions The following actions are recommended to be implemented within the next 6 months. They are grouped into parking management and TDM actions. Parkins Management: 1) Expand the Employee Parking Permit Program Today, residents of Reading who work in downtown can park at over XX on-street resident-only spaces with their $25 per year Community Access Sticker - in addition to any private off-street parking privileges they may have. However, most employees come from other communities. The Town provides a $30 per month or $360 per year Employee Parking Permit that allows these employees to park in XX on-street and XX off-street spaces in downtown (see Figure 1). This program is oversubscribed, with all available permits sold-out by the beginning of the calendar year. Heavy utilization of many employee permit parking spaces was observed. However, some areas, such as eastern Haven and Chapin, are underutilized. The parking survey and interviews revealed that the majority of employees do not know that this program exists, but they were very interested in obtaining these permits in the future. Therefore, based on the rapid sell-out of existing permits and the evident latent demand, the number of employee permit permits should be increased to meet demand as soon as possible. The Town should also consider expanding employee permit parking locations, depending on the utilization of existing spaces and the feedback of employees who are not using the underutilized spaces today. Figure 1: Employee Parking Permit Areas ~ F4 sr ~ i ' ~ s• LEGENO ON SIRFU PARKING " q . _ as;Nlanoris , A Er ncci- i a . sMD t'E ATO HOUR f:ERON4tIMUKOVEE ! '~1 TOY, 111 n ` BALL ~ ' FF cYR PdRKINC a ' ' J yl ~ ~ A;N1LanfuA: S ~ EUOLOVGEhFROHn1if A~CilRHlx PAFg11G m . ' ~ , 1 ~ 1 t i} 1011 iiR~[i ~ Pte- t 1' u m 4- POLIGEISTgTiON " Si MNAMA . ly-~ ) IM VERHOII SiREt D A AEAOANi 9RiEEi r SENWE6EN"R 1f' Y 0 Careful Expansion of Regulation Likely locations for converting existing on-street regulations to the "2-Hr Parking or All-Day With Employee Permit" regulation include areas where daytime on-street utilization is low. In the commercial areas of downtown, this includes Parker Street between Pleasant and Haven, Sanborn Street between Woburn and Haven, and Woburn Street west of Sanborn. These areas have low demand from other users and have no direct impact on primarily residential streets. Other areas on the edge of the commercial core of downtown Reading have private residences with tenants and homeowners frequently needing to park on-street. These areas tend to be an untapped resource for downtowns, even though there is a fear of negative impacts on residents. Most of the time, residents are entirely unaffected by daytime employees parking on residential streets for two basic reasons: 1) if a resident commutes to work by car, their on-street space is vacant for employee use during the day, and the employee has usually left before the resident returns home; and 2) if a resident remains at home or stores a car on-street, their vehicle is usually occupying the space early in the morning before any employees would arrive to park. There are a large quantity of residential on-street spaces within a short walk of downtown businesses that stay vacant throughout the workday. These represent a great opportunity for the Town to expand its employee permit program in pace with demand. Residents at workshops held during this study encouraged this activity if it would help the Town's parking problems, as long as there was protection against losing a place to park when residents returned home. For instance, the unregulated stretch of Green Street east of Main is a likely candidate for this regulation. This resident-employee dynamic changes when restaurant workers are included, who often work night shifts after residents are home. Fortunately, the number of available on-street spaces in commercial areas opens up dramatically after 5PM, so employee permit parking on residential streets can easily be limited to daytime work hours only. Increase Outreach and Visibility The Town has the potential to greatly increase the effectiveness of its employee permit program while resolving many of the observed parking utilization problems in the downtown. By working with the business community to market the availability of employee permits and the areas where they can be used, enrollment could increase dramatically in a short time. Simple employer notices, information on the Town's website, and outreach from the Chamber of Commerce can reach most of Reading's employees who do not know about the program today. Evaluate Permit Cost The current cost of $30 per month or $360 per year should cover all administrative costs, but it is unclear whether this also covers the Town's enforcement costs. It may be prudent for the Town to evaluate the labor cost per parking space that is enforced today by the Town's parking control officer to determine if this fee is adequate to cover the enforcement cost for the portion of downtown spaces that are regulated for employees. Adjustments to the permit fee may be warranted. Nonetheless, $30 per month (or approximately $1.40 per workday) is a fairly low parking cost in the greater Boston area, where off-street parking is generally available starting at $50 per month'. If demand for employee permits continues to remain strong after the quantity of permits and spaces is increased, permit prices should be increased. Annual Reporting Municipal fees are often met with opposition from many residents and employees, regardless of their justification. The Town would be greatly benefitted by revealing the costs and revenues of their permit program on an annual basis in order to deflect complaints that the system is a "money grab" or 1 Based on a review of parking spaces for rent in the greater Boston area on craigslist.com. C something to "pad the general fund." More importantly, any surplus revenues should be clearly identified and dedicated to improvements or programs that benefit the business community in downtown Reading. This has the effect of showing that the Town is giving back to its employees a benefit for their fee, which may include measures such as sidewalk improvements, facade improvements, marketing and signing, or future parking facilities. Details of a comprehensive benefit program like this can be found in Recommendation 2 below. 2) Establish a Parking & Transportation Fund Surplus revenues from the employee permit program and other additional revenue sources, such as additional ticket revenue (see Recommendation 4) or in-lieu of parking fees (see Recommendation 11), should fund public improvements that benefit the downtown. If downtown parking revenues seem to disappear into the General Fund, where they may appear to produce no direct benefit for downtown businesses, there will be little support for parking policies that may ultimately benefit business, such as increased permit fees, installing parking meters, or adjusting regulations. When Reading's merchants and residents can clearly see that the monies collected are being spent for the benefit of their downtown, on projects that they have helped to choose, they become willing to support parking policies that generate revenue for the Town. If experience from other cities is any guide, many will become active advocates for the concept.2 To develop support for parking regulation changes, and to build support for charging fair market rates for permits, it is crucial to give local stakeholders a strong voice in setting policies for the downtown, deciding how downtown parking revenues should be spent, and overseeing downtown investments to ensure that the monies collected from employees and customers are spent wisely. Potential uses for Parking and Transportation Fund revenues include: • Landscaping and streetscape greening • Increased frequency of trash collection • Street cleaning, power-washing of sidewalks, and graffiti removal • Parking, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and amenities • Additional parking enforcement • Marketing and promotion of Reading's merchants • Additional programs and projects as recommended by downtown stakeholders and approved by the Board of Selectmen A number of different organizational structures can be used to establish and oversee a Parking and Transportation Fund. The fund can be managed by a quasi-public entity, similar to a Business Improvement District. Alternatively, the fund can be established as simply a financial entity (somewhat like an assessment district), which would require by ordinance that parking revenues raised within the downtown be spent to benefit the downtown. Under this arrangement, the fund would be managed and housed within an existing Town department, such as the Department of Public Works. 3) Adjust Time-Limits Many downtowns suffer from a common problem. The most visible and most convenient parking spaces are frequently entirely full, while simultaneously, parking spaces just behind a building or a block away sit largely vacant. The result is often a perceived parking shortage, even when a downtown as a whole has hundreds of vacant parking spaces available. In many downtowns, employees occupy the best spaces, even when time limits are instituted to try to reserve these spots for customers. As one downtown merchant describes the situation in his town, "Parking is a problem for businesses because employees park on Main St. and side streets and prevent customers from z Parking Benefit Districts are currently in place in Pasadena, Boulder, San Diego, Austin, Seattle, and Aspen. parking ...We need parking management and enforcement strategies to prevent employees from doing the 2-hour shuff le' downtown." The most common mechanism that communities use to create vacancies in prime parking spaces is to set time limits and give tickets to violators. Time limits, however, bring several disadvantages: enforcement of time limits is labor-intensive and difficult, and downtown employees, who quickly become familiar with enforcement patterns, often become adept at the "two hour shuffle", moving their cars regularly or swapping spaces with a coworker several times during the workday. Even with strictly enforced time limits, if there is no price incentive to persuade employees to seek out less convenient, bargain-priced spots, employees will probably still park in prime spaces. For customers, strict enforcement can bring "ticket anxiety" - the fear of getting a ticket if one lingers a minute too long (for example, in order to have dessert after lunch). As Dan Zack, Downtown Development Manager for Redwood City, CA, puts it, "Even if a visitor is quick enough to avoid a ticket, they don't want to spend the evening watching the clock and moving their car around. If a customer is having a good time in a restaurant, and they are happy to pay the market price for their parking spot, do we want them to wrap up their visit early because their time limit wasn't long enough? Do we want them to skip dessert or that last cappuccino in order to avoid a ticket?" While on-street pricing is the preferred mechanism to turn-over spaces, even in small downtowns like Needham's, it is a difficult measure to implement without a lot of political support and extended education. In the long-term, on-street pricing is entirely appropriate for Reading, since it would solve many of the problems that exist today. However, time-limits are the tool of choice in Reading today. Establishing the best time-limit that accommodates customers conveniently while encourages adequate turnover is an inexact science. While some parkers may be satisfied with the existing time limit, many others are not. Lengthening a time limit may induce some parkers to stay longer; attract new parkers who appreciate the added time; and push away short-term parkers who can't find a space as conveniently. Shortening a time-limit may drive some employees out of customer spaces but also drive away some customers who want to stay longer. Reading's most predominant time-limit throughout downtown is 2-hours. While this time may have some historical precedent, it is most defendable as a common value used in most Massachusetts downtowns. The data supporting a better time limit is mostly inconclusive. The user survey revealed a wide spectrum of parking durations in downtown, as shown in Figure 68. C9> Figure 2 Surveyed Length of Stay m EVERYONE WORXER Z CUSTOMER While customers tend to have shorter stays and employees longer, the turnover studies of two prime customer areas on upper Haven (Figure 69) and in front of CVS (Figure 70) demonstrate that the average stay per car in a customer parking area is nearly 3-hours throughout the entire day. The predominant length of stay that satisfies 85-percent of parkers (the 85th-percentile) exceeds 4-hours. On upper Haven it approaches 7 hours during work hours. It should be noted that both areas have 2- hour time limits. co Figure 3 Turnover and Utilization on Upper Haven Street - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 loo% 90% 80% 1 Y 70v 1 7:00 6:00 r 5:00 %Utilized - - - - - - - - 4:00 50% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - y - - - - - - 0-85th Percentile l y -M-Avg, Stay. 40% I 3:00 y 2:00 20% 1:00 10% - U% 0:00 10:00 Alvl 11:00 AM 12.00 Pivl 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 Plvl 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PNI 8:00 PM 10, Figure 4 Turnover and Utilization in Front of CVS 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 9055 80% 70% - 60% - 50% - 404. 3055 - 20% - r.n.; / 6:00 t A'\ y.y } ~1 a r f( 104• - 5:00 4:00 r-9o Utilized -o- 85 th P ercen 01 e 3:00 -qM- Avg, Stay 2:00 1:00 0^ 0:00 10:00 AM 11:00 AN] 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PPA 7:00 PM 8:00 PM While the ultimate effect of changing time-limits cannot be predicted well due to induced parking activity, the turnover data suggests that a longer time-limit (3-hours or more) would match the average duration of more parkers in front of the CVS. This would be a very customer-friendly approach that reduces complaints, and it would not impact availability significantly during daylight hours when utilization is low. A three or more hour limit would also accommodate more parkers on upper Haven, though many parkers would still be exceeding the time-limit each day (note the 85th percentile line). However, lengthening time-limits in areas of relatively high demand is counter-intuitive. Only on upper Haven after 1 PM would longer time limits work well since utilization drops off significantly. In areas of high demand, this policy would essentially reward those who seek to park for longer periods in locations that should be dedicated to shorter-term parking. Therefore, the turnover data is most valuable for understanding the duration preferences of parkers within an entire district, as opposed to the given block face where data is recorded. The data from upper Haven and Main Street in front of CVS indicate that a longer time-limit would be valuable, but not necessarily in these specific locations where turn-over and availability can benefit the shorter-term visits of nearby retail and banking customers. Likely target areas for increasing time limits to accommodate those staying over 3-hours are lots and on-street parking with lower demand that are further from these key destinations. The most heavily utilized 2-hour zones in downtown Reading are: • Upper Haven, especially during midday • Main Street, in front of CVS in the late afternoon and evening • Lower Haven, in front of the Atlantic Market all day ~ Both municipal lots are within a short walk of these locations and experience lower utilization throughout daytime hours. These would be ideal locations to attract longer-term parkers who might be more willing to walk the extra minute or two, freeing up.availability for shorter-term parkers on-street. Especially if combined with the signing Recommendation 5, the time-limits in each of these lots should be extended to at least 3-hours if not 4-hours. Utilization of the lots and on-street spaces should be closely monitored for at least 30 days after implementation. If on-street availability does not increase, time-limits at these high-demand spaces should be reduced to 1-hour, as long as appropriate signing for the longer-term lots is in place. Extend Hours of Regulation The data from the parking in front of CVS illustrates another key parking dynamic that occurs due to the current time-limits in Reading. Shortly before as well as after the end of time-limited parking at 6PM, utilization of this parking spikes to nearly 100-percent. This also occurs in the public lot behind CVS. Without a fear of penalty, parkers quickly occupy these spaces, which happen to be those closest to prime dining destinations. While an intercept survey of these motorists was not within the scope of this study, it is evident that restaurant employees and patrons are occupying these prime spaces. If the time span for time-limited parking (and appropriate enforcement) were extended through dining hours in these locations, longer-term parkers would have to find spaces that were more accommodating, leaving these prime spaces available for customers and restaurant patrons. As long as clear employee parking spaces are designated nearby between the hours of 6PM and 10PM (see Recommendation 1), the more valuable spaces - in front of the CVS, on upper Haven and on the end of Woburn close to Main - can have their time-limit regulations extended until 10PM. From 6PM until 10PM, the time-limits in these areas would better serve restaurant patrons if they were extended to 3- hours. 4) Expand Parking Enforcement Hours The Town of Reading has a very limited budget for parking enforcement today. Enforcement occurs only 5 days per week for less than 5-hours each day. With only one staff person, it is focused on the downtown core almost exclusively. At current budget levels, it is not expected that this level of enforcement can be increased. To 7 -010 r Nonetheless enforcement is an ` g : essential part of supporting parking regulations. As structured today, enforcement hours and 1 ~ activity is mostly penalizing those ; +sF ' [ F who dominate downtown parking during midday weekday hours: employees and merchants. Given the current set of regulations, this enforcement program is necessary. However, it targets the community most responsible for economic activity in Reading. As the Town works to improve its economic climate and attract business, it would be appropriate to change the enforcement focus - especially given the observations supporting Recommendations 1, 2 and 3. If more employee permit parking is advertised and provided to employees in mutually agreeable locations, time-limit violations in higher-demand areas will drop, since most daytime customers do not stay more than 2-hours today. Midday enforcement will become far less necessary. Meanwhile, some ~3 of the biggest parking complaints come during evening dining hours and Saturdays when customers are trying to find spaces for dinner, errands and shopping. Enforcement of existing Saturday and new evening regulations would help relieve this problem for customers. By shifting existing enforcement hours strategically, the Town can improve enforcement revenue and value to the community without increasing costs. The most valuable hours for enforcement to occur are: Saturdays between 10AM and 1 PM and between 6PM and 10PM; and weeknights (especially Thursday and Friday) between 6PM and 10PM. It would also be appropriate to continue midday/lunchtime enforcement at least one day per week. Hypothetically assigning enforcement personnel to cover these hours results in the following schedule: Saturdays between 10AM and 12PM Saturdays between 6PM and 9PM Thursday and Friday between 6PM and 9PM One random weekday between 10AM and 2PM 2 hours 3 hours 6 hours 4 hours Total 15 hours per week While greater enforcement should be considered in the future, this focused schedule would help maximize enforcement revenue and value. 5) Improve Parking Signing While regulatory signing for parking regulations is prominent and plentiful in Reading, signing that helps direct parkers to available parking areas is very limited. With only one small parking sign per lot entrance, there is no clear indication to visitors - or welcoming reminder to regulars - that convenient off-street parking exists (see Figure 71). As Reading seeks to attract new business and customers, greater ease of finding parking spaces is important. Figure 5 Existing Parking Signs in Reading 1 i~ s~ Many communities employ a clear and consistent signing system that helps direct visitors to off-street parking easily (see examples in Figure 72). Given Reading's desire to resolve utilization issues in on- street spaces during high demand times in the evening and on Saturday's, clear signing to the existing municipal lots is an important component of the time-limit changes in Recommendation 3. Cjq Figure 6 Parking Signs in Framingham r.. as r° 6 ~ ,I TW t ~M fr c; ~ E Another important part of a signing system that communities frequently overlook is directing departing motorists to exits and nearby arterials. While finding an exit to Reading's municipal lots is not a difficult task, simple signs in the lots and at critical turns on surrounding streets that direct motorists to Route 28 and Interstate 93 can be very helpful and make a customer's experience in Reading more accommodating - hopefully increasing the chance that they will return. Combined with a downtown wayfinding system, departure signs can help keep cars on preferred commercial roads and keep them away from residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian Signing The most commonly overlooked signing need for parking facilities is pedestrian signing to and from the parking facility. Especially in compact vernacular downtowns like Reading's, visitors can easily confuse which street or alley to use to get back to their parked car. Regulars to a downtown may not even know the best access routes. And signs that direct new arrivals to prime streets or destinations help to increase the overall accommodation of downtown Reading as a place to shop and do business. Fortunately, pedestrian wayfinding signs are very inexpensive to design, purchase and install. The investment can be very worthwhile and improve the overall walkability of the downtown. Many simple examples exist in the region, and they can be coordinated with parking signs for motorists to keep a consistent memorable message (see Figure 73). Figure 7 Pedestrian Signs in Framingham If time-limits are -extended into the evening near restaurants, pedestrian signing to and from the CVS lot will be important. These should help parkers find driveway and walkway connections to and from Haven, Main and Woburn Streets. Similarly, connections to and from the "Atlantic" lot should be clearly signed along Haven, Chute, Woburn and Linden Streets. The Walgreen's lot would also be benefitted by pedestrian signing to and from Main, Pleasant and Woburn Streets. IS 6) Incentivize Sharing of Private Parking As Reading seeks to grow its downtown and encourage economic development, parking will become a significant obstacle under the current operating and regulatory framework. While some shared municipal parking exists that can serve multiple uses, the vast majority of off-street spaces are locked up in private hands. Even though the utilization study clearly demonstrates that these spaces are poorly utilized throughout the entirety of the day, there is little incentive to increase their efficiency by sharing these spaces across different parcels or landowners. With the standard practice of building individual private lots or garages for each building in place in Reading, the result is a lack of welcome for customers: at each parking lot, the visitor is informed that his vehicle will be towed if he or she visits any place besides the adjacent building. When this occurs, nearby shopping malls gain a distinct advantage over a district with fragmented parking. Mail owners understand that they should not divide their mall's parking supply into small fiefdoms: they operate their supply as a single pool for all of the shops, so that customers are welcomed wherever they park. The compactness and mixed-use nature of downtown Reading lends itself to this kind of "Park Once" strategy. Operating the downtown parking supply as a single shared pool results in significant savings in daily vehicle trips and required parking spaces, for three reasons: 1. Park once. Those arriving by car can easily follow a "park once" pattern: they park their car just once and complete multiple daily tasks on foot before returning to their car (see Figure 74). 2. Shared Parking among Uses with Differing Peak Times. Spaces can be efficiently shared between uses with differing peak hours, peak days, and peak seasons of parking demand (such as office, restaurant, retail and downtown apartments). 3. Shared Parking to Spread Peak Loads. The parking supply can be sized to meet average parking loads (instead of the worst-case parking ratios needed for isolated buildings), since the common supply allows shops and offices with above-average demand to be balanced by shops and offices that have below-average demand or are temporarily vacant. Figure 8 "Park Once" District Shop O ~ I ♦ I , walk i School " Office ♦ Park ♦ ♦ Drive n°'r ♦ r a-,d w - w1gil,al Illuslmd., by Willi., Kulash. The most successful "Park Once" districts manage parking as a public utility - just like streets and sewers - with public parking provided in strategically-placed lots and garages. Development is prohibited (or strongly discouraged) from building private parking. Tenants that require a guarantee of a certain number of spaces at particular hours (e.g., Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) can lease those spaces in a public lot or garage, with the exclusive right to use them during the hours required. As described above, such arrangements leave the parking available during evening and weekend hours for other users (e.g., the patrons of restaurants), resulting in an efficient sharing of the parking supply and lower costs for all. In the long term, a fully implemented "Park Once" strategy: • Is more welcoming of customers and visitors (fewer "Thou Shalt Not Park Here" signs scattered about). • Allows for fewer, strategically placed lots and garages, resulting in better urban design and greater development opportunities. • Enables construction of larger, more space-efficient (and therefore more cost-effective) lots and garages. Reading cannot achieve this ideal system in the short-term. However, many initial policies can begin to improve the efficiency of the downtown parking system, enabling much more development to occur without the cost and urban design impacts of new parking: i. Incentives to encourage participation by existing parking facility owners and operators need to be in place. These can take the following forms: a) Increased regulatory flexibility to encourage sharing. At the very least, this means the elimination of the 300-foot distance requirement for accessory parking in the downtown; elimination of any use stipulation on shared parking; implementation of a ULI shared parking model to allow reduced minimums; and elimination of any code-based requirements that discourage public access, merging of lots, etc. b) Identification of available pooled liability protection whereby multiple parking facility owners can purchase a replacement joint policy to allow public access for lower rates than existing policies, c) Creation of a parking authority or other public-private entity that manages the shared off-street (and on-street) parking supply. This entity can offer greater economies of scale than individual parking operators can afford, greatly reducing labor, security, insurance, maintenance, and other related costs, while also allowing greater purchasing power. Under Massachusetts law, the Town's limited liability exposure allows it to manage this supply and absorb any private liability concerns. The Town can offer a guaranteed lease payment to the landowner that exceeds what revenues that landowner may now be receiving from the lot. The Town can give the landowner a guarantee of accessing a minimum quantity of spaces in that or adjacent shared lots when needed, while leasing the remainder of spaces throughout the entire day to other users. Even if the Town charges no more per space than it pays the landowner, there will be increased revenues simply on account of more parkers being able to share the spaces that went unutilized at other times of day. The Town can use this revenue to maintain and improve the lot, further increasing the appeal to landowners to participate in the program. 2. The parking supply for the retail, office and residential users in downtown Reading should be shared among all users, with the following exception: residents and employees who are willing to pay a premium rate for exclusive, assigned spaces should be allowed to do so (residents of market rate units are most likely to take advantage of this option.) To implement this policy, parking leases in lots owned or managed by the Town can be structured in the following manner: a) Under the standard lease rate, the parking permit holder is guaranteed that a parking space will be available within the shared pool of spaces for him or her to use, but no particular space is marked with his or her name. 17 b) Under the premium rate for assigned spaces, the parking permit holder has a particular space designated (with signs and markings) for his or her use. For example, an assigned residential space may be marked "Reserved for Unit #101", while assigned employee spaces may be marked reserved for an individual permit holder ("Reserved for Permit #81"). Two types of premium spaces should be made available. The most expensive option is a space that is reserved 24 hours per day, seven days a week for the permit holder's exclusive use. The less expensive alternative is reserved for the permit holder's exclusive use only during the hours when the space is typically needed. For example, a typical retail tenant may wish to choose a space that is reserved for his or her firm's use only when the business is open say, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday, in the case of a reactor's office. (With this latter alternative, the retail tenant saves money by having the space assigned for their use only part- time, and the space becomes available for other users such as restaurant patrons on evenings and weekends). 3. As future properties are developed, their parking supplies should also become part of the Park Once district. This may be accomplished either by creating additional new joint public parking facilities as part of development agreements for each site or through conditions of approval that require that the privately-owned parking supply be made available for public use. 7) Establish Valet Parking Regulations Valet parking has been suggested in workshops as a possible solution for limited parking availability in the evenings near busy restaurants. While the time-limit and enforcement recommendations above should help to alleviate the problem, valet parking can still be valuable and should be accommodated in downtown Reading. Valet parking allows the most effective use of out-of-the-way parking spaces and can increase the effective parking supply by allowing for parking of additional vehicles in parking aisles and in tandem parking arrangements. If well-written licensing regulations are established, valet operations can greatly improve the appeal of downtown to visitors while improving the overall image of the downtown for the community. Several key elements should be a part of any valet parking regulation in Reading: Applicants should clearly describe the entire valet operation in writing to the Town, including hours of service, number of valets, number of valet spaces needed, valet sign mock-up, location of remote parking, walking and driving route and times to and from remote parking, form of communication between valets and valet manager, and current insurance coverage. The valet space should be located so as to provide the maximum amount of safety to passing motorists and pedestrians. This includes finding a location with clear sightlines, lighting and ADA access to the destination. The driving route to remote-parking and the return valet trip by foot should take only an acceptable amount of time at posted driving speeds or brisk walk speeds. If.the round-trip time exceeds a minimum threshold (typically 2-minutes), additional valets should be working. Staging and temporary standing must be regulated. A Town phone number for complaints should be clearly posted at the destination. The license should be held by the destination (restaurant), not the valet company. The license should require a nominal fee and be renewable annually, allowing the Town to review operations, implement changes as necessary or revoke the operation. It should be noted that valets are an excellent means for maximizing the use of a parking facility while providing convenience to certain customers. However, they are not an appropriate solution for solving downtown parking availability problems - even though that is what many businesses and communities resort to before trying to fix their curb regulations. Ig 8) Expand On-Street Parking Supply The parking utilization study shows that Reading has an abundance of available parking spaces in downtown at all times of day. The parking demand projections demonstrate that a large amount of development can occur without building any new parking. Therefore, Reading should not attempt to increase on-street parking supply as a tool to increase availability. However, on-street parking has a great benefit to urban form and the walkability of downtowns. Some of America's most walkable downtowns are lined with on-street parking. Meanwhile, many pedestrian- only streets or malls have not fared well. Planners generally believe this irony is due to two strong effects of on-street parking: 1) the act of entering and exiting a car provides a base level of pedestrian activity that is lost without on-street spaces; and 2) parked cars provide a visual, sound and safety buffer from traffic, helping to make sidewalks more enjoyable for walkers. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated that one of the most effective ways to "calm" traffic speed is to install on-street parking adjacent to travel lanes, causing a degree of perceived "friction" to motorists, which slows traffic. Therefore, increasing on-street parking can be very beneficial in many regards. In Reading, a few key streets that must be regularly crossed by pedestrians are wide and deserving of traffic calming, including lower Haven, High, and Main Street. While all of these streets already have on-street parking, the introduction of angled parking can serve to greatly reduce speeds while significantly increasing on-street capacity. This solution is unlikely on Main Street, which is a state route. However, High Street is a prime candidate for this solution. The use of reverse-angle parking (see Figure 75) in commercial districts has proven successful at increasing on-street supply up to 40%, calming traffic speeds, increasing the ease of parking, and improving safety for cyclists. Backing into a reverse angle space is easier than parallel parking and safer than backing out of a traditional forward-angle space. The position of the parked car allows the driver to see approaching cars and bicycles before exiting; the direction of opening doors protects passengers (particularly children) from entering the street; and the trunk of the car is conveniently at the curb. . Figure 9 Reverse Angle Parking SEA c~ . - s < c r t Yom: L .F"`9 l r kS ~ CIIAA Reverse angle parking is still new in the United States, though its use is escalating dramatically in Canada due to its safety benefits. Installing the spaces should be preceded by an outreach and education campaign, complete with posters, flyers, signs (Figure 76) and variable message boards in the weeks before implementation. Figure 10 Reverse Angle Parking Signing Figures 77 and 78 illustrate how reverse angle parking would look on High Street near the train station. It is estimated that over 20 new spaces could be added on High Street, helping to alleviate some of the demand by commuters to park on residential streets. More significantly, the treatment can reduce vehicle speeds in this important pedestrian area. Coupled with appropriate curb extensions, the pedestrian realm can be greatly enhanced. Figure 11 High Street Reverse-Angle Parking - lip l 1 °o- rAt F1~ ' ,~~ftl~~ l~ Plan View Rh "N l ra+v 4 '4r~_ t rt a~ fi~r~~ J l,~ ~t`t~..~, '"~~ss ~ iL ~3f wwuu r~ / 1 ~w > v Figure 12 High Street Reverse-Angle Parking - Perspective View .;>.ry~_, ~ his ~ ~ rs~rM'"":.~~~~-+~ „•a•ic-~: RIT 31 L y~ 10, 11 W / I Y - TDM Actions 9) Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements The traditional method of managing the supply of off-street parking in communities across the country has been to set minimum standards that require a minimum number of spaces per unit, square foot of building area, employee, etc. for each and every possible land use. Most minimum parking requirements were adopted to "alleviate or prevent traffic congestion and shortages of curbside CJ parking spaces." For half a century, virtually every modern city has had minimum parking requirements, and yet not only has traffic congestion gotten worse, it is projected to steadily worsen. History of Minimum Parking Requirements The essential concept of minimum parking. requirements was that if each destination provided ample parking, with enough spaces available so that even when parking was free there would be plenty of room, then there would be plenty of spaces at the curb. Motorists would no longer need to circle the block looking for a space, and so traffic congestion would be lessened. Minimum parking requirements, however, had unintended consequences for traffic. Communities set minimum parking requirements that were simply high enough to satisfy the demand for parking even when parking was given away for free. The predictable result was that roads were overwhelmed with excess traffic induced in large part by free parking. However, if prices for curb parking are set correctly to ensure at least one or two vacancies per block, off-street minimum parking requirements are not needed to prevent shortages of on-street parking. Instead, they only act to worsen traffic, and to discourage developers, employers, residents and other property owners from implementing strategies that reduce traffic and parking demand. The communities with the strongest records of reducing Vehicle trips and traffic congestion, such as London, have eliminated minimum parking requirements entirely (in fact, nationwide). The great majority of these communities instead now have maximum parking requirements (that is, they limit the number of spaces allowed at each building). They now regard maximum parking requirements - the opposite approach - as an essential tool for preventing traffic congestion. Reading's Parking Requirements Reading has taken a fairly progressive approach to minimum parking requirements in its downtown with the mixed-use overlay district requirements. While Chapter 1 demonstrates that Reading's base zoning requires far more parking per use than the highest demand modeled by the conservative ITE approach, the mixed-use overlay district is generally in-line with or below ITE's requirements. However, given true utilization data by use from throughout the northeast as well as the parking utilization data collected in downtown Reading, the Town should lower these parking minimums much further - especially if it intends to encourage investment in downtown and reduce traffic impacts: o Residential requirements should not exceed 1 space per unit, regardless of the size of the unit. Hundreds of parking spaces go unused in downtown Reading every night and weekend. Office requirements should not exceed 2 per 1000. The Town's employee permit program and plenty of reserve on-street capacity can accommodate a couple hundred thousand square feet of new office space. Retail requirements should be eliminated in the downtown. While shared parking incentives (Recommendation 6) will enable most residences and offices to find minimum parking supplies in the downtown, retailers operate on tight margins in this market area. With ample on- and off- street parking for customers, retail should have no minimum parking requirement. 10) Establish an In-Lieu of Parking Payment Parking in-lieu fees have been in place in dozens of communities throughout America for years. By making a payment to the municipality, new developments can waive their minimum parking requirements. The fee is usually utilized for transportation improvements, particularly shared public parking facilities. An in-lieu fee has a number of advantages, as summarized by Donald Shoup3 1) Enables developers on constrained sites to build less parking. 3 "in Lieu of Required Parking," Donald Shoup. CD 2) Encourages development of shared parking facilities financed by in-lieu fees. A public parking facility shared by many users requires fewer total spaces than multiple individual developments due to the inherent overlap of peak demand times. 3) Shared public parking facilities financed by in-lieu fees can be placed strategically to serve many while reducing the. potential impact to pedestrian and bicycle movements. This also frees up development parcels to create appropriate urban streetscapes without curb cuts and garage entrances. 4) Eliminates the need for zoning variances, fairly leveling the playing field for all developers and allowing planning boards to focus on design features as opposed to parking quantities. 5) Allows for historic preservation by enabling redevelopment of buildings without adding new parking. In-lieu fees can be an effective method for cost-effectively providing parking in remote locations out of the control of individual land owners. By using fees to subsidize remote parking at locations with cheaper construction or leasing costs, communities can facilitate development financing while establishing a means to encourage appropriate development standards for participating developers. When fees are set appropriately, more efficient and better quality designs can be enabled while appropriate parking is provided off-site. In more progressive communities, the success of in-lieu fees has evolved into the lowering of minimum parking requirements. Dozens of communities in the United States have completely removed minimum residential and commercial parking requirements in downtown districts, including Eugene, OR; Fort Myers,. FL; Fort Pierce, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; Olympia, WA; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; and Stuart, FL. Program Details The majority of communities in America that employ in-lieu fees have a consistent standard for all new projects. However, the motivation for specifying a rate varies considerably. In many communities with excessive parking supplies, the fee is low to reduce the growth of parking. Other communities have a moderate rate that is designed specifically to contribute to a shared parking facility. Several communities have arbitrarily high fees that permit yet discourage the practice. In downtown Reading, the primary goals of an in-lieu fee is to: 1) remove the cost and design complexity of building parking in downtown, while also 2) enabling the development of cheaper remote parking or alternative transportation systems through payments to the parking and transportation fund (Recommendation 2). Therefore, it is important to give a cost savings to developers while having a fee high enough to support a robust fund. Based on estimated garage construction prices of at least $20,000 per space, it is estimated that an average fee of $10,000 per space be implemented - annualized as a payment to the fund of approximately $800 per year for 35 years (the industry-standard lifespan of a parking structure). The specific fee for a particular project may vary in direct proportion to the number of required spaces. Smaller projects that only require a few spaces may not see much incentive to reduce parking at $10,000 per space. A fee of only $2,500 may be appropriate. Larger projects with dozens of spaces are likely to have more substantial financing that is prepared to build expensive underground parking spaces that cost over $45,00.0. Such projects may see great benefit paying as much as $15,000 per space to avoid the complexity of structured parking. Therefore, the final in-lieu payment schedule would be best expressed as a rate that increases with the number of total spaces required for a project. 11) Provide Zoning Relief for Parking Unbundling Parking costs are generally subsumed into the sale or rental price of housing for the sake of simplicity, and because that is the more traditional practice in real estate. But although the cost of parking is often hidden in this way, parking is never free. The expected cost for each space in new residential 0 parking garage is over $20,000 per space. Given land values in the area, surface spaces will be at least as valuable. Looking at parking as a tool to achieve the Town's goals for more affordable housing and less traffic requires some changes to status quo practices, since providing anything for free or at highly subsidized rates encourages use and means that more parking spaces have to be provided to achieve the same rate of availability. For both rental units and condominiums, the full cost of parking should be unbundled from the cost of the housing itself by creating a separate parking charge. This provides a financial reward to households who decide to dispense with one of their cars and helps attract that niche market of households who wish to live in a walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood where it is possible to live well with only one car (or even no car) per household. Unbundling parking costs changes parking from a required purchase to an optional amenity, so that households can freely choose how many spaces they wish to lease. Among households with below average vehicle ownership rates (e.g., low income people, singles, single parents, seniors on fixed incomes, and college students), allowing this choice can provide a substantial financial benefit. It is important to note that construction costs for residential parking spaces can substantially increase the sale/rental price of housing. This is because the space needs of residential parking spaces can restrict how many housing units can be built within allowable zoning and building envelope. For example, a study of Oakland's 1961 decision to require one parking space per apartment (where none had been required before) found that construction cost increased 18% per unit, units per acre decreased by 30% and land values fell 33%.4 As a result, bundled residential parking can significantly increase "per-unit housing costs" for individual renters or buyers. Two studies of San Francisco housing found that units with off-street parking bundled with the unit sell for 11 % to 12% more than comparable units without included parking.' One study of San Francisco housing found the increased affordability of units without off- street parking on-site can increase their absorption rate and make home ownership a reality for more people.' In that study, units without off-street parking: • Sold on average 41 days faster than comparable units with off-street parking • Allowed 20% more San Francisco households to afford a condominium (compared to units with bundled off-street parking) • Allowed 24 more San Francisco households to afford a single-family house (compared to units with bundled off-street parking) Charging separately for parking is also the single most effective strategy to encourage households to own fewer cars and rely more on walking, cycling and transit. According to one study, unbundling residential parking can significantly reduce household vehicle ownership and parking demand.? These effects are presented in Figure 79. 4 Bertha, Brian. "Appendix A" in The Low-Rise Speculative Apartment by Wallace Smith UC Berkeley Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 1964. 5 Wenyu Jia and Martin Wachs. "Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco." University of California Transportation Center Paper No. 380,1998 and Amy Herman, "Study Findings Regarding Condominium Parking Ratios," Sedway Group, 2001. S Ibid. ' Litman, Todd. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability." Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. 7j~ Figure 13 Reduced Vehicle Ownership with Unbundled Residential Parking Reduction in Vehicle Ownership from unbundling Parking Costs 40% - 35% - > L 25% I - 0 15% CD 10% y' I - ~ 5% - 0% i $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 Monthly Parking Fee -0.4 Elasticity -0.7 Elasticity -----1.0 Elasticity Source: Litman, Todd. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability." Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. Program Details Instituting a parking unbundling program is a simple matter of requiring that any approved parking within downtown Reading have its own lease or deed that is rented or purchased separate from the cost of housing. For rental units, unbundling parking costs is straightforward: the fees charged for the parking spaces will cover the full cost of providing the parking spaces. Then rents for the housing can be reduced up to an amount equal to the amount of parking revenue collected. In the case of for-sale condominium units, the title to the property should give the owner the right to lease at least one parking space (and these owners will have first priority for leasing parking spaces in a garage). However, as with renters, owners would not be required to lease any parking spaces and could rent as many or as few as they choose. The resulting parking revenue should be used to reduce the amount of the condominium owners' association dues that the owners would otherwise have to pay. it is critical that residents and tenants are made aware that rents, sale prices and lease fees are reduced because parking is charged for separately. Rather than paying "extra" for parking, the cost is simply separated out, allowing residents and businesses to choose how much parking they wish to purchase. No tenant, resident, employer or employee should be required to lease any minimum amount of parking. 12) Monitor Parking Utilization An important part of maintaining the success of any of these recommendations will be monitoring parking utilization on a regular basis. A recurring annual or biennial monitoring regime can allow the Town to modify its time-limits, zoning requirements, shared-parking incentives and other key policies. Based on the detailed utilization information collected for this study, a much smaller and targeted utilization effort can be conducted (potentially in-house or with the use of students or volunteers) by focusing on area of high demand and only casually, observing other areas to confirm the results of this a effort. Where parking patterns appear to change, a more detailed utilization count would be warranted. 13) Install Bicycle Racks In all workshops held for this study, a large portion of residents within walking distance of downtown Reading chose to walk into town versus driving. This is also demonstrated in the user survey data in Chapter 3. These residents help reduce the burden on the parking supply while also eliminating vehicle trips. The same effect is possible for a much broader radius around downtown Reading by making bicycling more convenient and accommodating in town. There are very few bicycle parking facilities in the downtown today. The simple addition of inexpensive post and ring racks on Main, Haven and other key downtown streets would greatly increase the attractiveness of bicycling to downtown. With the cost of bicycles today, most riders want to be sure they can safely secure their investment. If coupled with smart placement in areas that are shaded and/or sheltered, the Town can truly encourage reduced parking and driving demand. 14) Install Bus Shelters Reading is benefitted by two bus lines that operate on Woburn and High Streets in downtown, providing regular service to and from Wakefield, Melrose and the MBTA's Orange Line. In commute hours, these buses have a combined headway of only 15-minutes - a high level of service for a suburb outside of 1-95. Unfortunately, this service is not very prominent in Reading - there are no schedules posted and no bus shelters in the downtown. These bus, routes provide a great commute alternative for employees working in Reading that live in nearby communities or almost anywhere on the MBTA's rapid transit system. The Town and the Chamber of Commerce should work to promote this service, especially as it represents an opportunity to reduce parking demand and vehicle trips in Reading. While new bus shelters cost over $10,000 apiece, the MBTA offers many programs to share costs. The Town should also explore opportunities with abutting private landowners to incorporate shelter elements into existing building facades - a treatment that adds architectural appeal to many buildings (see Figure 80). ZS Figure 14 Integrated Bus Shelter in Belmont Medium Term 15) Initiate a New Commuter Permit Program Reading has had a long history with commuter rail in its downtown. The impact of commuters parking on downtown streets pushed the Town to begin constraining access to the station from outside Reading many years ago. The development of the Anderson RTC station helped alleviate a lot of commuter demand at the Reading Depot, and non-resident commuter spaces at the Depot are few. However, in-town commuters continue to flood available parking around the station today. The utilization study revealed that commuter parking at the station and up several residential streets to the west was fully utilized. While an expansion of supply (such as Recommendation 8) will help alleviate some pressure on residential streets in the short-term, the high demand for access to commuter rail service will continue to fully utilize all available spaces. As a result of this high demand, choice spaces are available on a first-come, first-served basis, with only the proof of a $25/year community access sticker. As a result, commuters who do not go into work early are often faced with the difficulty of finding parking or a long walk from an available space. An unknown number of would-be rail commuters are discouraged and drive to their jobs. The Town has an opportunity to provide this park & ride privilege to more people while helping improve the area around the Depot. By implementing a tiered pricing structure at more market-based rates, the Town can allow more residents to have the opportunity to park at the station while encouraging a better commuter profile in town as well as towards Boston. Higher prices would be charged for the closest spaces with one or more tiers of lower priced permits for spaces further from the station. With the introduction of a limited quantity of higher-priced permits for prime station parking, commuters will be affected in a number of positive ways: • Spaces close to the station will become available all day long, allowing commuters who avoid the area after the early part of the rush hour to catch a train, as opposed to driving in the more congested mid-morning hours. • Many existing commuters who pay so little to park will be encouraged to carpool, walk, bike or take the bus to the Depot. • Commuters who are happy to walk further from their parking space will be rewarded by paying a reduced price to park. 0 If the Town sets a fair rate that is comparable to the cost of parking at other commuter rail stations in the area (which now charge at least $2 per day, or over $480 per year), it can use the revenues to make improvements to the station area and especially the residential streets where many commuters park today. In turn, if the Town clearly directs surplus revenues at these neighborhoods, these residents will have an incentive to put their own cars off-street when possible, generating even more revenue for their neighborhood. 16) Conduct a Paid Parking Pilot As discussed in Recommendation 4, time-limited parking is a blunt instrument that only satisfies the majority of parkers who happen to complain about time-limits - which is a very small percentage of everyone who parks. Turnover data suggests a wide variety of durations are parked by travelers to downtown Reading. No one time limit can work well. Pricing through the use of meters or pay stations has been in use in the United States since 1936, and many small communities like Reading use it today, including Needham, Framingham, and Concord. However, meters have a very bad reputation in America, both for the difficulty of finding change to put into them as well as the hassle of getting overtime tickets. Ironically, the concept of paying money to park on-street is actually not as much of a complaint. A recent Redwood City staff report summarizes the results found in downtown Burlingame, California: In a recent "intercept" survey, shoppers in downtown Burlingame were asked which factor made their parking experience less pleasant recently... The number one response was "difficulty in finding a space" followed by "chance of getting a ticket." "Need to carry change" was third, and the factor that least concerned the respondents was "cost of parking. " It is interesting to note that Burlingame has the most expensive on-street parking on the [San Francisco] Peninsula ($.75 per hour) and yet cost was the least troubling factor for most people. This is not an isolated result. Repeatedly, surveys of downtown shoppers have shown that the availability of parking, rather than price, is of prime importance. Always available, convenient, on-street customer parking is of primary importance for retail to succeed. To create vacancies and rapid turnover in the best, most convenient, front door parking spaces, the most effective mechanism is to have price incentives to persuade some drivers especially employees to park in less convenient spaces in lots or on-street parking a block or two away: higher prices for the best spots and cheap or free prices for the less convenient, currently underused spaces. Motorists can be thought of as falling into two primary categories: bargain hunters and convenience seekers. Convenience seekers are more willing to pay for an available front door spot. Many shoppers and diners are convenience seekers: they are typically less sensitive to parking charges because they stay for relatively short periods of time, meaning that they will accumulate less of a fee than an employee or other all-day visitor. By contrast, many long-stay parkers, such as employees, find it more worthwhile to walk a block to save on eight hours worth of parking fees. With proper pricing, the bargain hunters will choose currently underutilized locations, leaving the prime spots free for those convenience seekers who are willing to spend a bit more. After new time-limits, permits, and signing programs are in place, the Town should watch its parking monitoring results in a year to 18-months - particularly on Main Street in front of CVS. If utilization continues to be high and availability of spaces is a complaint of customers or businesses, the Town should consider a pricing pilot for these prime spaces. Not only is this location in prime need of availability for customers, its location is relatively confined - customers who seek the adjacent destinations are not likely to go further down Main or up Woburn Street to find free parking. OV7 What is the right price for on-street parking? If prices are used to create vacancies and turnover in the prime parking spots, then what is the right price? An ideal occupancy rate (on each and every block) is approximately 85% at even the busiest hour, a rate which leaves about one out of every seven spaces available'. This provides enough vacancies that visitors can easily find a spot near their destination when they first arrive. Ideally, parking occupancy for each block of on-street spaces. and each garage should be monitored carefully, and prices adjusted regularly to keep enough spaces available. In short, prices should be set at market rate, according to demand, so that just enough spaces are always available. Professor Donald Shoup of UCLA advocates setting prices for parking according to the "Goldilocks Principle": The price is too high if many spaces are vacant, and too low if no spaces are vacant. Children learn that porridge shouldn't be too hot or too cold, and that beds shouldn't be too soft or too firm. Likewise, the price of curb parking shouldn't be too high or too low. When about 15 percent of curb spaces are vacant, the price is just right. What alternative price could be better?l If this principle is followed, then there need be no fear that pricing parking will drive customers away. After all, when the front-door parking spots at the curb are entirely full, under-pricing parking cannot create more curb parking spaces for customers, because it cannot create more spaces. And, if the initial parking meter rate on a block is accidentally set too high, so that there are too many vacancies, then a policy goal of achieving an 85% occupancy rate will result in lowering the parking rate until the parking is once again well used (including making parking free, if need be). Remove Time Limits Once a policy of market rate pricing is adopted, with the goal of achieving an 85% occupancy rate, then time limits need not be instituted. With no time limits, much of the worry and "ticket anxiety" for downtown customers disappears. In Redwood City California, where this policy was recently adopted, Dan Zack describes the thinking behind the City's decision in this way: Market-rate prices are the only known way to consistently create available parking spaces in popular areas. If we institute market-rate prices, and adequate spaces are made available, then what purpose do time limits serve? None, other than to inconvenience customers. If there is a space or two available on all blocks, then who cares how long each individual car is there? The reality is that it doesn't matter. 17) Develop a Commuter Benefits Program Many employers in downtown Reading provide free or reduced price parking for their employees as a fringe benefit. This is a customary practice in most suburban workplaces. Unfortunately, it hides the cost of providing parking, does nothing to reduce parking demand and gives no reward to those who forgo a car in their commute. Therefore, many communities in American who.are seeking to reduce parking demand and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation have begun instituting a "Parking Cash-Out" requirement. Under a parking cash-out requirement, employers can continue to give away their parking to employees on the condition that they offer the cash value of the parking subsidy to any employee who does not drive to work. The programs essentially require employers to pay employees who do not drive. While at first take this sounds like an entirely unreasonable burden, it has proven to be so cost-effective that major employers in America are now instituting these programs of their own accord in order to reduce the cost of supplying parking. The success of parking cash-out has saved large universities and corporations millions of dollars in parking construction or leasing costs, and their employees are much happier because they are getting e This rate is a widely-accepted industry standard that provides a high level of convenience for parkers and largely eliminates the circling for parking which contributes to increased driver frustration, traffic congestion and collisions. 9 Shoup, D. (2005) The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: Planners Press. Gfv paid for their decision not to drive. The payment is typically less than the cost of leasing or maintaining a parking space, but it is a substantial benefit to employees that is also a cost-saver for business. Reading should consider working with its employers to offer this benefit to employees. The programs are so successful that they are now in Federal Highway guidance and have become law in California and Rhode Island. Benefits of Parking Cash Out The benefits of parking cash out are numerous, and include: Provides an equal transportation subsidy to employees who ride transit, carpool, vanpooi, walk or bicycle to work. The benefit is particularly valuable to low-income employees, who.are less likely to drive to work alone. Provides a low-cost fringe benefit that can help individual businesses recruit and retain employees. Employers report that parking cash-out requirements are simple to administer and enforce, typically requiring just one to two minutes per employee per month to administer. In addition to these benefits, the primary benefit of parking cash-out programs is their proven effect on reducing auto congestion and parking demand. Figure 81 illustrates the effect of parking cash-out at seven different employers located in and around Los Angeles. It should be noted that most of the case study employers are located in areas that do not have good access to transit service, so that a large part of the reduced parking demand that occurred with these parking cash-out programs resulted when former solo drivers began carpooling. Figure 15 Effects of Parking Cash-Out on Parking Demand Parking Fee Decrease in in $/Month Parking Location Scope of Study (2006$) Demand Group A: Areas with little public transportation Century City, CA' 13500 employees at 100+ firms J$107 115% Cornell University, NY2 ! 9000 faculty and staff J$45 26% Warner Center, CA' ,1 large employer (850 employees) J$49 30% Bellevue, WA3 (1 medium-size firm (430 empl) $72 39% Costa Mesa, CA' State Farm Insurance employees $49 22% Average ' J$64 126% Group B: Areas with fair public transportation Los Angeles Civic Center' (10,000+ employees, several firms J$166 136% Mid-Wilshire Blvd, LA' 1 mid-sized firm 1$119 138% Washington DC suburbs5 (5500 employees at 3 worksites 1$90 126% Downtown Los Angeles6 15000 employees at 118 firms ( $167 125% Average 1 J$135 131% Group C: Areas with good public transportation University of Washington' 50,000 faculty, staff and students $24 24% Downtown Ottawa' 13500+ government staff $95 18% Average $59 121% Overall Average $89 127% Sources: C2~ 1 Willson, Richard W. and Donald C. Shoup. "Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessing the Evidence." Transportation, 1990, Vol. 17b,141-157 (p 145). 2 Cornell University Office of Transportation Services. "Summary of Transportation Demand Management Program." Unpublished, 1992. 3 United States Department of Transportation. "Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium," USDOT Report No. DOT-T-91-14,1990. 4 Employers Manage Transportation. State Farm Insurance Company and Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1994. 5 Miller, Gerald K. "The Impacts of Parking Prices on Commuter Travel," Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1991. 6 Shoup, Donald and Richard W. Wilson. "Employer-paid Parking: The Problem and Proposed Solutions," Transportation Quarterly, 1992, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp169-192 (p189). i Williams, Michael E. and Kathleen L Petrait. "U-PASS: A Model Transportation Management Program That Works," Transportation Research Record, 1994, No.1404, p73-81. In addition to promoting parking cash-out, the Town can work proactively with employers to promote ridesharing, transit passes, bicycling, flexible work hours and guaranteed ride home programs. Long Term 18) Implement Parking Maximums Maximum parking requirements generally alleviate traffic congestion and reduce auto use through a simple three step process: 1. Maximum parking requirements are set low enough to so that if parking at a location is given away for free, there will be a shortage. 2. Parking at these locations is then provided to the people who use it for a price that covers at least part of the cost to finance and operate the parking, so that the cost is revealed. Alternately, employers and other parking providers find it cost effective to provide strong subsidies for alternative transportation (such as free transit passes or a parking cash out program), rather than incur the cost of building additional parking. Furthermore, providing maximum choice to tenants and customers. 3. Removing parking subsidies (or providing equally strong subsidies for other modes) then brings travel choices into balance, toward public transit, cycling and walking. Maximum requirements must be complemented by the correct pricing for both on and off-street parking that ensures a 15-percent vacancy rate in all parking facilities, in order to prevent parking shortages (or surpluses). 19) Implement Demand-Responsive Pricing Building upon the success of the parking pricing pilot, Reading should consider a full demand- responsive on-street pricing program as its downtown builds out into its parking supply. Using pay stations on every block, prices would be set at rates that create a 15% vacancy rate on each block (with no time-limits). Ideal hourly parking rates vary according to the time of day. The first 20 minutes may be free but every additional hour is priced according to the best value at that period of time in the day. Morning hours are generally cheaper, lunch hours demand a higher fee, afternoon hours reduce in price, and evening hours - especially on weekends - are likely to demand the highest rates. This rate structure makes parking free or cheap for short-stay visitors (such as retail customers), makes all day parking much more expensive, and creates availability during high demand dining and entertainment hours. Employees and residents are discouraged from parking at the meter spaces that are intended for customers, and are encouraged to purchase a monthly permit. Because of the variable rates, monthly permits (intended for residents and employees) are less expensive than parking all day at the meters. After an initial trial period, occupancy rates for each block and each parking facility should be reviewed and then adjusted down or up to achieve the 85% occupancy goal, as described earlier. For each block and each parking lot in Reading, the right price is the price that will achieve this goal. This 3° means that pricing should not be uniform: the most desirable spaces need higher prices, while less convenient spots are cheap or may even be free. 20) Expand Walking Network Ultimately, the success of the best downtowns rides on the ability of visitors, workers and residents to get around easily on foot. Reading already has a robust sidewalk network in downtown. As the downtown grows and progressive transportation and parking policies are implemented, the demand to connect by foot into downtown from a wider and wider radius will grow. Reading should anticipate this need and continue to program walking network expansions outward from downtown in the years to come. 3~ Parking Demand Projections This chapter discusses the expected parking demand increases inherent with any future development in downtown Reading. With any development it can be expected that an increase in the demand for parking follows. In most downtowns it is hard to find space available for increasing the parking supply. There are a number of ways to address this cost-effectively, including increasing the supply of public parking, investing in alternative forms of transportation, or managing the supply differently. One solution that Reading is considering is the construction of a downtown public garage. In this chapter we will be covering the fundamentals of a shared parking model in Reading's context and how this management policy can help accommodate growth in parking demand until a structure is necessary. Shared Parking Analysis Mixed-use developments settings offer the opportunity to share parking spaces between various uses, thereby reducing the total number of spaces required compared to the same uses in stand-alone developments. This is a primary benefit in mixed-use development contexts of moderate-to-high density. Shared parking operations offer many localized benefits to the surrounding community, including a more efficient use of land resources and reduced traffic congestion. There are two basic types of shared parking opportunities: 1) proximate uses with staggered demand peaks, and 2) internal capture of trips between proximate uses. Staggered Peaks The first shared parking opportunity offered by mixed-use development comes from the staggered demand peaks associated with each use. Different land uses generate unique levels and patterns of parking demand. Parking supplies at mixed-use locations accommodate these demand fluctuations more efficiently than segregated supplies by accommodating peaking uses with spaces left vacant by other uses. Thus, the same parking lot that was full of workers' vehicles during the day can be used for residents at night. Internal Capture Mixed-use districts such as downtown Reading allow for parking efficiencies through "internal capture" trips. Such trips are made by patrons who, having already parked, travel between uses without accessing their vehicle. Restaurants and retail services are common generators of internal capture trips in mixed-use developments, as they serve both employees and residents within the same development. Not only does this proximity of uses present an opportunity to conserve land area from parking uses, but it reduces localized congestion as local employees and residents are presented with daily goods and services within walking distance. Captive Market Methodology The first step in the analysis of the actual parking demand for the downtown was to apply a captive market reduction of 10% for commercial uses 'and 5% for residential uses compared to industry standard parking generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Parking Demand Management and Operational Efficiencies The Project has an opportunity to implement several effective parking demand management and trip reduction tools. Many parking demand reduction measures have been shown to reduce vehicle trips and parking demand in comparable development contexts. Figure 1 shows the maximum potential Page 1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates reduction for each of these parking reduction factors based on a survey of the academic literature and best practices. We estimate that implementation of parking management, trip reduction, and operational efficiency measures will result conservatively in an estimated parking demand reduction of 15% for residential uses and 15% for all other uses. We believe this is conservative because as the Figure 1 makes clear, significantly greater reductions have been documented. Figure 1: Impact of Trip Reduction Measures on Estimated Parking Demand Physical Measures Net Residential Density Mix of Uses Local-Serving Retail Transit Service Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendliness Physical Measures subtotal Demand Management and Similar Measures Parking Supply (2) ( Parking PricinglCash Out Free Transit Passes ( Telecommuting (3) Other TDM Programs Demand Management subtotal (4) Residential (1) ( Non-Residential Up to 55% NIA Up to 9% ( Up to 9% 2% ( 2% Up to 15% ( Up to 15% Up to 9% ( Up to 9% Up to 90% ( Up to 35% N/A ( No limit N/A ( Up to 25% 25% * reduction for transit ( 25% reduction for transit service N/A ( No limit N/A Up to 2%, plus 10% of the credit for transit and ped bike friendliness Up to 7.75% Up to 31.65% Notes: (1) For residential uses, the percentage reductions shown apply to the ITE average trip generation rate for single-family detached housing. For other residential land use types, some level of these mitigation measures is implicit in ITE average trip generation rates, and the percentage reduction will be lower. (2) Only if greater than sum of other trip reduction measures. (3) Not additive with other trip reduction measures. (4) Excluding credits for parking supply and telecommuting, which have no limit. Staggered Parking Analysis Further parking efficiency gains are possible by implementing a shared parking arrangement among different project uses with staggered parking demand peaks. In recognition of the fact that parking demand for different land uses fluctuate throughout the day, each land use in the downtown has a variable parking demand rate by time of day. This varying demand is expressed as "occupancy rates" a percentage of spaces allocated for a particular land use that are likely to be occupied at any given time. If parking is shared, then the total demand for parking is the sum of the number of parking spaces occupied for all land uses at the busiest hour. As the different land uses become more concentrated, such as under the new 40R zoning, more opportunities for shared parking emerge. The shared parking analysis evaluated the entirety of Reading's downtown "core," bordered by Woburn Street, Main Street, Washington Street and High Street (see Error! Reference source not found,). Within this area, over 400,000 square feet of commercial floor space and 182 multi-family residences have been identified. The total number of residential units and commercial floor area by use is summarized in Figure 2. Page 2 a Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Figure 2: Land Uses Within the Downtown Core DOWNTOWN CORE Land Use I Square Feet Units h 838 1 1116 ouse Mini-Ware Cl b i , 817 I) 11 21 u c Athlet t C i , 1178 615 er en ng Shopp l /F i , ~L 120 1139 ue ce Auto Serv k t , 769 Q 1133 e Supermar , Q 1 Convenience Market 12,804 Liquor Store 114,400 Apparel Store 11 5,150 Pharmacy/Drug Store 1142,001 Carpet Store 114,900 11 Drive-In Bank 1126,920 (I Quality Restaurant 11 5,000 High Turnover Restaurant I1 13,550 Fast Food 11 11,130 11' Drv Cleaners 15,512 These land uses were inserted into a shared parking spreadsheet model that adjusts ITE and ULI parking demand rates according to the captive market effects and operational efficiencies noted above. Demand is projected across the hours of the day by use. As a result of the fluctuations of hourly parking demand patterns among different uses, Figure 3 illustrates the parking efficiencies the project will be able to take advantage of by mixing different uses with different peak parking demands. Page 3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Figure 3: 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Shared Parking Demand for Downtown Reading 13 LOW TO MID RISE APARTMENT Q MEDICAUDENTALOFFICE ® OFFICE U DRY CLEANERS FAST-FOOD--------_ ® HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT ® QUALITY RESTAURANT ®DRIVE-IN BANK a"CARPETSTORE' ® PHARMACY/DRUGSTORE _ s APPAREL STORE r \ ® LIQUOR STORE _ a CONVENIENCE MARKET - a SUPERMARKET a TIRE STORE \ SHOPP11 G.CENSER. q~ATHLETIC CLUB Q 1INI I-WAREHOUSE y~ 1 f X42 TK 1 ,6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 2000 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 Combining the reasonable reductions for captive market effects and demand reduction measures, we estimate a peak parking demand of 954 spaces. Allowing for a 15-percent reserve capacity for special events and ease of finding a space, the maximum supply would not need to be more than roughly 1,100 spaces - over 200 fewer spaces than recommended by ITE, and nearly 600 fewer spaces than observed in downtown, as summarized in Figure 4 below. It is also worth noting that the shared parking peak demand demonstrates a slightly conservative predictive accuracy with a prediction only 2-percent higher than the observed peak demand. Figure 4: Comparison of Shared Parking Demand with Traditional and Field Observed Demand Reading ITE Shared ITE, ULI and TDM Shared Parking Estimate Field Observation Parking Shared Parking Comparison Estimate Parking VS. On Street Off Street Total Estimate VS. Reading's Observed Standard ITE Office Demand 193 149 (44) -23% Retail/RestaurantDemand 1 I 1,0071 879 (128)1 -13% Residential Demand 1 2241 179 1 (45)1 -20% Total Peak Demand. 296 631 9271 1,112- 954* 27 Total Supply 499 Remaining Capacity 1 2031 1,0331 1,5321 1,2781 1,097 -14% (181)1 -1 4021 6051 4201 578 1 1 1 * Total demand is less than sum of individual uses due to staggered peaks. Potential Growth Projection The initial stage of a 40R rezoning project is currently underway proposing a phased redevelopment of the downtown core. An element of this 40R rezoning project is to concentrate growth and increase density around the downtown core area. The development described suggests densities on small sites where - under the current requirements - sufficient parking simply could not be provided. The project considers sites for new parking garages, but the current off-site parking exemption applies only for retail and office space. While new housing units are envisioned in the 40R project, the current Page 4 * Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates residential parking requirements make finding parking for this use difficult. In order to accommodate this planned downtown growth, Reading has decided to consider a number of different parking garage options as well as more innovative parking demand management techniques. Methodology In order to understand the level of parking demand that can be expected, two basic questions needed to be solved: 1. How would the proposed land uses impact the existing parking supply? 2. At what point would it become necessary to increase the supply? The 40R rezoning project has not proposed a specific level of development that can be modeled - largely due to the concern over how much parking might be available to support the plan. Without clear projections on the future land uses planned for downtown, it is,hard to provide parking demand projections. However, it is possible to explore what level of development could occur within a shared parking model given the current parking supply and with the addition of a parking garage of a fixed number of spaces. To that end, Nelson\Nygaard developed a dynamic calculation tool for exploring growth potential within adjustable constraints (parking supply, garage capacity, housing unit size, etc.). The intent was to expand general categories of residential, commercial, or office land uses to achieve the ideal utilization rate of 85- to 95-percent occupied during the peak hour. According to our field observations and the Town's geographic information systems this downtown area of Reading contains 1,532 parking spaces (on-street & off-street, not including private driveways). During the average day's peak hour of demand 927 spaces were observed occupied, representing a peak utilization rate of roughly 60%, as seen in Figure 5. In other words, during the hour of the downtown's heaviest use of available parking, less than two-thirds of the spaces are occupied. Growth Projection Model The shared parking model projection of existing parking demand shown in Figure 5 very closely mirrors the observed parking utilization profile shown in Error! Reference source not found.. In light of the accuracy of the shared parking model in predicting the utilization rate we decided to use it as the basis for our growth projections. Excess Capacity The ideal utilization rate for any parking system is between 85- and 95-percent occupied during the peak hour. This allows for a 5- to 15-percent reserve that provides for ease of finding a space and for the community to handle special events that may increase peak demand on certain occasions. The 85-percent occupied mark is the target for any parking system to operate at peak efficiency. Existing Supply As mentioned above, the shared parking model projects a peak utilization rate of roughly 60%, or 954 occupied spaces (nearly the same as observed). Maintaining the existing parking supply, the ideal utilization rate is just over 1,300 spaces (out of 1,532), which leaves nearly 350 spaces available for expansion. Once this ideal utilization rate is achieved, there remains a 15-percent buffer of 230 spaces for,ease of finding a space and special events. Supply Expansion - Parking Garage According to the garage feasibility analysis in Chapter X, the current fifty-five space CVS lot could be replaced with a five-level 373 space garage, resulting in a net supply increase of 318 spaces. If this Page 5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates garage were to be constructed, the excess capacity at the peak hour of current parking demand would increase from 348 to 619 spaces with a 15-percent buffer of 278 spaces for overrun situations. Figure 5 below shows the excess capacity within the target 85-percent utilization rate as the purple area and the remaining 15-percent vacancy is represented as the brighter red area. The goal of this exercise is to project growth that will fill as much of the excess capacity (purple area) as possible without consuming any of the remaining buffer vacancy (red area). Figure 5: Shared Parking Demand Projection Profile 100% 90% 60% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ® RESERVE CAPACITY -EXCESSCAPACITY -RESIDENTIAL UOFFICE -RETAIURESTAURANT Residential Development Scenario Reading's core has twenty-three single family homes and one hundred eighty-two multi-family housing units. Housing represents roughly 30-percent of the downtown's total floor area; 8-percent single-family and 23-percent multi-family housing. Most single family homes have private driveways that exclusively serve the parking needs of the household and are not available for use by others. The parking supply and demand generated by single family homes are assumed as zero sum, excluding it from consideration in the scenario. All of the residential considered in this scenario is assumed to be multi-story, multi-family housing, also known as low to mid rise apartments. Multi-family housing is preferred to single-family housing in situations such as this where the goal is increasing density and supporting growth. Most of the evening and late night parking is utilized by the residents but during the day very little. This allows for a large expansion in the housing base because the residential peak hour does not coincide with the commercial or office peak hour and thus is not limited by the existing peak hour excess capacity. As seen in Error! Reference source not found. and Figure 5 the current peak hour is between noon and 1 pm and -though less apparent- the residential peak is at the end of the night and the beginning of the day. Residential Projections Assuming no increase in parking supply, downtown Reading is able to handle an expansion of nearly 1,100 multi-family housing units, nearly six times the current number of housing units. The addition of the CVS garage would allow for over 1,600 new multi-family housing units, nearly nine times the current number of residential units. As seen in Figure 6, this housing expansion would change the demand profile. Reading's current peak hour (12 to 1 pm) has a utilization rate of around 60-percent which would increase up to roughly 80-percent. The peak hour would change to 5 pm with a utilization Page 6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 16:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 rate of 85-percent. A growth in housing of this magnitude would greatly increase foot traffic, generating an energetic pedestrian environment, supporting downtown activity and creating a more vibrant and lively town center. Figure 6: Demand Profile of Residential Expansion Scenario OOA 6.00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 Retail/Restaurant Development Scenario Commercially oriented land uses dominate downtown accounting for nearly 60-percent of the downtown's total floor area with roughly 377,000 square feet of gross floor area. The retail and service industry require parking for both employees and customers, often representing the largest generators of the peak hour parking demand. As seen in Figure 5, retail and restaurant land uses already account for consumption of nearly 50-percent of the existing capacity during the peak hour. The commercial development potential is limited by the current peak hour, ultimately limiting the possibility of commercial expansion. Retail/Restaurant Projections Assuming no increase in parking supply, downtown Reading is able to handle a commercial expansion of 153,000 square feet, a 40-percent increase over the existing 377,000. The addition of the parking garage would allow for an expansion of 273,000 square feet or a roughly 70-percent increase. Though the peak represents 85-percent utilization (versus the current 60-percent), the demand profile under the commercial development scenario remains roughly the same as the current profile, just higher utilization rates. Page 7 9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Figure 7: Demand Profile of Retail/Restaurant Expansion Scenario Office Development Scenario Office oriented uses are the least represented land uses in downtown Reading, accounting for only about 12-percent of the total floor area with roughly 77,000 square feet of gross floor area. Offices require parking for both employees and visitors, much like retail establishments, but represent a lower level of demand per thousand square feet of floor area. As seen in Figure 5, office land uses account for consumption of less than 10-percent of the existing capacity during the peak hour. The office development potential is limited by the current peak hour, ultimately limiting the possibility of expansion but it currently represents a small share of the overall demand allowing more expansion than commercial land uses. Office Projections Assuming no increase in parking supply, downtown Reading is able to handle an office expansion of 196,000 square feet, a 250-percent increase over the existing 77,000. The addition of the parking garage would allow for an expansion of 347,000 square feet or a roughly 450-percent increase. During the peak hour, office demand would account for a much larger share -nearly 40-percent- of the total consumption (see Figure 8). Though the peak would represent 85-percent utilization, the demand profile would remain roughly the same as the current profile. Page 8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Figure 8: Demand Profile of Office Expansion Scenario 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 Mixed Growth Scenario Focusing all growth into only one of these three sectors is not a likely scenario for downtown redevelopment, rather a mixed growth scenario is much more likely. In this case we assumed that 50- percent of the potential growth would be allocated to housing, 25-percent to commercial, and 25- percent to offices. Assuming no increase in supply, Reading would be able to handle 513 new multi- family housing units (330-percent growth), 44,000 square feet of new commercial space (12-percent growth), and 56,000 square feet of new office space (73-percent growth). If the garage was built Reading could handle 1,053 new housing units (580-percent growth), 79,000 square feet of new commercial space (21-percent growth), and 100,000 square feet of new office space (130-percent growth). Figure 9: Demand Profile of Mixed Growth Scenario 20% 10% 0% P 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 Page 9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Balanced Growth Scenario Finally, a balanced distribution of the potential development across all three sectors would allocate 33-percent of the potential growth to residential, commercial, and office expansion. Assuming no increase in parking supply downtown Reading would be able to handle 404 new housing units (222- percent growth), 55,000 square feet of commercial space (15-percent growth), and 70,000 square feet of new office space (91-percent growth). Adding the garage would allow this to increase to 715 new housing units (400-percent), 98,000 square feet of new commercial space (26-percent), and 123,000 square feet of new office space (160-percent). Figure 10: Demand Profile of Balanced Growth Scenario Page 10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Figure 11: DISTRIBUTION OF EXCESS CAPACITY 100% Residential 100% Retail/Restaurant 50% Residential 25% Retail/Restaurant 33% Residential 33% Retail/Restaurant " Page 11 a Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Development Scenario Comparison Recommendations The analysis conducted for Reading's Comprehensive Parking.Program has demonstrated that there is plenty of parking supply in the downtown to support all existing uses as well as a substantial amount of future growth. However, this ideal scenario is only possible through the efficient management and sharing of all parking resources in public and private hands. While it is not likely that all existing parking resources can be utilized to their maximum extent during all hours of the week, many communities in America have made great strides at sharing this valuable land resource among a variety of. users. Inherent to improved sharing is an improved parking management program. The analysis of Reading's downtown parking supply. makes it clear that significant parking resources that are available to the general public are entirely. underutilized during periods of peak demand.. Even if the cost of a new parking structure were not prohibitive, simply increasing off-street supply would not eliminate the persistent parking problems experienced by Reading's residents, employees and visitors today. Reading does not have an undersupply of parking; it has a supply management problem.. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Some of the most successful small downtowns in America are benefitted by ,a mixed-use core with a welcoming walking environment that allows residents, employees and visitors alike to experience most of the downtown's services and entertainment by parking only once and walking between destinations. Even in communities where parking is mismanaged and visitors are forced to search for spaces or park remotely, walking connections are welcoming, well-signed and safe. This creates an environment that people enjoy being a part of - even if they must walk a couple minutes to get to their destination. In communities that manage their parking well, visitors easily find convenient parking spaces, helping to encourage activity while minimizing traffic congestion created by the hunt for parking. Communities like Reading that seek to boost economic activity in their downtowns can learn a lot from the experiences of communities. that manage their parking well. The recommended parking management program below includes several best practices from around the United States that can serve Reading's goals very well. These best practices include some of the most progressive transportation demand management (TDM) programs available, which have helped to significantly reduce parking demand and congestion while improving the attractiveness of walking, biking and transit. These elements are designed to meet several goals: • Provide shoppers, employees and residents with sufficient parking, in a manner that is convenient and cost-effective., Provide additional transportation choices, including transit, carpool, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and services. • Advance the broader goals of Reading by creating a neighborhood that is genuinely oriented towards transit, walking and bicycling. It is important to keep in mind that parking and transportation policies have powerful effects not merely on parking demand, but on development feasibility, housing affordability, the amount of traffic produced by new developments, the quality of urban design, and many other fundamental aspects that make downtown Reading a place. Phased Implementation Plan The following recommended programs and policies have been organized in a phased action plan with short, medium and long term actions. This organization recognizes that certain changes to policy or infrastructure .can take, some time to plan, finance and/or implement. However, several short-term actions have been identified that could be implemented immediately by the Town, resolving critical issues while creating some momentum for further action. Short-Term Actions The following actions are recommended to be 'implemented within the next 6 months. They are grouped into parking management and TDM actions. Parking Management: 1) Expand the Employee Parking Permit Program Today, residents of Reading who work in downtown can park at over XX on-street resident-only spaces with their $25 per year Community Access Sticker - in addition to any private off-street parking privileges they may have. However, most employees come from other. communities. The Town provides a .$30 per month or $360 per year Employee Parking Permit that allows these employees to park in XX on-street and XX off-street spaces in downtown (see Figure 1). This program is oversubscribed, with all available permits sold-out by the beginning of the calendar year. Heavy utilization of many employee permit parking spaces was observed. However, some areas, such as eastern Haven and Chapin, are underutilized. The parking survey and interviews revealed that the majority of employees do not know that this program exists, but they were very interested in obtaining these permits in the future. Therefore, based on the rapid sell-out of existing permits and the evident latent demand, the number of employee permit permits should be increased to meet demand as soon as possible. The Town should also consider expanding employee permit parking locations, depending on the utilization of existing spaces and the feedback of employees who are not using the underutilized spaces today. Figure 1: Employee Parking Permit Areas Y '~AtEAGlI4YY2 l Q p k 1i OFF $ ~ HIRKINO 'FVf 7 ~ `tFliJ i ' REtit ~ ~ y ~k]UWAY6ER ilrt iCi ~ nNL M 17G ~Ja Ez ' ~ 39@PSIKB L ' ; e1 yr" ~ t { > ~ fillownHe .t ? . , i ~ r. 1 t. m i Ni, NelsanlNypaard t 4~ 11 t7~ 1 M~ a' J1 4 kf q g-r 01 IOWA' 1 ~ f 31 h~" ~+j }4?j z't 4pPoE}t'.,inY~ON, a }4TH°`~ * m)k F ~ rz- 1i j~ ru x 6EY l tx ~t } FNwErtrea f 1 3 ~t ! i b}j>lii C ' l ~w f ,n>7t ; rs~i, ~ r~ M' ,(f na r ~ , ~a.i G z^ `5 r ' a f 1 L to l 4> 4...:.t: 11 .jj28U6 r l ~I , t .•,y }r ~iiL1a~ ~i ~;t. iet ixoro~t,6rneEt c Careful Expansion of Regulation Likely locations for converting existing on-street regulations to the "2-Hr Parking or All-Day With Employee Permit" regulation include areas where daytime on-street utilization is low. In the commercial areas of downtown, this includes Parker Street between Pleasant and Haven, Sanborn Street between Woburn and Haven, and Woburn Street west of Sanborn. These areas have low demand from other users and have no direct impact on primarily residential streets. Other areas on the edge of the commercial core of downtown Reading have private residences with tenants and homeowners frequently needing to park on-street. These. areas tend to be an untapped resource for downtowns; even though there is a fear of negative impacts on residents. Most of the time, residents are entirely unaffected by daytime employees parking on residential, streets for two basic reasons: 1) if a resident commutes to work by car, their on-street space is vacant for employee use during the day, and the employee has usually left before the resident returns home; and 2) if a resident remains at home or stores a car on-street, their vehicle is usually occupying the space early in the morning before any employees would arrive to park. There are a large quantity of residential on-street spaces within. a short walk of downtown businesses that stay vacant throughout the workday. These represent a great opportunity for the Town to expand its employee permit program in pace with.. demand. Residents at workshops held during this study encouraged this activity if it would help the Town's parking problems, as long as there was protection against losing a place to park when residents returned home. For instance, the unregulated stretch of Green Street east of Main is a likely candidate for this regulation. This resident-employee 'dynamic changes when restaurant workers are included, who often work night shifts after residents are home. Fortunately, the number of available on-street spaces in commercial areas opens up dramatically after 5PM, so employee permit parking on residential streets can easily be limited to daytime work hours only. Increase Outreach and Visibility The Town has the potential to greatly increase the effectiveness of its employee permit program while resolving many of the observed parking utilization problems in the downtown. By working with the business community to market the availability of employee permits and the areas where they can be used, enrollment could increase dramatically in a short time. Simple employer notices, information on the Town's website, and 'outreach from the Chamber of Commerce can reach most of Reading's employees who do not know about the program today. Evaluate Permit Cost The current cost of $30 per month or. $360 per year should cover all administrative costs, but it is unclear whether this also covers the Town's enforcement costs. It may be prudent for the Town to evaluate the labor cost per parking space that is enforced today by the Town's parking control officer to determine if this fee is adequate to cover the,enforcement cost for the portion of downtown spaces that are regulated for employees. Adjustments to the permit fee may be warranted. Nonetheless, $30 per month (or approximately $1.40 per.workday) is a fairly low parking cost in the greater. Boston area, where off-street parking is generally available starting at $50 per month'. If demand for employee permits continues to remain strong after the quantity of permits and spaces is increased, permit prices should be increased. Annual Reporting Municipal fees are often met with opposition from many residents and employees, regardless of their justification. The Town would be greatly benefitted by revealing the costs and revenues of their permit program on an annual basis in order to deflect complaints that the system is a "money grab" or Based on a review of parking spaces for rent in the greater Boston area on craigslist.com. something to "pad the general fund." More importantly, any surplus revenues should be clearly identified and dedicated to improvements or programs that benefit the business community in downtown Reading. This has the 'effect of showing that the Town is giving back to its employees a benefit for their fee, which may include measures such as sidewalk improvements, fagade improvements, marketing and signing, or future parking facilities. Details of a comprehensive benefit program like this can be found in Recommendation 2 below. 2) Establish a Parking & Transportation Fund Surplus revenues from the employee permit program and other additional revenue sources, such as additional ticket revenue (see Recommendation 4) or in-lieu of parking fees (see Recommendation 11), should fund public improvements. that benefit the downtown. If downtown parking revenues seem to disappear into the General Fund, where they.may appear to produce no direct benefit for downtown businesses, there will belittle support for parking policies that may, ultimately benefit business, such as increased permit fees, installing parking meters, or adjusting regulations. When Reading's merchants and residents can clearly see that the monies collected are being spent for the benefit of their downtown, on projects that,they have, helped to choose, they become willing to support parking policies that generate revenue for the Town. If experience from other cities is any guide, many will become active advocates for the concept.2 To develop support for parking regulation changes, and to build support for charging fair market rates for permits, it is crucial to give local stakeholders a strong voice in setting policies for the downtown, deciding how downtown parking revenues should be spent, and overseeing downtown investments to ensure that the monies collected from employees and customers are spent wisely. Potential uses for Parking and Transportation Fund revenues include: • Landscaping and streetscape greening • Increased frequency of trash collection Street cleaning, power-washing of sidewalks, and graffiti removal • Parking, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and amenities Additional parking enforcement Marketing and promotion of Reading's merchants • . Additional programs and projects as recommended by downtown stakeholders and approved by the Board of Selectmen A number. of different organizational structures can be used to establish and oversee a Parking and Transportation Fund., The fund can be managed by a quasi-public entity, similar. to a Business Improvement District. Alternatively, the fund can be established as simply a financial entity (somewhat like an assessment district), which would require by ordinance that. parking revenues raised within the downtown be spent to benefit the downtown. Under this arrangement, the fund would be managed and housed within an existing Town department, such as the Department of Public Works. 3) Adjust Time-Limits Many downtowns suffer from a. common problem. The most visible and most convenient parking spaces are frequently entirely full, while simultaneously, parking spaces just behind a building or a block away sit largely vacant. The result is often a perceived parking shortage, even when a downtown as a whole has hundreds of vacant parking spaces available. In many downtowns, employees occupy the best spaces, even when time limits are instituted to try to reserve these spots for customers. As one downtown merchant describes the situation in his town, "Parking is a problem for businesses because employees park on Main St. and side streets and prevent customers from 2 Parking Benefit Districts are currently in place in Pasadena, Boulder, San Diego, Austin, Seattle, and Aspen. parking ...We need parking. management and enforcement strategies to prevent employees from doing the 2-hour shuffle' downtown." The most common mechanism that communities use to create vacancies in prime parking spaces is to set time limits and give tickets to violators. Time limits, however, bring several disadvantages: enforcement of time limits is labor-intensive and difficult, and downtown employees, who quickly become familiar with enforcement patterns, often become adept at the "two hour. shuffle", moving their cars regularly or swapping spaces with a coworker several times during the workday. Even with strictly enforced time limits, if there is no price incentive to persuade employees to seek out less convenient,. bargain-priced spots, employees will probably still park in prime spaces. For customers, strict enforcement can bring "ticket anxiety" - the fear of getting a ticket if one lingers a minute too long (for _ example, in order to have dessert after lunch). As Dan Zack, Downtown Development Manager for Redwood City, CA, puts it, "Even if a visitor is quick enough to avoid a ticket, they don't want to spend the evening watching the clock and moving their, car around. If a customer is having a good time in a restaurant, and they are happy to pay the market price for their parking spot, do we want them to wrap up their visit early because their time limit wasn't long enough? Do we want them to skip dessert or that last cappuccino in order to avoid a ticket?" While on-street pricing is the preferred mechanism to turn-over spaces, even in small downtowns like Needham's, it is a difficult measure to implement without a lot of political support and extended education. In the long-term, on-street pricing is entirely appropriate for Reading, since it would solve many of the problems that exist today. However, time-limits are the tool of choice in Reading today. Establishing the best time limit, that accommodates customers conveniently while encourages adequate turnover is an inexact science. While some parkers may be satisfied with the existing time limit, many others are not. Lengthening a time limit may induce some parkers to stay longer; attract new parkers who appreciate the added time; and push away short-term parkers who can't find a space as conveniently. Shortening a time-limit may drive some employees out of customer spaces but also drive away some customers who want to stay longer. Reading's most predominant time-limit throughout downtown is 2-hours. While this time may have some historical precedent, it is most defendable as a common value used in most Massachusetts downtowns. The data supporting a better time limit is mostly inconclusive. The user survey revealed a wide spectrum of parking durations in.downtown, as shown in Figure 68. I i t 6 I I I. i I I I 1, t I I I r t I 1 I 7 1 f I i I I _ I .I I I a_v n~ t ~ I t r a ri.f.lativ f a" _Y~°f 61 TO 120 M1119 121 TO 240 TANS MORETHN1240 MINS =CUSTOMER While customers tend to have shorter stays and employees longer, the turnover studies of two prime customer areas on upper Haven (Figure 69) and in front of CVS (Figure 70) demonstrate that the average stay per car in a customer parking area is nearly 3-hours throughout the entire day. The predominant length of stay that satisfies 85-percent of parkers (the 85t"-percentile) exceeds 4-hours. On upper Haven it approaches 7 hours during work hours. It should be noted that both areas have 2- hour time limits. la 6TO15 MINS 16TO30 MINS 31 TO 60 MINS Figure 3 Turnover and Utilization on Upper Haven Street l1 Figure 4 Turnover and Utilization in Front of CVS While the ultimate effect of changing time-limits cannot be predicted well due to induced parking activity, the turnover data suggests that a longer time-limit (3-hours or more) would match the average duration of more parkers in front of the CVS. This would be a very customer-friendly approach that reduces complaints, and it would not impact availability significantly during daylight hours when utilization is low. A three or more hour limit would also accommodate more parkers on upper Haven, though many parkers would still be exceeding the time-limit each day (note the 85th percentile line). However, lengthening time-limits in areas of relatively high demand is counter-intuitive. Only on upper Haven after 1 PM would longer time limits work well since utilization drops off significantly. In areas of high demand, this policy would essentially reward those who seek to park for longer periods in locations that should be dedicated to shorter-term parking. Therefore, the turnover data is most valuable for understanding the duration preferences of parkers within an entire district, as opposed to the given block face where data is recorded. The data from upper Haven and Main Street in front of CVS indicate that a longer time-limit would be valuable, but not necessarily in these specific locations where turn-over and availability can benefit the shorter-term visits of nearby retail and banking customers. Likely target areas for increasing time limits to accommodate those staying over 3-hours are lots and on-street parking with lower demand that are further from these key destinations. The most heavily utilized 2-hour zones in downtown Reading are: • Upper Haven, especially during midday • Main Street, in front of CVS in the late afternoon and evening • Lower Haven, in front of the Atlantic Market all day GI Both municipal lots are within a short walk of these locations and experience lower utilization throughout daytime hours. These would be ideal locations to attract longer-term parkers who might be more willing to walk the extra minute or two, freeing'up.availability for shorter-term parkers on-street. Especially if combined with the signing Recommendation 5, the time-limits in each of these lots should be extended to at least 3-hours if not 4-hours. Utilization of the lots and on-street spaces should be closely monitored for at least 30 days. after implementation. If on-street ,availability does not increase, time-limits at these high-demand spaces should be reduced to 1-hour, as long as appropriate signing for the longer-term lots is in place. Extend Hours of Regulation The data from the parking in front of CVS illustrates another key parking dynamic that occurs due to the current time-limits. in Reading. Shortly before as well as after the end of time-limited parking at GPM, utilization of this parking spikes to nearly 100-percent. This also occurs in the public lot behind CVS. Without a fear of penalty, parkers quickly occupy these spaces, which happen to be those closest to prime dining destinations. While an intercept survey of these motorists was not within the scope of this study, it is evident that restaurant employees and patrons are occupying these prime spaces. If the time span for time-limited parking (and appropriate enforcement) were extended through dining hours in these locations; longer-term parkers would have to find spaces that were more accommodating, leaving these prime spaces available for customers and restaurant patrons. As long as clear employee parking spaces are designated nearby between the hours of GPM and 10PM (see Recommendation 1), the more valuable spaces - in front of the CVS, on upper Haven and on the end of Woburn close to Main - can have their time-limit regulations extended until 10PM. From GPM until 10PM, the time-limits in these areas would better serve restaurant patrons if they were extended to 3- hours. 4) Expand Parking Enforcement Hours The Town of Reading has a very limited budget for parking enforcement today. Enforcement occurs only 5 days per week for less than 5-hours each day. With only one staff person, it is focused on the downtown core almost exclusively. At current budget levels, it is, not expected that this level of, enforcement can be increased. Nonetheless, enforcement is an essential part of supporting parking regulations. As structured today, enforcement hours and activity is mostly penalizing those who dominate downtown parking during midday weekday hours: employees and merchants. Given the current set of regulations, this enforcement program is necessary. However, it targets the community most responsible for economic activity in Reading. As the Town works to improve its economic climate and attract business, it would be appropriate to change the enforcement focus - especially given the observations supporting Recommendations 1, 2 and 3. If more employee permit parking is advertised and provided to employees in mutually agreeable locations, time-limit violations in higher-demand areas will drop, since most daytime customers do not stay more than 2-hours today. Midday enforcement will become far less necessary: Meanwhile, some ~3 of the biggest parking complaints come during evening dining hours and Saturdays when customers are trying to find spaces for dinner, errands and shopping. Enforcement of existing Saturday and new evening regulations would help relieve this problem for customers. By shifting existing enforcement hours strategically, the Town can improve enforcement revenue and value to the community without increasing costs. The most valuable hours for enforcement. to occur are:. Saturdays between 10AM and 1 PM and between 6PM and 10PM; and weeknights (especially Thursday and Friday) between 6PM and 10PM. It would also be appropriate to continue midday/lunchtime enforcement at least .one day per week. Hypothetically assigning enforcement personnel to cover these hours results in the following schedule: Saturdays between 10AM and 12PM , 2 hours Saturdays between 6PM and 9PM 3 hours Thursday and Friday between 6PM and 9PM 6 hours One random weekday between 10AM and 2PM 4hours Total 15 hours per week While greater enforcement should be considered in the future, this focused schedule would help maximize enforcement revenue and value. 5) Improve Parking Signing While regulatory signing for parking regulations is prominent and plentiful in Reading, signing that helps direct parkers to available parking areas is very limited. With only one small parking sign per lot entrance; there is no clear indication to visitors - or welcoming reminder to regulars - that convenient off-street parking exists (see -Figure 71). As Reading seeks to attract new business and customers, greater ease of finding parking spaces is important. Figure 5. . Existing Parking Signs in Reading -1-111 Gjq Many communities employ a.clear and consistent signing system that helps direct visitors to off-street parking easily (see examples in Figure 72)., Given Reading's desire to resolve utilization issues in on- street spaces during high demand times in the evening and on Saturday's, clear signing to the existing municipal lots is an important component of the time-limit changes in Recommendation 3. Figure 6 Parking Signs in Framingham Another important part of a signing system'that communities frequently overlook is directing departing motorists to exits and nearby arterials. While finding an exit to Reading's municipal lots is not a difficult task, simple signs in the. lots and at critical turns on surrounding streets that direct motorists to Route 28 and Interstate .93 can be very helpful'and make a customer's experience in Reading more accommodating - hopefully increasing the chance that they will return. Combined with a downtown wayfinding system, departure signs can help keep cars on preferred commercial roads and keep them away from residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian Signing . The most commonly overlooked signing need for parking facilities is pedestrian signing to and from the parking facility: Especially in compact vernacular downtowns like Reading's, visitors can easily confuse which street or alley to use -to get back to their parked car. Regulars to a downtown may not even know the best access routes. And signs that direct new arrivals to prime streets or destinations help to increase the overall accommodation of downtown Reading as, a place to shop and do business: Fortunately, pedestrian wayfinding signs ace very inexpensive to design, purchase and install. The investment can be very worthwhile and improve the overall walkability of the downtown. Many simple examples exist in the region, and they can be coordinated with parking signs for motorists to keep a consistent memorable message (see Figure 73). Figure 7 . Pedestrian Signs in Framingham If time-limits are extended . into the evening near restaurants, pedestrian signing to and from the CVS lot will be important. These should help parkers find driveway and walkway connections to and from Haven, Main and Woburn Streets. Similarly, connections to and from the "Atlantic" lot should be clearly signed along Haven, Chute, Woburn and Linden Streets. The Walgreen's lot would also be benefitted by pedestrian signing to and from Main, Pleasant and Woburn Streets. C"', 6) Incentivize Sharing of Private Parking As Reading seeks to grow its downtown and encourage economic development, parking will become a significant obstacle under the current operating and regulatory framework. While some shared municipal parking exists that can serve multiple uses, the vast majority of off-street spaces are locked up in private hands. Even though the utilization study clearly demonstrates that these spaces are poorly utilized throughout the entirety of the day, there is little incentive to increase their efficiency by sharing these spaces across different parcels or landowners. With the standard practice of building individual. private lots or garages for each building in place in Reading, the result is a lack of welcome for customers: at each parking lot, the visitor is informed that his vehicle. will.be towed if he or she visits any place besides the adjacent building. When this occurs, nearby shopping malls gain a distinct advantage over a district with fragmented parking. Mail owners understand that they should not divide their mall's parking supply into small fiefdoms: they operate their supply as a single pool for all of the shops, so that customers are welcomed wherever they park. The compactness and mixed-use nature of downtown Reading lends itself to this kind of "Park Once" strategy. Operating the downtown parking supply as a single shared pool results in significant savings in daily vehicle trips and required parking spaces, for three reasons: 1. Park once. Those arriving by car can easily follow a "park once" pattern: they park their car, just once and complete multiple daily tasks on foot before returning to their car (see Figure 74). 2. Shared Parking among Uses with Differing Peak Times. Spaces can be efficiently shared between uses with differing peak hours, peak days, and peak seasons of parking demand (such as office, restaurant.; retail and downtown apartments). 3. Shared Parking to Spread Peak Loads. The parking.supply can be sized to meet average parking loads (instead of the worst-case parking ratios needed for isolated buildings), since the common supply allows shops and offices with above-average demand to be balanced by shops and offices that have below-average demand or are temporarily vacant. Figure 8 "Park Once" District Shop Ell X , ra , • Q.~r walk A r School ^ • `=r ° Office .:a,ur7 r r F-I w ~ ♦ ~ r . ~ Park ~ Drive ~ Barad on an odginat IllustmUon try Wannr Kulasn. The most successful "Park Once" districts manage parking as a public utility - just like streets and sewers - with public parking provided in strategically-placed lots and garages. Development is prohibited (or strongly discouraged) from building private parking. Tenants that require a guarantee of a certain number of spaces at particular hours (e.g., Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) can lease those spaces in a public lot or garage, with the exclusive right to use them during the hours required. As described above, such arrangements leave the parking available during evening and weekend hours for other users (e.g., the patrons of restaurants), resulting in an efficient sharing of the parking supply and lower costs for all. In the long term, a fully implemented "Park Once" strategy: Is more welcoming of customers and visitors (fewer "Thou Shalt Not Park Here" signs scattered about). Allows for fewer, strategically placed lots and garages, resulting in better urban design and greater development opportunities. e Enables construction of larger, more space-efficient (and therefore more cost-effective) lots and garages. Reading cannot achieve this ideal system in the short-term. However, many initial policies can begin to improve the efficiency of the downtown parking system, enabling much more development to occur without the cost and urban design impacts of new parking:, 1. Incentives to encourage participation by existing parking facility owners and operators need to be in place. These can take the following forms: a) Increased regulatory flexibility to encourage sharing. At the very least, this means the elimination of the 300-foot distance requirement for accessory parking in the downtown; elimination of any use stipulation on shared parking; implementation of a ULI shared parking model to allow reduced minimums; and elimination of any code-based requirements that discourage public access, merging of lots, etc. b) Identification of available pooled liability protection whereby multiple parking facility owners can purchase a replacement joint policy to allow public access for lower rates than existing policies. c) Creation of a parking authority or other public-private entity that manages the shared off-street (and on-street) parking supply. This entity can offer greater economies of scale than individual parking operators can afford, greatly reducing labor, security, insurance, maintenance, and other related costs, while also allowing greater purchasing power. Under Massachusetts law, the Town's limited liability exposure allows it to manage this supply and absorb any private liability concerns. The Town can offer a guaranteed lease payment to the landowner that exceeds what revenues that landowner may now be receiving from the lot. The Town can give the landowner a guarantee of accessing a minimum quantity of spaces in that or adjacent shared lots when needed, while leasing the remainder of'spaces throughout the entire day to other users. Even if the Town charges no more per space than it pays the landowner, there will be increased revenues simply on account of more parkers being able to share the spaces that went unutilized at other times of day. The Town can use this revenue to maintain and improve the lot, further increasing the appeal to landowners to participate in the program.' Z The parking supply for the retail, office and residential users in downtown Reading should be shared among all users, with the following exception: residents and employees who are willing to pay a premium rate for exclusive., assigned spaces should be allowed to do so (residents of market rate units are most likely to take advantage of this option.) To implement this policy, parking leases in lots owned, or managed by the Town can be structured in the following manner: a) Under the standard lease rate, the parking permit holder is guaranteed that a parking space will be available within the shared pool of spaces for him or her to use, but no particular space is marked with his or her name. 17 b) Under the premium rate for assigned spaces, the parking permit holder has a particular space designated (with signs and markings) for his or her use. For example, an assigned residential space may be marked "Reserved for Unit #101 while assigned employee spaces may be marked reserved for an individual permit holder ("Reserved for Permit #81"). Two types of premium spaces should be made available. The most expensive option is a space that is reserved 24 hours per day, seven days a week for the permit holder's exclusive use. The less expensive alternative is reserved for the permit holder's exclusive use only during the hours when the space is typically needed. For example, a typical retail tenant may wish to choose a space that is reserved for his or her firm's use only when the business is open say, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday, in the case of a realtor's office. (With this latter alternative, the retail tenant saves money by having the space assigned for their use only part- time, and the space becomes available for other users such as restaurant patrons on evenings and weekends). 3. As future properties are developed, their parking supplies should also become part of the Park once district. This may be accomplished either by creating additional new joint. public parking facilities as part of development agreements for each site or through conditions of approval that require that the privately-owned parking supply be made available for public use. 7) Establish Valet Parking Regulations Valet parking has been suggested in workshops as a possible solution for limited parking availability in the evenings near busy restaurants. While the time-limit and enforcement recommendations above should help to alleviate the problem, valet parking can still be valuable and should be accommodated in downtown Reading. Valet parking allows the most effective use of out-of-the-way parking spaces and can increase the effective parking supply by allowing for parking of additional vehicles in parking aisles and in tandem parking arrangements. If well-written licensing regulations are established, valet operations can greatly improve the appeal of downtown to visitors while improving the overall image of the downtown for the community. Several key elements should be a part of any valet parking regulation in Reading: • Applicants should clearly describe the entire valet operation in writing to the Town, including hours of service, number of valets, number of valet spaces needed, valet sign mock-up, location of remote parking, walking and driving route and times to and from remote parking, form of communication between valets and valet manager, and current insurance coverage. • The valet space should be located so as to provide the maximum amount of safety to passing motorists and pedestrians. This includes finding a location with clear sightlines, lighting and ADA access to the destination. The driving route to remote parking and the return valet trip by foot should take only an acceptable amount of time at posted driving speeds or brisk walk speeds. If,the round-trip time exceeds a minimum threshold (typically 2-minutes), additional valets should be working. Staging and temporary standing must be regulated. • A Town phone number for complaints should be clearly posted at the destination. • The license should be held by the destination (restaurant), not the valet company. The license should require a nominal fee and be renewable annually, allowing the Town to review operations, implement changes as necessary or revoke the operation. It should be noted that valets are an excellent means for maximizing the use of a parking facility while providing convenience to certain customers. However, they are not an appropriate solution for solving downtown parking availability problems - even though that is what many businesses and communities resort to before trying to fix their curb regulations. 0 8) Expand On-Street Parking Supply The parking utilization study shows that Reading has an abundance of available parking spaces in downtown at all times of day. The parking demand projections demonstrate that a large amount of development can occur without building any new parking. Therefore, Reading should not attempt to increase on-street parking supply as a tool to increase availability. However, on-street parking has a great benefit to urban form and the walkability of downtowns. Some of America's most walkable downtowns are lined with on-street. parking. Meanwhile, many pedestrian- only streets or malls have not fared well. Planners generally believe this irony is due to two strong effects of on-street parking: 1) the act of entering and exiting a car provides a base level of pedestrian activity that is lost without on-street spaces; and 2) parked cars provide a visual, sound and safety buffer from traffic, helping to make sidewalks more enjoyable for walkers. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated that one of the most effective ways to "calm" traffic speed is to install on-street parking adjacent to travel lanes, causing a degree of perceived "friction" to motorists, which' slows traffic. Therefore, increasing on-street parking can be very beneficial in many regards. In Reading, a-few key streets that must be regularly crossed by pedestrians are wide and deserving of traffic calming, including lower Haven, High, and Main Street. While all of these streets already have on-street parking, the introduction of angled parking can serve to greatly reduce speeds while significantly increasing on-street capacity. This solution is unlikely on Main Street, which is a state route. However, High Street is a prime candidate for this solution. The use of reverse-angle parking (see Figure 75) in commercial districts has proven successful at increasing on-street supply up to 40%, calming traffic speeds, increasing the ease of parking, and improving safety for cyclists. Backing into a reverse angle space is easier than parallel parking and safer than backing out of a traditional forward=angle space. The position of the parked car allows the driver to see approaching cars and bicycles before exiting; the direction of opening doors protects passengers (particularly children) from entering the street; and the trunk of the car is conveniently at the curb. Figure 9 Reverse Angle Parking `fV ,V Vii) ~ xF f ~ ~ 7 SF J'J Sr 21 q^ Sf, v } 5 +h^ x H' ~rxh'vvrVV S£ N`4 Reverse angle parking is still new in the United States, though its use is escalating dramatically in Canada due to its safety benefits. Installing the spaces should be preceded by an outreach and education campaign, complete with posters, flyers, signs (Figure 76) and variable message boards in the weeks before implementation. Figure 10 Reverse Angle Parking Signing Figures 77 and 78 illustrate how reverse angle parking would look on High Street near the train station. It is estimated that over 20 new spaces could be added on High Street, helping to alleviate some of the demand by commuters to park on residential streets. More significantly, the treatment can reduce vehicle speeds in this important pedestrian area. Coupled with appropriate curb extensions, the pedestrian realm can be greatly enhanced. Figure 11 High Street Reverse-Angle Parking - l`~ Plan View 5 rrry 1 u !'i5a ` T ~~J F'~ 4y ~r~ ~ -~nl ,u k, ale re ~ ~ i \ t sr~ i cN Jk k;' 1 r•> ~ Ali ~L fry. A ct ,OE l f r ~ Figure 12 High Street Reverse-Angle Parking.- Perspective View TDM Actions 9) Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements The traditional method of managing the supply of off-street parking in communities across the country has been to set minimum standards that require a minimum number of spaces per unit, square foot of building area, employee, etc. for each and. every possible land use. Most minimum parking requirements were adopted to "alleviate or prevent traffic congestion and shortages of curbside @ n parking spaces. For half a century, virtually every modern city has had minimum parking requirements,. and yet not only has traffic congestion gotten worse, it is projected to steadily worsen. History of Minimum Parking Requirements The essential concept of minimum parking. requirements was that if each destination provided ample parking, with enough spaces available so that even when parking was free there would be plenty of, room, then there would be plenty of. spaces at the curb. Motorists would no longer need to.circle the block looking for a space, and so traff ic congestion would be lessened. Minimum parking requirements, however, had unintended consequences for traffic. Communities set minimum parking requirements that were simply high enough to satisfy the demand, for parking even when parking was given away for free. The predictable result was that roads were overwhelmed with excess traffic induced in large part by free parking. However, if prices for curb parking are set correctly to ensure at least one or two vacancies per block, off-street minimum.parking requirements are not needed to prevent shortages of on-street parking. Instead, they only act to worsen traffic, and. to discourage developers, employers, residents and other property owners from implementing strategies that reduce traffic and parking demand. The communities with the strongest records of reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion, such as London, have eliminated minimum parking requirements entirely (in fact, nationwide). The great majority of these communities instead now have maximum parking requirements (that is, they limit the number of spaces allowed at each building). They now regard maximum parking requirements - the opposite approach - as an essential tool for preventing traffic congestion... Reading's Parking Requirements Reading has taken a fairly progressive approach to minimum parking requirements in its downtown with the mixed-use overlay district requirements. While Chapter 1 demonstrates that Reading's base zoning requires far more parking per use than the highest demand modeled by the conservative ITE approach, the mixed-use overlay district is generally in-line with or below ITE's requirements. However, given true utilization data by use from throughout the northeast as well as the parking utilization data collected in downtown Reading, the Town should lower these parking minimums much further - especially if it intends to encourage investment in downtown and reduce traffic impacts- • Residential requirements should not exceed 1 space. per unit, regardless of the size of the unit. Hundreds of parking spaces go unused in downtown Reading every night and weekend. • Office requirements should not exceed 2 per 1000. The*Town's employee permit program and plenty of reserve. on-street capacity can accommodate a couple hundred thousand square feet of new office space. • Retail requirements should be eliminated in the downtown. While shared parking incentives (Recommendation 6) will enable most residences and offices to find minimum parking supplies in the downtown, retailers operate on tight margins in this market area. With ample on- and off- street parking for customers, retail should have no minimum parking requirement. 10) Establish an In;.Lieu of Parking Payment Parking in-lieu fees have been in place in dozens of communities throughout America for years. By making a payment to the municipality, new developments can waive their minimum parking requirements. The fee is usually utilized for transportation improvements, particularly shared public parking facilities. An in-lieu fee has a number of advantages, as summarized by Donald Shoup3 1) Enables developers on constrained sites to build less parking. 3 "in, Lieu of Required Parking," Donald Shoup. CD 2) . Encourages development of shared parking facilities financed by in-lieu fees. A public parking facility shared by many users requires fewer total spaces than multiple individual developments due to the inherent overlap of peak demand times. 3) Shared public parking facilities financed by in-lieu fees can be placed strategically to serve many while reducing the. potential impact to pedestrian and bicycle movements. This also frees up development parcels to create appropriate urban streetscapes without curb cuts and garage entrances.. 4) Eliminates the need for zoning variances, fairly leveling the playing field for all developers and allowing planning boards to focus on design features as opposed to parking quantities. 5) Allows for historic preservation by enabling redevelopment of buildings without adding new parking. In-lieu fees can be an effective method for cost-effectively providing parking in remote locations out of the control of individual land owners. By using fees to subsidize remote parking at locations with cheaper construction or. leasing costs, communities can facilitate development financing while establishing a means to encourage appropriate development standards for participating developers. When fees, are set appropriately, more efficient and better quality designs can be enabled while appropriate parking is provided off-site.. In more progressive communities; the success of in-lieu fees has evolved into the lowering of minimum parking requirements. Dozens of communities in the United States have completely removed minimum residential .and commercial parking requirements in downtown districts, including Eugene, OR; Fort Myers,. FL; Fort Pierce, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; Olympia, WA; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; and Stuart, FL. Program Details The majority of communities in America that employ in-lieu fees'have a consistent standard for all new projects. However, the motivation for specifying a rate varies considerably. In, many communities with excessive parking supplies, the fee is low to reduce the growth of parking. Other communities have a moderate rate that is designed specifically to contribute to a shared parking facility. Several communities have arbitrarily high fees that permit yet discourage the practice. In downtown Reading, the primary goals of an in-lieu fee is to: 1) remove the cost and design complexity of building parking in downtown, while also 2) enabling the development of cheaper remote parking or alternative transportation systems through payments to the parking and transportation fund (Recommendation 2). Therefore; it is important to give a cost savings to developers while having a fee high enough to support a robust fund. Based on estimated garage construction prices. of at least $20,000 per space, it is estimated that an average fee of $10,000 per space be implemented - annualized as a payment to the fund of approximately $800 per year for 35 years (the industry-standard lifespan of a parking structure). The specific fee for a particular project.may vary in direct proportion 'to the number of -required spaces. Smaller projects that only require a few spaces may not see much incentive to reduce parking at $10,000 per space. A fee of only $2,500 may be appropriate. Larger projects with dozens of spaces are likely to have more substantial financing that is prepared to build expensive underground parking spaces that cost over $45,00.0. Such projects may see great benefit paying as much as $15,000 per space to avoid the complexity of structured parking. Therefore, the final in-lieu payment schedule would be best expressed as a rate that increases with the number of total spaces required for a project. 11) Provide Zoning Relief for Parking Unbundling Parking costs -are generally subsumed into the sale or rental price of housing for the sake of simplicity, and because that is the more traditional practice in real estate. But although the cost of parking. is often hidden in this way, parking is never free. The expected cost for each space in new residential (i~) parking garage is over $20,000 per space. Given land values in the area, surface spaces will be at least as valuable. Looking at parking as a tool to achieve the Town's goals for more affordable housing and less traffic requires some changes to status quo practices, since providing anything for free or at highly subsidized rates, encourages use and means that more parking spaces have to be provided to achieve the same rate of availability. For both rental units and condominiums, the full cost of parking should be unbundled from the cost of the housing itself* by creating a separate parking charge. This provides a financial reward to households who decide to dispense with one of their cars and helps attract that niche market of households who wish to live in a walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood where it is possible to live well with.only one car (or even no car) per household. Unbundling parking costs changes parking from a required purchase to an optional amenity, so that households can freely choose how many spaces they wish to lease. Among households with below average vehicle ownership rates (e.g., low income people, singles, single parents, seniors on fixed incomes, and college students), allowing this choice can provide a substantial financial benefit. It is important to note that construction costs for residential parking spaces can substantially increase the sale/rental price of housing. This is because the space needs of residential parking spaces can restrict how many housing units can be built Within allowable zoning and building envelope. For example, a study of Oakland's 1961 decision to require one parking space per apartment (where none had been required before) found that construction cost increased 18% per unit, units per acre decreased by 30% and land values fell 33%.4 As a result, bundled residential parking can significantly increase "per-unit housing costs" for individual renters or buyers. Two studies of San Francisco housing.found that units with off-street .parking bundled with the unit sell for 1.1% to 12% more than comparable units without included parking.5 One study of San Francisco housing found the increased affordability of units without off- street parking on-site can increase their. absorption rate and make home ownership a reality for more people.6 In that study, units Without off-street parking: . • Sold on average 41 days faster than comparable units with off-street parking Allowed 20% more San Francisco households to afford a 'condominium (compared to units with bundled off-street parking) Allowed 24 more San Francisco households to afford a single-family house (compared to units with bundled off-street parking) Charging separately for parking is also the single most effective strategy to encourage households to own fewer. cars and rely more on walking, cycling and transit. According to one study, unbundling residential parking can significantly reduce household vehicle ownership.and parking demand.? These effects are presented in Figure 79. . 4 Bertha, Brian. "Appendix A" in The Low-Rise Speculative Apartment by Wallace Smith UC Berkeley Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 1964. 5 Wenyu Jia and Martin Wachs. "Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco." University of California Transportation Center Paper No. 380,1998 and Amy Herman, "Study Findings Regarding Condominium Parking Ratios," Sedway Group, 2001. 6' Ibid. Litman, Todd. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability." Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. 2 ~j2 Figure 13 Reduced Vehicle Ownership with Unbundled Residential Parking Reduction in Vehicle Ownership from Unbundling Parking Costs 40% 35% Z 30% d 0- 25% , > = f d C 20% O 15% 10% 0% $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 Monthly Parking Fee -0.4 Elasticity -0.7 Elasticity -----1.0 Elasticity) Source: Litman, Todd. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability." Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. Program Details Instituting a parking unbundling program is a simple matter of requiring that any approved parking within downtown Reading have its own lease or deed that is rented or purchased separate from the cost of housing. For rental units, unbundling parking costs is straightforward: the fees charged for the parking spaces will cover the full cost of providing the parking spaces. Then rents for the housing can be reduced up to an amount equal to the amount of parking revenue collected. In the case of. for-sale condominium units, the title to the property should give the owner the right to lease at least one parking space (and these owners will have first priority for leasing parking spaces in a garage). However, as with renters, owners would not be required to lease any parking spaces and could rent as many or as few as they choose. The resulting parking revenue should be used to reduce the amount of the condominium owners' association dues that the owners would otherwise have to pay. It is critical that residents and tenants are made aware that rents, sale prices and lease fees are reduced because parking is charged for separately. Rather than paying "extra" for parking, the cost is simply separated out, allowing residents and businesses to choose how much parking they wish to purchase. No tenant, resident, employer or employee should be required to lease any minimum amount of parking. 12) Monitor Parking Utilization An important part of maintaining the success of any of these recommendations will be monitoring parking utilization on a regular basis. A recurring annual or biennial monitoring regime can allow the Town to modify its time-limits, zoning requirements, shared-parking incentives and other key policies. Based on the detailed utilization information collected for this study, a much smaller and targeted utilization effort can be conducted (potentially in-house or with the use of students or volunteers) by focusing on area of high demand and only casually observing other areas to confirm the results of this 2`~ effort. Where parking patterns appear to change, a more detailed utilization count would be warranted. 13) Install Bicycle Racks In all workshops held for this study, a large portion of residents within walking distance of downtown Reading chose to walk into town versus driving. This is also demonstrated in the user survey data in Chapter 3. These residents help reduce the burden on the parking supply while also eliminating vehicle trips. The same effect is possible for a much broader radius around downtown Reading by making bicycling more convenient and accommodating in town. There are very few bicycle parking facilities in the downtown today. The simple addition of inexpensive post and ring racks on Main, Haven and other key downtown streets would greatly increase the attractiveness of bicycling to downtown. With the cost of bicycles today, most riders want to be sure they can safely secure their investment. If coupled with smart placement in areas that are shaded and/or sheltered, the Town can truly encourage reduced parking and driving demand. 14) Install Bus Shelters Reading is benefitted by two bus lines that operate on Woburn and High Streets in downtown, providing regular service to and from Wakefield, Melrose and the MBTA's Orange Line. In commute hours, these buses have a combined headway of only 15-minutes - a high level of service for a suburb outside of 1-95. Unfortunately, this service is not very prominent in Reading - there are no schedules posted and no bus shelters in the downtown. These bus routes provide a great commute alternative for employees working in Reading that live in nearby communities or almost anywhere on the MBTA's rapid transit system. The Town and the Chamber of Commerce should work to promote this service, especially as it represents an opportunity to reduce parking demand and vehicle trips in Reading, While new bus shelters cost over $10,000 apiece, the MBTA offers many programs to share costs. The Town should also explore opportunities with abutting private landowners to incorporate shelter elements into existing building facades - a treatment that adds architectural appeal to many buildings (see Figure 80). ZS Figure 14 Integrated Bus Shelter in Belmont Medium Term 15) Initiate a New Commuter Permit Program Reading has had a long history, with commuter. rail in its downtown. The impact of commuters parking on downtown streets pushed the Town to begin constraining access to the station from outside Reading many years ago. The development of the Anderson RTC station helped alleviate a lot of commuter demand at the Reading Depot, and non-resident commuter spaces at the Depot are few. However, in-town commuters continue to flood available parking around the station today. The utilization study revealed that commuter parking at the station and up several residential streets to the west was fully utilized. While an expansion of supply (such as Recommendation 8) will help alleviate some pressure.on residential streets in the short-term, the high demand for.access to commuter rail service will continue to fully utilize all available spaces. As a result of this high demand, choice spaces are available on a first-come, first-served basis, with only the proof of a $25/year community access sticker. As a result,- commuters who do not go into work early are often faced with the difficulty of finding parking or along walk from an available space. An unknown number of would-be rail commuters are discouraged and drive to their jobs. The Town has an opportunity to provide this park & ride privilege to more people while helping improve the area around the Depot. By implementing atiered pricing structure at more market-based rates, the Town can allow more residents to have the opportunity to park at the station while encouraging a better commuter profile in town as well as towards Boston. Higher prices would be charged for the closest spaces with one or more tiers of lower priced permits for spaces further from the station. With the introduction of a limited quantity of higher-priced permits for prime station parking, commuters will be affected in a number of positive ways: Spaces close to the station will become available all day long, allowing commuters who avoid the area .after the early part of the rush hour to catch a train, as opposed to driving in the more congested mid-morning hours. • Many existing commuters who pay so little to park. will be encouraged to carpool, walk, bike or take the bus to the Depot. • Commuters who are happy to walk further from their parking space will be rewarded by paying a reduced price to park. 0 If the Town sets a fair rate, that is comparable to the cost of parking at other commuter rail stations in the area (which now charge at least $2 per day, or over $480 per year), it can use the revenues to make improvements to the station area and especially the residential streets where many commuters park today. In turn, if the Town clearly directs surplus revenues at these neighborhoods, these residents will.have an incentive to put their own cars off-street when possible, generating even more revenue for their neighborhood. 16).Conduct a Paid Parking Pilot As discussed in Recommendation 4, time-limited parking is a blunt instrument that only satisfies the majority of parkers who happen to complain about time-limits - which is a very small percentage of everyone who parks. Turnover data suggests a wide variety of durations are parked by travelers to downtown Reading. No one time limit can work well. Pricing through the use of meters or pay stations.has been in use in the United States since 1936, and many small communities like Reading use it today, including Needham, Framingham, and Concord. However, meters have a very bad reputation in America, both for the difficulty of finding change to put into them as well as the hassle'of getting overtime tickets. Ironically, the concept of paying money to park on-street is actually not as much of a complaint. A recent Redwood City staff report summarizes the, results found in downtown Burlingame, California: In a recent "intercept" survey, shoppers in downtown Burlingame were asked which factor made their parking experience less pleasant recently... The number one response was "difficulty in finding a space" followed by "chance of getting a ticket." "Need to carry change" was.third, and the factor that least concerned the respondents was "cost of parking." It is interesting to note that Burlingame has the most expensive on-street parking on the [San Francisco] Peninsula ($.75 per hour) and yet cost was the least troubling' factor for most people. This is not an isolated result.- i Repeatedly, surveys of downtown shoppers have shown that the availability of parking, rather than price, is of prime importance. Always available, convenient, on-street customer parking is of primary importance for retail to succeed. To create vacancies and rapid turnover in the best, most convenient, front door parking spaces, the most effective mechanism is to have price incentives to persuade some drivers especially employees to park in less convenient spaces in lots or on-street parking a block or two away: higher prices for the best spots and cheap or free prices for the less convenient, currently underused spaces. Motorists can be thought of as falling into two primary categories: bargain hunters and convenience seekers. Convenience seekers are more willing to pay for an.avallable front door spot. Many shoppers and diners are convenience seekers: they are typically less sensitive to parking charges because they stay for relatively short periods of time, meaning that they will accumulate less of a fee than an employee or other all-day visitor. By contrast, many long-stay parkers, such as employees, find it more worthwhile to walk a block to save on eight hours worth of parking fees. With proper pricing, the bargain hunters will choose currently underutilized locations, leaving the prime spots free for those convenience seekers who are willing to spend a bit more. After.new time-limits, permits, and signing programs are in place, the Town should watch its parking monitoring results In.a year to 18-months - particularly on Main Street in front of CVS. If utilization continues to be high and availability of spaces is a complaint of customers or businesses, the Town should consider a pricing pilot for these prime spaces., Not only is this location in prime need of availability for customers, its location is relatively confined - customers who seek the adjacent destinations are not likely to go further down Main or up Woburn Street to find free parking. . 0 What is the right price for on-street parking? If prices are used to create vacancies and turnover in the. prime, parking spots, then what -is the right price? An ideal occupancy rate (on each and every block) is approximately 85% at even the busiest hour, a rate which leaves about one out.of every seven spaces available8. This provides enough vacancies that visitors can easily find a spot near their destination when they first arrive. Ideally, parking occupancy for each block of on-street spaces, and each garage should be monitored carefully, and prices adjusted regularly to keep enough spaces available. In short, prices should be set at market rate, according. to demand, so that just enough spaces are always available. Professor Donald Shoup of UCLA advocates setting prices for parking according to the "Goldilocks Principle": The price is too high if many spaces are vacant, and too low if no spaces are vacant. Children learn that porridge shouldn't be too hot or too cold, and that beds shouldn't be too soft or too firm. Likewise, the price" of curb parking shouldn't be too high or too low. When about 15 percent of curb spaces are vacant, the price is just right. What alternative price could be betterP If this principle .is followed, then there need be no fear that pricing parking will drive customers away. After all, when the front-door parking spots at the curb are entirely full, under-pricing parking cannot create more curb parking spaces for customers, because it cannot create more spaces. And, if the initial parking meter rate on a block is accidentally set too high, so that there are too many vacancies, then 'a policy goal of achieving an 85% occupancy rate will result in lowering the parking rate until the parking is once again well used (including making parking free, if need be). Remove Time Limits Once a policy of market rate pricing is adopted, with the goal of achieving an 85% occupancy rate, then time limits need not be instituted. With no time limits, much of the worry and "ticket anxiety" for downtown customers disappears. In Redwood City California, where this policy was recently adopted, Dan Zack describes the thinking behind the City's decision in this way: Market-rate prices are the only known way to consistently create available. parking spaces in popular areas. if we institute market-rate prices, and adequate spaces are made available, then what purpose do time limits serve? None, other than to inconvenience customers. if there is a space or two available on all blocks, then who cares how song each individual car is there? The reality is that it doesn't matter. 17) Develop a Commuter Benefits Program Many employers in downtown Reading provide free or reduced price parking for their employees as a fringe benefit. This is a customary practice in most suburban workplaces. Unfortunately, it hides the cost of'providing parking, does nothing to reduce parking demand and gives no reward to those who forgo a car in their commute. Therefore, many communities in American who.are seeking to reduce parking demand and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation have begun instituting a "Parking Cash-Out" requirement. Under a parking cash-out requirement, employers can continue to give away their parking to. employees on the condition that they offer the cash value of the parking subsidy to any employee who does not drive to work. The programs essentially require employers to pay employees who do not drive. While at first take this sounds like an entirely unreasonable burden, it has proven to be so cost-effective that major employers' in America are now instituting these programs of their own accord in order to reduce the cost of supplying parking. The success of parking cash-out has saved large universities and corporations millions of dollars in parking construction or leasing costs, and their employees are much happier because they are getting s This rate is a widely-accepted industry standard that provides a high level of convenience for parkers and largely eliminates the circling for parking which contributes to increased driver frustration, traffic congestion and collisions. s Shoup, D. (2005) The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: Planners Press. paid for their decision not to drive, The payment is typically less than the cost of leasing or maintaining a parking space, but it is.a substantial benefit to employees that is also a cost-saver for.business. Reading should consider working with its employers to offer this benefit to employees. The programs are so successful that they are now in Federal Highway guidance and have become law in California and Rhode Island. Benefits of Parking Cash Out The benefits of parking cash out are numerous, and include: • Provides an equal transportation subsidy to employees who ride transit, carpool, vanpool, walk or bicycle to work. The benefit is particularly valuable to low-income employees, who.are less likely to drive to work alone. • Provides a low-cost fringe benefit that can'help individual businesses recruit and retain employees. Employers report that parking cash-out requirements are simple to administer and enforce, typically requiring just one to two minutes per employee per month to administer. In addition to these benefits, the primary benefit of parking cash-out programs is their proven effect on reducing auto congestion and parking demand. Figure 81 illustrates the effect of parking cash-out at seven different employers located in and around Los Angeles. It. should be noted that most of the case study employers are located in areas that do not have good access to transit service, so that a large part of the reduced parking demand that occurred with these parking cash-out programs resulted when former solo drivers began carpooling. Figure 15 ' Effects of Parking Cash-Out on Parking Demand ~1 t 'r z ' Parkrng Fee s ;Decease -in P $/IVIoNth arking LocatidrE~ }rr ;J. Scope of',S,tud3 ,(2006 L~ 0xi land Group A: Areas with little p ublic transportation Century City,. CA' 13500 employees at 100+ firms 1$107 115% Cornell University, NY2 19000 faculty and staff 1$45 ( 26% Warner Center, CA' I 1 large employer (850 employees) J$49 130% Bellevue, WA3 11 medium-size firm (430 empl) ($72 139% Costa Mesa, CA' I State Farm Insurance employees 1$49 122% Average I 1$64 126% Group B: Areas with fair pu blic transportation Los Angeles Civic Center' (10,000+ employees, several firms 1$166 .136% . Mid-Wilshire Blvd, LA' 11 mid-sized firm 1$119 138% Washington DC suburbs-' 15500 employees at 3 worksites 1$90 126% Downtown Los Angeles6 15000 employees at 118 firms I $167 125% Average I ($135 131% Group C: Areas with good public transportation University of Washington? 50,000 faculty, staff and students $24 24% Downtown Ottawa' 13500+ government staff 1$95 118% Average I 1$59 121% Overall Average I 1$89 127% Sources: 2~ I Willson, Richard W. and Donald C. Shoup. "Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessing the Evidence." Transportation, 1990, Vol. 17b, 141-157 (p145). 2 Cornell University Office of Transportation Services. "Summary of Transportation Demand Management Program." Unpublished, 1992. 3 United States Department of Transportation. "Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium," USDOT Report No. DOT-T-91-14,1990. 4 Employers Manage Transportation. State Farm Insurance Company and Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1994. 5 Miller, Gerald K. "The Impacts of Parking Prices on Commuter Travel," Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1991. 6 Shoup, Donald and Richard W. Wilson. "Employer-paid Parking: The Problem and Proposed Solutions," Transportation Quarterly, 1992, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp169-192 (p189). 7 Williams, Michael E. and Kathleen L Petrait. "U-PASS: A Model Transportation Management Program That Works," Transportation Research Record, 1994, No.1404, p73-81. In addition to. promoting parking cash-out, the Town can work proactively with employers to promote ridesharing, transit passes, bicycling, flexible work hours and guaranteed ride home programs. Long Term 18) Implement Parking Maximums Maximum parking requirements generally alleviate traffic congestion and reduce auto use through a simple three step process: 1. Maximum parking requirements are set low enough to so that if parking at a location is given away for free, there will be a shortage. 2. Parking at these locations is then provided to the people.who use it for a price that covers at least part of the cost to finance and operate the parking, so that the cost is revealed. Alternately, employers and other parking providers find it cost effective to provide strong subsidies for alternative transportation (such as free transit passes or a parking cash out program), rather than incur the cost of building additional parking. Furthermore, providing maximum choice to-tenants and customers. 3. Removing parking subsidies (or providing equally strong subsidies for other modes) then brings travel choices into balance, toward public transit, cycling and walking. Maximum requirements must be complemented by the correct pricing for both on, and off-street parking that ensures a 15-percent vacancy rate in all parking facilities, in order to prevent parking shortages (or surpluses). 19) Implement Demand-Responsive Pricing Building upon the success of the parking pricing pilot, Reading should consider a full demand- responsive on-street pricing program as its downtown builds out into its parking supply. Using pay stations on every block,.prices would be set at rates that create a 15% vacancy rate on each block (with no time-limits). Ideal hourly parking rates vary according to the time of day. The first 20 minutes may be free but every additional hour is priced according to the best value at that period of time in the day. Morning hours are generally cheaper, lunch hours demand a higher fee, afternoon hours reduce in price, and evening hours - especially on weekends - are likely to demand the highest rates. This rate structure makes parking free or cheap for short-stay visitors (such as retail customers), makes all day parking. much more expensive, and creates availability during. high demand dining and entertainment hours. Employees and residents are discouraged from parking at the meter spaces that are intended for customers, and are encouraged to purchase a monthly permit. Because of the variable rates, monthly permits (intended for residents and employees) are less expensive than parking all day at the meters. After an initial trial period; occupancy rates for each block and each parking facility should be reviewed and then adjusted down or up to achieve the 85% occupancy goal, as described earlier. For each block and each parking lot in Reading,.the right price is the price that will achieve this goal. This 3° means that pricing should not be uniform: the most desirable spaces need higher prices, while less convenient spots are cheap or may even be free. 20) Expand Walking Network Ultimately, the success of the best downtowns rides on the ability of visitors, workers and residents to get around easily on foot. Reading already has a robust sidewalk network in downtown. As the downtown grows and progressive transportation and parking policies are implemented, the demand to connect by foot into downtown from a wider and wider radius will grow. Reading should anticipate this need and continue to program walking network expansions outward from downtown in the years to come.