HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx 2 BPC 04122018 Memo RPPD Changes PacketBOZEMAN''Porking ServicesMEMORANDUMDate: April6, 2018To: Bozeman Parking CómmissionRe: Recommendations for Residential Parking Permit DistrictsFrom: Ed Meece, Parking Program Managerln Novemb er 20L7, the Bozeman City Commission asked the City Manager to studyand make recommendations regarding the creation of additional residential parkingpermit districts,'and/or use of alternative parking management strategies, to theimmediate north and south of the downtown core (B-3). As a result, the ParkingProgram Manager is assisting the City Manager in the development of those.ecom.endations, and in reporting to the City Commission on April 23,20t8. Thepurpose of this memorandum to is to advise the Bozeman Parking Commission onthe status of that effort, and solicit comment on the potential content of thoserecommendations.Since acceptance of the 2016 Strategic Parking Management Plan. the City ofBozeman has been working its way through a series of strategies to develop acomprehensive system for public parking management. Each successive straterybenefits from previous strategy implementations, deploying available resources(public and private) in the most effective manner possible. This approach seems topiu.u an emphasis on strategies that are management intensive rather thanregulation intensive - more sharing, partnering, and behavior adaption thanunfor..¡¡.nt. A challenge of this current study effort is that several parkingmanagement strategies, identified in the 2016 Strategic Parking Management Plan,have ñot yet been fully implemented - such as changes to code-based minimums,enhanced public transportation, and off-street shared use agreements.An evaluation of the existing legal framework regarding the creation and operationof residential parking permit districts in Bozeman is a first step in this process.Comparing the Bozeman Municipal Codel to other jurisdictions, and industry bestpraciices, it is clear that significant revision is needed so that districtcreation/operation is responsive to how people access and utilize transportation,housing, shopping, and economic transactions.Success resolving parking supply/demand conflicts requires a blended, data-basedapproach. For this reason, the Parking Program Manager is recommending that the1 BMC 36.04.330 & 36.04.350, attached.@ ZO Eost Otivc Street@ +oo saz zoo:P.0 Box 1230Bozenron, MT 59i71-1230www bozemon.netTDD:40ó-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE
BOZEMAN"'Porking ServicesCity of Bozeman move away from the 'exclusive use' model of our currentResidential Parking Permit program, and allow for public parking within the RPPD'son a time limited basis. ln effect, the RPPD becomes a two hour limited parking zone- an RPPD permit holder however is exempt from the time limit regulations.In order to implement such a program, recommended changes to the BozemanMunicipal Code are:Creation of a Residential Parking Permit Districto A petition must be signed by Slo/o of all residential properties3, oríto/o of all ownersa, within the boundaries of the proposed district, forthe establishment of a residential parking permit district -. The proposed RPPD must be primarily residential in character;. The proposed RPPD shall be of no fewer than 10 block faces or2,500 feet of linear curb;. The petition shall be accompanied by a non-refundableadministrative fee of $100.o Upon presentation of a valid petition, as outlined above, the BozemanParking Commission shall proceed with data collection efforts for theestablishment of an RPPD.The BPC will perform the data collection necessary todetermine:o Does peak occupancy of available on-street parkingspaces within the proposed district meet, or exceed,85% occupancy for a continuous period of at least threehours on 3 separate days?o If so, do at least 25o/o of the vehicles parked, duringhours in which parking spaces within a proposeddistrict are or are more than 850/o occupied, belong toindividuals who reside at addresses outside theproposed district?o Upon completion of the data collection, the BPC will consider theissue, at a regularly scheduled meeting, and vote regarding as For the purpose of this petition, only one resident, or owner, per property, or leased unit within a propertycontaining multiple dwelling units, shall count as a valid signature.a An owner of multiple properties within the proposed district may sign only once'oIP.O. Box 1230Bozenrcrn, MT 59771-1230www. bozenrcr n. net406-582-290320 Eost 0tive StreetTDD:40ó-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE
BOZEMAN''Porking Servicesresolution to recommend the creation of an RPPD to the Bozeman CityCommission. The results of this vote, and/or the resolution, areforwarded to the Bozeman City Commission.o If desiring to create an RPPD, the Bozeman City Commission wouldenact an ordinance to that effect:Any ordinance designating an area of the city as a residentialpermit parking area shall describe:oL. The designated public streets for the proposeddistrict;o2. Hours of each day, and days of each week, that theresidential parking permit regulations shall be in effect;and time limits for non-residents to park in these areas;3. The individuals eligible to purchase a permit;4. Effective dates of annual permits;5. F'ee structures for permits - the number of vehiclesallowed to receive a permit per residences, and the costfor the fÏrst and successive vehicle permits. Residentswho qualiff for low-income social services benefits (e.g.SNAP, WIC, TANF, and SSI) may receive their firstvehicle permit at a reduced cost (or free?)6.6. Any special provisions or exceptions applicable toschools, churches, businesses, public park , etc. withinthe residential area; and7. Visitor permit or special gathering provisions for theresidential area.s Staff had discussion regarding escalating permit costs for any registered owner seeking permits for more thantwo vehicles/items.e Currently, this benefit is not part of the current RPPD permit program,aooo@ +oo ssz-zso:P O Box 1230Bozenron, MI 59711-1230www.bozemon.net20 Eost 0[ive StreetTDD:40ó-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE
BOZEMAN''Porking ServicesooB. The City may permit the sale of 'out of district'employee or commuter permits based on itsunderstanding of available parking occupancy andcapacity.9. An RPPD permit is automatically revoked, onceresidency is established outside the district for morethan thirty days.10. After the fîrst two citations in a twelve monthperiod, subsequent citations will result in an escalationôf tne fine amount to a level that is ten dollars ($fO¡higher.oUpon adoption of any ordinance by the City Commissiondesignating an area for residential permit parking, signs shallbe erected along the streets identified in the ordinance prior toany enforcement of the residential parking permit regulationpursuant to section 36.04.090. The parking signs erected shallgive notice of the general nature of the parking limitation andshall indicate the hours and days when such parkinglimitations shallbe in effect.Nothing would prevent the Bozeman City Commission from initiatingthis same process, without any action from the Bozeman ParkingCommission.aDissolution of a Residential Parking Permit Districto A petition mustbe signed bya representative of Slo/oof all residentialproperties , or íLo/o of owners of those propertiesT, within theboundaries of the proposed district, for the establishment of aresidential parking permit district.o The City Commission may initiate dissolution as it deems appropriate,or if the City determines that less than íto/o of properties within thez ? For the purpose of this petition, only one resident, or owner, per property, or leased unit within a propertycontainingmultiple dwelling units, shalì count as a valid signature. An owner of multiple properties within theproposed district may sign only once.o@ +oo saz zso: www.bozcmcrn.rretP.0 Box 1230Bozenron, MT 59771-123020 Ecrst 0[ive StreetTDD: 40ó-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE
ËÕZEMAN"'Porking Servicesdistrict have purchased at least one permit within a twelve monthperiod.The Parking Program Manager would not recommend that existing RPPD's berequired to satisfy these new parking occupancy levels to remain intact. However, Iam recommending that those code sections dealing with operation of an RPPD (ex.,time limited public parking) would apply to existing districts.As part of this repor! a technical memorandum is provided, from Rick WilliamsConlulüng, discussing how communities utilize an 850/o occupancy standard tomanage pãrking. A key point in that memorandum, and reflected in our research, isthat communities set their occupancy triggers at, or below, the B5%o standard basedon how intensely they desire to manage parking occupancy in a given area. Thispolicy decision is reflective of non-quantitative factors such as communityiharacter, and economic stratery, in addition to parking occupancy data.In the above code frameworh accurate and timely data collection is important toevaluate the need of an RPPD in a proposed area. The Parking Services Division'srecent purchase of mobile license plate recognition technolog¡r provides an internalcapability to perform these data collection tasks on an on-going basis.A review of existing data from the 2017 Downtown Parking Occupancy Studyeagainst the 85% occupancy standard reveals that the following residential areas,adjacent to downtown, would seem to meet the peak hour occupancy requirementsfor establishment of an RPPD - if the recommended code updates wereimplemented:Beall to Lamme/N. Willson to N. Montana (blocks 3,4,5,6,7 of WTI study)eOlive to Curtiss/S. Tracy to Lindley Place (blocks 48,49,50)However, at this time the City does not have data regarding parked vehicleaddresses to be able to determine the level of commuter parking that is occurringwithin the peak period. In addition, the 2017 Downtown Parking Occupancy Studydid not count parking occupancy in the residential areas adjacent to the downtown.For these reasons, it is problematic to offer a recommendation as to whether newRppDs should be formed; and the extent of their boundaries. Following theestablishment of a specific occupancy trigger, and additional data collection, theserecommendations can be madeI Western Transportation lnstitutes The wTI study 'blocks' are dará blocks, not necessarily typical street blocks.@ ZO Eost Otivc Strcct@ +oo saz-zoo:@P O. Box 1230Bozemon, MT 59771-1230www. bozemo n. netTDD:40ó-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE
BOZEMAN''Porking ServicesIn addition to the development of regulatory intensive RPPDs, communities areutilizing Parking Management Zones in an effort to identifli and address parkingconcerns on a neighborhood level. This approach places data collection and analysis,as well as strategr deployment, into the cultural and character context of a local'region'; avoiding a one size fits all method of public parking management. TheParking Services Division intends to explore the creation of Parking ManagementZones, at appropriate areas within the community, for this purpose.The policy discussions of the Bozeman Parking Commission on March Bt'r and AprilL2ù are critical to development of recoràmendations to be submitted to theBozeman City Commission on April 23'd, and the Parking Program Manager willmake every attempt to reflect their content accordingly. Likewise, the City shouldundertake meaningful public engagement efforts on these issues through a varietyof techniques; such as public forums, opinion survey, and neighborhoodassociations.@ Bft.iiJnl'n]? urrr,.,rro @ +oo 582-2e03www.bozcnlclr.nc'I20 Eost 0tive StreetTDD:40ó-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE
0 005 01 02 03 0.4-MilesOn and Off-street ParkingStreet BlockOn-Street ParkingOff-Street Parking##
Downtown ,uôrLp.*ln3 lot¡ffimg€d by sml-prlvat€"Dilnto$rn ld¡hoFsllr" .ntltvtlru-limlt€dprrklng, Pêrmlthu¡q avall¡hle -Ma¡ 4 Vlsl¡orpêmits forS28.s/p.mlt; 2sdl4 p@ldcrParmltts28.g¡lp€rmB rütl{¡y p€rmlts;(1 1¿lhdohôHSom disùlctsz/ho*hold,528.solvehÈ1.,550, mu¡t h¡wrelded ln tonefor 5 montht,3pecl¡l pemllslßucd lo Hsludcnt! ln .r€ak hlrh.óml"@mpllmentârypormlt houF'ãv.ll.ble to n3.Permlt holder -G¡. "99 frcehoury'days touæ for partl6,luner¡15, aryl@ø115, or othê¡¡laS39.72 c¡D/Warmost dlstrlct¡;dryntwn 15S378/yc.r by theMerk€q579.451y¿.tousldc theMerkGtS57.01 ¡pplkôtlonfee-N/ANebhborh@d esl.tlon orbusln!s dlstrlct ilG¡¡tlon;clty Trumc Erulnær mustag@ on nGêd- or, Petltld ofto nêbhborhood/bd¡Arry slr¡h rcsüentlal blækmy p€tltlon for RPPD sÌ¡tus."Evldent spport" of rc3ld¿ntsby p.tlùon requlEd. Ewryhouæhold must be øntactedordcum.nd 3 attampts !o@nt¡ct. E¡mYtor@P¡ncY@nducl.d, thGn TıfllcElltlnær @nduds efctysmv, Parllng M.mgermle¡ r.@mændotlon to CIWDetermlmtlon of Clty Englæer'ñ/ vôr. hv ctu tuncllMlnlmum 10 blækfeas, or1,5(þ ft. ; p.tltlon by 60ta ôfó<l¿.ntrrñmrt ln fâw.60*, of whlch2994 æmmulcrN/A75X @pled,2srtbvæmñuteBatma- t I mltad Aæo Pa tklÌEPGmlt DEtrlctforrcsldenE and worlcrs;Both rcsident-only andRe¡ldont-only torcslrcrpofate met 15 fornon-Eídent Pırkln8avôlhbllltY.Excluslve us onTlæilmlted to on! or twohoaProøsd.No, "plcntv olon-stfæt@rllmndrmptfrcm Prr¡¡n3lot,nol from m€teÉMuch l¡rcê.: cenådl¡hThls @ll€¡e-lowntourlst cltY ls wrth@nsldlrlnt ln@mPar¡¡on to us, butg.ogr¡phløldl¡t!nepl¡ed lt¡3 7th for qr5 Êr cltlBPortland 15 a muchblgtrr @mmunltyRPPO nol y.tNo nÐDPårlln¡ @nlmlsplitbetwr€n Clty ândatulâ 6nlrtdorMuch lâmêrl-et's k¡ep ¡n ey€ onBend estlroy developldeho Falls lGta lotofparklm and CltYplennlm @ntrolbV@ntråctln¡mana¡êmênt ofparlln3 lots to a prlvatemlShtalþ @nslderllmltln¡the nunborofpermlts thatã rèsldêntME s proSEmnot lnltl.têd bypêtlt¡on, butbytheEnSlnêêr e3 toand thên vote olCoundl. Thô lon¡-rêsldontlalwould båburden on ourfor theh flrstPortbnd OR rêænthgot ln troublè forlsslng fow.r pêrmltrto r€sld€nts ofapertmênt bulldln¡sth¡n to resldonts ofhom€s. Ws thouldensr6 thst everyr$ldent of Bozemãnh$ êquela@$ ûoVan@uvêr h¡s a greâtw6bsltê uplalnlng ltrsRPPD to cltÞ€ns; weshould strfue toemulets that, lt âlsoffeE a f@ p€rmlt to
IIr¡taO@p¡ncyil{ RPPD .cqqlltffitsfo. Ét¡blldrrotRPÞDIt hú l¡ lfik r Èr dw?F.6dtElit¡b¡tlhmPqTacomatime-limited totwo hours for non-residents; pãrkin8enforcement 8-6,limited poltceenforcement 68more thãn75%occup¡edfor morethan 3houtr {35%we were cfeæd to T¿coma by our@nsultant, R¡ck williams. Ta@ma's RPPDthought out that we have @me acrc$.Home to sveÉl univeFities ând a tou.istdestinat¡on, th¡s gEater-Seattle city is notdissiñ¡lâr froñ Bo2emen."approval by É0Yô ofpropertv residents to creðtezone" Decommission byvote of 509ó of propertysize of 4 contituous blockfaces [.e. ¡n a straithl line]S6o/f¡rst &2nd vehicle, third S120,4th 5180 10 Guesl passes for 24 h¡strme-l¡mitedperñit5 for fi.st veh¡cleavailãble ford¡rounted rate tor"Res¡dents who quallfyproSãmrfaNF, wc,OfferfiEt pemitforfEe/di$oúnted Þte toHelenelpop.Helena has one ofthe oldest RPPDpÞgEms ¡n the ståte (beßun ¡n 1983). ln2014, the city found that many ofthe oldetd¡stricts held relattv€ly fcw pemit holder,and ch¿ñted thc¡r pol¡cies to be3ind€commission¡ng exil¡ng districts ¡f lack ofpopulãr d€m¿nd ms not found. However,the Cjty €mploys m¡ny policies that do notfollow'best pEct¡ces" (e.9. it has RPPD5 ¡nhixed-use districts, and erdsive lse on ãTwo typês: A: 2 hrpark¡n8 exceptr€s¡dents; g:Petition ol 5096 of res¡dentsafiected by new bu¡ldintactivity; zôned res¡dent¡elaæ¿. Ownen will becontact€d for f¡nãl dec¡sion.Type A (t¡med) zones are forblock with ø¿Yedresidentiðl/@mm€ri@l use.Type B (e¡clusive) for allPet¡tionßs¡dents of prcÞo*d zoneor independent study by c¡tymanaBer (can be 2 blocks).4spaces per block face to belor commuteF; taken away¿fter if not appl¡ed for.Commûêr Þemit ñonêYgoes back ¡nto progÊm. citymenager pEsents stud¡es toTÊnsportâtion Adv¡6oryprocess ntSloonta ê1 onsgnOnly ¡n type B, or monthly påses for€mploy€es ofRemded old RPPDs ¡nWe should not emulate the¡r m¡n¡hum slzerequ¡Gment;5 hou*s is not enou8h. lssueRPPDS with ackndledeement of th€ rlßhtqfthe publ¡c to E of sùcets; theE is no rithtto park ¡n front ofyoúr hou*- lñ Helen¿,"people with driveMys and taEt€s st¡llbuya p€mitto make sure no one pãrks ¡n f¡onlofthe¡r house". Somet¡mes owneF €nnotbe contacted; Elw pñorlty to resldents lnFortcoll¡ns.CO (eop.Zhousehold;2 tuelA: Resldents beyond t¡me ßstrictionB: Commute. - Non Esidents enpark in a dslgnated rone area(asltned blockl beyond timeEstrict¡gnc: Busine$ Employee - Up to 3 full-time emplovees ofa bus¡ne$establishment (not a bus¡ness in ahome) ¡n a res¡dential one can park¡n a des¡Bnatêd .rea (bloclcl, or moeConsider adopt¡ng a similar gEduatedpemhfæ for l¡mitto ¡umber of veh¡desthat a reddene 6n obtaln an RPPforl andgEduated f¡ne stucture. co¡sider prcvdinBÞemits f space allow(res dentsfu7ú/.2-hr limìtedFirst veh¡clei Frce Second vehicle:Sú Third: S4o. Foufth:5100 F¡fth:S2oo- commuler oerm¡t: S4oPetition of 10 residents ofneithborhood; vote of 51%of âll owners (roñ-ownerrê<idÞnts not êl¡ribleì600-unit apartmentbuilding withinadequate parking ledto first establìshment ofRPPD; âlso caúse ford¡senfcnch¡sment ofnon{wner tesidentsf<lrrdênt<ìlf capecity after RPPD, permits for businesses on first-come bas¡s -- if permits sold do not comprise 70% ofava¡lable spaces, commuter permits may be sold up to70 occúpancy The haghest numberofcommuterperm¡ts ever issued es ofSep 2017 was only 31. The feefor number of permits per household increases pervehicle Gradueted fine structure: F¡6t violation: WerninBSecond: S10 Th¡rd: S25 Foudh+: 550Time EstrictedaÉas, w¡th 3d¡ffe¡ent pemitlevels, asdetemined by¡nd¡v¡dualneighborhoodneeds (see:60% during8-5WelempÞpert¡et wÈh ones¡gnature from e¡tlrer aI Þnant or omer, Pet¡t¡onshall pþv¡de m¡p ofpÞposed boundar¡es.Minimum d¡strict size: 10blæk faæs,lhen vote (1vote/pÞperty of tenent orowner) (post€rd mail¡ng).PÞposed districlsBoulder.CO {pop.Commuter pemit -S100/quarter; Bus¡ness in NPP zonê -Employee = S75/Vear. Res¡dents get 2 tweweek Buestpem¡ts, and one 24-hrvis¡tortag; no moc thanpemit not r SuaGnteeofC¿6rd?. prov¡ding quarterly@mmuter/'bufnes pemits ofter ¡nitialest¿blishment ofnil RPPD Êquicments -ifalloß.CoNellis.oR fpoo.Gþw¡ng West (Coâst) college town. ourconsultãnt, Rick Williams, efered us toYês, 3. Timed-limited Þarkin8 (2Two types ofdistrict: A:2-hrParking; B: h¡lfthe block itexduslve forres¡dents; otherhalf, noæstridions7S%5l%+ Ioccup¡ed by IcommutèßCollege town with smalldowntNn aGaRêsidenE iill mul move erlssue more perßlts than Ðaces available, rometimes 2-3t¡mes moc. Pem¡ts speciñc to ownerand veh¡cle; ¡ newpermit not a guaEnteeconsidersim¡làrpÞcessforfomation andA pemit ¡s not a guacntee of a sp¡ce;¡nstead, it favoF a €sident's ability to pãrksomewheæ. However, Mad¡son has mocparking gaÊges and lotsthân Bozemân, andpublic tEnsport is moG available - forth¡sæaÐn, the stßtegy of i$u¡ng moE pemitsthan availàblè spaces to d¡scouEgeowneÉhiÞ of mult¡ple veh¡cles ßay not beàppÞpr¡ate unt¡l moc publlchñçDôÊ/ôubli. lôE ârÞ lffiduÞd-ând veñ l¡mitêd oerkinrBlock must be 5196+Gs¡dent¡al. 51% res¡denbßust be pet¡tioned & ¡nfavorNo Feepemit not ¡ guacntee
City of Boulder, Colorado. (2014, Oct.). Access Management and Parking Sfrategres; Best PracticesDocumentation. Retrieved from: httos://www-lson, S. G., & Mulley , C. (2014). Parking: /ssues and policies. Emerald Group Publishing.Marsden, G. (2006). The evidence base for parking policies-a review. Transport policy, 13(6),447457Rick Williams Consulting . (2017, August zal. City Of Bend citywide parking study: Residentiol parkingpermit zone progroms. Retrieved from:(2OL3, March L4l. City of Tocomo: Technical memorandum: Framework for o residential porkingpermit progrom. Retrieved from:http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/PublicWorks/Engineering/Parking/Residential%20Permit%2OProgram%o203-14-13.pdfShoup, D. (2017). The high cost of free parking: Updated edition. Routledge.Solesbee Group. (2017 , Sept. 21). Memorandum to the City of Boulder - Neighborhood porking permit(npp) progrom update. Retrieved from: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/10-09-2OI7 _T AB _Age n d a-6-N P P- U p d a t e - 1. -2077 LOO3 11 1 9. p d fVan Ommeren, J., de Groote, J., & Mingardo, G. (2014). Residentialparking permits and parkingsupply. Regionalscience and Urban Economics, 45,3344.
RICK WILLIAMS CONSULTI NGParki ng & Trâ nsPortationCitY of BozemanDowntown Strategic Parking Management PlanWhite PaPer-85%RuleFebruarYzS, zo18I. BACKGROUNDBozeman,s zot6 Downtown Strateg¡c Parking Management Plan resulted in implementation as a policyand organizational action strategy adopting'The 85% Rule as the standard fór measuring peformanceof the parking supply and triggeiing specific management strateg¡es and rate ranges'"' The plan alsoapproved Guiding Principles for "active capacity management" callforthe "use [ofl thçg5% Rule as aparking occupancy standard to inform and guide decision'making,l" S.ince aPProval of the lo16 Plan,CiÇ staff and downtown stakeholders have requested more informatión related to best practicesrelated tothe on-the-ground implementation of the 85% Rule'This summary provides more detail and examples from otheÉ cities as to how the 85% Rule supportsstrategic parking management decision making and active çapaêity man¡gement of varying types ofparking supply.¡t. ,.85% RULE" - WHAT DOES tT REALLY MEAN FOR YoUR PARKING *SUPPLY?"Anyone who talksrun across the phrase the "859ó Rule."common toolwithin the parking lndustryforaThough thlspubllc'áttentlon by UCLA Professor Donatd Shoup, in hisOn-street P:arkingshoup,s focus is wÍth d¡i,street pallìng and suggests that any single block face that routinely exceedsg5% should be priced tqensure that there is always a r5% buffer of available parking "at the curb'" Assuch, higher rates should'be charged on block faces with high occupancies and a lower rate (or no rate)on block faces that have lower occupancies; a system called variable rate or performance based pricing'According to Dr. shoup, charging a higher, 'Tair market price" for parking at constrained curb sPacesfacilitates turnover (which is beneficial to business sales), reduces congestion, improves air quality andgenerates a revenue source for cities to re-invest back into the districg from which parking revenue isderived., Clty of Bozeman, Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan, Project Summary and Recommendations forParklng Management (July 5, zoeS), page rr.'lbid. Guiding Prlnciple 3(a), page 7.¡ Donald Shoup (zoo5) , The High cost of Free ParkÍng, Planners Press.
The same approach is taken for off-street parking facilities, using the 85% occupancy standard tocalibrate rates for hourly, daily and monthly permit parking. Lots or garages that maintain high levelsof occupancy, charge higher fees than those that ma¡nta¡n lower occupancies'An example is illustrated in Figure A from Leavenwo¡th, Washington. ln Leavenworth, occupancy datafrom off-street facilities is compiled in a heat map format, which allows their parking managers andAdvisory Committee to evaluate use and pricing from a demand perspective. Lots in excess of 85% willbe priced accordingly in relationship to other facilities with lesser demands.Figure A: Example of Using 859ó Rule for Decision-making (Leavenworth, WA)Off-Strcet Parking Utilization - Weekdayf]] eu*r,g sr,dy BoundaryRtcÍ WrlIrAÉs CgNsuLTlr{cPìrkrıt & T'Áo¡port.(lonI rts*f elx -rov.I osx -ss*EÊ . ssrJUV 2O 20172:0o - 3:(N PMtuak Houtr.æFêCo 120¿ló a80 t20 ñoThe City of Salem, Oregon also uses the 85% rule to trigger pricing decisions and manage monthlyparking permits. When a facility routinely exceeds 85% peak hour occupancy, monthly rates at thefacility are increased and/or the number of permits sold at the facility is reduced to ensure that visitortrips are not jeopàrdized. Salem further calibrates off-street rates aga¡nst their highest occupiedgarage. As such, if the highest rate charged for monthly parking at the most constrained facility is $rooper month, prices of permits at other gârages with (for example) 6o% peak occupancies will charge S6ozlPage
per month for permits; at 4o% occupancy permits will be t4o. The purpose being to charge higher ratesat high density "premium" garages, with lower rates at underused garages' The varied rates also serveas an incentive for users to seek out lower priced supply; spreading parking demand over allfacilities inthe Salem public system, as opposed to a system (as in some cities) where rates in all public facilities arethe same - regardless of demand.ln both the Leavenworth and Salem examples, the 85% Rule serves as the trigger for initiatingdiscussion and decision-making regarding rate increases and/or managing Perm¡t sales'lt c sicl e' rtÍ ì ul Il e i glib o t h ortd sThe 85% Rule is also used in situations where spillover of visitor andusers. This situation also occurs in areas where large institutlons (e-9.,hospitals, college campuses) abut or locate within an area that isprimarily zoned for resldential use. cities that use an occuPancymeasure to trigger neighborhood parking management strategiesinclude Boise, ldaho; Boulder, Colorado; Bend, Corvallis and Portland, Oregon; and Tacoma'Washington (to name only a few). ln each of these cities, when the occupancy standard is exceeded' apolicy framework has been established that allows a neighborhood association to request action'discussion and /or initiation of strategies to prioritize parking access on residential streets for residentialusers. The most common solu¡on implemented is creatlon of a residential parking permit zone (RPPZ)'RPPZs allow parklng mðnagement, usuâlly through parking permits and time llmits that givepreference to residents anJtheir guests when instances of constraint create conflicts betweenresidential and commercial parking demands,a Those who live in the area may be provided or purchasea permit to allow parking beyond a posted visitor time limit within the residential parking permit zone'5lll. APPLYING THE 859ó RULE STANDARDWhether in on-street, off-street or residential contexts; the "g5lo Rule" is truly a strategic and beneficialtool to include in any parking management plan, particularly as the use of this standard underscoresand facilitates parking problem solving within an objective, measurable framework' Unfortunately' thenational hype over The High Cost of Free Parking has led some cities to jump into strategy4 ln most clties requests are made through a communlty initiated petition'r provislons are made in some cities that allow for the sale of non-residential permits{e.g., employee permits froman adjacent commercial oistrictl within RppZs if there are demonstr¿ted surpluses of parking wlthin the zone thatwould allow for the sale of such'permits wlthout adverse impacts on access for residents and their guests'3lPage¡ZONERTSIDEIITPtRl,llTPARI(IIIG0lltY0Âlr-l0Ptt( t¡"{¡tZONE¡RrslDElltPtRl'llTPARl(IIIG0lltY8AX.loPxulzt
\implementation before clearly developing a reason to do so. There can be several "problems" with astraight up Shoup-like approach to the 85% Rule, particularly in smaller cltles that have traditionallyoperated with free supplies of parking.The first issue to explore is the defìnition of "parkingsupply" that is driven by the 85% Rule. For Shoup, thedefinition of supply is the supply at any single block face.Others in the industry would broaden the supply of parkingto a more identifiable use area, for instance a retail district,"Main Street" or defined parking management zone. Forexample, the City of Vancouver, Washington has identifiedfive parking management zones in its downtown; Bend andCanby, Oregon have three unique zones and the City ofPortland thirteen in its downtown. The City of Bendestablishes residential parking permit zones for areas assmall as ro block faces or qsoo linealfeet of curb space.Rather than managing to the block face with thethese cities manage to an identifiable, walkablezone that uses the Rule to ensureparking spaces withln the zone. TheseOR: P.ftÌ¡ MrntSêmtnt Zoner (2002P¡rlclnt M¡nilpmsnt Pl¡nlare usually uniquely land use basedilcore,government district,cluster,etc.) where thetheforthose land uses) drive parking activiÇ.Each isThis isofgarages have used for môny years. lt is rarethatfloor of a garage; rather such pricing occurs when theentiredifferent faci|ities ("zones" or "districts") have differentrates. Forana parking management zone as levels of a garage spread over amanageable areaelevator lobbies and sidewalks arestainrells.The outcome is tominimumof r5%)andof parking to ensure that there are available parking stalls (atime factor involved in getting a prlority user parked and to theirdesired destination. For Main Street downtowns, it is not only important to ensure a convenientparking stalt near destinations, but to reap the benefit of customers walking an ôrea to experience otherdestination opportunities they may not have been aware of. ln short, the 859ó Rule is a commonstdndard.How it is appliedindifferent settings depends on how intensely a Clty wants to manage aunlquesupply. lftheparkingmanagementareaistoosmall(e.g.,attheblockface)"rulesofuse"oftheparking in an area can be confusing to the user and costly to the C¡ty. lf the area is too large, reaching85gó may never occur and sub-zones of constraint within that larger supply may never receive problemsolvlng ãttention or action.4lPage\.-,b5lltlst|lñr- iûArâò¡lú.\tÕì0*iad¡¡l¡ltdifferent prlclngreaches 859ó.tothat private
lllustrating this dynamic is to use another example from Leavenworth, WA' Figure B provides asummary of on-street occupancy for parking in what is the downtown parking management district -comprised of 846 stalls. As the fìgure shows, peak occupancy reaches 59'3% weekdays and 7z'6c16weekends. lf the 85% Rule were in play for the entire management district, one might argue that thereis no need for immediate action.Figure B: Hourly Occupancy for Downtown Parking Management District (Leavenworthl WA)2Ot7 Leavenworth Parking UtilizationAll on-street stalls: weekday vs weekend occupancles (846 stalls)r Weekday r Weekend80.0%70.o%60,o%50.o%40.0%30.0%20,0'/610.0%O.OYo10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:30 PM 7:3oPMFigure C (ne¡t page) eúaluates a more concentrated area of the larger parking menagement districtidentified as the Core Zone. For most in Leavenworth, the Core Zone clearly rePresents the historicdowntown Main Street and highest concentration and cluster of businesses. This sub-zone iscomprised of 5ez on'street sPðces.As Figure C demonstrates, weekend occupancies exceed 95% occupancy in nine of the ten surueyedhours. ln fact, occupancies afe over go% most hours and actually exceed roogó in one hour (signs ofillegal parking activity). Weekday occuPancy does exceed 85% in one hour and approaches 85% inthree other hours. within this sub-zone, the 85% Rule would suggest additional parking menagementstrategies and actions are needed.The point here is that the 8596 Rule should be used strategically within a framework that uses the ruleto reasonably measure the impact of parking - constraints and/or surPluses - within defined andrecognizable impact zones. The PurPose is to set a standard that encourages decision'makl'ng whenprobìemsarise. Theindustryhasfoundthatthe35%RuleisanobJectivemeasureofconstraintandfor5lPage*I,tolrâxmr{ros0q¡t!@*ulrâ@THSSxfrloìrâx.ìorrôxt\ro*clt\¡¡xrìln'ûanñlrrl*Frr{¡â*ñi¡nstotaxC'otç*t\¡o0rô*c,r¡i¡rt*odr¡t*rOrort
targeting problems with¡n a parking system. The Rule is understandable to stakeholders and allowswhat might be difficult decisions to be made where they might othen¡vise be avoided.FigureC: Hourly Occupancy for Downtown Parking Management Sub'zone (Leavenworth, WA)IV. BEING COST EFFECTIVEThe second issue related to the 859ú Rule is the potential costsassociated with its implementation atthe leveldescribed byShoup. Cities that already have parking revenue collectionequipment (meters and/or Pay stat¡ons) are better equipped to¡nitiate programs that stratiry rates by demand, whether at theblock face (as in San Franclsco) or by zone (as in Bend andPortland, OR).6 However, in many smallertowns and cities,the cost of equipment necessðry to implement parking ratesmight be too costly to cover the exPense of installing andmanaging flexible rates, Part¡cularly in downtowns that havepockets of high demand surrounded by underutilized supply.To this end, the first step toward effective use of the 85% Rulebegins with calibrating time stays to the needs of priorityWhether at the block foce or zonelevel, the 8596 Rule ls o Powerfulmonagement tool and trþger lordectslotmdkîng thot suq4orts theunlque porking ond economlcdevelopment priorltîes of odowntown or subdlstrlct, The 85ldRule should be o key decßion-maklngond actlon ûlgger, lntended toI nltlote to llored po rkl ngmondgement slljstegies based ondemond (85% Rule) ond suPPortlveol oreo plons and vlslons.6 ln portland different parking districts have different hourly rates because of occupanry/demand varlatlonsbetween districts (e.g., Downìown = 51.60/hr., Central Eastside = 51.25lhr. and lloyd Dlstrict = 51.00 /hr.].2OL7 Leavenworth Pa rking Utilizationweekday vs weekend core Zone on-street occupancies (512 stalls)I Weekday r Weekend10:iÐAM11:30AM12::10PM 1:30PM 2:30PM 3:30PM 4:30PM 5:30PM 6:30PM 7:30PMàRtât\ÉIRcl¡\l\rßaoto¡3rô¡¡ìOlËrâl\xr{dOrëtrolsu¡ñoxñl+ér{*aðù*¡ncl*Et20.o%Læ.O% |80.Oo/o60.o%40.o%20.0%O.Moàßñ¡Ol\srocl6àßrOc¡oxaôñclsÈdoàsaûodcsrrtcirD*io.¡æ6lPage
users, desired turnover levels and appropriate enfgrcement. Also, as a parking zone or managementdistrict reaches 85% occupancy, the economics of demand (and equipment costs) make it easiertotransition that area to paid parking (meter or perm¡t zone), as oPposed to ân approach that is simplyblock by block.V. INTEGRATED PARKING MANAGEMENTThe third issue is the relationship of on and off-street parking and the 85% Rule, particularly forcommercial districts. There is an adage in the parking industry that states "on-street parking is a finitesupply.,, Theoretically, an on-streetsupply could reach a point where the entire supply exceeds 85%occupancy (see above example of Leavenworth, wA). lt is at this point that a parking managementplan needs to ensure that in implementing strategies to creete a 15% buffer within the supply (e'9',reducing time stays, enhanced enforcement and/or pricing) that the overall number of trips t9 thecommercial area is not reduced. lt would be counterproductive to prlce parking to mainta'in a specific..buffer,, only to find that fewer customers are coming downtown.To achieve this, the 95% Rule is most powerfulwhen applied'toon "integrated access system" thatgrows trip capacity in a downtown through maximizing turnover on-street (based on customer need),adding more customer trips into the off-street system and enhancing Other access options (transit,bike, walk and rideshare) foremployees and customers. To achievè this,'downtowns must integrater.nrg.r.nt oftheiroff-street supplies intothe verall Paiklng mahâgelnentequatlon' Where cltiesown off-,street supply (lots and garages);lhí may be easien Íncltlêsthat have little controlof the off-street 5ystem, then partnerrhip-i anJ rfr*A',lre arnngements wlth privatè stakeholders ls critical'A zoo6 paper on;palking guidance5ystems noted'thÐt,eny succèssful stratègy for effective parklngmanagement:needs to understand that:o lnefaa$ed rate¡ orì-.strê€t shoUld be çorrelated to lower cost options off-street'o lf hlgher.and variable "premlum" râtes on-stfeet are employed to mànage supply availabillty,then optlons must,be ln place off-street or ln other modes furcustomers who won't Ór cen'taffórd the c¡n¿Street Premlum. rVI. SUMMARYThe 85% Rule is an operating principle and industry-based best practices management toolforcoordinating a parking supply and increasing trip capacity (within the supply itself or in tandem withother modes). When occupancies routinely reach 85% in the peak hour, more intensive and aggressiveparking management strateg¡es are called forto assist patrons in finding available parking' The 85%Rule standard willfacilitate a city,s and community's abilityto make reasonable and effective decisionsr See: lngenieurgruppe lvV GmbH & Co. KG, parklng Gutdønce Systemfor Downtown sealtle,ConceptualFmmewo rk (Octobe r zoo6), Pa ge 5.7lP a g e
regarding time stays, enforcement and other declslons rèlated to capacity management. The 8S0ó Ruleis an obJective standardthat supports prlorltlesfor parking -geülng the right cartothe right space.ci' sSlPage
Clty of Bozeman Munlclpal Code (excerpts)0tlo2lt8Dnorram.A, to locastreets,ding areas ofduring speciffed times of üre day and week if the city commission finds that the residential arca underconsideration for such a designation ls:1. Predominantly residentlal ln characte¡i2. An area the streets of which are regularly congested with vehicles parked by persons notresiding in the area; and3. An area wherc limiting the parking of vehicles along the publlc streets better provides adequatemotor vehicle parkin! for'residents of the area; and finds that the creatlon of a residentialparking permit ärea ¡ñttre residential area under consideration would fudher one or more of hefollowing objectives:a, Promoting tranqullity among commutens and residenb;b. Reducing noise;c. Reducing baffic hazards;ord, Reducing litter.B. Any ordinance designating an area of the cl$ as a resldential permlt parking area shall describe:1. The deslgnated public sheet area atong which parklng wlll be limited to vehicles registered to orcontrotled and exclusively used by persons residing in the area;2. Hours of each day and days of each week that the residential parking permlt regulatlons shallbe ln efrect;3. The individuals eligible to purchase a permit;4. EfÞc-tive dates of annual permits;5. Any special provisions or exceptions appticable to schools, churches, businesses, public partuse, etc. withln the resldentlalarea; and6. Visitor permit or special gatherlng provisions for the residential area.C. Upon adoption of any ordinance by the city commission designating an area for residential permitpâ*¡ng orily, signs åtra¡¡ ¡e erecied along the streeb identified ln the ordinance prlor to ^anyäntorcãmeni'of táe residential parking permit regulation pursuant to eection 36.04.090. The parkingsigns erected shall give notice'of the general náh¡re of the parklng llmitation and shall indicate thehıurs and days when such parking limitations shall be in effect.(Code 1982, $ 10.32.350; Ord. No. 1345, $ 1,1992; Ord. No. 1376' $ I' 1993)Sec. 36.f14.350. - Resldentlal oarklns permtts.A. Apptication procedurc. Applications for residentialparking permits shall be submitted to the city on apüscribed fbrm and snail te accompanied by proof ln a form satlsËctory to he clty_of-the applicant's-þtace ot residence within the residehtial parking permitonly.area, as well as proof 9f registration ofüse and control of each vehicle for whióh a rèsldential parking permit is sought. Each application1
B.shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee for each vehicle for whlch a parking permit is sought.No part of the parking pârmit fees shall be retundable. The amount of the fees shall be estrablishedby iesolution at the level that covers the cost of administraüon and enforcement of the residentialparking permlt regulatlons ln the residentlal area.Form and issuance.1. Upon approval by the city of the application of any person reslding in a residential parkingpermit only are ¡t shall be issued for each vehicle recelvingapproval, Upon lication of any person residing in a residentialpâifing permit o permit, such permit shall be issued by the ci$.No mıre than two temporary visito/s parking permits shall be issued annually for a singleresidential dwelling unit. Temporary visitors' parking permits shall be used only by visitors of hedwelling unit to which he permits were issued and are valid only while visiting that dwelling unit.2. Each residential parking permit issued by the city for a vehicle shall set forth at least the date ofissuance and thE licenıe number of the vehicle for which it is issued. Each temporary visito/spermit issued by the city shall set forth at least the date of issuance and the address of heiesident to which it is issued. Annual permits shall be required. A permit shall be valid for nolonger than the permit year of issuance and is not transferrable. The issuance of a residentialparking permit does not serve as a guarantee that there will always be a parking speceavallable for fie permit holder on the public streets wiürin the designated residential parkingpermit area.Lavtful dßplay requjred.'1. Unless othenrise agreed to by a city parking controlofficer in writlng, residential parking permitsshall be affixed to ihe left rear bumper and temporary visitors' permits and employee permibshall be hung from the interior rearview mirror facing he windshield. lt is unlawful to either fail todisplay or improperly display a residential parking permit, or to attempt to use a residentialparking permit from another area in a designated resldential area,2. lt is unlawful for the holder of a residential parking permit to fail to surrcnder it when directed todo so.3. lt ls unlawful for any person to represent in any fashion that a vehicle is entitled to a residentialparking permit authorized by subsection A of tris section or other applicable prwisions when itis not so entitled. The display of a residential parking permit on a vehicle not entltled to such apermit shall constitute such a represantation.4. lt is unlawful for any porcon to duplicate, by any means, a parking permit authorized bysubsection A of this section or oher applicable provisions. lt is also unlawft¡lfor any person todisptay on any vehicle such a duplicate parking permit.(Code 1982, $$ 1,0.32.37È10.32.390; Ord. No. 1345, S$ 3-5,1992; Ord.No. 1383, $ l, 1994;Ord. No. 1401, $$ 1,2,1995)c.2