Pavement Busters Guide
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”
Pavement Busters Guide
Why and How to Reduce the Amount of Land Paved for Roads
and Parking Facilities
by
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
23 September 2009
Abstract
This guide identifies ways to reduce the amount of land required for roads and parking
facilities. It examines ways to determine optimal road and parking supply and the full
economic, social and environmental costs of increased impervious surface. It identifies
current policies and planning practices that unintentionally contribute to economically
excessive road and parking requirements, and specific strategies for reducing the
amount of land paved for roads and parking facilities. This analysis indicates that road
and parking pavement area can often be reduced significantly in ways that are cost
effective and maintain adequate levels of accessibility.
Todd Litman © 1998-2009
You are welcome and encouraged to copy, distribute, share and excerpt this document and its ideas, provided the
author is given attribution. Please send your corrections, comments and suggestions for improvment.
Pavement Busters Guide
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
Measuring Pavement Area ................................................................................................ 3
Impervious Surface Costs ................................................................................................. 5
Optimal Road and Parking Supply .................................................................................... 6
How Current Practices Oversupply Road Space and Parking .......................................... 7
Explanations For Excessive Road and Parking Supply .................................................... 9
Strategies to Reduce Road and Parking Requirements ................................................. 11
Educate Decision Makers ......................................................................................................... 11
More Accurate and Flexible Standards ..................................................................................... 11
Mobility Management ................................................................................................................ 12
Parking Management ................................................................................................................ 12
Efficient Road and Parking Pricing ........................................................................................... 14
Smart Growth ............................................................................................................................ 15
Overflow Plans .......................................................................................................................... 16
Structured And Underground Parking ....................................................................................... 17
Use Parking Facilities More Efficiently ...................................................................................... 17
Parking Tax Reform .................................................................................................................. 18
Infill and Brownfield Redevelopment ......................................................................................... 18
Streetscaping ............................................................................................................................ 18
Encourage Shared ROW .......................................................................................................... 18
Improve Facility Design ............................................................................................................. 19
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 21
Building Institutional Support .......................................................................................... 22
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 24
References and Resources............................................................................................. 25
More efficient management can often reduce the amount of land paved for roads and parking facilities.
1
Pavement Busters Guide
“Form no longer follows function, fashion, or even finance; instead, form follows parking
requirements.” Donald Shoup
Introduction
The landscape (the earth’s surface) is a unique and valuable resource. It is used in
various ways, ranging from wildlands and farmlands to buildings and transportation
facilities. Public policies and planning practices affect these land use patterns, which can
have significant economic, social and environmental impacts.
A significant portion of the built environment (land developed for human activities)
consists of impervious surface (land covered by materials impenetrable to water, such as
asphalt, concrete, brick, and stone), a major portion of which consists of roads and
parking faculties. Roads and parking facilities typically cover 10-25% of urban land, and
more than 50% in major commercial centers such as downtowns and shopping malls, as
illustrated in Figure 1. Although such facilities are useful and necessary, they also impose
significant economic, social and environmental costs.
Figure 1
Impervious Surface Coverage (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996)
60%
50%
Streets
e
g
Sidewalks
r
a
40%
Parking/ Driveways
ve
o
Roofs
30%
e C
i
v
ct
20%
f
f
e
E
10%
0%
Low Density
High Density
Multifamily
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Roads, parking facilities and sidewalks represent a major portion of urban land area.
Current policies and planning practices favor generous road and parking supply. They are
often inefficient and unfair, resulting in an economically excessive amount of land
devoted to transport facilities. Alternative, cost-effective practices can significantly
reduce road and parking pavement area, providing many benefits.
This guide identifies ways to reduce the amount of land paved for transportation
facilities. It investigates the full costs of paving land, describes ways to determine
optimal road and parking supply, identifies current practices that unintentionally expand
transport facility area beyond what is optimal, and identifies various strategies for
reducing the amount of land paved for roads and parking facilities.
2
Pavement Busters Guide
Measuring Pavement Area
A typical residential street is 36 feet (12 meters) wide. If homes have 100 foot average
frontage, each house requires 1,800 square feet (sf) (or 180 square meters [sm]) of
residential street area, and somewhat more to account for intersections. Residential
streets represent half of all urban street area,1 which suggests that there are about 3,600 sf
(350 sm) of road pavement per household, or about 1,500 sf (150 sm) per capita.
A typical parking space is 8-10 feet (2.4-3.0 meters) wide and 18-20 feet (5.5-6.0 meter)
deep, totaling 144-200 square feet (13-19 sm). Off-street parking requires driveways
(connecting the parking lot to a road) and access lanes (for circulation within a parking
lot), and so typically requires 300-400 sf (28-37 sm) per space, allowing 100-150 spaces
per acre (250-370 per hectare), as illustrated in Figure 2. Assuming there are two to three
off-street parking spaces per capita, parking pavement totals about 1,000 sf per capita.
This suggests that on average about 2,000 sf of urban land is paved for roads and parking
facilities per capita, which is about three times the land devoted to homes. Per capita
pavement area varies depending on many factors. For example, increased population
density reduces per capita road pavement (since there are more people per length of
roadway), reduced per capita vehicle ownership or off-street parking spaces per capita
reduces total parking area, and reduced peak-period vehicle travel reduces the need to
expand roadways.
Table 1
Impervious Surface Of Various Housing Types (Square Feet)
Single-
Single-
Single-
Units
family
family
family
Town-
Low-rise
High-rise
Housing Type
Large-lot
Medium-lot
Small-lot
house
Apt.
Apt.
Stories
1 2
2
3
4
10
House footprint
Sq. Ft.
2,000
1,000
1,000
667
500
200
Spaces
Undergroun
Residential parking
3 2
1
1
1 d
Res. parking land
Sq. Ft.
600 400
200
200
200 0
Vehicles
3 2
2
1
1
0.5
N.R.* parking
Spaces
4.5 3
3
1.5
1.5
0.75
N.R.* parking land
Sq. Ft.
900
600
600
300
300
150
Driveway length
Feet
40 30
20
15
10 5
Driveway land
Sq. Ft.
360 270
180
135
90 45
Street frontage
Feet
150 100
50
25
20 15
Roadway land
Sq. Ft.
5,400
3,600
1,800
900
720
540
Total land
Sq. Ft.
8,000
5,000
3,000
1,767
1,420
740
Residents
Per home
2.5 2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5 2.5
Per capita
Sq. Ft.
3,200
2,000
1,200
707
568
296
This table indicates typical impervious surface area for various housing types with 2,000 square feet
of interior space. (* N.R. = Non-residential)
1 According to Table HM-20 in FHWA’s Highway Statistics 2005
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/ohimstat.htm), there are 1,022,725 total urban road miles of which 723,952 are
local. Assuming that local roads average half the width of other types of roads, they represent about half
the total road area.
3
Pavement Busters Guide
Table 1 indicates impervious surface area for various housing types, all with the same
2,000 sf of interior floor area. Figure 2 illustrates the results. This analysis suggests that
roads are the largest category of impervious surface area, followed by parking and
housing, and that impervious surface area per household can vary significantly depending
on factors including development density, vehicle ownership rates, parking spaces per
vehicle and building type.
Figure 2
Impervious Surface Area Of Various Housing Types (Square Feet)
10000
Roadway Area
e 9000
c
Driveway area
r
f
a
8000
u
Non-residential Parking Area
S 7000
Residential Parking Area
ious 6000
House Footprint
r
v
5000
4000
t
Impe
e
3000
Fe
r
e 2000
ua
q 1000
S
0
Single-family Single-family Single-family Town-house
Low-rise
High-rise
Large-lot
Medium-lot
Small-lot
Apartment
Apartment
Land requirements per parking space vary depending on type and size. Off-street spaces require
driveways and access lanes. Landscaping typically adds 10-15% to parking lot area.
Although land paved for roads and parking facilities represents a relatively small portion
of total land area, roads and parking facilities tend to concentrate in areas with high
populations and industrial activities, and so compete with other productive uses.2 More
efficient management that reduces road and parking land requirements can free up
valuable land for other productive uses and provide other benefits.
2 For more discussion of road and parking land area see the “Roadway Land Value” and “Parking Costs”
chapters of Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
4
Pavement Busters Guide
Impervious Surface Costs
Paving land for roads and parking facilities imposes various direct and indirect costs, as
described below (USEPA, 1999; Litman, 2006a and 2007a). Current planning practices
tend to overlook some of these costs, which skews decisions toward economically
excessive pavement area. Described more positively, strategies that reduce road and
parking pavement area can provide more benefits than usually recognized.
• Land costs. Land devoted to roads and parking facilities has opportunity costs, that is, it
could be used in other productive ways, including housing, farming and openspace (van
Essan, et al, 2004). The value of land devoted to roads and parking is estimated to total
$1,000 to $2,000 annually per motor vehicle (Litman, 2003). Conventional planning
generally ignores these costs except when additional land must be purchased for new
facilities; the opportunity costs of existing roads and parking facilities, and land costs to
businesses for parking facilities, are not generally considered in the planning process.
• Facility costs. Roads and parking facility construction and operating costs are also
estimated to total about $1,000 to $2,000 annually per motor vehicle (Litman, 2007a).
• Hydrologic impacts. Impervious surfaces repel water, and prevent precipitation from
infiltrating soils (NEMO Project). This increases stormwater management costs (costs of
building and operating stormwater systems) and reduces groundwater recharge, which
has ecological impacts (for example, reduced wetlands) and reduce groundwater available
for human uses. If just 5% of a watershed is covered with impervious surfaces, surface
water quality degrades significantly (Horner, et al, 1996).
• Heat island effects. Pavement, particularly dark-colored asphalt, absorbs and stores solar
radiation, which increases ambient temperatures. As a result, urban areas are 2-8° F hotter
in summer, which increases energy demand, smog and discomfort (USEPA, 1992).
• Increased vehicle travel and associated costs. Increased parking and roadway capacity
tends to increase per capita vehicle ownership and use, and degrade other travel options
(Shoup, 2005). This increases various costs, including traffic congestion, consumer costs,
accidents, energy consumption and pollution emissions (Litman, 2007a).
• Sprawl costs. Expanding road and parking area encourages more dispersed, automobile-
dependent development patterns, which increases the costs of providing public services
(water, sewage, garbage, emergency response, school), increases total transportation
costs, and imposes environmental costs (Burchell, et al, 2005; Litman, 2006a).
• Reduced housing affordability. Local roads and residential parking costs are borne
through development costs and property taxes, so increasing these costs tends to reduce
housing affordability (Jia and Wachs, 1998).
• Reduced openspace and wildlife habitat. Undeveloped land, farmland and greenspace
provide various environmental and aesthetic benefits, including wildlife habitat,
groundwater recharge, privacy, noise reduction, reduced ambient temperatures, and
improved air quality (White, 2007).
• Aesthetic degradation. Larger roads and parking facilities tend to reduce adjacent
property values because they are unattractive and noisy (Nelessen, 1994).
Most consumers never purchase parking spaces or roadways as a separate item (these
facilities are usually bundled with building space or provided by governments and
5
Pavement Busters Guide
businesses) and so they have little idea of their costs. Figure 3 illustrates typical
annualized costs per parking space, excluding indirect and environmental costs.
Figure 3
Typical Annualized Costs per Parking Space (“Parking Costs” Litman, 2007a)
$3,000
ace $2,500
O & M Costs
p
r
S
Construction Costs
e $2,000
Land Costs
$1,500
ed Cost P $1,000
$500
Annualiz
$0
Suburban,
Suburban, 2-
Urban, On-
Urban, Surface Urban, 3-level
CBD, 4-level
CBD,
Surface
level Structure
Street
Structure
Structure
Underground
This figure illustrates typical annualized costs per parking space.
Optimal Road and Parking Supply
According to market theory, optimal road and parking supply is the amount consumers
would purchase if they paid directly all costs and had various transport and parking
options to choose from (“Market Principles,” VTPI, 2007; Litman, 2007b). For example,
optimal road supply is the amount that could be financed through direct user fees that
covered all direct and indirect roadway costs, with reasonable transport options available
(walking, cycling, driving, ridesharing, transit, telework, etc). Similarly, optimal parking
supply is the amount consumers would purchase if they paid fees that covered all direct
and indirect costs, and they had a reasonable variety of transport and parking options to
choose from.
From a planning perspective, optimal road and parking supply is the most cost effective
way to provide an adequate level of service, taking into account all impacts and options
(“Least Cost Planning,” VTPI, 2007). For example, optimal road supply is the amount
that allows people to reach the destinations they want with minimum costs to users
(delay, risk and user fees) and governments (roadway construction and operating
expenses). From a narrow perspective, this assumes that roads should be sized to
accommodate unlimited vehicle traffic, but planners increasingly recognized that in some
situations this is infeasible, so alternative options may be acceptable. For example,
optimal urban road supply may be less than needed to accommodate unlimited
automobile travel if improvements to alternative modes and demand management
strategies (such as road pricing), can maintain an adequate level of service.
6
Pavement Busters Guide
How Current Practices Oversupply Road Space and Parking
Decisions concerning road and parking to supply (such as the number and width of traffic
lanes, and the number and size of parking spaces) should reflect consideration of all
impacts (benefits and costs) and options (including management solutions instead of
expanding supply), including strategic planning objectives such as a community’s desire
to support smart growth land use development and alternative travel modes. Current
planning practices tend to assume it is desirable to maximize road and parking supply and
minimize user charges. They consider management strategies measures of last resort, to
be applied only when road and parking expansion is infeasible.
For example, conventional planning practices use recommended road and parking
standards published by professional organizations to determine road and parking supply
in a particular situation. These standards tend to be economically excessive and can
usually be adjusted significantly downward using various adjustment factors and cost
effective management strategies. To appreciate why it is helpful to know a little about
how these standards are developed. They are based on demand surveys, which measure
the number of trips generated and parking spaces occupied at various sites (Knepper,
2007). However, the standards are often based on fewer then a dozen surveys, the results
of which are often highly variable, and the analysis usually fails to account for
geographic, demographic and economic factors that can affect parking demand, such as
whether a site is urban or suburban, and whether parking is free or priced (Shoup, 1999a).
These standards favor oversupply in many ways. Most demand studies were performed in
automobile-dependent locations, where parking is not managed or priced for efficiency.
They are generally based on 85th percentile demand curves (which means that 85 out of
100 sites will have unoccupied parking spaces even during peak periods), an 85th
occupancy rate (a parking facility is considered full if 85% of spaces are occupied) and a
10th design hour (parking facilities are sized to fill only ten hours per year). These
standards results in more supply than actually needed at most destinations, particularly
where land use is mixed, there are good travel options, or where transport and parking
management programs are implemented. Table 2 summarizes various factors that result
in economically excessive parking standards, supply and demand. More accurate and
efficient planning practices can significantly reduce road and parking requirements.
Although individual distortions may seem modest and reasonable, their impacts are
cumulative and synergistic (total impacts are greater than the sum of individual impacts),
resulting in economically excessive road and parking supply. Many parking facilities are
frequently underutilized (Shoup, 1999a; Kuzmyak, et al, 2003). For example, a parking
demand study at suburban office sites in southern California found that conventional
standards are nearly twice as high as needed, and this oversupply will increase if efforts
to encourage alternative commute modes are successful (Willson, 1995). A University of
Iowa study found that parking supply exceeded peak-period demand by 16-63% at
various commercial centers (Shaw, 1997). Parking surveys in 26 Seattle neighborhoods
found that most had only 40-70% peak-period occupancy (Seattle, 2000).
7
Pavement Busters Guide
Table 2
Planning and Market Distortions and Corrections (Litman, 2007b)
Distortions
Corrections
Most demand studies are performed at single-use, suburban sites
Perform more research to determine how
where parking is unpriced, resulting in standards that are
geographic, demographic and management
excessive in other conditions.
factors affect transport and parking demand.
Standards are seldom adjusted to reflect geographic,
Apply more accurate standards that reflect
demographic and economic factors that affect demand.
specific conditions.
Standards are often based on an 85% percentile demand curve,
Apply more accurate standards that reflect
the 10th or 20th annual design hour, and 85-90% occupancy,
specific conditions.
resulting in excessive supply at most sites and times.
Standards are often designed to accommodate the greatest
Apply more accurate standards, with
demand a site may ever encounter over the facility’s lifespan,
contingency-based solutions available to address
although this is usually excessive.
future changes in demand.
Generous minimum standards result in abundant parking supply,
Apply more accurate parking standards and
which discourages owners from charging for parking, creating a
parking management solutions before expanding
self-fulfilling prophesy.
parking supply.
Governments often provide subsidized parking, which
Price public parking efficiently.
discourages businesses from charging for parking at their sites.
Road and parking facility funding often cannot be used for
Apply “least cost planning,” so management
management programs, even if such programs are more cost
strategies receive equal support as capacity
effective and provide greater total benefits.
expansion.
Evaluation often overlooks some costs of paving land for
Use comprehensive evaluation which takes into
transport facilities, such as opportunity costs (if the land is
account all economic, social and environmental
owned), stormwater management and environmental impacts.
impacts.
Generous standards were created when land costs were lower and
Adjust planning practices to reflect changes in
there was less concern about traffic impacts and sprawl.
land values and planning objectives.
Current planning practices tend to be automobile-oriented.
Apply more multi-modal planning.
This table summarizes various planning and market distortions that result in economically-
excessive road and parking requirements, and how they can be corrected.
Similarly, current planning practices result in economically-excessive roadway supply,
because roadway expansion is favored over cost-effective management strategies (Lee,
1999; “Least Cost Planning,” VTPI, 2007). Alternative standards can significantly reduce
roadway requirements (Homberger, 1996). For example, Eugene, Oregon planners found
that local road rights-of-way could be reduced 16-20% over standard practices without
reducing performance (West and Lowe, 1997). Noble prizewinning economist William
Vickrey estimated that the current road system is a quarter to a third overbuilt compared
with what is optimal, due to inefficient pricing (Hau, 2000, footnote #1).
Most studies indicating economically excessive land devoted to transportation facilities
only consider one or two distortions, such as unpricing, biased investment practices or
excessive zoning requirements. More comprehensive analysis is likely to identify even
greater oversupply.
8
Pavement Busters Guide
Explanations For Excessive Road and Parking Supply
It is important to consider the reasons that decision-makers often favor generous road and
parking supply.
• Many decision-makers are unaware of full road and parking facility costs. For example,
one survey found that employers estimated their parking costs at just $13 per month
although actual costs were much higher (COMSIS, 1994).
• Transportation agencies are primarily concerned with traffic movement, parking spillover
problems, regulatory simplicity, and fiscal impacts (Willson, 1999). They are less
concerned with other impacts and objectives, particularly indirect costs, and planning
objectives outside their responsibility.
• A certain amount of road and parking supply can be justified for basic access (“Basic
Access,” VTPI, 2007). Even non-drivers may value having paved roads and parking at
their property, to facilitate access and increase property values. Only supply beyond what
is needed for basic access (for example, a second traffic lane) may need to be tested based
on individual users’ willingness to pay (“Roadway Land Value,” Litman, 2007a).
• Generous road and parking supply help prevent congestion, insure emergency access, and
prevent problems such as spillover impacts and enforcement requirements.
• Convenient vehicle access is considered important to businesses, and therefore for local
economic development. Parking regulations, metered parking, and parking enforcement
are frustrating to users and unpopular.
• From an administrative perspective it seems easiest and fairest to apply rigid standards
rather than more flexible policies that may be challenged. Professional organizations
provide recommended minimal standards but fewer resources for flexible requirements.
• Generous minimum parking requirements impose no direct cost on government budgets.
Increasing parking requirements is cheaper than providing public parking facilities.
Incorporating parking into building costs appears equitable, since businesses simply pass
such costs onto their customers.
• Automobile ownership and use have grown steadily over the last century, and roads and
parking facilities are durable and can be difficult to expand. It may therefore seem
sensible oversupply parking to accommodate possible increases in future demand.
• Transportation agencies generally lack incentives to reduce land requirements by sharing
rights of way with other utilities (Feitelson and Papay, 1999).
These factors help explain why decision-makers often favor excessive road and parking
capacity. However, most of these issues can be addressed with cost-effective strategies
described in this guide. For example, mobility management strategies can reduce traffic
congestion problems without increasing roadway supply (for example, by encouraging
cycling, ridesharing, public transit, flextime and telework), and improved parking
enforcement can help avoid parking spillover problems. New pricing methods
significantly reduce transaction costs, increasing the feasibility of efficient road and
parking pricing. Increasing concerns about economic, social and environmental impacts
justifies more emphasis on management solutions.
9
Pavement Busters Guide
An important issue in this analysis is the ease of adjusting road and parking supply if
needed in the future. Excessive standards are often justified on grounds that additional
supply may be needed sometime and is cheaper to provide during initial construction
than later. Once land is paved there is often little consideration of converting it to other
uses.
Expanding roads and parking facilities tends to be costly, particularly in established
urban areas. However, alternatives are often cost effective, such as management
strategies that encourage peak-period travelers to use more efficient modes (ridesharing,
public transit, telework, etc.). These often provide significant additional benefits,
including facility cost savings, consumer cost savings, improved mobility for non-
drivers, increased safety, energy conservation and pollution emission reductions. The
availability of these management strategies reduces the need to oversupply urban
roadways.
Land used for roads and parking facilities is often treated as a sunk cost, with no
opportunity value recognized. However, virtually all land has alternative potential uses,
either to be rented or sold for monetary gain, or converted to greenspace (landscaping,
farms or forests) for environmental benefits. It therefore makes sense to reduce the
amount of land paved for roads and parking facilities whenever alternative uses could
provide greater benefits (Lee, 1999).
This suggests that optimal road and parking supply is significantly less than what results
from current planning practices (Litman, 2007b):
• More accurate planning, which adjusts minimum parking requirements to reflect specific
geographic and demographic factors, and allows cost effective management strategies
such as sharing and use of off-site parking for to accommodate occasional peaks, can
typically reduce parking supply by 10-30% compared with current practices.
• Efficient pricing, including cost-based road and parking fees (users directly pay all road
and parking facility costs), parking cash out (non-drivers receive the cash equivalent of
parking subsidies), and unbundling (parking facilities are sold or rented separately from
building space) typically reduces peak-period traffic and parking demand about 20%.
• Least-cost planning, which applies the most cost-effective transportation improvement
options, typically reduces peak-period traffic and parking demand by 10-30%.
• More flexible, contingency-based planning allows reduced road and parking supply,
since cost-effective management strategies can be deployed if needed in the future.
Of course, the degree of road and parking oversupply varies depending on specific
circumstances. In rural areas, most roads and parking facility pavement may be justified
for the sake of basic access, and because paving land for roads and parking facilities
imposes modest costs. In urban areas there are more transport options and expanding
roads and parking facilities tend to impose greater costs, so greater reductions may be
justified.
10
Pavement Busters Guide
Strategies to Reduce Road and Parking Requirements
The following strategies can reduce the amount of land paved for roads and parking. For more
information see NEMO; SPUR (1998); Litman (2006b); VTPI (2007).
Educate Decision Makers
Educate decision-makers concerning the full costs of generous road and parking capacity,
biases in current planning practices that favor oversupply, and alternative strategies that
can help reduce paved area.
More Accurate and Flexible Standards
As described earlier, current road and parking supply standards tend to be economically
excessive and can often be reduced due to geographic, demographic and management
factors, such as listed in Table 3.
Table 3 Adjustment
Factors (Litman, 2006b; Cuddy, 2007)
Factor
Description
Typical Adjustments
Geographic
Vehicle ownership and use rates in
Requirements should reflect variations identified in
Location
an area.
census and travel survey data.
Density
Number of residents, employees or
Increased density tends to reduce per capita vehicle
housing units per acre/hectare.
ownership and use.
Land Use Mix
Range of land uses located within
Increased mix tends to reduce per capita vehicle
convenient walking distance.
ownership and use.
Transit
Nearby transit service frequency and
Improved transit accessibility tends to reduce per
Accessibility
quality.
capita vehicle ownership and use.
Carsharing
Whether a carsharing service is
Carshare service availability tends to reduce per
located nearby.
capita vehicle ownership and use.
Walkability
Walking environment quality.
Improved walkability reduces vehicle traffic and
allows more sharing of parking facilities.
Demographics
Age and physical ability of residents
Demand tends to decline for young (under 30)
or commuters.
elderly (over 65) and disabled people.
Income
Resident or commuter incomes.
Lower incomes reduce demand (SPUR, 1998).
Pricing
Road and parking pricing,
Efficient pricing tends to reduce vehicle ownership
unbundling and cashing out.
and use.
Parking &
Parking and mobility management
Efficient pricing tends to reduce vehicle ownership
Mobility
programs are implemented at a site.
and use.
Management
Design Hour
Annual hours a facility may fill.
Higher values allow reduced supply.
Facility design
The type of facility design applied.
Improved design sometimes allows roadway
dimensions to be reduced (Cohen, 1997).
Contingency-
Development of a plan of actions to
Having a plan allows reduced supply.
Based Planning
address future problems.
This table summarizes various factors that affect parking demand and optimal parking supply.
11
Pavement Busters Guide
Mobility Management
Mobility management (also called Transportation Demand Management or TDM)
includes various policies and programs that encourage more efficient travel, as listed in
Table 4. If broadly implemented such strategies can significantly reduce vehicle traffic.
Table 4
Mobility Management Strategies (VTPI, 2007)
Improved Transport
Incentives to Shift
Land Use
Policies and
Options
Mode
Management
Programs
Alternative Work
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Car-Free Districts
Access Management
Schedules
Encouragement
Compact Land Use
Campus Transport
Bicycle Improvements
Congestion Pricing
Management
Location Efficient
Bike/Transit Integration
Distance-Based Pricing
Development
Data Collection and
Surveys
Carsharing
Commuter Financial
New Urbanism
Incentives
Commute Trip Reduction
Guaranteed Ride Home
Smart Growth
Fuel Tax Increases
Freight Transport
Park & Ride
Transit Oriented
Management
High Occupant Vehicle
Development (TOD)
Pedestrian Improvements (HOV) Priority
Marketing Programs
Street Reclaiming
Ridesharing
Pay-As-You-Drive
School Trip Management
Shuttle Services
Insurance
Special Event
Improved Taxi Service
Parking Pricing
Management
Telework
Road Pricing
Tourist Transport
Management
Traffic Calming
Vehicle Use
Restrictions
Transport Market
Transit Improvements
Reforms
Mobility management includes numerous strategies that affect vehicle travel behavior.
Parking Management
Parking management includes various strategies to encourage more efficient use of parking
facilities, as listed in Table 5 (some of which are also mobility management strategies).
Mobility management and parking management should be implemented instead of road
and parking facility expansion whenever it is overall cost effective, taking into account
all impacts (“Least Cost Planning,” VTPI, 2007). For example, governments should
implement mobility management when cheaper than expanding roads, and businesses
should implement parking management when cheaper than adding parking supply. This
requires supportive policies, including comprehensive analysis (which considers all
benefits of management solutions), flexible funding (so money can be used for mobility
management programs rather than facility expansion), and flexible road and parking
requirements (which are reduced in exchange for management programs).
12
Pavement Busters Guide
Table 5
Parking Management Strategies (Litman, 2006b)
Typical
Strategy
Description
Reduction
Shared Parking
Parking spaces serve multiple users and destinations.
10-30%
Parking Regulations
Regulations favor higher-value uses such as service vehicles,
10-30%
deliveries, customers, quick errands, and people with special needs.
More Accurate and
Adjust parking standards to more accurately reflect demand in a
10-30%
Flexible Standards
particular situation.
Parking Maximums
Establish maximum parking standards.
10-30%
Remote Parking
Provide off-site or urban fringe parking facilities.
10-30%
Smart Growth
Encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal development to allow
10-30%
more parking sharing and use of alternative modes.
Walking and Cycling Improve walking and cycling conditions to expand the range of
5-15%
Improvements
destinations serviced by a parking facility.
Increase Capacity of
Increase parking supply by using otherwise wasted space, smaller
5-15%
Existing Facilities
stalls, car stackers and valet parking.
Mobility
Encourage more efficient travel patterns, including changes in mode, 10-30%
Management
timing, destination and vehicle trip frequency.
Parking Pricing
Charge motorists directly and efficiently for using parking facilities.
10-30%
Improve Pricing
Use better charging techniques to make pricing more convenient and
Varies
Methods
cost effective.
Financial Incentives
Provide financial incentives to shift mode such as parking cash out.
10-30%
Unbundle Parking
Rent or sell parking facilities separately from building space.
10-30%
Parking Tax Reform
Change tax policies to support parking management objectives.
5-15%
Bicycle Facilities
Provide bicycle storage and changing facilities.
5-15%
Improve User
Provide convenient and accurate information on parking availability
5-15%
Information and
and price, using maps, signs, brochures and electronic
Marketing
communication.
Improve
Insure that parking regulation enforcement is efficient, considerate
Varies
Enforcement
and fair.
Transportation
Establish member-controlled organizations that provide transport and Varies
Management
parking management services in a particular area.
Associations
Overflow Parking
Establish plans to manage occasional peak parking demands.
Varies
Plans
Address Spillover
Use management, enforcement and pricing to address spillover
Varies
Problems
problems.
Parking Facility
Improve parking facility design and operations to help solve
Varies
Design and
problems and support parking management.
Operation
This table summarizes the parking management strategies. It indicates the typical reduction in the
amount of parking required at a destination.
13
Pavement Busters Guide
Some parking management strategies are particularly effective at reducing pavement
area. Sharing parking facilities is particularly effective at reducing parking requirements
(“Shared Parking,” VTPI, 2007). This can be done in several ways:
• Shared Rather Than Reserved Spaces. Motorists share parking spaces, rather than being
assigned a reserved space. For example, 100 employees can usually share 60-80 parking
spaces, since at any particular time some are away or using alternative commute modes.
• Share Parking Among Destinations. Parking can be shared among multiple destinations.
For example, office buildings can share parking with restaurants and theaters since office
demand peaks during weekdays while restaurant and theater demand peaks evenings.
• Public Parking Facilities. Public parking, including on-street, municipal off-street, and
commercial (for profit) facilities generally serve multiple destinations. Converting from
free, single-use to paid, public parking allows more efficient, shared use.
• In Lieu Fees. “In lieu fees” mean that developers help fund public parking facilities
instead of providing private facilities serving a single destination (Shoup, 1999b). This
tends to be more cost effective and efficient. It can be mandated or optional.
With more efficient management and improved travel options, some parking facilities can
be converted to other uses. For example, one study found that surface parking lots around
rail transit stations could be profitably developed into mixed-use, pedestrian friendly,
transit-oriented developments, which would help to meet the demand for affordable
housing near transit, and provide a variety of benefits including increased tax revenues
and reduced per capita vehicle travel (CNT, 2006).
Some communities limit parking supply, typically in commercial centers with high
quality transit. Queens, New York, is limiting the amount of residential front lawns that
may be paved for parking. Imposing a parking limit encourages better utilization of
existing facilities, forces businesses to encourage their employees and customers to use
alternative travel modes, and allows more parking to be priced.
Efficient Road and Parking Pricing
Charging users directly for using roads and parking facilities, with higher fees under peak
conditions, encourages more efficient use, reducing supply. Efficient road pricing
typically reduce peak traffic by 10-30%, and even more if part of a comprehensive
mobility management program (ICF, 1997). Cost-recovery parking pricing (fees set to
pay for parking facilities) typically reduces parking demand 10-30% (“Parking
Evaluation,” VTPI, 2007), with similar impacts from parking cash-out (travelers can
choose to receive the cash equivalent of parking subsidies when they use alternative
modes) and unbundling (parking is rented separately from building space, so occupants
only pay for the amount of parking they actually need). This allows pavement area to be
reduced.
14
Pavement Busters Guide
Older road and parking pricing methods had high transaction costs, including
inconvenience to motorists who were required to use specific change, and high labor
costs for collecting money. Newer, electronic pricing methods are more convenient,
accurate, flexible, and cost effective. They can accommodate various payment methods
(coins, bills, credit and debit cards, mobile telephone and the Internet), eliminate the need
for toll booths, incorporate multiple rates and discounts, automatically vary rates by day
and time, charge only for the amount of time parked, and are convenient to use. Newer
systems also produce printed receipts and record data for auditing, which prevents fraud.
Smart Growth
Smart growth (also called location-efficient development) is a general term for policies
and planning practices that result in more efficient land use development by creating
more compact, mixed-use, multi-modal communities. Smart Growth is an alternative to
urban sprawl. Major differences between these two land use patterns are compared in
Table 6. New Urbanism (also called Neotraditional Development) refers to smart growth
applied at the neighborhood or local scale. Access management is a term used by
transportation engineers for improved integration between land use and roadway
planning, which tend to support smart growth.
Table 6
Comparing Smart Growth and Sprawl (“Smart Growth,” VTPI, 2007)
Smart Growth
Sprawl
Density
Compact development.
Lower-density, dispersed activities.
Growth pattern
Infill (brownfield) development.
Urban periphery (greenfield) development.
Land use mix
Mixed land use.
Homogeneous (single-use, segregated) land
uses.
Scale
Human scale. Smaller buildings,
Large scale. Larger buildings, blocks, wide
blocks and roads. More detail since
roads. Less detail, since people experience
people experience the landscape up
the landscape at a distance, as motorists.
close, as pedestrians.
Public services (shops,
Local, distributed, smaller.
Regional, consolidated, larger. Requires
schools, parks)
Accommodates walking access.
automobile access.
Transport
Multi-modal transportation and land
Automobile-oriented transportation and land
use patterns that support walking,
use patterns, poorly suited for walking,
cycling and public transit.
cycling and transit.
Connectivity More
connected roads, sidewalks and
Hierarchical road network with numerous
paths, allowing relatively direct travel
loops and dead-end streets, and unconnected
by nonmotorized as well as motorized
sidewalks and paths, with many barriers to
modes.
nonmotorized travel.
Street design
Streets designed to accommodate a
Streets designed to maximize motor vehicle
variety of activities. Traffic calming.
traffic volume and speed.
Planning process
Planned and coordinated between
Unplanned, with little coordination between
jurisdictions and stakeholders.
jurisdictions and stakeholders.
Public space
Emphasis on the public realm
Emphasis on the private realm (yards,
(streetscapes, pedestrian environment,
shopping malls, gated communities, private
public parks, public facilities).
clubs).
This table compares smart growth with sprawl development patterns.
15
Pavement Busters Guide
Smart growth and new urbanism can reduce per capita pavement area in several ways
(although they may increase pavement per acre due to increased density). They
emphasize more compact development patterns and building designs, including narrower
streets, multi-story structures and structured parking. They support and are supported by
transport and parking management. They increase transport options (particularly walking,
cycling and public transit access). Residents and employees in such areas tend to own 10-
20% fewer cars and make 20-40% fewer vehicle trips than in more automobile-dependent
areas, allowing road and parking supply to be reduced (Litman, 2005).
Smart growth policy reforms encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal land use
development (Litman, 2006c). They can provide many benefits including infrastructure
cost savings, improved housing affordability, reduce transportation problems, increased
livability, and economic development. These include (SGN, 2002 and 2004):
• More comprehensive planning – develop local and regional planning programs, and tools for
evaluating land use impacts and options.
• Location-based fees – restructure development fees, taxes and utility charges to reflect the
lower cost of providing public services in more accessible locations.
• Smart public facility location and design – locate and design public facilities (government
offices, schools, recreation centers, etc.) so they are accessible by multiple-modes and reflect
other smart growth objectives.
• Reform zoning codes – reduce minimum parking and setback requirements, and increased
density and mix.
• Encourage urban redevelopment – develop policies and programs that favor infill
redevelopment over new, greenfield development.
• Growth controls and openspace preservation – develop policies and programs that limit
growth outside of existing urban areas and preserve openspace.
• More neutral transport funding – reduce dedicated funds for roads and parking facilities, and
apply least-cost planning for solving transportation problems.
• Educate decision-makers – sponsor workshops and training programs for planners,
development professionals, public officials and the general public concerning the benefits of
smart growth and tools for achieving land use planning objectives.
Overflow Plans
Excessive parking requirements are often justified to meet occasional peak demands.
Parking supply can often be reduced if facility managers and transportation agencies
establish overflow parking plans and special event transport management plans, which
indicate how occasional peak demands will be managed. This may include use of off-site
parking, special shuttle services, user information, and incentives for employees to use
alternative modes during peak periods.
16
Pavement Busters Guide
Structured And Underground Parking
Structured and underground parking reduces land required per space compared with
surface parking. A 4-story parking structure uses only about a quarter as much land per
space as a surface parking lot, and underground parking requires almost no additional
land. Although more costly to build (typically $10,000 to $30,000 more per space), this
saves land costs, allows increased development density and greater design flexibility.
Structured parking is generally cost effective when land prices exceed about $2 million
per acre, considering just construction costs, and less if other planning objectives, such as
accessibility and aesthetics, are also considered.
Use Parking Facilities More Efficiently
The number of vehicles that can be parked in a facility can be increased in various ways:
• Use currently wasted areas (corners, edges, undeveloped land, etc.). This can be
particularly appropriate for small car spaces, motorcycle and bicycle parking.
• Where there is adequate street width, change from parallel to angled on-street parking.
• Allow existing parking facilities with low utilization rates to be reduced in size.
• Maximize the number of on-street parking spaces, for example, by using a curb lane for
parking rather than traffic during off-peak periods.
• Reduce parking space size. Commuter and residential parking spaces can be somewhat
smaller than shorter-term uses which have more entering and exiting activity. A portion
of spaces can be sized for compact vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles. Motorcycles can
be allowed to share parking spaces.
• Allow tandem parking (one vehicle parked in front of another, so the first must be moved
for the second to exit) to count toward minimum residential parking requirements.
• Use car stackers and mechanical garages, as illustrated in Figure 4.
• Use valet parking, particularly during busy periods. This can increase parking capacity by
20-40% compared with users parking their vehicles. Commercial lots often have
attendants park vehicles during busy periods, but not off-peak.
• Remove or consolidate non-operating vehicles, equipment, material and junk stored in
parking facilities, particularly in prime locations.
Figure 4 Carstackers
Carstackers allow more vehicles to be
stored in a given area.
17
Pavement Busters Guide
Parking Tax Reform
Parking tax reform includes various tax policies that support parking management (PCW,
2002; Litman, 2006c):
• Per-space levies. This is a special tax imposed on parking facilities, such as a $30 annual
tax on each non-residential parking space. If applied specifically to employee parking it
is called a workplace parking levy.
• Free parking levy. This is a special tax imposed on unpriced parking, for example, a $50
annual tax per space provided free to employees. This is a variation on per-space levies
designed to discourage unpriced parking.
• Stormwater management fees. This is a utility fee based on impervious surface area to
fund stormwater management services, such as a $15 annual fee per 1,000 square feet of
pavement, or a $5 annual fee per parking space (Minneapolis, 2005).
• Car-free tax discounts. This is a property tax discount provided to households that do not
own an automobile, reflecting their lower roadway and traffic service costs they impose.
For example, if municipal roadway expenditures average $200 annually per vehicle, a tax
discount up to this amount could be provided to households that do not own a car.
Infill and Brownfield Redevelopment
Many communities have older neighborhoods and brownfields (contaminated industrial
lands) suitable for redevelopment. Redeveloping these areas instead of greenfields
(currently undeveloped lands) avoids increasing impervious surface
(www.epa.gov/brownfields). A variety of public policies and programs can help
encourage this, including targeted cleanup, to favorable tax policies and public support of
redevelopment projects in blighted areas.
Streetscaping
Streetscaping refers to roadway design intended to create safer, more multi-modal and
attractive roadways. It can include changes to the road cross section, traffic management,
sidewalk conditions, landscaping, street furniture (utility poles, benches, garbage cans,
etc.), building fronts and materials specifications, which may include use of more
permeable surfaces. It often involves traffic calming and road diets which reduce lane
widths and the number of traffic lanes (Burden and Lagerway, 1999).
Encourage Shared ROW
There may be opportunities for more sharing rights-of-way between roads and other
utilities that are overlooked because agencies have insufficient resources and incentives
for coordinated planning and sharing (Feitelson and Papay, 1999). It may be helpful to
develop more coordinated utility planning which specify how roadway rights-of-way can
be used by other agencies.
18
Pavement Busters Guide
Improve Facility Design
Various design features can reduce road and parking facility environmental impacts
(Smith, 1988; Childs, 1998; Mukhija and Shoup, 2006; Toronto, 2007):
• Use on-site stormwater storage and percolation, with natural wetlands for filtering.
• Maximize greenspace, particularly shade trees along roadways and in parking lots.
• Cover parking lots with awnings. Some parking lots charge extra for covered areas. Parking
lot awnings are perfect locations for solar panels.
• Use lighter materials, such as concrete rather than asphalt, to reduce solar gain.
• Design and maintain parking facilities to be attractive and safe.
• Use transport facility land efficiently. Sell air rights above roads and parking lots. Incorporate
ground-floor retail into parking structures, to create more attractive and lively streetscapes.
• Use paving permeable pavement (Figure 5) and pervious cement (cement, rock and fiber
without fine particles). Such materials reduce surface runoff (Booth and Leavitt, 1999).
• Use “Hollywood” driveways, which are two strips of pavement instead of a full lane (Figure
6). This reduces paved area by about half.
Figure 5
Permeable Pavement Blocks
Figure 6
Hollywood Driveway
Permeable pavement blocks allow grass to grow
“Hollywood” driveways only pave two strips.
and water to drain into the ground.
The city of Toronto (2007) developed parking facility design guidelines that incluce:
• Generous landscaped areas with trees and good quality soil.
• Enhance pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.
• Manage stormwater on-site.
• Reduce the urban heat island effect.
• Use sustainable materials and technologies.
19
Pavement Busters Guide
Country Lanes (www.cityfarmer.org/lanes.html)
VANCOUVER - The City of Vancouver will officially open its first Country Lane, an
environmentally sustainable design that makes lanes "greener" and more attractive. Mayor Philip
Owen will be on hand to unveil the demonstration pilot project. The Country Lane is designed to
provide a rural aesthetic while reducing environmental impacts and discharges to the City's storm
sewer system.
The lane features two narrow strips of concrete that provide a smooth driving surface. The area
between and beside these bands is made up of a structural component that can support vehicles,
but is top-soiled and planted with grass. The road base is a mixture of aggregate, which provides
structural stability, and a sand/soil mixture that allows for drainage and provides the necessary
organic material for grass growth. This engineered soil was developed by the City of Vancouver's
staff.
This design will allow rain water to percolate over vegetation and through the ground. The
natural absorption allowed by this combined lane surface reduces discharges into the storm sewer
system and provides natural drainage. The increased vegetation will filter storm water and
improve air quality.
The lane at East 27th is the first of three Country Lanes planned as demonstration pilot projects.
The proposed locations were chosen because of strong community support, and a commitment by
area residents to help maintain, and promote this innovative alternative to asphalt lane paving. If
successful, Country Lane designs will be available for local improvements throughout the city.
20
Pavement Busters Guide
Summary
Table 7 summarizes potential pavement reduction strategies identified in this guide.
Table 7
Pavement Reduction Strategies
Management Strategy
Description
Educate decision-makers
Educate decision-makers concerning the costs of excessive road and parking supply,
distortions in current planning practices, and alternative options that result in more
efficient use of available road and parking capacity.
More accurate and
Adjust road and parking standards to more accurately reflect demand in a particular
flexible standards
situation taking into account various geographic, demographic and management factors.
Mobility management
Implement mobility management programs that reduce vehicle ownership and use.
Parking management
Implement parking management policies and programs that encourage more efficient use
of parking facilities by sharing, pricing and use of off-site parking facilities.
Efficient pricing
Charge users directly for using roads and parking facilities. Cash out and unbundle
currently free parking.
Smart growth
Encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal development, which encourages sharing of
parking facilities and use of alternative modes.
Overflow plans
Develop plans which indicate how parking and traffic will be managed during occasional
peaks and special events.
Structured and
Use structured and underground parking facilities rather than surface lots in order to
Underground Parking
reduce impervious surface area and increase development density.
Use existing facilities
Increase parking supply by using otherwise wasted space, smaller stalls, car stackers and
more efficiently
valet parking.
Parking tax reform
Various tax policy changes that support parking management objectives.
Infill and brownfield
Encourage redevelopment of existing urban areas rather than expansion into greenfields.
redevelopment
Streetscaping
Improve roadway design, including traffic calming and road diets.
Shared rights of way
Encourage government agencies and utilities to share rights of way among various utilities
and other land uses.
Parking facility design
Improved parking facility design and operations to help solve problems and achieve
and operations
parking management objectives.
This table summarizes the parking management strategies described in this report.
21
Pavement Busters Guide
Building Institutional Support
Many of the pavement reduction strategies described in this guide involve changing
current practices and organizational structures. It is important to build institutional
support for such reforms (“Institutional Reforms,” VTPI, 2007). This often involves
changing the way problems are defined and solutions evaluated. Reform proponents
should highlight the benefits of change, for example, pointing out that many pavement
reduction strategies also help reduce traffic congestion, accidents and pollution
emissions.
Most transportation agencies where created to build roads and are not well structured to
support alternatives. Many transportation planning and funding practices are biased
toward road and parking capacity expansion, away from demand management
alternatives. It is important to educate practitioners and decision-makers concerning new
planning and management techniques that can support more efficient use of road and
parking facilities and allow pavement area to be reduced.
Least-cost planning is an approach to resource planning that gives demand management
solutions equal consideration and chooses the most cost effective option, taking into
account all impacts (costs and benefits). Least cost planning tends to support transport
and parking management, because they tend to be more cost effective than facility
expansion.
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) coordinate transport activities in a
particular area, such as a commercial or employment center, which is more effective than
smaller, individual programs managed by individual employers (VTPI, 2007). They can
provide parking brokerage services, allowing parking facilities to be used more
efficiently through sharing and renting. This provides a framework for implementing
mobility management and parking management policies and programs.
Contingency-based planning is a strategy that deals with uncertainly by identifying
specific responses to possible future conditions. Contingency-based planning can help
support many of the pavement reduction strategies described in this guide. A
contingency-based plan typically consists of various if-then statements that define the
solutions to be deployed if certain problems occur: if parking supply proves to be
inadequate then we will implement certain strategies, and if those prove to be insufficient
then we will implement an additional set of strategies. For example, a contingency-based
parking plan might initially allow developers to build fewer parking spaces than required
by conventional standards, with a list of solutions that will be implemented if that proves
inadequate and motorists experience significant problems finding parking or neighbors
experience parking spillover problems. These might include various parking management
strategies (such as programs to encourage employees to use alternative modes,
arrangements to share parking facilities with nearby buildings, and increased regulation
and pricing of onsite parking), improved enforcement if needed to address any spillover
problems, and additional capacity (some land might be reserved for future parking lots, or
a potential budget identified to build a parking structure), if needed.
22
Pavement Busters Guide
Vancouver EcoDensity Program (www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca)
The city of Vancouver’s EcoDensity will create greater density throughout the city in
order to reduce environmental impacts, ensure necessary physical and social amenities,
and supports new and different housing types as a way to promote more affordability.
EcoDensity supports increasing density in a variety of contexts (i.e. in lower density
areas; along transit routes and nodes, neighbourhood centres,). The key will be to support
density that is high quality, attractive, more energy efficient, and respects neighbourhood
character, while lowering our footprint. This requires reforming some existing policies,
bylaws, incentives and zoning to reduce barriers and promote ideas that will create
communities that are sustainable, livable and affordable.
EcoDensity involves an extensive research, planning and public consultation process.
Some of the related issues are summarized below:
Do people want the city to allow more flexibility in our bylaws to promote sustainable
building practices such as: use alternative energy sources (e.g., solar and geo-thermal
energy systems); green roofs; use recycled rain water; recycled building materials?
Should the city make it easier for residents in single-family zoned areas to build a
secondary suite above their garage, or convert their garage to a coach house?
How does the city encourage the creation of more secondary suites? Should we require
that any new single family home rough in a secondary suite?
Do people want the city take more advantage of streets and nodes well served by transit
or areas located around transit stations by increasing density significantly in those areas?
What aspects of our bylaws need to be changed in order to better accommodate or
promote sustainable building practices such as energy-saving systems, recycling of grey
water and rain water, green roofs, etc.
Should the city reduce its parking requirements on new developments, and if so, which
type of developments? Should we require spaces for car sharing, or electric plugs in new
underground garages to promote the use of electric vehicles? Should the city establish car
free neighbourhoods?
How can the city help ensure that the necessary community amenities are included in
areas where only smaller, incremental developments are built.
How could the city promote a greater range of types, sizes, locations and tenures of
housing?
23
Pavement Busters Guide
Conclusions
There are economic, social and environmental reasons to reduce the amount of land
paved for roads and parking; it can reduce facility costs, free up land for other productive
uses, reduce stormwater management costs and heat island effects, create more livable
communities, increase land use accessibility, and encourage more efficient travel
behavior.
Current planning practices often result in economically excessive road and parking
supply. Many zoning codes and development practices are based on outdated
assumptions and inadequate information. Evaluation practices ignore many of costs of
increased pavement and benefits of management solutions. Funding is often dedicated to
roads and parking facilities, and cannot be used for alternative solutions even if they are
more cost effective and beneficial overall. Transportation policies favor automobile
travel over other modes. Many decision-makers are unaware of these problems and so
continue to apply wasteful policies that contradict other planning objectives.
There are many cost-effective ways to use road and parking facilities more efficiently,
reducing pavement requirements. These include:
• More accurate and flexible standards
• Smart growth policies
• Mobility management programs
• Use existing facilities more efficiently
• Parking management programs
• Infill and Brownfield Redevelopment
• Efficient pricing
• Streetscaping
These strategies tend to be most effective when implemented as an integrated program.
Parking supply reductions of 10-30% are often justified by simply applying more
accurate and flexible standards, for example, by reducing parking requirements in more
accessible locations with multi-modal transportation systems, where on-street parking is
available, or by using a 50th percentile demand curve. Additional 10-30% reductions are
often justified if cost-effective management strategies are implemented, such as sharing
parking facilities and relying on off-site facilities to meet occasional peak parking
demands. Further 10-30% reductions are usually justified by efficient pricing, including
cost recovery road tolls and parking fees, parking cash out, and parking unbundling.
Mobility and parking management can be used to reduce minimum road and parking
requirements, avoid the need to expand road and parking facilities, or even to reduce
existing supply to help achieve other objectives, such as freeing up land for other uses,
and reducing environmental impacts.
These strategies face various obstacles. Institutional reforms, least-cost planning, and
supporting organizations such as transportation management associations can help
facilitate implementation of the strategies described in this guide.
24
Pavement Busters Guide
References and Resources
American Forests (www.americanforests.org) promotes protection and enhancement of trees and
forests, and provides analysis tools for evaluating forest values and impacts, including the
CITYgreen software program that analyses ecosystem services and calculates dollar benefits of
forests under specific circumstances.
APA (1983), Flexible Parking Requirements, PAS, American Planning Association
(www.planning.org).
Barton-Aschman Associates (1982), Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org).
Chester Arnold and James Gibbons (1996), “Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a
Key Environmental Indicator,” American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2, Spring
1996, pp. 243-258.
CITE (2004), Canadian Guide to Promoting Sustainable Transportation Through Site Design,
Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers
(www.cite7.org/Technical_Projects/sitedesignreview.htm).
Matthew R. Cuddy (2007), A Practical Method For Developing Context-Sensitive Residential
Parking Standards, Dissertation, Rutgers University (www.rutgers.edu); at
http://transportation.northwestern.edu/news/2007/Cuddy_dissertation_final_cv.pdf.
Derek Booth and Jennifer Leavitt (1999), “Field Evaluation of Permeable Pavement Systems for
Improved Stormwater Management,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 65, No.
3, Summer 1999, pp. 314-325.
Dan Burden (1998), Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable
Communities (www.lgc.org/clc).
Dan Burden and Peter Lagerway (1999), Road Diets Free Millions for New Investment, Walkable
Communities (www.walkable.org).
Stephen Burrington & Veronika Thiebach, Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities
from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (Boston; www.clf.org), 1995.
Robert Burchell, Anthony Downs, Barbara McCann and Sahan Mukherji (2005), Sprawl Costs:
Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development, Island Press (www.islandpress.org).
Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc), helps local governments and community
leaders improve land use and transportation planning.
Center for Watershed Protection (www.cwp.org) provides analysis and resources for minimizing
hydrologic impacts and pollution.
Mark Childs (1998), Parking Spaces; A Design, Implementation, and Use Manual for Architects,
Planners, and Engineers, McGraw Hill (www.booksite.com).
25
Pavement Busters Guide
CNT (2006), Paved Over: Surface Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating,
Sustainable Development?, Center for Neighborhood Technology
(www.drcog.org/documents/PavedOver-Final.pdf).
CNU (2008), Parking Requirements and Affordable Housing, Congress for the New Urbanism
(www.cnu.org); at www.cnu.org/node/2241.
Alan B. Cohen (1997), Narrow Streets Database, Congress for the New Urbanism
(www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm).
COMSIS (1994), A Survey and Analysis of Employee Responses to Employer-Sponsored Trip
Reduction Incentive Programs, California Air Resources Board (Sacramento).
Reid Ewing (1996), Best Development Practices; Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at
the Same Time, Planners Press (www.planning.org).
Eran Feitelson and Nir Papay (1999), “Sharing Rights of Way Along Inter-Urban Corridors: A
Spatial, Temporal and Institutional Analysis,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 4, No. 4, July
1999, pp. 217-240.
The Green Values Calculator (http://greenvalues.cnt.org) automatically evaluates the economic
and hydrological impact of green versus conventional stormwater management.
Timothy D. Hau, “Congestion Pricing and Road Investment,” Chapter 3 of Road Pricing, Traffic
Congestion and The Environment, Kenneth Button and Erik Verhoef (eds), Edward Elgar
(Cheltenham, UK), 2000, pp. 39-78; at www.econ.hku.hk/~timhau.
Wolfgang Homburger (1989), Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).
Homburger, Kell and Perkins (1992), Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, Institute of
Transportation Studies, UCB (Berkeley)
Richard Horner, Derek Booth, Amanda Azous, and Christopher May (1996), “Watershed
Determinates of Ecosystem Functioning,” Effects of Watershed Development and Management
on Aquatic Ecosystems, L.A. Roesner Ed., American Society of Civil Engineers (New York).
HUD (2008), “Parking Regulations and Housing Affordability,” Regulatory Barriers
Clearinghouse, Volume 7, Issue 2, US Department of Housing and Urban Development,
(www.huduser.org); at www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/vol7iss2more.html.
ICF (1997), Opportunities to Improve Air Quality Through Transportation Pricing, Office of
Mobile Sources, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov).
ITE (2005), Parking Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).
Wenya Jia and Martin Wachs (1998), Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability; A Case
Study of San Francisco, Research Paper 380, University of California Transportation Center
(www.uctc.net).
26
Pavement Busters Guide
Luke H. Klipp (2004), The Real Costs Of San Francisco’s Off-Street Residential Parking
Requirements: An Analysis Of Parking’s Impact On Housing Finance Ability And Affordability,
Transportation for a Livable City
www.livablecity.org/resources/Parking_Housing_Affordability_Final.pdf.
Valerie Knepper (2007), Existing Bay Area Parking Policies – Technical Paper, Wilber Smith
Associates, for the Metropolitan Transportation Council (www.mtc.ca.gov); at
www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar/Technical_Paper_Existing_Parking_Policy.pdf
Michael Kodama, et al., Using Demand-Based Parking Strategies to Meet Community Goals,
South Coast Air Quality Management District (Los Angeles), 1996.
J. Richard Kuzmyak, Rachel Weinberger, Richard H. Pratt and Herbert S. Levinson, Parking
Management and Supply, Chapter 18, Report 95, Transit Cooperative Research Program;
Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), 2003.
Douglass B. Lee (1999), The Efficient City: Impacts of Transportation on Urban Form, Volpe
Transportation Center (www.volpe.dot.gov), presented at ACSP Annual Conference.
LGC (2007), Emergency Response and Traditional Neighborhood Street Design, Local
Government Commission (www.lgc.org); at
www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/factsheets/er_streetdesign.html.
Todd Litman (2003), Transportation Land Valuation: Evaluating Policies and Practices that
Affect the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation Facilities, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/land.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, VTPI
(www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2005), Land Use Impacts on Transport, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); available at
http://www.vtpi.org/landtravel.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006a), Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at
www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006b), Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006c), Smart Growth Policy Reforms, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); available at
www.vtpi.org/smart_growth_reforms.pdf.
Todd Litman (2007a), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org/tca).
Todd Litman (2007b), Socially Optimal Transport Prices and Markets, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf.
Local Government Parking Policy and Commute Trip Reduction; 1999 Review, Commute Trip
Reduction Office, WSDOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/ctr), 1999.
27
Pavement Busters Guide
Michael Manville and Donald Shoup (2005), “People, Parking, and Cities,” Journal of Urban
Planning and Development, December, 2005, pp. 233-245; at
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,CitiesJUPD.pdf; summarized in Access 25,
(www.uctc.net), Fall 2004, pp. 2-8.
Mary Marr (1999), Downtown Parking Made Easy, Downtown Research and Development
Center (www.alexcommgrp.com/drdc).
Minneapolis (2005), Minneapolis Stormwater Utility Fee, City of (www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us);
at www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/stormwater/fee.
Anne Vernez Moudon, et al. (2003), Strategies and Tools to Implement Transportation-Efficient
Development: A Reference Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation, WA-RD
574.1 (http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/574.1.pdf).
MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington
(www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx).
Vinit Mukhija and Donald Shoup (2006), “Quantity Versus Quality in Off-Street Parking
Requirements,” Journal of the American Planning Association (www.planning.org), Vol. 72, No.
3, Summer 2006, pp. 296-308; at http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/QuantityVersusQualityInOff-
StreetParkingRequirements.pdf.
Anton C. Nelessen (1994), Visions for a New American Dream, Planners Press
(www.planning.org)
NEMO Project (www.nemo.uconn.edu) addresses impervious surface impacts.
NPH (2003), Residential Parking Tool Box, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California; at www.nonprofithousing.org/actioncenter/toolbox/parking/content.html. This website
provides information on residential parking regulations, costs and management strategies to
improve efficiency and increase housing affordability.
PAS (2009), Parking Solutions: Essential Info Packet, Planning Advisory Service, American
Planning Association (www.planning.org): at www.planning.org/pas/infopackets. These packets
consist of compilation of related documents that provide practical information on various parking
management strategies, suitable for use by planners and developers. These include:
• Parking Solutions (130 pages) includes six documents that describe modern approaches to parking
management.
• Shared Parking (133 pages) includes more than thirty documents concerning shared parking,
parking in-lieu fees, parking requirement reductions and exemptions, and downtown district
special parking requirements.
• Green Parking Lot Design (66 pages) includes three documents that describe ways to improve
parking lot environmental performance including landscaping, stormwater management and
reduced heat island effects.
• Permeable Pavement and Bicycle Parking (38 pages) includes five documents concerning the use
of permeable parking lot pavement materials and five documents concerning bicycle parking
requirements and design.
28
Pavement Busters Guide
PCW (2002), Some Existing Water District Funding Sources, Legislative and Regulatory Issues
Technical Advisory Committee, Project Clean Water (www.projectcleanwater.org).
Bryan Pijanowski (2007), Parking Spaces Outnumber Drivers 3-to-1, Drive Pollution and
Warming, Purdue University (www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007b/070911PijanowskiParking.html).
Gary Roth (2004), An Investigation Into Rational Pricing For Curbside Parking: What Will Be
The Effects Of Higher Curbside Parking Prices In Manhattan? Masters Thesis, Columbia
University; at http://anti-bob.com/parking/Rational_Pricing_for_Curbside_Parking-GRoth.pdf).
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (www.spur.org).
Tom Schueler (1999), The Economics of Watershed Protection, CWP (www.cwp.org) 1999.
Seattle, Comprehensive Neighborhood Parking Study, City of Seattle
(www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/pdf/CNPS.pdf), 2000.
SGN (2002), Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, and (2004), Getting to
Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies for Implementation, Smart Growth Network
(www.smartgrowth.org) and International City/County Management Association
(www.icma.org); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/getting_to_sg2.htm.
John Shaw, Planning for Parking, Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City
(www.uiowa.edu), 1997.
Donald Shoup (1999a), “The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements,” Transportation
Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov. 1999, pp. 549-574; available at
www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf.
Donald C. Shoup (1999b), “In Lieu of Required Parking,” Journal of Planning Education and
Research, Vol. 18, pp. 307-320.
Donald Shoup (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press (www.planning.org). Also
see Donald Shoup, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” Journal of Planning Education and
Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, September 1997; “The High Cost of Free Parking,” Access No. 10
(www.uctc.net), Spring 1997.
The Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) includes planners, govt. officials, lenders,
community developers, architects, environmentalists and activists.
Thomas Smith (1998), The Aesthetics of Parking, American Planning Association
(www.planning.org).
Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse (www.sprawlwatch.org) provides information on land use issues.
SPUR (1998), Reducing Housing Costs by Rethinking Parking Requirements, The San Francisco
Planning and Urban Research Association (www.spur.org)
Frederick Stutz (1995), “Environmental Impacts,” Geography of Urban Transportation, Susan
Hanson, Ed., Guilford (New York).
29
Pavement Busters Guide
Toronto (2007), Design Guidelines for 'Greening' Surface Parking Lots, Toronto City Planning;
at www.toronto.ca/planning/urbdesign/greening_parking_lots.htm.
TRB (1997), Toward a Sustainable Future, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org)
Special Report 251, p. 4-8.
USEPA (1992), Cooling Our Communities, USEPA (Washington DC), GPO#055-000-00371-8.
USEPA (1999), Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation, Office of Policy and
Planning, USEPA (www.itre.ncsu.edu/cte).
USEPA (2006), Growing Toward More Efficient Water Use: Linking Development,
Infrastructure, and Drinking Water Policies, Development, Community, and Environment
Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov).
USEPA (2006), Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart
Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm.
van Essen, et al (2004), Marginal Costs of Infrastructure Use – Towards a Simplified Approach,
CE Delft (www.ce.nl).
Vancouver EcoDensity (www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca) is an integrated programs to increase
urban livability, affordability and environmental performance throught policy and planning
reforms that encourage more compact, mixed, infill development.
VTPI (2007), Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
Jim West and Allen Lowe (1997), “Integration of Transportation and Land Use Planning Through
Residential Street Design,” ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 48-51.
Patricia White (2007), Getting Up To Speed: A Conservationist’s Guide to Wildlife and
Highways, Defenders of Wildlife (www.GettingUpToSpeed.org).
Richard Willson (1995), “Suburban Parking Requirements; A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use
and Sprawl,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995, pp. 29-
42.
Richard Willson (1999), Reading Between the Regulations; Planners Perspectives on Minimum
Parking Requirements, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).
Robin Zimbler (2005), Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices,
Maryland Governor’s Office of Smart Growth (www.smartgrowth.state.md.us).
www.vtpi.org/pavbust.pdf
30
