HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-81-0664"' N
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE
PORT "INTERIM PARKING PLAN 1981-1985
NTRAL MIAMI FLORIDA" PREPARED BY BARTON
A CHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. JULY 1981 AS A
GE ERAL GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION; SUBJECT
TO ERTAIN AMENDMENTS; DIRECTING THE CITY
MAN ER TO APPOINT A DOWNTOWN INTERIM PARKING
MANA MENT TASK FORCE, AND ACCEPTING THE REPORT
BY T CONSULTANT AS COMPLETION OF ALL SERVICES
RENDE PER CONTRACT.
WHEREAS, the CNnmission has expressed a desire to find
solutions to the parki g deficiency downtown during the interim
period until July, 1984 t which time the situation will be re-
lieved by the inception o Metrorail and Downtown Component of
Metrorail service; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution V -159; March 17, 1981, the Com
mission authorized the City M
with Barton Aschman Associates,
Interim Parking Study; and
r to execute an agreement
. for a Downtown Miami
WHEREAS, the Agreement was ex4uted March 30, 1981; and
WHEREAS, Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. have completed
their services and presented the report,"Interim Parking Plan
1981-1985, Central Miami, Florida"; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THIk COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Commission approves in p'Xinciple, the
report, "Interim Parking Plan 1981-1985 Central'Iiami Florida"
prepared by Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. July , \1981 as a
general guide for implementation; subject to the fo'klowing amend-
ments:
a) a third Intercept Lot between NW 5th and 6th \St reets,
from NW 4th to 6th Avenues should be considerett, and
b) due to the interim nature of the Intercept Lots, cost -
saving measures be explored.
contract.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1981.
ATTEST:
. —ONGIEP UITY CLERK
MAURiCE A. FERRE, MAYOR
i
t�. ft ajrd V. Gary
city Manager
,a
cj" OF MIAMI. Ft-61?ibA �
04-tt"Vorldi': MtMiOOANOUM
GATE July 0, 1981 r'LE:
SUOJECT Downtown Miami interiftt
Parking Study
FROM
�����il/���✓ REFERENCES.
J ep W. McManus
Acting Director ENCLOSURES.
Planning Department
It is recommended that the
Commission a rove in prin-
ciple , -the "Interim Parking
Plan 1981-1985 Central Miami
Florida" prepare by Barton
Aschman Associates, July, 1981,
with certain modifications,
authorize the Manager to appoint
a Downtown Interim Parking
Management ask Force to observe,
implement an coordinate the Plan
and accept the report as completion
of a 1 consu tant services per the'
attached resolution.
Per Resolution 81-159; March 17, 1981, the Commission authorized
an expedited study to address the critical shortage of parking
downtown until the inception of Rapid Transit (Metrorail) and
Downtown Component of Metrorail (DCM) in July, 1984.
In their report "Interim Parking Plan 1981-1985 Central Miami
Florida" the oandlaant show a three-partparking approachtodeficiency theparking problem,
parking spaces
as follows:
1. A carpool/vanpool program
2. A restripping program.
3. Construction and operation of Interim Intercept
Parking Lots.
A #Wj
.' ', 14p6j;
V
To carry out this program, the following actions are recommended:
1. The City Manager should be authorized to appoint
a Downtown Interim Parking Management Task Force
to oversee, implement and coordinate the Interim
Parking Plan. This Task Force would include repre-
sentatives from the following agencies.
City of Miami Office of Parking
Construction and Management
- Off -Street Parking Authority
Downtown Development Authority
City of Miami Public Works Department
City of Miami Planning Department
- Metropolitan Planning Organization
- Dade County Office of Transportation
Administration
- Metropolitan Transit Agency
- Dade County Department of Traffic and
Transportation
- Florida Department of Transportation -
District Office
- Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce
- Downtown Business Association
- and concerned private citizens and organizations.
2. The Task Force would implement the carpool/vanpool program
upon the consultant's recommendation. The restripping
program would be implemented consistent with recent park-
ing amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
ir
# ' a w #�
x Y Oozy
`"
Mingger
ePs�?S f page 3
„ Y r
- Intercept Lot B, at NE 19th Street/
NE 2nd Avenue.
-- a new Intercept Lot E, on HUD -owned
property between NW 5th and 6th Streets,
from NW 4th to 6th Avenues.
Due to the interim nature of the Intercept Lots, and
the projected cost of improvements, it is recommended
that variances from the parking lot requirements in
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be sought which
would provide only minimal improvements. Any variance
sought must be approved by the Zoning Board.
It is further recommended that this item be listed on the regular
City Commission Agenda of July 23, 1981.
Attachment
?ARKING PLAN
31-1985
iami, Florida
pared ,for
liami, Florida
nan Associates, Inc.
an, Illinois
1y, 1981
Va. 1)..64V
r
a
=:zar
LIST OF FIGURES AND 'TABLES
Figures
1. Zones and Districts
2. Location of Possible Intercept Parking Areas
Tables
1. Estimated 1980 Employment by Zone 5
2.
Estimated 1985 Employment by Zone
6
3.
1980 Employment by District
7
4.
1985 Employment by District
7
S.
1980 Parking Inventory in Central Miami Area
9
6.
1980 Parking Inventory in Miami Central Area (Adjusted)
9
7.
Estimated Parking Supply by District (1981-1985)
10
8.
Estimated Existing Employee Travel Characteristics (by Sector)
12
9.
Estimated Daily Accumulation of Parkers, 1980
14
10.
Estimated Daily Accumulation of Parkers, 1985 (Constrained)
15
11.
Estimated Daily Accumulation of Parkers, 1985 (Unrestrained)
15
12.
Estimated 1980 Peak Parking Generation (Constrained)
16
13.
Estimated 1985 Peak Parking Generation (Constrained as 80)
18
14.
Estimated 1985 Peak Parking Generation (Unrestrained
Including Latent)
19
15.
Estimated Parking Generation, 1981-198S (Constrained)
20
16.
Estimated Parking Generation, 1981-1985 (Unrestrained)
20
17.
Estimated Parking Shortages by District, 1981-1985
(Constrained)
22
18.
Estimated Parking Shortages by District, 1981-1985
(Unrestrained)
23
19.
Estimated Potential for Carpool or Vanpool--Stable Zones
26
20.
Estimated Potential for Carpool or Vanpool--Growth Zones
28
21.
Estimated Cost of Programs to Achieve Various Levels of
Pooling, 1982-1985
29
22.
Estimated Potential for Restriping Capacity Increases
31
23.
Estimated Cost of Restriping
32
24.
Possible Intercept Parking Areas
36
25.
Recommended Interim Parkins Program
39
26.
Estimated Cost of Interim Program
42
27.
Cost -Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies
43
iii
CONTENTS
List of Figures and Tables, ii
Executive Summary, iv
1.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
Methodology
2.
ESTIMATED PARKING SHORTAGES
Employment, 1980-1985
Parking Supply, 1980-1985
Travel Characteristics
Parking Demand, 1981 and 1985
Estimated Parking Shortages, 1981 through 1985
3.
RECaV ENDED INTERIM PARKING PROGRAM
Available Strategies
Recommended Program
Estimated Cost of Program
ii
1
1
2
4
4
8
8
11
17
24
24
38
40
I
Figures
1. Zones and Districts
2. Location of Possible Intercept Parking Areas
Tables
1. Estimated 1980 Employment by Zone
2. Estimated 1985 Employment by Zone
3. 1980 Employment by District
4. 1985 Employment by District
S. 1980 Parking Inventory in Central Miami Area
6. 1980 Parking Inventory in Miami Central Area (Adjusted)
7. Estimated Parking Supply by District (1981-1985)
8. Estimated Existing Employee Travel Characteristics (by Sector)
9. Estimated Daily Accumulation of Parkers, 1980
10. Estimated Daily Accumulation of Parkers, 1985 (Constrained)
11. Estimated Daily Accumulation of Parkers, 1985 (Unrestrained)
12. Estimated 1980 Peak Parking Generation (Constrained)
13. Estimated 1985 Peak Parking Generation (Constrained as 80)
14. Estimated 1985 Peak Parking Generation (Unrestrained
Including Latent)
15. Estimated Parking Generation, 1981-1985 (Constrained)
16. Estimated Parking Generation, 1981-1985 (Unrestrained)
17. Estimated Parking Shortages by District, 1981-1985
(Constrained)
18. Estimated Parking Shortages by District, 1981-1985
(Unrestrained)
19. Estimated Potential for Carpool or Vanpool--Stable Zones
20. Estimated Potential for Carpool or Vanpool--Growth Zones
21. Estimated Cost of Programs to Achieve Various Levels of
Pooling, 1982-1985
22. Estimated Potential for Restriping Capacity Increases
23. Estimated Cost of Restriping
24. Possible Intercept Parking Areas
25. Recommended Interim Parking Program
26. Estimated Cost of Interim Program
27. Cost -Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies
i i i
6
7
7
9
10
12
14
15
15
16
18
19
20
20
22
23
26
28
29
31
32
36
39
42
43
r
EXECUTIVE SLMA&RY
There is a significant shortage of parking space in Central Miami that
is expected to continue over approximately the next five years. By late
1984 or 1985, the shortage should diminish because of new parking facili-
ties that either are under construction or planned, and because completion
of MetroRail should reduce the demand for parking.
There are 68 current and proposed projects for downtown Miami with a
value of some $2.1 billion. The Downtown Development Authority estimates
that these developments in progress, or already completed, add to the
Brickell Core and Omni areas of downtown approximately six million square
feet of office space, 3,900 hotel rooms, 2,300 residential units, and
745,000 square feet of retail space.
Current employment approximates 74,000 persons with office employment
(64 percent of the total) representing the principal classification. By
1985, the employment base is expected to grow by almost 39 percent to a
level of about 102,500 persons. Office employment is expected to grow
somewhat faster and will represent almost 69 percent of the total by 1985.
In addition to the existing estimated shortage of 3,166 parking spaces,
it is estimated that there is a latent demand that could be realized if
sufficient parking space were provided to attract certain optional visitors
(particularly office, bank, and other visitors and retail patrons) who now
avoid visiting Central Miami. Latent parking demand is difficult to esti-
mate with precision. However, by comparing parking generation rates in
comparable cities with those now existing in Central Miami, a reasonable
approximation can be developed.
The estimated shortages for the entire study area are as follows:
Year
Constrained
Unrestrained
1981
3,166
3,166
1982
2,775
2,937
1983
332
1,133
1984
2,192
3,067
1985
2,340
3,964
iv
a
k•.F
1
It is clear from a review of the estimated parking shortages that the
interim parking program should provide a substantial number of spaces
immediately to meet parking requirements in the balance of 1981 and in
1982. Fewer spaces will be required in 1983 if development takes place as
now programmed. The demand will increase again in 1984 and 1985.
The principal thrust of this study is to meet the estimated interim
parking demand over the next five years as quickly as possible and at
minimum cost. This approach also implies that the techniques used to
satisfy parking space deficiencies should be largely self -amortizing in
future years and not require major public commitments in future years.
Thus, the development of permanent parking structures or parking lots is
not really in keeping with the purpose and scope of this study.
The recommended interim parking program is designed to meet the esti-
mated parking requirements of the system during the years from 1981 through
1985. The recommended strategies include carpools, vanpools, a restriping
program, and the temporary development of an intercept parking lot or lots.
Because use of the intercept lots would be limited to a short time, reduced
standards are suggested. While these are relatively low capital -intensive
measures, their success will require a full-time administrative staff and
adequate funds to maintain this staff and the necessary advertising and
public relations costs needed to implement the various measures. The new
staff could be located in an existing agency.
The recommended interim parking program is designed to meet the esti-
mated needs year -by -year from 1981 through 1985. Three programs are
suggested: a limited budget program, an intermediate program, and a
concerted program. Each program is estimated to provide sufficient capac-
ity to handle the needs of the system from 1983 through 1985. However,
each would fall short in the current year, largely because of the limited
amount of time available to implement nciv measures. In the second year,
1982, the limited budget program would achieve approximately 85 percent of
the requirements, -while the intermediate program and the concerted program
would provide theoretical capacity of about three to 10 percent more than
needed.
The estimated cost range of the limited budget program is placed at
between approximately $144,000 and $293,000 per year over the next five
years.
The estimated annual cost of the intermediate program is estimated to
range between $197,000 and $371,000.
The concerted program involves an annual cost estimated to range between
$274,000 and $S35,000 per year.
On the basis of a cost-effective analysis, it is recommended that the
city consider the intermediate program. This program would meet all of the
v
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
A number of factors are working to change and expand Miami's central
area dramatically. New office buildings, the Convention Center, and new
parking garages are under construction; others are planned for construc-
tion within the next few years. Retail activity, stimulated by thousands
of visitors from Central and South America and the major downtown employ-
ment base, is at an all-time high. The Government Center development in
the northwest part of downtown Miami is taking shape. Plans are being
finalized for Park Nest which will cover 85 acres and provide a potential
for 3,000 to 4,000 new residential units. A rapid transit. system--Metro-
rail--is under construction.
In summary, there are 68 current and proposed projects for downtown
Miami with a value of some $2.1 billion. The Downtown Development Authority
estimates that these developments in progress, or already completed, add to
the Brickell Core and Omni areas of downtown approximately six million
square feet of office space, 3,900 hotel rooms, 2,300 residential units,
and 745,000 square feet of retail space.
However, there is one problem that detracts from this otherwise optimis-
tic description of Central Miami. There is a significant shortage of parking
space. This shortage of parking space is evidenced by the high fees being
charged in the central area, and the "full" signs that appear at the
entrances of many garages and lots by mid -morning during each weekday. By
approximately 1985, the existing parking shortage is expected to diminish
because of the new parking facilities that are either under construction
or planned, and because completion of Metrorail by that time will reduce
the demand for parking. During the next five years, however, a continuation
or increase in the current parking shortage could constrain or reduce the
growth potential, and certainly the attractiveness of Central Miami.
1
,r
r
i
The purpose of this study is to develop an interim parking program to
meet the needs through low capital -intensive measures in a staged develop-
intent plan that keeps pace with demand and reflects estimated changes in the
parking supply.
Methodology
This interim parking program covers the five-year period from 1981
through 1985. The study area includes the more than 150 blocks within an
area bounded on the north by 20th Street, on the south by 14th Street South-
east, on the west by I-95, and on the east by the bay front. (See Figure 1.)
For analysis purposes, this area has been divided into the 89 zones estab-
lished previously for the downtown people -mover analysis and further sub-
divided into 14 districts that are identified with letters A through K.
The interim parking plan was developed by estimating the current and
probable future parking demand generated by the employees and visitors at-
tracted to the various land -uses in the central area. Parking demand was
estimated on two levels: reflecting the current level of latent demand and,
alternatively, with the assumption that the provision of adequate parking
space would encourage additional parking demand from persons who now avoid
driving to the central area because of access and parking problems.
Estimated parking demand was compared on a year -by -year basis from 1981
through 1985 with the amount of parking space that exists and the number of
parking facilities that are expected to be added or eliminated from the
system. By comparing parking supply and demand, the number and location of
parking shortages were identified on a year -by -year basis. Finally, a series
of low-cost or low capital -intensive strategies to meet the interim parking
needs were developed and evaluated.
This project was initiated in the latter half of March, 1981, with a
specified completion date of approximately 90 days. In order to assure close
coordination, progress meetings have taken place every two -weeks between the
consultant and the designated technical committee representing government
agencies and the business community.
E
—'�-._ _--- y'
u¢_-1
I i' 1 72 73
_-
1 F717 71 70 69
El A
66
5 60 59 i 56
_
—7' 135 6A - 61 58 55 N�
~�---Jr—J� 11 _ ,
��i-TR34 .36 63 62 57 54
- 1 L�
33 37 41 r 42 47 48 2 �, •. :
FiL40 43 46 49 51
_j4i7rJ J1_. L;
_
31 � ' 38 39 44 45 . 50
r + !'
.wilt• 1.
30 ! ; 28 24
23 18 19 t. 'o• k kn
29 - - 25 22 17 16 ; (L
14 ! i15
13 12Ej
fil
Aff
Tj i
Ir I f I3 I , DISTRICTS
- 9 10 ` A 101
7 f�� r..= i `' '
� C 103
D 104
F 10
5 - `� G 107
4, H 108
_ - t.. t• _ - --
�I 1 : +�
IK III
r� Al 110
�
Mn _ :� I _l\� M 113
J i n. L s-
i� ,j , ,11 ! . � � N 114
00 ZONE NUMBER
J
DISTRICTS
�� ��•>,`'�.:� a -? / Figure 1
ZONES AND DISTRICTS
CENTRAL MIAMI INTERIM PARKING STUDY
Base prepared by Downtown Development Authority
2.
ESTIMATED PARKING SHORTAGES
Employment, 1980-1985
Although a number of parameters could be used to estimate parking
generation, perhaps the most direct and reliable indicator of parking
demand is the number of employees in various categories. The employment
data used in this study as a partial basis for estimating parking demand
from the present time through 1985 was provided by the DOimtomi Develop-
ment Authority according to six categories: office, retail, service,
wholesale, manufacturing, and hotel. As summarized in 'Table 1, there are
approximately 74,000 employees in the six categories with office employ-
ment at 64 percent of the total representing the principal classification.
By 1985, the employment base is expected to grow by almost 39 percent to
a level of about 102,500 persons. Office employment is expected to grow
somewhat faster and will represent almost 69 percent of the total by 1985.
(See Table 2.)
Tables 1 and 2 represent employment according to the 89-zone system
established for the people -mover analysis a few years ago. However, for
purposes of parking analysis, this zonal system tends to be too fine.
Consequently the 89 zones have been consolidated into 14 districts. The
summary of 1980 and 1985 employment into the 14 districts according to the
six employment categories is shown in Tables 3 and 4.
There is an additional reason for consolidating the area into the 14
districts. A 1980 study entitled "Dotoito►i1 Miami Traffic Access and Mobility
Improvement Study" included the conduct of a roadside interview survey to
determine the number of auto -driver trips destined to the central area during
the 12 hours of a typical weekday --from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. The results
of that study were summarized according to the 14 districts referred to above
and provided a basis for calibrating a parking generation model used to
estimate future parking demand in the current study.
hlii10 Tables 1 through 4 indicate employment in 1980 and 1985, it is
possible to estimate employment during the intermediate years by examining
the scheduled opening of new developments. Tliese estimates will be described
and applied later.
4
I
Table 1
ESTIMATED
1980
EMPLOYMENT 81
. ZONE
DISTR
OFFICE
RETAIL
SERV w
---------------------------------------------------------
I
!02
327
8
20
2
102
29:31
0
1
3
113
4473
0
1
4
162
112(,./
16
a
5
tell
916
17
6
6
let
466
133
65
7
to:
213
7?
61
8
102
2r213
46
6
9
103
1r316
0
0
11
103
1
a
0
11
105
1w:53
61
0
12
105
0
0
a
13
1C:
a
0
0
14
105
0
a
6
11.
165
j
a
0
16
1t,
19551
35
e
17
167
1r327
1
0
16
IV
I►6;8
203
5
19
107
4v666
0
200
21
I05
I
13
0
2:
107
10D93
33
23
117
19215
590
14
2;
107
3
-,73,-
Zvi
to?
Coll
29
N
:6
104
107
4I
0
27
to,
0
0
0
28
IV
1,681
42s
0
29
104
till
2
3
31
106
1rt42
6e
23
31
106
0
t
0
32
let
C
C
30
33
144
456
0
0
34
116
0
0
0
3:
166
1r62C
0
D
36
10S
C
41
D 3
3:
1D;
D
o
39
to?
1r155
a
0
39
to7
1.23!
127
41
107
133
IOE
3
41
106
0
35
3
4:
102
19
11
S
+3
107
171
134
0
44
167
1100S
66?
L
45
107
21164
1?9
1:
ZONE
SLE MF6
HOTEL
13
87
511
0
16
16
74
Q
/
590
0
D
0
a
0
0
0
/
till
386
0
229
0
0
16
0
0
D
35
0
D
1
0
D
0
e
0
0
25
51
120
0
/
B
TOTAL
369
29318
5r691
1r228
941
955
412
2r446
1r316
10965
0
6
0
9
1►586
Ir334
2466
4r617
312
419
1r131
19873
2,737
1►015
312
0
2r104
183
1r264
0
30
450
0
1r620
ao
a
1►It
1r366
296
161
256
919
1,689
79433
ZONE
DISTR
OFFICE
RETAIL
SEW
9W
NFQ
HOTEL
TOTAL
• 46
107
965
76
9
0
1
56
1406
47
103
18
46
2
6
0
144
314
48
108
36
206
1
0
1
882
Ir126
49
107
198
38
1
1
1
1ss
693
51
107
182
217
8
0
4S
334
786
51
107
1r809
81
0
0
1
1r054
2r944
52
114
0
0
73
1
1
1
73
53
114
0
a
64
0
0
0
64
54
108
760
51
3
0
4
in
1r270
55
108
18
5
42
10
8
86
169
56
105
13
22
0
a
0
128
163
57
108
0
0
306
0
0
1
386
56
108
17
16
46
0
1
61
149
59
108
?a
8
3
1
21
30
160
60
108
31
11
1
0
0
0
44
61
108
9
54
a
7
0
35
96
62
10^c
262
65
D
1
0
51
377
63
10e
lea
63
2
49
0
24
238
64
108
4
33
8
47
6
1
98
65
109
31
33
3
0
119
36
M2
66
lea
a
5
a
:1
78
0
104
67
108
9
27
0
62
99
0
197
68
109
461
54
41
0
0
0
557
69
110
?6
36
5
34
25
33
203
76
I1:
13
30
11
a8
101
66
349
71
120
4
33
101
186
37
363
72
Ito
0
w
a
44
Z66
18
354
?3
110
IS
to
d
10
31
0
85
74
110
11
:u
66
3
12
78
111
75
110
418
49
3
a
8
499
76
114
0
35
2
0
4
A
41
7,
112
0
11
0
a
0
117
129
78
112
0
41
21
116
342
a
528
79
112
102
285
34
57
486
25
989
S0
till
513
3z
19
6
33
0
1r256
lit
11.3
124
195
1
0
8
0
322
all
113
637
0
0
0
19231
0
2►Dbe
8;
113
84
139
0
0
45
145
413
84
Ill
a
2467
D
1
0
550
2061:
K
Il"
58
489
0
a
0
0
546
96
IQ
576
463
35
3
569
0
116"
at'
113
0
429
1
0
1
1
429
ae
109
89
311
76
11
183
85
756
£4
r
98
21
0
0
0
145
TOTAL
47,294
12r431
1014
742
W11
7YI07
73r699
0
11
Table 2
ESTIMATED
1985
EMPLOYMENT
BY ZONE
-----------
IONE
—----------
DISTR
—-------------------
OFFICE
RETAIL
--------------__��---_.------
SERV
WHSLE
MFC
HOTEL
TOTAL
IOHE
OISTR
OFFICE
RETAIL
SEW
1115LE
WC
HOTEL
TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
112
32?
8
20
1
0
13
368
46
107
965
76
9
0
6
56
1r106
102
41246
89
0
1
0
87
4022
47
108
18
46
124
0
0
2"
432
3
113
49764
0
1
0
0
514
5r219
48
108
36
206
2
6
1
882
10126
4
102
11211
16
8
0
1
0
1r228
49
107
499
38
2
1
1
155
693
5
112
1.760
73
6
0
0
1
10839
50
107
182
217
8
0
45
334
786
6
101
166
133
65
0
243
48
955
51
107
1r809
81
0
1
6
11854
209"
7
92
213
79
61
0
43
16
412
52
114
0
0
73
0
1
0
73
8
102
1120
46
6
0
107
74
1046
53
114
0
0
64
0
1
1
64
9
163
20649
0
1
1
0
601
3r249
54
108
760
51
3
0
4
452
1r271
10
103
11
/
O
O
0
0
71
55
108
l8
5
42
10
8
86
169
11
105
1r:53
62
0
C
0
590
1r905
5e
102
13
22
0
0
0
128
163
t2
105
5033
61
C
0
0
1
5r394
57
108
0
6
306
0
0
1
386
13
IDS
0
95
0
0
0
0
95
58
108
27
16
250
0
0
66
353
14
105
0
0
0
O
t
B
0
59
108
98
103
3
0
21
191
519
15
SOS
3r333
61
0
0
0
630
4,024
60
too
31
11
2
a
1
0
44
16
107
1r551
35
0
0
A
0
1126
61
108
0
54
0
7
6
35
176
17
IC7
It329
5
0
0
0
0
Sr334
6:
!08
10089
65
6
0
1
51
1404
1a
107
1r699
283
5
0
0
0
29106
63
10'c
160
63
2
44
1
14
238
19
107
4r606
11
0
0
0
0
41617
P
103
4
33
a
47
6
0
98
20
1C`-
0
91
811,
0
0
720
1r612
65
103
31
33
3
0
129
36
232
2:
105
29018
:8
0
1
0
366
2033
65
106
0
5
0
21
78
0
104
IV
19693
33
5
0
0
6
1,131
67
108
9
27
a
62
99
1
197
23
1.07
19215
396
14
1
25
229
Ir873
08
108
462
54
41
0
34
I
25
1
33
557
203
24
10.'
0
2r117
0
0
0
1
2r737
�9
70
110
110
16
13
30
30
5
11
Be
111
66
304
25
16'
90i
385
2i
0
0
0
1r312
71
110
4
33
2
l0i
186
37
363
:e
104
"a,.203
0
0
148
16
869
72
1t0
9
22,
0
44
266
18
350
27
10'
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2fI84
13
110
ib
le
0
25
3t
0
85
2d
IV
Ir.E4
420
21
0
183
74
110
22
30
66
3
12
78
211
19
104
151
8
3
23
0
8
4
35
Ir264
75
I30
418
49
3
0
"1
0
499
35
!06
1ri42
e0
0
0
316
76
114
0
35
2
0
4
0
it
31
116
0
0
316
0
77
112
0
11
0
0
0
117
128
3"
146
0
50
60
0
0
0
0
0
130
450
78
112
0
41
21
116
342
8
5n
33
106
45C
1
0
0
0
79
1!2
680
ia5
114
57
486
25
1r647
34
35
96
106
0
3r2a0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
34'90
80
112
1.382
114
19
6
33
0
Lr884
3o
106
0
40
0
34
0
0
80
81
113
i24
195
3
0
0
0
3n,
37
106
3r200
100
0
0
0
0
3r300
a2
113
837
0
0
0
Ir231
1
2r068
38
117
11195
0
0
0
0
0
1r195
83
113
84
139
0
0
45
945
1r213
37
107
1.237
127
2
0
0
0
Ir368
84
113
0
2467
0
0
0
558
2r617
40
10'
133
103
3
0
27
25
295
a5
112
5a
188
0
0
6
0
546
41
l00
0
35
3
28
41
54
161
86
112.
596
463
35
3
569
P
Ir666
4:
108
13
117
6
0
1
120
256
87
113
0
429
0
0
1
1.
429
Si
107
1r2:9
596
0
0
:4
1
Ir839
88
109
89
312
76
it
193
65
756
44
14
1r404
607
9
0
!A
0
10689
89
109
77
98
26
0
0
1
145
45
10.'
2.164
279
17
0
23
0
2083
107AL
79014
13►811
2097
742
4r11I
10429
112r484
Table 3
-R. �a" : �:p
R:=": ^G li:: - a......
�::h''a'' a'^� fr "+P
"tF' &:: '7r"
U).::il." '.::,, ;;
IT.�4 .:4- q_: -Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRICT
OFFICE
RETAIL
SERVICE
WKSE
MFG
HOTEL
TOTAL
t (:LO:?.>
71.00
:1.1•::3
1. G J.
(i
,..
I .:1•.�
190
77 �
1 G :3 >
5 (11 �'';
G
0
0
f �
`.,1.q
1.6'i
E (1. (I'.';)
1.12 7 a
7 l7
"': 0 0
1t
i
]. 0
6 3 6
? G, ( 1.07)
R? 31 ".� 3 U
:.1(:l'= G
�
0
t'_ .L ...
J. I) J 3
.31 `i
S' :
• I"i ( 1. l! C3)
1, f:S (9 a'.
469
22. -1
:.i CS is"•
i G 1.
6 It 'I
:a: ( 1. 0 9
1.1. h
4 ]. 0
Y h
1.1.
1. c3 ,:r
f3 r':
901
t ( 11.0)
155:I.
.'1.0
87
290
6f,
2'32
;'020
0
0
ti
U
0
L ( I.1.2)
1.:569
:(<+:';.,
109
18`A.,
.l`}:.itl
1.50
51.:L:3
m ( 1.1C')
1.0Ir::';
28 36
3
0
127c7
69
L} 7 2 7 `T
1. <7 i;' �:S .�.
]. �'Y 1. 1.1
!j l} .�
-q 1 1. :I
710,7
7 ,.3 (1) 9 7
Table 4
..�(. '(a'' f'.:1• •,._��
� :::.. A "'It !1-"' 1{.....
+:.. 11 M M .I u.:::. h •.i!
tl �a 1
u..,� ...1,... ._.�� lI
V a ...�,._ +I .. d
DISTRICT
OFFICE
RETAIL
SERVICE
WHILSE
hF
HOTEL
TOTAL
�i43
9 1::;
E (] U:1)!:
f:31 J.
].
U
A-32.6
J.'.,'T! -3
F• (1.0c"7)
c)(i�+r
... 7 a c
!.7 ,:. -1;
f't ,
}:; ,., •. ,
> ,:; 1. ,
I: ( 1. t:' 9)
].1.: •
;
9 O 1
,1 ( 1 1.0)
,':::E.
.1..1.o.Y0
6`:;ii
A2::3::.
.U7..G
Cj
A'71.h
1.7 a�:
].f3`
] 4'.
1��:.:I"�
1.`.i6
... , 3 ,a G
cl h 1
0::':;
.1 9
O
,(
it
1 7
:>%!,,;
,:(.:
't}'L(I':
7
f, f
Parking Supply, 1980-1985
In 1980, there were approximately 37,725 parking spaces in the Central
Miami study area. As summarized in Table 5, these spaces included approxi-
mately 3,035 on -street spaces, 20,679 off-street spaces available to the
general public, plus just over 14,000 off-street spaces that are classified
either as "assigned" or "private." The data summarized in Table 5 is based
on information provided by the O£f-Street Parking Commission, Dade County,
and the Downtown Development Authority.
In order to assess the value of the current on -street parking space
supply more realistically, it was necessary to modify it to reflect use
levels. The modification reflects the fact that some parking facilities
are located too remotely to be attractive or well -used, while other parking
facilities cater to particular users and not the general public. In addition,
many of the garages located in the central area routinely display "full" signs
even though the garage is not full in order to reserve space for monthly
parkers. Table 6 reflects these adjustments and more nearly represents the
"practical capacity" of the system. Although various types of spaces are
used at different levels during the peak hours of a typical weekday, the
overall use level is approximately 85 percent. Thus, the 37,725 spaces pro-
vide a usable capacity of just over 32,000 spaces.
As various new developments take place, the parking supply will change.
Some of the developments are scheduled to displace existing surface parking
lots, as for example, in the Du Pont Circle area and the Ball Point area.
On the other hand, many new office buildings and other developments plan to
include significant parking structures. Developments that are under construc-
tion and those that are planned during the next few years were analyzed to '
determine their effect on the parking supply. The results of this analysis
are summarized in Table 7 and cover the years 1981 through 1985. The parking
capacity indicated in this table reflects both the on -street and off-street
supply. The current supply of just under 38,000 spaces is expected to in-
crease to almost 53,000 spaces by 1985. It should be noted, however, that
the increase will not be uniform, reflecting proposed development schedules.
For instance, the increase from 1981 to 1982 will be less than 2,000 spaces,
the increase from 1982 to 1983 will be almost 7,000 spaces, there will be
an estimated decrease in capacity from 1983 to 1984, and an increase of about
7,000 spaces from 1984 to 1985. The adequacy of the projected parking supply
is a function of the demand that will be imposed upon it. Demand estimates
on a year -by -year basis will be discussed later in this chapter.
Travel Characteristics
Based on the mobility improvement study interviews and the number of em-
ployees in the central area,it is possible to estimate current travel charac-
teristics and to develop a procedure for estimating future travel demands and
parking requirements. In 1980, the 73,700 employees of the central area
generated a total of 84,400 auto -driver trips. These trips occurred during
0
Table 5
1980 PARKING INVENTORY IN iMiIAMI CENTRAL AREA
ON -STREET
ON -STREET
OFF-STREET
OFF-STREET
OFF-STREET
OFF-STREET
GRAND
DISTRICT
METERS
FREE
PUBLIC
ASSIGNED
PRIVATE
TOTAL
TOTAL
A
( 101)
20
0
.80
1..'.
11.0
202
222
E:
(102)
18.1
155
1452
676
i382
3510
3849
C
(103)
62
103
80:3
765
916
2484
2649
D
(104)
98
31
14214
182
11.07
2713
2842
E:.
( 105)
1.0
21
31.71
73
1.79
3423
3454
F
(106)
1.99
89
15B.
872
689
3143
3431
G
(107)
58
30
5511
546
14
6071
6159
H
(108)
438
72.
2622
468
1098
41.88
4698
I
(1.09)
151
547
0
191.
150
341
903
J
(lit))
84
166
0
0
970
970
12.20
F:
(111)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
(112)
356
196
729
175
1540
2444
2996
t1
(113)
45
1?..
�72 3
475
965
4163
4220
N
(11.4)
2,q
20
562
205
251
1038
1082
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1593
1.442
20679
4640
9371.
34690
37725
Table 6
1980 PARKING INVENTORY IN tMiIAiTMiI CENTRAL AREA ( ADJUSTED )
ON -STREET
ON -STREET
OFF-STREET
OFF-STREET
OFF-STREET
GRAND
DISTRICT
METERS
FREE
PUBLIC
ASSIGNED
PRIVATE
TOTAL
A (101)
20
0
66
10
99
195
0' (1.02)
180
1.29
1205
541
1244
3299
C ( J. 03 )
61
85
666
6 1. 2
824
2249
D ( 1. 04 )
96
26
11.ti2
146
996
2446
E ( 105)
10
17
2632.
58
161
2879
FF (1.06)
19115,
74
1. 3 1. 13
698
62 0
290 0
G (107)
57
25
1574
437
13
51.05
H (100)
429
60
2176
374
988
4028
I: (109)
15
q5 q
0
1.53
13';
757
J ( 1.1 U )
82
138
0
0
97.2,
1.093
I( (111)
0
0
0
0
0
0
L (112)
349
163
605
140
1386
2643
M (113)
44
10
A
380
FS69
;3563
N (114)
.7_If1
1.7
q83
1611
2[>
913
1'0TAL_ 1561. 1197 1.7164 371.2 8431 32 067
W INVENTORY IS ADJU,TEL) T(:) REF-L.LGT UE;AGES F::Y T*YF'F:
OF FAC:IL_ITY .
9
Table 7
ESTIMATED PARKING SUPPLY BY DISTRICT
DISTRICT
1"1
1"2
1993
1984
1985
111
222
222
222
222
222
102
5034
5906
5906
5906
5906
103
3872
4413
6000
5875
6275
104
2842
2842
2842
2842
2842
115
2109
1721
6778
5856
9856
106
2324
2842
2992
3612
3612
107
6159
6159
6159
6159
6159
118
4658
4742
5437
5371
5921
109
903
903
903
903
903
110
1220
1220
1220
1220
1220
111
0
0
0
O
0
112
2996
2996
2996
2986
3236
113
4270
4220
4220
3642
5642
114
1082
1082
1082
1082
1082
TOTAL
37641
39268
46757
45676
52876
10
the 12 hours from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Peak parking demand occurs at
approximately 2:00 P.M. when 37,100 vehicles are parked in the central area.
Total parking includes 28,900 vehicles driven by employees, plus 8,200
visitor and patron parkers.
The modes of travel are not uniform throughout the study area. In
general, the percentage of auto drivers is higher south of the river. In
order to analyze travel characteristics, the study area was stratified into
three sectors: the south sector (south of the river), Districts A, B, and
C; the mid -sector (the area between the river and I-395), Districts D, E,
F, G, H, I, J, and N; and the north sector (the area between Interstate I-395
and northeast 20th Street), Districts K, L, and M. It should be noted that
District K, as shown in Figure 1, is included for certain analyses in this
study but that the area is not considered closely related to the balance of
the study area because of its remote location.
Table 8 summarizes the estimated existing employee travel characteristics
that were derived from an analysis of employment and the survey conducted
previously as part of the mobility improvement study. This table summarizes
the estimated percent of auto drivers among employees of the three sectors:
81 percent of the south sector employees are auto drivers, 66 percent of the
mid -sector employees drive, and 60 percent of the employees in the north
sector drive to work. The percent of auto drivers varies by type of employ-
ment, with the highest proportion being office workers and the lowest pro-
portion, retail employees. It is interesting to note that the number of
transit trips into the three sectors appears to be related to the proportion
of employees who are auto drivers. For example, the fewest number of bus
trips during the morning peak hours (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M.), 49, are made
to the south sector which has the highest proportion of auto drivers, 81 per-
cent. The other two sectors receive between 219 and 289 transit trips during
the two peak morning hours and have a lower percent of auto drivers, in the
range of 60 to 66 percent.
To the extent that travel modes can be modified during the next five
years --either through shifting to carpools or vanpools or increased use of
transit --the need for parking will be diminished.
Parking Demand, 1981 and 1985
The total number of auto -driver trips entering the central area and seeking
parking; space, discussed in the previous section, covered the 12-hour period
from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. In order to translate this day -long parking; de-
mand into the more significant peak -hour parking requirements, the hourly
distribution according to type of trip has applied to the day -long total.
For example, the general pattern of employee parking is to arrive in the
central area in the morning and remain throllg;h most of the day, whereas visitors
and patrons arrive at random times during; the day, remain a relatively short
time, and then depart. By applying the normal distribution and duration
characteristics of various ty1pes of parkers to the day -long totals, it is pos-
sible to estimate the number of parkers according to classification during
each hour of the day.
11
A
Table 8
ESTIMATED EXISTING IMPLOYEE TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS
South
Sector
Mid Sector
North
Sector
LT Parkers
LT Par ers
LT Par ers
Type
Percent
per 100
Percent
per 100
Percent
per 100
Employee
AD
Employees
AD
Employees
AD
Employees
Office
84%
64
74%
57
79%
60
Retail
55
33
47
28
50
30
`'
Service
60
38
52
33
55
35
Manufacturing/
Wholesale
60
51
52
44
55
47
Hotel
60
28
52
24
55
26
Average:
(81)
(66)
(60)
Percent
;a
Other Modes
19
34
40
Transit Trips(1)
49
289
219
(141orning peak
(7:00 to 9:00 A.M.) prior to April
12, 1981.
12
Table 9 summarized the estimated daily parking accumulations as of 1980.
As indicated in the upper part of the table, parking is stratified into
eight classifications including office employees, retail employees, hotel
employees, manufacturing and wholesale employees, retail patrons, office
visitors, hotel visitors and guests, and manufacturing and wholesale
visitors. The estimated total of 84,400 daily parkers and the components
making up this total were derived from the mobility improvement study and
central area employment data. As shown in Table 9, the estimated peak -hour
parking demand from 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. in the afternoon is 37,100 vehicles.
This total includes 28,886 employee parkers, plus 8,214 estimated visitor
and patron parkers.
Based on the forecast of employment by category for 1985, it is estimated
that a continuation of the current travel characteristics will produce total
daily vehicular trips to the central area (parkers) of 106,100 vehicles. The
corresponding peak -hour parking demand in 198S is estimated at 49,804 vehicles
including 40, 231 employee parkers and 9, S73 visi tors and patron parkers (see Table 10) .
It should be noted that the estimated daily accumulation of parkers in
1985 assumes a continuation of current travel characteristics. Because of
the existing shortage of parking space, it is estimated that there is a latent
demand that could be realized if sufficient parking space were provided to
attract certain optional visitors (particularly office, bank, and other
visitors and retail patrons) who now avoid visiting Central Miami. Latent
parking demand is difficult to estimate with precision. ]However, by com-
paring parking generation rates in comparable cities with those now existing
in Central Miami, a reasonable approximation can be developed. Through this
process it is estimated that the unrestrained parking generation as of 1985
would represent a total daily demand--12 hours from 7:00 A.I. to 7:00 P.M. --
of 114,500 vehicles. Table 11 sununarizes this estimate. As indicated in
the table, the corresponding peak -hour parking demand is placed at 51,764
vehicles including 40,669 employee parkers and 11,09S visitor and patron
parkers. The estimated increase in peak -hour visitor and patron parking is
just under 16 percent. It should be noted, however, that because of the
turnover characteristics of' these short-termparkers, their day -long impact
and beneficial effect on banks and retail facilities is significant.
The estimates discussed above are in terms of the total study area. How-
ever, in order to evaluate parking supply and demand and to develop an interim
parking strategy, it is necessary to allocate parking generation by geographic
areas. This allocation is accomplished according to the 14 districts des-
cribed previously. 'Kahle 12 summarizes the estimated 1980 peak -hour parking
generation by district in terms of employee parkers .and visitor parkers.
This allocation was derived by estimating the number of employee and visitor
parkers generated by each of the five principal employment categories sho%%n
at the bottom of the table and reflects the three sectors described previously --
the south sector, the mid -sector, and the north sector. The total parking
generation shorn in Table 12 represents the peak -hour conditions at approxi-
mately 2:00 P.M. in the afternoon. The total parking demand of 37,047 is
slightly different from the total 37,100 shown previously in ']'able 9 because
of rounding errors in the computer.
13
Table 9
ESTIMATED DAILY ACCUMULATION OF PARKERS--1980
CENTRAL MIAMI (14 DISTRICTS)
TOTAL DAILY PARKERS BY PURPOSE;
OFFICE EMPLOYEES (OE) = 283U RETAIL EMPLOYEES (RE) = 6200
HOTEL EMPLOYEES (HE) = 3200 MFG 8 NHLSE EMPLOYEES (ME) = 3300
RETAIL PATRONS (RP) = 13160
OFFICE VISITORS (OW = 18900 HOTEL VISIORS 8 GUESTS (HV) = 420O
MFG I NHLSE VISITORS (MV) = 6900 TOTAL DAILY = WOO
--------------------------------------------------------------•---------------
HOUR OE RE HE ME RP OV HV MY TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 566 312 1856 1815 0 0 1050 0 5659
8 6792 930 2560 2865 268 0 630 69 14654
9 13561 2480 2688 2805 804 1870 6A 55Z 2:433
10 15848 2728 27B4 2805 107� 2616 5% 759 29188
11 17263 2728 2816 iWO 1608 3213 756 759 31/83
12 18112 2728 2846 2673 1742 34D2 105D 828 33383
13 18961 2790 2880 2B05 1742 3591 1428 1101 35301
14 20659 2604 2752 2871 1608 3780 1/7K 1101 3/100
15 21225 2232 2528 2772 1742 3402 1890 103;; 36826
16 20942 2601 1696 2475 1414 2835 1771 897 34897
17 16980 3100 1120 Y90 1474 1512 202 690 21924
18 3396 31DO 76B 330 1712 94ci 20116 621 12918
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
Table 10
ESTIMATED DAILY
ACCUMUL.ATIOM
OF PARKERs--1985
CENTRAL MIAMI--CONSTRAINED PARKING GENERATION
TOTAL DAILY PARKERS EY
PURPOSE*,
OFFICE EMPLOYEES (OE) =
41500
RETAIL EMPLOYEES (RE)
HOTEL EMPLOYEES (HE) =
4500
MFG IWHLSE EMPLOYEES (ME) = 3400
RETAIL PATRONS (RP) =
14000
OFFICE VISITORS (OV) =
23000
HOTEL VISIORS 8 GUESTS W ) = 5300
MFG 14HLSE VISITORS (MV) = 7000
TOTAL DAILY = 1061OG
----------------------------------------
HOUR OE RE
HE
ME
RP OV
Hv
MV
TOTAL
-------------------------------------
7 830 414
2610
IS70
0 0
1325
0
7079
8 9960 1110
3600
2890
280 0
795
70
13705
9 19920 2960
3780
2890
840 2300
795
560
34045
10 23240 3256
3915
2890
1120 3220
689
770
39100
11 25315 3256
3960
2720
1680 3910
954
770
42565
12 26560 3256
4005
2754
182G 4140
1325
840
WOO
13 27805 3330
4050
2890
1820 1370
1802
1120
47187
14 30295 3103
3870
2958
1680 4600
2173
1120
19204
15 31125 2664
3555
2856
1820 WO2385
105U
49595
16 30710 3108
2385
2550
1540 M50
2491
910
47111
17 24900 3700
1575
1020
1540 1810
2597
700
37872
18 9980 3700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1080
340
1820 1150
2511
630
16214
Table 11
ESTIMATED DAILY
ACCUMULATION
OF
PARKERS— 1985
CENTRAL MIAMI—UNRESTRAINED PAR-KINC GENERATION
TOTAL DAILY PARITRS EY PURPM E:
OFFICE EMPLOYEES
WE) =
4210U
RETAIL
EMPLOYEES (RE)
= 7400
HOTEL EMPLOYEES
(HE) =
1500
14fG E
ALSE EMPLOYEES
(ME) =
3400
RETAIL PATRONS (RP)
=
16000
OFFICE VISITORS
(OV) =
28100
HOTEL VISIORS
R GUESTS
(HY) =
5900
MFG I NHLSE VISITORS
(MV)
= 7106
TOTAL DAILY =
1145uC
HOUR OE
RE
HE
ME
RP
OV
HV
MV
TOI L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 892
111
2616
1870
0
0
1475
0
7251
8 10101
1110
3600
2890
320
0
885
71
ISY3C
9 20208
2960
37610
2890
960
2310
885
568
35061
10 2357o
3256
3915
2890
1280
3934
767
781
10399
11 25681
3256
3960
2720
1920
4777
1062
781
44157
12 26911
3256
4005
2754
2080
5056
1475
852
46424
13 28207
3330
465c
2890
2030
5339
2G06
1136
19C33
14 30733
310E
3870
2952
192C
5620
2 11 9
1136
51761
15 31575
2664
355.,
I856
2CSO
50J0
2655
1065
51508
IS 31154
3108
2385
255U
176C
42,15
2,'73
923
IG868
17 25260
3700
1575
1020
1760
21298
23�111
710
39164
18 5052
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3760
108C
340
1080
1i65
2832
639
17128
15
47,
Table 12
ESTIMATED 1980 PEAK PARKING GENERATION
EMPLOYEE
VISITOR
TOTAL
DISTRICT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEES
PARKERS
PARKERS
PARKERS
PKRS/100 EMPL
A(1R1)
955
460
92
552
58
B(102)
7713
3249
111
3570
46
C(103)
6408
2594
326
2920
46
0(104)
495
221
32
256
52
E(105)
2636
800
402
1202
46
F(106)
3444
1294
123
1417
41
6(107)
31974
11947
3089
15037
47
H(108)
6013
2042
1054
3096
51
I(119)
901
405
183
593
66
Jl110
2020
993
199
1192
59
W 11)
6
3
1
4
59
L(112)
5113
2461
737
3198
63
M(113)
5849
2630
1291
3921
67
N(114)
178
69
23
92
51
TOTAL
73705
29169
7878
37047
50
ASSUMED PEAK PARKING FACTORS (PARKERSAMPLOYEE)
ZONES: 1
- 3
ZONES:
4 - 8
ZONES. 9 -
14
OFFICE--LTiSTiTOTAL
.42
.03
.4
,37
,02
AD
,39
,02 --
442
RETAIL--LTiST,TOTAL
.47
.38
.85
.42,
.33
.75
.44
,35
.80
SERVICE--LT,STFTDTAL
.39
.08
.47
.35
.07
Al -
l-
137
.07
A 4
MFG/WHL--LTtST.TOTAL
.68
.03
.71
.61
.03
.64
.64
.03
.67
HOTEL--LT#STvTGTAL
.23
.35
.`8
.20
.31
.51
.22
,3E
.54
Q-1
tom.+k
ak
•r Y
The corresponding estimated afternoon peak -hour parking demand as of
1085, assuming continuation of current travel characteristics, is summarized
in Table 13. The peak -hour demand in 1985 is placed at 49,900 parkers, in"
eluding 39,800 employee parkers and approximately 10,100 visitor parkers.
The estimated 1985 peak -hour parking generation increases to 51,700
vehicles if the estimated latent demand is included. (See Table 14.)
In summary, based on current travel characteristics, it is estimated that
the peak -hour parking demand in 1980-1981 is just over 37,000 vehicles in the
central area and is expected to increase to just under 50,000 vehicles by
1985. By improving the attractiveness of the parking system, it is estimated
that parking demand would be increased to a level of just under 52,000 vehicles
by 1985. This higher estimate of 1985 peak -hour parking represents less
latent demand than at present.
Estimated Parking Shortages, 1981 through 1985
Parking space shortages in the central area from 1981 through 198S are
estimated in terms of the 14 districts. The basis for these estimates are
the current and 1985 parking estimates described previously and estimates of
how employment will change in each district as new developments come into
place. Two sets of estimates have been prepared, the first representing a
continuation of current travel characteristics that includes latent demand.
The second set of estimates assumes that through improvement of the parking
system, additional parkers would be attracted to the central area and there-
fore there would be less latent demand than at present.
The estimated parking generation on a year -by -year hasis, according to
district, and assuming continuation of the present level of latent demand, is
summarized in Table 15. Total parking demand is estimated to increase from
just over 37,000 vehicles during the peal: hour of a typical weekday in 1981
to a level of 49,932 vehicles by 1985. Table 16 summarizes the corresponding
estimate of parking generation during the afternoon peak hour if additional
parkers are attracted to the central area and, therefore, there is less latent
demand than at present. Under this assumption, the 1985 peak is approximately
1,700 vehicles more than under the continuation of current travel character-
istics. Most of this increase reflects visitor and patron parkers. A com-
parison of the two sets of demand estimates year -by -year is as follows:
Year Constrained Demand Unrestrained Demand
1981 37,047 37,047
1982 38,121 38,282
1983 42,417 43,216
1984 43,304 44,178
1985 49,932 51,598
17
The corresponding estimated afternoon peak -hour parking demand as of
1985, assuming continuation of current travel characteristics, is summarized
in Table 13. The peak -hour demand in 1985 is placed at 49,900 parkers, in-
cluding 39,800 employee parkers and approximately 10,100 visitor parkers.
The estimated 1985 peak -hour parking generation increases to 51,700
vehicles if the estimated latent demand is included. (See Table 14.)
In summary, based on current travel characteristics, it is estimated that
the peak -hour parking demand in 1980-1981 is just over 37,000 vehicles in the
central area and is expected to increase to just under 50,000 vehicles by
1985. By improving the attractiveness of the parking system, it is estimated
that parking demand would be increased to a level of just under 52,000 vehicles
by 1985. This higher estimate of 1985 peak -hour parking represents less
latent demand than at present.
Estimated Parking Shortages, 1981 through 1985
Parking space shortages in the central area from 1981 through 1985 are
estimated in terms of the 14 districts. The basis for these estimates are
the current and 1985 parking estimates described previously and estimates of
how emplo}nnent will change in each district as new developments come into
place. Two sets of estimates have been prepared, the first representing a
continuation of current travel characteristics that includes latent demand.
The second set of estimates assumes that through improvement of the parking
system, additional parkers would be attracted to the central area and there-
fore there would be less latent demand than at present.
The estimated parking generation on a year -by -year basis, according to
district, and assuming continuation of the present level of latent demand, is
summarized in Table 15. Total parking demand is estimated to increase from
just over 37,000 vehicles during the peal: hour of a typical weekday in 1981
to a level of 49,932 vehicles by 1985. Table 16 summarizes the corresponding
estimate of parking generation during the afternoon peak hour if additional
parkers are attracted to the central area and, therefore, there is less lateitt
demand than at present. Under this assumption, the 1985 peak is approximately
1,700 vehicles more than tinder the continuation of current travel character-
istics. Most of this increase reflects visitor and patron parkers. A com-
parison of the two sets of demand estimates year -by -year is as follows:
Year Constrained Demand Unrestrained Demand
1981 37,047 37,047
1982 38,121 38,282
1983 42,417 43,216
1984 43,304 44,178
1985 49,932 51,598
Table 13
ESTIMATED 1985 PEAK PARKING GENERATION!
EMPLOYEE
VISITOR
TOTAL
DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES
PARKERS
PARKERS
PARKERS
PKRS/100 EMPL
--------------------------------------•------------------------------------------
A1101)
955
163
87
549
58
8(102)
10715
4517
447
4963
46
C(103)
8598
3399
573
3972
46
01104)
1052
439
95
534
51
E095)
15463
5383
1168
6551
42
H 106)
8820
3342
574
3916
44
61107)
33199
12126
3260
15686
47
H1108)
7525
2558
1208
3166
5D
11109)
901
405
188
593
66
J(110)
2020
993
199
1192
59
WID
6
3
1
4
59
L11121
6399
297G
791
3760
59
M1113)
6649
2803
1551
1354
65
N1i14)
178
69
23
92
51
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102490
39766
10161
49932
49
ASSUMED PEAK PARKINC FACTORS (PARI�tERS/EMPLOYEE)
ZONES: 1
- 3
ZONES:
i - 8
ZONES: 9
- 19
T
O!FICE--LT,ST,OTAL
.4
.013
.45
.37
.02
.AD
.39
.Oi
.42
RETAIL--LT,ST,iOTAL
.4.'
.38
.85
.42
.33
.75
.41
.35
.80
SERVILE--LT,ST+TOTAL
.2,1
.03
.47
.35
Xi
.4Z
.3'
.07
.44
MFC/WHL--LT,ST,TOTAL
.61
.03
.71
.D1
.03
.61
.61
.03
.67
HOTEL--LT,ST,TOTAL
.23
.35
.53
.20
.31
.51
.22
.32
.54
18
Table 14
ESTIMATED 1985 PEAK PARKING GENERATION
(INCLUDES ESTIMATED LATENT VISITOR/PATRGN DEMAND)
EMPLOYEE
VISITOR
TOTAL
DISTRICT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEES
PARKERS
PARKERS
PARKERS
Pi;RS/100 EMPL
A(101)
955
463
102
565
59
8(102)
10715
4517
630
5147
48
C(103)
3598
3399
699
4098
48
DO W
1052
439
114
553
53
Et105)
15463
5383
1377
6759
44
F(106)
8830
3342
138
4080
46
6(107)
33199
12426
3896
16322
49
H(108)
7525
2553
1302
3860
51
I(109)
901
405
No
615
68
J11101
2020
993
219
1212
60
Ktill)
6
3
1
4
60
L(112)
6399
2970
913
3883
61
M(113)
6149
2803
1692
4495
68
N1114)
178
69
27
96
54
TOTAL 10219C Y,763 11921 51689 50
HUMID PEAK PARKING FACTORS (PARKERS/EMPLOYEE)
ZONES; 1
- 3
IOIES:
4 - 8
ZONES: 9
- 14
OFFICE--LT,STJOTAI
,4A..
.04
.46
.37
.04
.41
.39
.04
.43
RETAIL--LItST-TOTAL
.47
.42
.89
.42
.38
.79
.44
.40
.84
SERVICE--LTiSTJOTAL
.39
.10
.19
.35
.09
.43
.37
.09
.46
MFC/NHL--LTeST,TOTAL
.60
.03
.71,
.61
.03
.64
.61
.03
.67
HOTEL--LTtSTtT7TAL
.23
.3;,
.58
.20
.31
.51
.22
.32
.51
19
Table 15
EST=MATED PARKING GENERATION 1981-1985
(ASSUMES CURRENT LEVEL OF LATENT DEMAND)
DISTRICT
1981
1902
1962
198i
1985
101
549
549
549
549
549
IN
3570
3709
1267
4331
4963
103
2920
3025
3446
3491
3972
104
256
284
395
419
534
105
1202
1569
3037
3535
6551
106
1417
1620
2432
2621
3916
107
15037
15102
15362
15366
15686
IDS
3096
3163
3431
3156
3766
109
593
593
593
593
593
110
1192
1192
1192
1192
1192
Ill
4
4
4
4
4
112
3198
3::54
3479
3501
3760
113
3921
3961
1138
4151
1354
114
9"
92
92
92
92
TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31047
38121
12 W
43304
47932
Table 16
ESTIMATED PARKING GENERATION 1981-1985
(IN�LUVES ADDITIONAL DEMAND --LESS LATE J DEMANi: THAN hT PRESENT)
DISTRICT
1981
19c7
190j
178;
1985,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101
549
547
549
549
565
fell:
3570
3720
4359
41;3
514/
103
4. S.
3033
3509
35tD
4093
!04
256
266
405
4e0
553
105
1202
1583
3109
3624
6759
106
1417
1631
249r,
2703
4080
107
15037
1516o
1568i
156IS9
16322
10S
3096
3172,
34,'a
3W
3866
109
593
593
593
593
615
110
119:
1192
1191,
119",
1121
III
4
4
4
4
4
112
3198
3267
3541,
35,1
3383
113
3921
3978
42,05
4217
114
92
92
92
96
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
37047
382K
43216
441/3
51593
20
W
Table 15
ESTIMATED PARKING GENERATION 1981-1985
(ASSUMES CURRENT LEVEL OF LATENT DEMAND)
DISTRICT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981
1982
1963
084
1985
101
549
549
549
549
549
102
3510
3709
4267
4331
1963
103
2920
3025
3446
3491
3912
104
256
281
395
119
531
105
12D2
1567
3037
35KKj
6551
106
1417
1620
2432
2621
3916
107
15037
15102
15362
15366
15686
108
3096
3163
3431
3456
3766
109
593
593
593
593
593
110
1192
1192
1192
1192
1192
111
4
4
4
4
4
112
3198
3251
3419
3504
3760
113
3921
3961
1138
4151
1351
114
91,
92
92
92
92
TOTAL
37047
38121
12417
43304
49932,
Table 16
ESTIMATED PARKING GENERATION 1981-1985
IINCLUC,ES ADDiT;GAAL DEMAIND--LESS LATE!iT DEMAN THAN AT F'FESEkTi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRI3T
1901
19c"1
1953
1989
1927
------------
101
-
549
549
549
549
565
10'
3570
3720
435?
443,
511/
103
2926
3033
3J09
3Jt0
1093
104
256
286
405
130
J53
105
1202
1503
310?
3627
6759
10E
1417
1434
249?
2703
OR
107
15037
1516e
1568j
156w?
16322
108
3096
3172
347a
3501
3860
109
593
593
593
593
615
110
119:
1192
1191,
1192
1121
111
4
4
4
4
4
112
3198
3267
KAI
3571
3083
113
3 92 1
3978
1200
4227
4491,
114
92
92
9�
?�
96
TOTAL
37047
3825:
43216
4417a
JIJ93
20
By comparing the estimated peak -hour parking generation with the estimated)
4 parking supply, it is possible to determine the net shortages and surpluses ift
parking space for each district for the five years from 1981 through 1985.
Tables 17 and 18 make this comparison. Table 17 assumes continuation of the
current level of latent demand, whereas Table 18 assumes additional demand
attracted to the central area or, in other words, less latent demand than at
the present time. Both sets of estimates are adjusted to reflect the parking
supply at actual use levels --in other words, supply has been discounted for _=
the very remote spaces and for the facilities that cater only to special types
of parkers.
In both instances, the estimated 1981 shortage for the entire study area
is placed at 3,166 spaces during the afternoon peak hour. This estimated
shortage is anticipated to decrease to a low point in 1983, reflecting new
parking facilities that are either under construction or planned. The esti-
mated shortage then increases to 1985. The principal parking shortages are
estimated to occur during the initial years (1981 and 1982) in Districts 101,
107, 112, and 113. By 1985, shortages are also expected in District 106--
the Government Center area. The estimated shortages for the entire study area
are as follows:
Year
Constrained
Unrestrained
1981
3,166
3,166
1982
2,775
2,937
1983
332
1,133
1984
2,192
3,067
1985
2,340
3,964
It is clear from a review of the estimated parking shortages that the
interim parking program should provide a substantial number of spaces im-
mediately to meet parking requirements in the balance of 1981 and in 1982.
Fewer spaces will be required in 1983 if development takes place as now
programmed. The demand will again increase in 1984 and 1985. In the follow-
ing chapter, strategies will be discussed to meet these needs.
21
A", A"'*N'
Table 17
ESTIMATED PARKING SHORTAGES BY DISTRICT
DISTRICT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981
19B2
1983
1984
1985
101
-349
-349
-349
-349
-349
102
961
1606
104a
991
35L
103
565
917
1954
1'97
1676
104
2302
2274
2163
21 9
2024
105
656
-20
3C63
17J5
2319
106
675
938
261
630
-665
107
-9494
-;c`;
-9819
'482?
'10143
106
1096
1105
1462
1375
156J
109
220
22C
2i0
2,U
220
110
-94
-94
'94
-9§
-94
111
0
0
0
0
0
112
-502
-558
-18J
-817
-34a
113
-123
-166
-310
-873
72S
114
882
382
882
8E�
say
TOTAL
-3166
-2775
-3J�
-2192
4U
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES; 1)
('IKUr CID,' (-)
IIDIIA '
i NET S;`OnTF,GE Cr' SFACIS Iri THE DIST-I%T
2?
ASSUME: CURnENT IEiE.. 01
LAIEhT Dt1�t;�
3)
ESTI6A_' _' hRE
hJJJSTEG 10
INVE(r 0R)'
USAGL IEUELS
4)
DISTRICT 111--r(--IS
AjSJhED
TO E:E I1,
EA�AI� E
22
Table 18
ESTIMATED PARKING SHORTAGES E:Y DISTRICT
DISTRICT
1991
1992
1983
19014
1985
1D1
-349
-349
-317
-ji9
-349
102
961
1581
956
882
1L8
103
565
931
1591
1721c^
IJJO
1D4
2�D2
2�7:
�153
i123
2G05
105
696
-34
[991
1641
2111
106
675
92S
191
541q
-9-,9
107
-9491
-9523
-1013/
-161,16
-10779
108
1096
1096
1415
1327
1167
309
220
«0
22G
22i;
22G
110
-94
-94
-94
-94
-23
ill
0
0
D
D
8
112
-502
-571
-845
-864
-971
113
-123
-190
-410
-949
583
114
882
882
882
882
882
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-3166
-2937
-1133
-3067
-3964
NOTES; 1)
MINUS SIGN (-)
INDICATES
A NET SHJR7AGE
OF SPACES
IN THE DISTRICT
2)
ASSUMES ADDITIOPAL DEMAN[--LESS
LATEh'i
IHW, NUH
3)
B11MATES AF'c
;+uJllS1L Tu
INl'crTGtl
USAG-L L-�VLS
4)
DISTRICT ill --)'.--IS
nS00-5
TO BE IN
LHOPt
23
3.
REWNNENDED INTERIM PARKING PROGRAM
Available Strategies
Tlie principal thrust of this study is to meet the estimated interim
parking demand over the next five years as quickly as possible and at mini-
mum cost. This approach also implies that the techniques used to satisfy
parking deficiencies should be largely self -amortizing in future years and
not require major public commitments. Thus, the development of permanent
parking structures or parking lots is not really in keeping with the purpose
and scope of this study.
The alternative methods available to meet parking requirements include
carpools and vanpools; the restriping of parking facilities in recognition
of the diminishing sizes of vehicles; and the temporary use of intercept
parking lots. Each of these techniques should be controlled, managed, and
operated by a public agency or agencies in order to respond to the anticipated
needs.
One technique which has been suggested from time to time is a further
relaxation of the miniNIUM standards required by the City of Nijanii for parking
lot development. Current standards require adequate drainage, surfacing,
fencing, lighting, and landscaping. Since the new ordinance i;as enacted,
there have been fcw, if any, privately -developed parking lots. Potential
private parking lot operators have indicated that the cost of complyinh witli
the standards make it prohibitive to develop parking facilities on an interim
basis and still be able to recover capital costs. hilile it is possible that
a further relaxation of parking lot standards would result in additional sur-
face parking facilities, there is no way to predict the effect of relaxing
the standards. Therefore, while this technique should receive further con-
sideration, it is not a part of the current set of recommendations.
Emphasis in this report is placed on achieving added parking capacity
through carpools and vanpools, a restriping program, and the temporary use
of an intercept parking lot or lots.
24
Curi)oo l urul Var�)oo l
A recent report by Committee GAll of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers made the following conclusions regarding carpooling:
1. Ridesharing and private carpools and organized vanpools represent a
major urban transportation mode. In the United States, ridesharing
is second in use only to the drive -alone travel mode.
2. Organized efforts to expand the use of ridesharing in br*1i the public
and private sectors, initiated in the early 1970s, matured and broadened
in scope by the end of the decade. In many metropolitan areas, programs
to increase carpooling and vanpooling are achieving significant results
in reducing peak -period vehicular travel, energy waste, and air pollu-
tion emissions.
3. The potential for additional increases in ridesharing is significant not
only as an emergency contingency measure, but also as a conventional
transportation improvement measure, particularly in meditmi and large
size metropolitan areas.
4. Ridesharing should be treated as a vital part of both short-range and
long-range transportation plans. "Transportation engineering professionals
should establish strong conunitments at all levels of transportation plan-
ning, policy -making, and administration to systematically pursue conti_nu-
ing efforts to expand the use of ridesharing.
S. Although a variety of approaches have been employed in ridesharing pro-
grams around the country, an essential ingredient for success is the
strong corrunitment and :active participation of employers. A major part of
any program is the establishment of procedures for providing effective
technical support to employers to assist them in providing a ridesharing
matching system and incentives to their employees and in promoting the
travel mode.
In brief, carpooling and vanpooling offer a significant way to increase
the effective supply of parking space in central Nfia mi. The key to success
will be to concentrate on major employers in both existing land -uses and
those scheduled for construction over the next five years. Table 19 stmunar-
izes the estimated potential for carpool or ,ranpool for selected stable zones.
The zones represented in this table include two from the south sector, 11
from the mid -sector, and two from the north sector. lbese areas have current
emploNnnent of 36,109 with the estimated 1985 employment being 36,003. If
the average auto occupancy of 1.20 persons per car could be increased through
pooling measures to 1.25, a total of 720 parking spaces would be "saved"; if
occupancy could he increased to 1.30, the savings would be 1,382 spaces; if
increased to 1.35, the savings would become almost 2,000 spaces.
2S
tj
C,
Table 19
ESTI}laTE11 WM- ''TIAL FOR CMML OR VVWM--STABLE ZONES
Estimated Estimated
Peak
1980 Peak 1980 Peak
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated•.
Parkers
Parkers 1 Person
Peak Parkers
Parking
Peak Parkers
Parking.
Peak Parkers
Parking
FMlovment per 100
1.20 Auto Work Trips
2 1.2S Aut
()
Spaces
a 1.30 Au Q
)
Spaces
@ 1.35 �
Spaces
Sector Zone 1980� District Employed
Occupanc;kl)bv Auto
Occupancy
Saved
OccupancyL
Saved'
Ocetq)ancvy
Saved
South
3
5,092
5,278
C
(103)
46
2,342
2,810
2,248
94
2,162
180
Z,081
261
South
4
1,228
1,228
B
(102)
46
565
678
542
23
SZ2
43
S02
63
Mid
11
1,905
1,905
E
(105)
46
8?6
1,051
841
35
808
68
779
97'
Mid
16
1,586
1,586
G
(107)
47
745
894
715
30
688
57
66Z
r83
Mid
18
2,106
2,106
G
(107)
47
990
1,188
950
40
914
7&
880,
Mid
19
4,617
4,617
G
(101)
47
2,170
2,604
2,083
87
2,003
167
1„929,
Mid
23
1,873
1,873
G
(107)
47
880
1,056
845
35
81Z
68
782
98
Mid
24
2,737
2,737
G
(107)
47
1,286
1,S43
1,234
52
1,187
99
1,143
143
Mid
28
2,104
2,104
G
(107)
47
989
1,187
950
39
913
76
879
110
Mid
39
1,360
1,368
G
(107)
47
639
7V
614
25
590
49`
568
71.
Mid
44
1,689
1,689
G
(10')
47
794
953
762
32
-33
61
706
88
slid
45
2,483
2,483
G
(10?)
47
1,167
1,400
1,120
47
1,077
90
1,037
130
Mid
51
2,944
2,944
G
(1071
47
1,384
1,661•
1,329
55
1,278
106
1,230
154
North
S2
2,068
2,068
M
(113)
67
1,386
1,663
1,330
56
1,27%
107
1,232
154
North
84
2,61?
2,617
M
(113)
67
1,753
2,104
1,633
70
1,6I8
135
1,559
194
Total: 36,409 36,603 17,966 21,559 17,246 720 16,584 1,382 15,969 Zi„99Z
intimated Peak Parkers represents potential base for carpooling and vanpooling.
(-�In order to achieve an auto occupancy of 1.25, it is assumed that a considerable number of major employers have initiated
individual employer programs to encourage carpooling. In these carpool matching and promotion programs, the employer
assumes full responsibility for sun -eying employees, carrying out internal promotional campaigns, performing carpool
matching, and, in fewer cases, offers incentives such as preferential parking, vanpooling systems, and financial rewards
to encourage ridesharing.
Min order to achieve an auto occupancy of 1.30, it is assumed that a larger number of major employers have undertaken
individual employer carpool prognmas and that a significant effort by the public sector in the form of government -sponsored
areawide carpool/vanpool matching and promotion has been made. In this case, the individual employers exhibit a greater
commitment to their carpooling programs, as for example by offering more substantial incentives. In addition, there is
substantial involvement by employers in the government -sponsored areawide ridesharing programs.
(4)1n order to achieve an auto occupancy of 1.3S, it is assumed that nearly the most optimistic conditions for carpooling and
vanlxroling exist. This includes well organized individual programs run by highly motivated employers, heavy employer
involvonent in areawide programs, and a higher level of government efforts to encourage areawide carpooling and vanpooling.
*.; .Y- J L ,+:oeurr�.te.,.•«:4s 3 �yTM
.. f it
M1�
A series of seven zones which are predicted to have a major increase
in employment growth from 1981 through 1985 is analyzed in Table 20. This
group of zones includes two from the south sector, three from the mid -sector,
and two from the north sector. The estimated 1980 employment is placed at
5,303, whereas the 1985 employment is estimated to become 23,486. Because
many of these developments are not yet in place, there may be potential to
achieve a higher level of carpooling and vanpooling if concerted efforts
are initiated prior to the move -in date, and a significant number of employ-
ees could be influenced to rely on pools from the outset of their employment
in the central area. If efforts such as these could lead to an average of
1.25 persons per car, rather than the average of 1.20, the estimated number
of parking spaces that would be saved is placed at 453. By increasing the
average car occupancy to 1.30, the total savings would become 870 spaces.
Although the long-term public cost of maintaining carpools in order to
save parking space is minimal, the cost of initiating the program as reported
by ITE Committee, can be expected to average between $30 and $60 per new
carpool or vanpool employee. Table 21 summarizes the estimated cost of pro-
grams to achieve various levels of pooling during the period of 1982 through
1985. The upper part of this table analyzes the selected stable zones, the
lower portion the selected growth zones. 'I'he annual range in cost is placed
at between approximately $20,000 to $40,000 in the stable zones with a total
program over a three-year period amounting to between $60,000 and about
$120,000. This level of expenditure should produce just under 2,000 new
carpoolers and thereby free up approximately this number of parking spaces
for other purposes. Regarding the selected growth zones, a cost of between
$26,000 and $52,000 is estimated to develop approximately 870 new carpoolers.
Thus, in total, the program applying to both sets of zones could produce the
equivalent of almost 2,900 new spaces at a cost of between $86,000 and
$172,000. When compared to the cost of constructing alternative parking
facilities, these costs are indeed minimal.
Restriping Program
Another nroeram that offers an excellent potential for increasing the
parking supply at relatively small expense is one involving restriping the
stalls in selected major parking facilities where it is practical to accom-
modate smaller cars. There are two potentials for improving capacity through
restriping:
1. If. an angle configuration is used at the present time, the possibility
of going to right angle parking spaces can increase capacity, providing
the circulation system is compatible with the change.
2. Even those facilities in which a right angle pattern is now employed can
be restriped with a narrower stall and obtain additional capacity.
27
T:able 20
EST 1`•lMI) POTE.\iI AL FOR
CARPOOL
OR
CA.`'POOL--GRO1%M =O%FS
Peak
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Firploynent
ParkCI.S
Per 100
1935 Peak
1985 Peak
Peak
Parking
Peak
Parking
Parkers at
Person -Bork
Parkers at
Spaces
Parkers at
Spaces
Sector _
:one
19S0
193.;
District
FmploYres
1.20 Persons/Car
.auto Trips 1.25
Persons/Car
Saved
1.30 Persons/Car
Saved
South
2
2,318
4,422
B
(102)
48
2,123
2,548
2,038
35
1,960
163
South
9
1,316
3,249
C
(103)
48
1,560
1,872
1,498
62
1,440
120
:lid
12
0
5,394
E
(105)
44
2,373
2,843
2,'-78
93
2,190
133
Mid
15
0
4,024
E
(105)
44
1,771
2,125
1,700
71
1,635
136
"lid
37
0
3,300
F
Not))
a6
1,513
11322
1,457
61
1,401
117
North
so
1,256
1,554
L
(112)
61
1,149
1,379
1,103
46
1,061
88
North
83
413
1,213
`•1
(113)
63
825
990
792
33
762
63
Total:
5,3O3
23,436
11,319
13,584
10,866
453
10,449
870 - j
Table 21
ESTPIATEII COST OF PROGRNMS TO ACHIEVE VARIOUS LEVELS OF CARPOOLING (1982-198S)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985 Recap
Selected Stable Zones(1)
Auto Drivers
17,966
17,246
16,584
151969
Passcngers
3,593
4,313
4,975
5,590
Total Persons:
21,559
21,559
21,559
21,559
21,559
Persons/Car
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.3S
New Carpoolers
-
720
662
615
1,997
Cost ($1,0005)
-
$21.6-43.2
$19.9-39.7
$18.5-36.9
$60.0-119.8
Selected Growth Zones(2)
Auto Drivers
11,319
10,449
Passengers
2,265
3,135
Total Persons:
13,584
13,584
Persons/Car
1.20
1.30
New Carpoolers
-
870
Cost ($1,000s)
-
$26.1-52.2
:'Annual Totals
Spaces Saved
720 662 615
870 2,867
Cost ($1,000)(3)
$21.6-43.2 $19.9-39.7 $18.5-36.9
$26.1-52.2 $86.1-172.0
(I)From Table 19.
(2)From Table 20.
(3)Costs based on ITE Committee 6A11 Report, June, 1981: "Carpooling: Current and Promising Strategies."
Costs are in constant 1981 dollars.
The range in capacity that can be achieved through the restriping and
changing of geometries in an existing parking facility usually ranges from
a low of five to seven percent to a maximum of about 30 percent. Typically,
10 to 15 percent can be expected. Many existing "full size" parking stalls
are approximately nine feet in width and 18 to 19 feet in length. With the
increasing trend toward smaller automobiles, at least part of the full size
stalls can be downsized to "compact size" --approximately 7.5 feet in width
and 16 feet in length. A minimum aisle width of 23 feet would be required.
At the present time, about 50 percent of the automobiles in use may be
classified as "small" or occupying an area of eight square meters or less
(by comparison a Chevette occupies an area of six square meters). Based on
the current sales trends and the rate at which older cars are being scrapped,
it is estimated that within five years the proportion of small cars will in-
crease to about 75 percent and possibly to a range of 90 percent by 1990.
Last October, the Miami City Commission, in recognition of this change
in car size, revised the city's zoning ordinance to permit new parking facili-
ties to contain up to 40 percent small size cars (7.5 feet wide, 16 feet
long).
There should be no significant cost involved in this program other than
the contacting of parking facility operators and an analysis of the best way
to rearrange parking stalls to take advantage of the decreasing car sizes.
Although there are costs involved in restriping, these can be more than off-
set by the increased revenues generated by the number of spaces added.
The base capacity to be considered in the restriping program is the number
of off-street public spaces. There are approximately 20,700 spaces in this
category throughout the study area. However, when existing use levels are
applied to this capacity, it is reduced to approximately 17,200 spaces.
Relative to this reduced number of spaces, the estimated increases in capacity
that could be achieved on a district by district basis is summarized in
Table 22. At a three percent increase, the net capacity added would be
513 spaces; at five percent, 858; at eight percent, 1,373 spaces; at 10 per-
cent, 1,717 spaces; and at 12 percent, 2,061 spaces.
The estimated cost of restriping a parking facility includes four steps:
1. Analysis of the parking facility to determine the geometries that should
be applied to the revised striping plan.
2. Removing the old paint lines through any of several methods.
3. Laying out the new geometric pattern.
4. Repainting the new lines.
A'summary of the estimated costs of restriping is provided in Table 23.
The estimated costs are related to the size of the facility, or number of
30
t Table 22
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL FOR RESTRIPING CAPACITY INCREASE
District
Number of
Off -Street
Public Spaces(l)
%
5%
Increased Spaces
8%
@
10
A
(101)
66
2
3
5
7
8
B
(102)
1,205
36
60
96
121
145
C
(103)
666
20
33
S3
67
80
D
(104)
1,182
35
59
95
118
142
E
(105)
2,632
79
132
211
263
316
F
(106)
1,313
39
66
105
131
158
G
(107)
4,574
137
229
366
457
S49
H
(108)
2,176
65
109
174
218
261
I
(109)
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
(110)
0
0
0
0
0
0
K
(111)
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
(112)
605
18
30
48
61
73
M
(113)
2,260
68
113
181
226
271
N
(114)
483
14
24
39
48
58
Total:
17,164
513
858
1,373
1,717
2,061
(')Represents adjustment to reflect estimated 1981 levels of usage. Actual
public off-street capacity is 20,679 spaces.
31
Table 2
E,STIll1%TLD COST OF RiSTRIPING
Total Cost
of Restriping
(Based on
Ovez- a' ti,:n
Old Lines and
Number of Cost of Removal Number of Cost of Removal Mmber of Cost of Removal Number of Cost of Layout 'umber of on Lcrjc:,t and
I'arking of Old Paint Lines Parking of Old Paint Lines Parking of Old Paint Lines Parking and %inting Parking of
Spaces by ::,er: a i _. Spaces h. Grc> .zi : - Spaces by Ssndblastina Spaces of New Lines Spaces New Lines)
lender t7
$200.00 Vin:mten
Under 14 5200.00 `•linimcn Under 7 $200.00 Minimum Under 51
$200.00 Minimum
Under '9
e200.00 Minimum
a7- 99
3.00/space
14+ 13.00./_'ace 7+ 30.00/space 51- 99
4.00/space
29- 99
7.00/sp'
100-14?
2.75%space
100-149
3.80/space
100-149
6.55/spa
1SO-2'.a9
2.00/space
150-299
3.60/space
150-299
6.20/space
300-
:.50;'sp;ice
300--49
3.10/space
300-749
6.00/space
750+
3.20/space
7S0+
5.70/space
N011.:
1. .111 costs are based on four -inch wide paint lines.
2. Overpainting is the most cornon method of removing old paint because it is the most economical. Black paint is used on
asphalt and gray paint is used on concrete.
3. Costs for restriping are the sa.-.c for lots and 4arages, old and new surfaces, asphalt and concrete.
4. Heat-l:lastin , or burning off, of old ;lint lines is rarely used. Cost is comparable to sandblasting. However, beat -
blasting .-a..• crack concrete.
S. of old paint line_ may not be necessary if the paint is faded out enough. In this instance, the new paint will
to sufficient for deli,-natino the new _paces.
spaces to be restriped, the cost of removing or covering the old lines
(overpainting, grinding, sandblasting), and the cost of laying out and
painting the new lines. Removal of lines through grinding or sandblasting
is the most expensive with a cost of $15 or $30 per space respectively. The
more common method, because of its economy, is the overpainting of old lines,
which ranges between about $2.50 to $3.00 a space depending on the number of
spaces. The cost of laying out and painting new lines ranges from about
$3.00 to $4.00 a space, again depending upon the number of spaces to be con-
verted. Thus, the total cost based on overpainting to eliminate the old
lines would range between just under $6.00 to $7.00 a space depending upon
the size of the facility. This is a relatively low one-time cost and is es-
pecially low when compared with parking fees of $40.00 to $80.00 per month,
or 60 cents to one dollar for 20 minutes or one-half hour.
The principal estimated cost from the public point of view for the re -
striping program would be contacting parking facility owners and operators
and possibly assisting them with the analysis and redesign of the facility.
The actual cost of restriping logically would be borne by the facilities'
owners.
Intercept Parking Lots
The intercept parking lot concept appears to have genuine merit although
its cost is substantially higher to the public agencies than either the car-
pool, vanpool, or restriping program. Several requirements can be listed to
help ensure the acceptability and success of an intercept parking facility.
1. Provide reduced parking costs to the user.
2. Provide reasonable convenience to drive to and from the facility with
minimum walking time (or transit shuttle) to the central area destination.
3. Ensure the security of person and property.
A number of locations were considered for intercept parking lot develop-
ment. For various reasons the following facilities or areas were concluded
to be not suitable for inclusion in an intercept parking program. Some of
the following facilities are in relatively inaccessible locations, some do
not offer an adequate area (to provide a mininum of 600 spaces for economy
of operation) because of the unavailability of the site, because of problems
associated with runoff, or other reasons.
-- The Orange Bowl.
-- Area west of the government center.
-- Park West.
-- Watson Island.
-- Claughton Island.
-- Omni Garage.
33
U
A total of four areas were evaluated further to determine whether or
not they should be included in the interim parking program. The four areas
are identified in figure 2 and in Table 24. As noted in the table, Sites A
and B offer the best potential for development as an intercept parking facility.
Site A is the Florida East Coast property in District N immediately north of
the Bayfront Park. In past years the City of Miami and the Florida East
Coast Railway have been engaged in litigation over the ownership of the 32
acres of bayfront land. Last year the city won the right to take ownership
of the property, but the price of the site is still under negotiation. In
view of the fact that the city is likely to acquire this property in the near
future, but its development as a park may be several years off, it is believed
that this site offers an excellent potential for temporary use as an intercept
parking lot. The need for an intercept lot on this site should not extend
beyond one or two years and, thus, would be compatible with later development
of the area as a park. Not all of the 32 acres would be required for inter-
cept parking. For analysis purposes, an area measuring approximately 770 to
778 feet east -west by 519 to 527 north -south could be developed on the western
portion of this site. An intercept parking area this size would permit the
shipping and lumber operations to continue temporarily at the east side of
the site.
The FEC property could be developed as an intercept parking lot that would
provide between approximately 1,5S0 to 1,600 spaces depending upon the mix
of compact and standard parking spaces.
Because of the temporary nature of an intercept development on this site
(and also on Site B as discussed later), it is suggested that two variations
be considered by the City of Miami in the development of these facilities:
1. Reduce the geometric requirements so that the number of compact spaces
could range between approximately 40 and 60 percent. Since this facility
would be used almost exclusively for employee parkers, the more generous
dimensions do not appear to be justified. Commuters tend to drive the
smaller car in multi -car families for the work trip. In addition to the
mix of compact versus standard stalls, it is recommended that the two
design standards be: compact spaces, 7.5 feet by 16 feet; standard
spaces, 8.5 by 18 feet.
2. Because of the temporary nature of the intercept parking facility, design
standards should be relaxed to minimize the cost to the public of develop-
ing the interim facility. with minimum surfacing, lighting, and land-
scaping, i.t should be possible to develop the facility for approximately
$1.00 to $2.00 per square foot. This would translate into a development
cost of between $270 and $540 per space, depending upon the mix of small
car and large car spaces.
Site B, located in District L on the south side of northeast 19th Street,
west of northeast Second Avenue, includes two pieces of city property on
either side of the parking facility owned by a synagogue. The site measures
34
pgj ,
d T T
RE
SITE 8
'lI �J � �LJL•J'��_fLJLI: , i � � TIM Wl.t>wT.
I80
till Lj
��, �• �� - [� '� ter' � Ci'� [�_ Ell E
'� y►� _
U, - _ ....
81
J• ����C?L SITE A •
60 59 56
35 I Sd 61 58 55
3 6 57 54
36 i� c 2 � L
i
'33 37-41 42 47 48 52
( • 1
'•.32 i 40, 1 43 46 49 51 ( �`
�1..._.__Jh---� -�\� 31 1 �18 39 44 45 50 '1 r
_� <
30 , , 28 ' 24 23 18 19
�J I�J �,�' �,_ 1(.._ R — '�►� ._27 J 25 -- 22 17 16
14 15
yg 12 1
SITE D
tir '
t .� i' % ` DISTRICTS
7 i / ! 8 9 10 , B 102
jn 1�/
j 1i :� 7, �u r.-1 C 103
— -- , -� l t. r.ir� .. _ L,..n 0 104
�,_ F0 1055
G 107
is ISJ 110
` [ 1 r K 111
2, L 112
,nnJ .tile: ( M 113
,Figure 2
t.., .,, .;•`'� ,, ,, I ! ! LOCATION OF INTERCEPT
PARKING FACILITIES
� - , , Ar
CENTRAL MIAMI INTERIM PARKING STUDY
Base prepared by Downtown Development Authority
Table
24
POSSIBLE INTERCEPT PARKING ARFAS
Maximum
Distance
Capacity
from Flagler
Site
District(1)
Dimensions (1)
Area (sq.ft.)
(at 270 sq.ft.)
and Second
Ranking
A
N(102)
770 Ft. x
61S
Ft.
473,S50
1,750 Spaces
2,850 Ft.
1
B
L(112)
745 Ft. x
280
Ft.
208,600
770 Spaces
7,050 Ft.
2
C
K(111)
480 Ft. x
740
Ft.
398,S87
1,47S Spaces
8,4S0 Ft.
3
+1/2 (445 ft.
x 195 ft.)
D
A(101)
290 Ft. x
490
Ft.
140,225
500 Spaces
5,000
4
-1/2 (50 ft. x 75
ft.)
c (1)See
Figure 2 for
location.
approximately 770 feet east -west by 615 feet north -south. Using the same
design standards suggested above for Site B, up to 800 parking spaces could
be developed on this site. The development cost would be approximately the
same as noted for Site A.
It is assumed that neither site would require a cash outlay for use of
the site.
Site B is just over 7,000 feet from the intersection of Flagler and
Second and would be easily serviced by transit. Site A is approximately
2,850 feet from the intersection of Flagler and Second and could be easily
served by transit. In addition, the location of Site A is such that some
patrons would walk to their destination.
The maintenance and operation of an intercept parking lot and the transit
shuttle will represent additional costs. Preliminary estimates indicate that
the maintenance and operating costs will range between $30 and $80 per space
per year, and that transit shuttle would probably average about $1.00 per
round trip. In order to evaluate the possible range of maintenance and
operating costs, it is assumed that a 600-car lot would be fully utilized
and that approximately 720 persons would be transported by bus (this assumes
1.2 persons per car). Thus, if 50-passenger buses were used, 14 to 1S bus -
trips would be required during each peak hour. The distance from the central
area, and the route in the central area, to the intercept parking lot would
determine the number of buses required to provide this level of service.
Assuming that the intercept lot would operate for 255 weekdays per year,
and considering the operating costs of the lot and the transit noted above,
the cost would be about $2.00 per parker. If a lot were only half utilized--
300 parkers per day --the cost would increase to a range of $2.S0 to $3.00 per
day, per parker.
Because the public reaction to the intercept parking concept is unkno;�n
in Miami, property now owned by a public agency or private facilities, that
would not require any charge beyond a nominal lease, should be used for the
sites. Although a conscientious effort should be made to initiate and sell
the intercept parking concept, there is no assurance of its success and,
therefore, no measure of long-term commitments to high expenditures appears
jusitified. A cautious approach in developing an intercept parking concept
does not imply that the public will not accept the idea. There are relatively
few examples of intercept parking facilities working successfully in other
cities that can be used as guidelines in Miami.. However, one that is suc-
ceeding is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The parkin,, facility serving the
11irec River Stadiwn provides what amounts to intercept parking for employees
of downtown Pittsburgh. A new program promoting this concept was initiated
in March, 1981. During the first week an average of 275 parkers per day used
the facility. By the middle of \Lay, the number of daily parkers had increased
to 410. Three Rivers Stadium is located within a 10- to 15-minute bus ride
37
of downtown, or the distance can be walked in 15 to 25 minutes. The charge
being assessed is $1.25 per day which covers both parking and the round-trip
bus ride. The cash fare on the bus one-way is 40 cents and all day parking
alone is 50 cents. Shuttle bus connections between the parking lot and down-
town is provided from 6:30 until 9:40 A.M. and again from 3:00 to 6:30 P.M.
Three buses provide 10-minute headways. 'I%qo attendants are required to pro-
vide continuous coverage from 6:30 A.M. until 6:30 P.M. By comparison, the
parking rates are somewhat lower than those in downtown Miami.
It is believed that the intercept parking concept would be accepted by
some employees of central Miami and for this reason this strategy is in-
cluded as part of the recommendation discussed in the following section.
Recommended Program
The recommended interim parking program is designed to meet the estimated
parking requirements of the system during the years from 1981 through 1985.
The recommended strategies include carpool, vanpool, restriping program, and
the development of a temporary intercept parking lot or lots. While these
are relatively low capital -intensive measures, their success will require a
full-time administrative staff and adequate funds to maintain this staff and
the necessary advertising and public relations costs needed to implement the
various measures.
1Vhile it may be possible to administer the program through one of the
existing public agencies in the area, for planning purposes in this report
it is assiuned that a new office would be created. The minimum staff required
to operate the program would be one professional and two support staff members,
one of whom could be a technician.
A possibility is to have DD.A handle administration of the program with
the Department of Off -Street Parking furnishing the operating personnel,
supplies, etc.
_ The recommended interim parking program is designed to meet the estimated
needs year by year from 1981 through 1985. Three programs are suggested: a
limited budget program, an intermediate program, and a concerted program.
Each program is estimated to provide sufficient parking capacity to handle
the needs of the downtown from 1983 through 1985. However, each would fall
short in the current year, largely because of the limited amount of time
available to implement new measures. In the second year, 1982, the limited
budget program would meet approximately 85 percent of the requirements,
whereas the other two programs would provide a theoretical capacity of about
three to 10 percent more than needed. The details of these two programs are
summarized in Table 25.
38
Table 25
RECUR, OED INTERIM PARKING PROGRAM
1981 1982'
Estimated Shortage
Excluding Latent Demand 3,166 2,775
Including Latent Demand - 2,937
Sources of Added Space --
Limited —Budget Program
Carpool, Vanpool (cumulative) - 720
Restriping Program (cumulative) S00 1,000
Intercept Lot A 800 800
Total: 1,300 2,520
Meets Demand: No (-59%) Almost (-1SV,
o Sources of Added Space --
Intermediate Program
Carpool, Vanpool (cumulative) - 720
Restriping Program (cumulative) 900 1,000
Intercept Lot A 1,300 1,300
Total: 2,200 3,020
Meets Demand: No (-30%) Yes (+3%:
Sources of Added Space --
Concerted Program
Carpool, Vanpool
(cumulative)
-
720
Restriping Program (cumulative)
900
1,200
Intercept Lot B
800
-
Intercept Lot A
1,300
1,300
Total:
3,000
3,220
Meets Demand:
Almost (-S%)
Yes (+10%',
Note: Intercept
Lot A is the FEC Property.
Intercept
Lot B is located
on the south side
of northeast
l 6 t
Parking needs are shown at
reflecting both the inclusion
cussed previously. If latent
demand in the future is similar
at 3,166 spaces today, 2,775 s
in 1984, and 2,340 spaces in 1
included, the number of spaces
1,133 spaces in 1983, 3,067 in
the top of Table 25 on a year by year basis,
and exclusion of the latent demand factor dis-
demand is excluded --in other words, if parking
to the present --parking needs are estimated
paces in 1982, 332 spaces in 1983, 2,192 spaces
985. On the other hand, if latent demand is
required in 1982 will increase to 2,937, to
1984, and 3,964 in 1985.
As shown in Table 25, the limited budget program would provide 1,300
spaces in 1981, including 500 from the restriping program and 800 from the
development of intercept Lot A or B. This number of spaces is about 59 per-
cent short of the estimated requirement at the present time. However, in
1982 the limited budget program would provide a total of 2,520 spaces including
720 from carpooling, 1,000 from the restriping program, and 800 from the in-
tercept lot. This would be only 15 percent below the estimated requirements
that include the latent demand. In 1983, the program would provide consider-
ably more capacity than needed because of the anticipated completion of cer-
tain new parking garages in the central area. In 1983 this program would
provide 3,182 spaces, including 1,382 from the carpool concept, 1,000 from
the restriping program, and 800 from the intercept lot. This compares with
the requirement of 1,133 spaces. In 1984 and in 1985 the limited budget
program would equal or exceed estimated parking demand, including latent
demand. By 1985, the intercept lot could be phased out and requirements
handled through the carpooling program, 2,867 spaces, and the restriping
program, 1,100 spaces. This total of 3,967 spaces is essentially the same
as the estimated requirement in 1985.
The intermediate and concerted programs are similar in some respects
to the limited budget program. The principal difference is the number of
intercept lot spaces that would be developed the first year. Under the con-
certed program, the intercept capacity plus aau.itional space from the re -
striping program could provide 3,000 spaces by the end of 1981. or only nine
percent less than the estimated needs. The intermediate program would
provide 2,200 spaces for the first year --only 30 percent.short. In each. -of the
following years--1982 through 1985--the concerted program and the inter-
mediate program would provide more capacity than needed. In 1982, intercept
Lot B could be phased out of the concerted program and in 1983, intercem
Lot A would be phased out. From 1983 onward, neither intercept lot would be re-
quired under the concerted program, all requirements being handled through
the carpool, vanpool, and restriping programs. Under the intermediate program
only intercept Lot A would be used and it would be phased out about the end
of 1982.
Estimated Cost of Programs
The cost of either program includes administration/advertising, the car-
pool-vanpool program, the restriping program, and development of intercept
capacity. In addition, a 10 percent contingency allowance is provided.
40
The estimated annual cost of either program is summarized in Table 26.
The largest single budget item is for construction of the intercept lot(s).
In developing these estimates, a construction cost of $270 to $540 per space
has been used under the assumption that the money can be borrowed over a
five-year period at 10 percent interest with level -debt payment each year.
The estimated cost range of the programs are placed at approximately:.
Limited Budget: $ 144,000-$293,000
Intermediate: 197,000- 371,000
Concerted: 274,000- 535,000
Even though 1981 would not be a full year, full -year costs have been
assumed for the administrative staff and for the repayment of the intercept
lot development costs. The reason for assuming full -year costs for these
two items is that the cost analysis is intended to cover a five-year period
and, although it may not get underway until mid-1981 or later, it may extend
roughly that much beyond 1985.
In order to measure the cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies
under each of the two programs, the available space has been calculated in
terms of "space -years." One space -year is equivalent to one parking space
available for one year. The limited budget program would provide a total of
12,858 space -years from 1981 through 1985; the intermediate program, 12,183
space -years and the concerted program would provide approximately 12,483
space -years.
Table 27 provides an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of the alternative
strategies under either program. Overall, the limited budget program is the
most cost-effective in that the average cost per space -year, including ad-
ministrative costs, are placed at between $57 and $98 for the five-year period.
By comparison, the other intermediate program would involve an estimated cost
of between $79 and $133 per space -year over the five-year period. The
concerted program costs are placed at a range of $99 to $186 per space -year.
The five-year cost per space -year including administration is estimated at
about $43 to $70 for the carpool, vanpool program under the limited budget
program, $48 to $72 under the intermediate program or $44 to $80 under the
concerted program. The cost of the restriping program is also moderate under
any of the programs. The most expensive component of either program is the
development of the temporary intercept parking lots. Under the limited budget
approach, the five-year cost per space -year, including administration, is
estimated to range between $116 and $211. By comparison, the cost of inter-
cept lots wider the intermediate program would be in the range of $276 to
$524 per space. The third program would range between $458 and $897.
On the basis of the cost-effective analysis Summarized in 'rabic 27, it
is recommended that the city consider the intermediate program. This program
would meet all of the projected shortages after 1981 and it would provide a
measurable improvement in the parkin; system serving central Miami under what
appears to be an affordable and cost-effective manner.
41
MMMIMPU
... .tea..
...._ w.._, ._�.....:
Lflliil�i� 1g�t,= t�t`ogTid►F
kn6nttii'sttiai,+Aei{v��rt�+siyng
7b.oirto,o
W1) V�1ti�ool Y[V$1 iYll
j'
kweipitig PwgrM
Ito. 1.0
Intotta t LO A
Cor►stiuction(1�
SIA 14.0
M1f,0(2)
2,6- 4.0
Intercept Lot 11
Cotistfvrtion(1)
-
Subtotal:
$110.6-21M
Contingency (10%)
1311- 22.0
Total!
$143.7-241.0
Intchnedlato program
Administration/Advertising
Catpool, Vanpool Program
Restriping Program
Intercept Lot A
Construction(l)
M&O
Intercept Lot 0
construction(l)
16W
Subtotal:
Contingency (10%)
Total:
Concerted Program
Achninistration/Advertising
Carlx)ol, Vanpool Progr:un
Restriping Program
Intercept Lot 11
Construction(l)
low
Intercept Lot A
$ 7o.0-100.0
21.6- 43,2
1.0- 110
57.0.114.0
5.2- 7.8
$154.8-266.ti
15.5= 26.0
$170.3-292.6
$ so.a- lot).() $ 80.0-100.0
21.0- 43.2
1.5• 1.5 1.0- 1.0
VVVJ
•l)n
.waJ31{`
`�
lu�1
gi
Iv��i11
$'0,0=106,0
019- 30.7
18.9-
26.1- 92.2
57.t1-1i4.0
57.0=114,tl
�7��•11�►�,�
512- 7.8
iR
$152.1461.5
$i50.7-258.7
$iSs.1.266 2
15.2- 26.2
15.1=, 25,9
IS. 3 J6:0
$167.3.287.7
$165.8.284.6
$168.4.292.9
$ 80.0-100.0
$ 80.0-100.0
$ 80.0-100.0
19.9- 39.7
18.5- 16.9
26.1. 52.2:
92.6-185.2
92.0-185.2
92.6-185.2
92.6-185.2
92.6-18S.-1
5.2- 8.0
5.2- 8.0
-
-
-
$179.3-294.7
$200.4-117.4
$192.5-324.9
$191.1-322.1
$198.7.337.4
17.9- 29.5
20.0- 33.7
19.3. 32.5
19.1- 32.2
19.9- 33.7
$191.2-324.2
$220.4-371.1
$211.8-357.4
$210.2-354.3
$218.6-371.1
$ 9o.o-120.0
$ 90.o-120.t1
$ 90.0-120.0
$ 90.0-120.0
$ 90.0-120.0
-
21.6- 4•i.2
19.9- 39.7
18.5- 16.9
26.1- 52.2
l.8• 1.8
0.0- 0.0
-
-
-
57.0-114.0
57.0-114.0
57.0-114.0
57.0-114.0
57.0-114.0
2.6- 4.0
5.2- 7.8
5.2- 7.8
5.2- 7.8
-
Construction(1) 92.6-185.2
92.6-185.2
92.6-185.2
92.G-185.2
M&O 5.2- 8.0
10. 1- 15.6
-
-
Subtotal: $249.2-433.0
$277.1-•156.4
$2G4.7-460.7
$20.5-463.9
Contingency (101.) 24.9_ 43.3
_27.7. 18.e
26.5- 40.7
20.3- 46.4
Total: $274.1-47(1•3
$.-,Or,.I-515•11
$2!)1._'-513.4
$28!1.6-510.,i
(')Construction cost asstmlcs $270 to $540 per span MlOrt i--ctil at 10 percent Over t'ive N-Cars.
(')Rawl on $8.00 to $12.00 per space 1x•r year. Italance to he recovercyl frwn user tees.
$:.6S.7-471.4
,_6.6- 41.1
A
w
r f.
Table 27
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES _
Five Year
Space Costs, Excluding Costs with Cost per°,Space
Years M Administration Administration (2} Year, with
Program Component 1981-1985 (OOOs) (000s) Administration
Limited Budeet Program
Carpool, Vanpool 51533
$ 86..1-
172.0
$ 236.6- 387.0
$ 42.76- 69.94
Restriping 3,925
2.0-
2.0
110.5- 157.0'
29.15- 4a.00
Intercept Lots 3,400
303.2
588.2
394.2- 718.2
115.94-211.23
Total: 12,8S8
$391.3-
762-2
$ 741.3-1,262.2
$ 57.6S- 98.164
Intermediate Program
Carpool, Vanpool S,533
$ 86.1- 172.0
$ 266.1- 397.0
$ 48.09- 71.7S
Restriping 4,700
2.5- 2.5
158.5- 197.5
33.72. 42.0.2
Intercept Lots 1,950
473.4- 942.0
537.4-1,022.0
275.59-524.lG
Total: 129183
$562.0-1,116.5
$ 962.0-1,616.5
$ 78.96-132.68k3J
Concerted Program
Carpool, Vanpool 5,S33
$ 86.1- 172.0
$ 244.5- 436.0
44.19- 78.8,.
Restriping 5,125
2.4- 2.4
150.0- 248.4
29<27- 48.47
Intercept Lots 1,825
781.8-1,547.0
835.8-1,637.0
457.97-896.99
Total: 12,483
$870.3-1,721.4
$1,230.3-2,321.4
$ 98>.56-185.96<
M One space -year is one parking space available for one year. The estimates assume the spaces developed in 1!
would be available for three months. In subsequent years, new spaces are assumed to be available for six
months the year of development plus 12 months per year through 1985, if continued in the program.
(Z)Administrative costs are allocated by number of space years.
(3)Overall average.
POW
` w
The sources of funds available to underwrite the interim parking Pt,69 ;
include the following.
1. public funds, taken from existing budgets. r ,
2. User fees.
3. Contributions on a sustaining basis from the business community.
4. New tax sources, as, for example, a tax on packers.
The first three sources of funds need to be explored, and in combination,
may prove to be adequate to undenerite the program. If not, consideration
should be given to initiation of a tax on parkers.
It should be noted that this would be a tax on parkers and not a tax on
parking facilities. The City of Chicago, for example, initiated a "parking
lot and garage operations tax" in the early 1970s. This type of tax is
"levied and imposed upon the use and privilege of parking a motor vehicle in
or upon any parking lot or garage that charges a fee for parking." In other
words, this type of tax would apply only to facilities that charge the general
public to park. There are approximately 20,700 off-street parking spaces in
Central Miami that are available to the general public. Most of these
facilities charge for parking. If a tax of 10 to 15 cents per transient
parker or $3.00 to $4.00 per month per monthly parker were initiated and
only two-thirds of the facilities were included, the annual gross revenue
should be in the range of $440,000 to $600,000. This level of income should
be sufficient to fully fund the limited budget or intermediate program, and
almust enough to cover the concerted program.
44
Ls G •W.y I y' L