The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

How can Tulsa change our goofy parking requirements?  Check out Google Earth and try to find a parking lot that's more than 50% full (not counting car dealerships).  

We are paving our city--transforming residential areas and green space into heat islands and barren asphalt deserts--all because of ridiculous parking requirements.  

The zoning code parking requirements assume peak use, all day every day by every establishment...and they assume that sharing spaces between establishments is bad.  Developers plan parking lots to accomodate maximum intensity on the site to allow for greatest flexibility to them.  (Even if the tenants who actually lease the site don't need that much parking.)

Other cities have formulas to allow for shared parking.  Why doesn't Tulsa?  (We are basically using shared parking when we park at Blockbuster during the two hours each day that Pei Wei is busy...)  Why do we require developers to trash our city to create empty parking lots?

Why do we determine parking requirements before we even know who will build on a given site?

Good topic. I'd be curious to know exactly how many parking spaces there are within the city limits of Tulsa. If I had to guess, I'd say there are probably 2-3 times the number of spaces as there are cars to park in them.

Think that's a crazy guess?
Parking outnumbers drivers 3-to-1 (http://"http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007b/070911PijanowskiParking.html")

Keep in mind that the extra parking spaces you see may not have been required by the zoning code.  Some cities have moved towards parking caps (http://"http://www.stanford.edu/~adammb/Publications/Millard-Ball_2002_Putting_on_Their_Parking_Caps.pdf"), not just minimum parking requirements.  I would be interested in knowing how many developments have actually exceeded the required parking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

How can Tulsa change our goofy parking requirements?  Check out Google Earth and try to find a parking lot that's more than 50% full (not counting car dealerships).

---

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.183287,-95.888004&z=17&t=h&hl=en

[B)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

How can Tulsa change our goofy parking requirements?  Check out Google Earth and try to find a parking lot that's more than 50% full (not counting car dealerships).

---

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.183287,-95.888004&z=17&t=h&hl=en

[B)]

---

How about excluding the airport then... [8D]

This is something I have always wondered about here, I have also wondered about zoning in general, seem to be way too hard to do so many things based, on what seems to be archaic ordinances or misguided anyway.

Maybe if everyone would stop fighting for a moment and focus on the real problems instead of just assuming there is some conspiracy against everyone but the “elite” group.

Either way, way to much parking in Tulsa. Maybe the few times parking is busy (the winter) people would consider taking a bus or car pooling when shopping/eating.

I am a former truck driver. Before I came off the road, the old Bruce's truck stop was not open yet. Flying J was the only big truck stop we had. The two QT truck stops are small. Why not convert an abandoned car parking lot into a lot where only truck drivers who live in Tulsa have a secure place to park and go home for their needed time off? Truckers, by Tulsa's ordiance, cannot park their tractors or whole rigs on Tulsa city streets. In December of 2006 Flying J stated that the drivers who live here cannot park their trucks there and go home. They stated that those drivers had to spend their entire time off with their truck and not their families. Otherwise, their trucks would be towed. I called corporate headquarters in Ogden, UT and they were the ones who came up with that rule because the other drivers, who were either passing thru or delivering in Tulsa, but did not live here, complained about the lack of parking spots due to the Tulsa drivers taking up a parking spot for 2-3 days while they were home. if we park the truck at home on the street it could be towed. if we park at flying j it could be towed. even thouh the old Bruce's truck stop is open, at night when my husband, who is a truck driver, comes home, there is a big possibility of no parking spots available. Because they are full. so then what? he doesn't get to take time off at home til the next morning when someone wakes up and drives off the lot. [:(]

'Place First' Parking Plans

Wes Marshall and Norman Garrick illustrate the problem with parking plans today, and how to fix them.

Parking has long been treated as a commodity of little value, one that is given away cheaply as part of the cost of running a city. In fact, most cities mandate a minimum level of parking in their zoning codes, in essence saying to developers ‘go ahead and provide as much parking as you want just so long as there is enough to satisfy the demand’. But, as we all now understand, this approach has had some unexpected and far-reaching consequences. As we begin once again to put a premium on urban places in the face of rising gas prices and global climate change, the long-standing approach of treating parking as a loss leader that can be overlooked is becoming increasingly untenable. We are at a turning point that provides an opportunity to craft parking policies that support the need for more vibrant cities.

One idea that deserves a fresh look is the concept of a parking cap. The use of parking caps explicitly acknowledges that some parking is necessary in a modern city, but at the same time, too much parking is highly detrimental to urban life. This approach basically flips the conventional parking mindset on its head. It is a method that helps to make sure that the need to provide parking does not dominate all other considerations in creating viable urban places. Surprisingly, even though a cap has been adopted in a handful of cities, this sensible approach has been a non-starter in most places, and we are still stuck arguing about how to satisfy the so-called parking demand.

One major problem with the current focus is that parking demand is tricky to pin down, since demand itself is a function of supply, especially in urban places. Those cities that have been busy ripping themselves apart to provide enough parking are the same ones that use the most parking. So we end up with this curious situation: in our state capital, Hartford, people complain that there is not enough parking - when in fact over 30 % of the surface area in the downtown area is covered with some type of parking facility. The truth is that many cities like Hartford have simultaneously too much and too little parking. They have too much parking from the perspective that they have degraded vitality, interest and walkability, with bleak zones of parking that fragment the city. The have too little parking for the exact same reason - they have degraded walkability and thus increased the demand for parking.

A 2003 study we conducted of six medium sized New England town centers provides strong support for this point. Three of the centers we looked at were traditional urban downtowns with their fabric largely intact (West Hartford, Northampton and Brattleboro). Three were centers built or transformed along more contemporary suburban patterns (Glastonbury Center, Somerset Square in Glastonbury, and Avon Center). The traditional urban centers in our study provided 50% less parking and ended up using 50% less parking than the more contemporary centers. Of course, it should be recognized that the differences between the traditional and contemporary centers lie not just in terms of the amount of parking supplied, they also differ on a range of other dimensions. The traditional centers have managed parking, they charge for parking, they have on-street parking, and they exist in the context of a connected network of streets. All of these factors contribute to the differences in use, but the smaller parking supply is a key element, as it allows for the existence of a much more coherent urban place than would have otherwise been possible.

The traditional town centers not only supplied less parking and used less parking, but they were also much more vibrant - with more than three times as many people on site at any one time. Surprisingly, the three traditional town centers in our study had very conventional parking policies in their zoning regulations, to the point where it would not be possible to replicate these well loved centers given existing parking regulations where minimum parking requirements far exceed the amount actually used. These traditional centers are basically a fortunate legacy of an older approach to urban planning.

So why have more places not adopted proactive parking policies that put place first? Judging from the responses to our study, the existing policy approach to parking used by most cities does not appear to have any natural allies; both town officials and developers alike have told us that they dislike the current practice. Each group thinks that the other is to blame for the muddle of the existing policy. What this tells us is that it is time to start paying more attention to an issue that is often an afterthought, but which has such a big effect on the performance of urban places and on transportation sustainability.

Another New England city, Cambridge, MA is one example of a place that has developed a parking policy structured around limiting the amount of land and other resources that can be devoted to parking. In addition to the parking maximums established in the early 1980s, Cambridge tries to tackle the source of the parking demand issue with regulations that focus on reducing the number of people driving alone. Whenever a new or expanded non-residential parking facility is proposed, the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) ordinance requires developers to implement multiple transportation demand management strategies such as providing bicycle parking, discounting transit passes, and prioritizing carpool parking. For projects of twenty of more parking spaces, the developer must commit to a mode share goal typically specifying at least 10% percent reduction in single occupancy vehicles compared to the last census as well as prepare a full PTDM plan for review by the city. Without an approved PTDM plan, projects cannot receive building permits, variances, etc.

Not only has Cambridge been able to increase the use of alternative modes, they have also reduced traffic congestion and maximized the amount of land available for uses other than parking. One key to the success of the plan is accountability, since the mode share pledges are regularly monitored and enforced by a PTDM officer. Another is the fact that the parking policy is strongly linked to wider community goals, including urban vitality and environmental stewardship. In fact, their PTDM division is a division of the Department of Community Development; also under the same Community Development flag are the planning, economic development, and housing divisions. This organizational structure supports a coordinated effort toward reaching the wider community goals. This is an overall model that is worth emulating for cities searching for a more balanced, multimodal approach to transportation and parking. Developing an urban friendly parking policy is perhaps the most effective tool that can be employed at the local level to encourage a greener and more sustainable approach to transportation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Norman W. Garrick, PhD Norman is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Center for Transportation and Urban Planning at the University of Connecticut. He is also a board member of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

Wesley E. Marshall, P.E. Having spent time with Sasaki Associates and Clough Harbour and Associates working on a wide variety of planning and site design issues, Wes is now a PhD candidate in transportation engineering at the University of Connecticut and a researcher with UConn's new Center for Transportation and Urban Planning. Recent work includes a comprehensive reassessment of on-street parking, investigating the effects of parking on urbanism, and examining the influence of the road network on transportation safety and sustainability.

Here's an article from USA Today about the new trend towards parking caps.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-20-less-parking_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

If you look around, you'll rarely find a parking lot that's actually full.  We plan for "weekend before Christmas" usage, and the land sits vacant the rest of the year.  This creates unattractive heat islands that discourage pedestrians and transit users.  Even if we had perfect transit routes and schedules, these parking lots make using transit, bikes or foot power much less enjoyable and practical.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2879631544_063c6de3de.jpg?v=0)

How much of Tulsa'a downtown surface parking is the result of surface parking being more profitable than an empty or out of code building compared to spaces being required by development codes?

Shared parking is good for land use but there are bound to be financial inequities if individual businesses are required to provide spaces for other businesses.  Imagine keeping your living space in good repair for your neighbors to throw a party for their friends (and not invite you).

Since the trend seems to be toward making automobile parking a profit center, maybe individual businesses should be required to not provide any parking.  Parking is a business in itself. Build more multi-story parking garages. Get rid of most surface parking.  Tax the heck out of surface parking lot owners, they'll do something else.  If they can't get a reasonable fill on a parking garage, it too will go away. This would have the added advantage of reducing wear and tear on downtown streets by keeping suburbanite autos out in suburbia where they belong. Add enough cost for parking and a trip downtown will make people think twice about driving to downtown. They'll just have to take mass transit.

Oh! Wait a minute. Tulsa doesn't have viable mass transit to most of suburbia.

Nevermind!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

If you look around, you'll rarely find a parking lot that's actually full.  We plan for "weekend before Christmas" usage, and the land sits vacant the rest of the year.  This creates unattractive heat islands that discourage pedestrians and transit users.  Even if we had perfect transit routes and schedules, these parking lots make using transit, bikes or foot power much less enjoyable and practical.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2879631544_063c6de3de.jpg?v=0)

---

Before the run to the subs, this parking lot saw more cars when the Fox movie theatre was going , people eating lunch and a decent grocery store. Crawpappys can help fill it pretty good at times too. Be fair and use a newly built parking lot , not one from the 50's or before that did fill back in the day.

You want examples of excessive parking and underutilized land?  The newer the development, the bigger the parking lots.  For instance...

96th and Riverside
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2890663484_78ef6d1211.jpg?v=0)

81st and Yale
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2889828837_8039ca8ac3.jpg?v=0)

71st and 169 area
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2890695850_b87b88fb0c.jpg?v=0)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

You want examples of excessive parking and underutilized land?  The newer the development, the bigger the parking lots.  For instance...

96th and Riverside
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2890663484_78ef6d1211.jpg?v=0)

81st and Yale
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2889828837_8039ca8ac3.jpg?v=0)

71st and 169 area
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2890695850_b87b88fb0c.jpg?v=0)

---

Do you know what day of the week and what time the pictures were taken?  2 of them appear to be early morning by looking at the shadows of the lamp posts.

I don't think any of those shadows are long enough to represent early morning or late evening.  But I challenge you to drive around town at any time of the day or night, and find a suburban parking lot that is full.  For every one you find (if you can find one), I can find 20 that are half occupied.

I'm not talking about the little parking lots on Brookside and Cherry Street.  I mean the modern, full-sized parking lots that our current zoning code requires.  (Car dealerships don't count.)  

Here's Kingspointe at about 11:30 AM on a weekday:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/2899028078_47e84f7c82.jpg?v=0)

Here's Home Depot at 41st and Sheridan on a weekend afternoon (approx 3:30 PM):
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/2899026262_567808bab0.jpg?v=0)

Here's Drug Warehouse at 31st and Harvard at 5:45-6:00 PM on a weekday:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/2899024684_d82d92ded1.jpg?v=0)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

I don't think any of those shadows are long enough to represent early morning or late evening.  But I challenge you to drive around town at any time of the day or night, and find a suburban parking lot that is full.  For every one you find (if you can find one), I can find 20 that are half occupied.

I'm not talking about the little parking lots on Brookside and Cherry Street.  I mean the modern, full-sized parking lots that our current zoning code requires.  (Car dealerships don't count.)  

---

I am not a morning person. For me, 8AM is early. (It's tough getting to work by 7:30.)

Many parking lots are larger than they need to be. I will give you that.  On the flip side, I don't like door dings so I park away from the crowd. If there is no place away from the crowd, I go away.

It's the build and they will come disease

Personally, I think that a smaller parking lot that's full makes an establishment look more successful than a wide open expanse of empty asphalt.  But if it were up to me, all parking would be limited and located behind the buildings.

An environment that encourages walking/window shopping would attract more patrons than "single use" drive-to destinations.  (Drive there, shop, drive away.)  Places that emphasize the pedestrian create synergies among various establishments (shop, walk around, shop somewhere else, eat, walk around, have an adult beverage...).  And reducing space wasted on parking would allow us to generate more tax dollars per acre of real estate.

Certainly, if buildings were built up to the sidewalk where they belong, we would place more emphasis on architecture and design.  Commercial owners/tenents would want to create a welcoming environment.  Giant corporate logos and excessive signage would be replaced by attractive storefronts that invite window shopping.  And it would make transit more effective and easy to use.

I think everyone who wants to change things, should just change their address....

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

I think everyone who wants to change things, should just change their address....

---

McCain would win by a landslide...

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

I think everyone who wants to change things, should just change their address....

---

Well, that's certainly a philosophy shared by generations of Tulsa's best and brightest, who flee the city immediately upon graduation...for cities where it's often difficult to park...

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

I think everyone who wants to change things, should just change their address....

---

Well, that's certainly a philosophy shared by generations of Tulsa's best and brightest, who flee the city immediately upon graduation...for cities where it's often difficult to park...

---

I expect that for many it's a matter of where the jobs are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007


Before the run to the subs, this parking lot saw more cars when the Fox movie theatre was going , people eating lunch and a decent grocery store. Crawpappys can help fill it pretty good at times too. Be fair and use a newly built parking lot , not one from the 50's or before that did fill back in the day.

---

It's kind of sad that the only historic photo of the Fox Theater in the Beryl Ford Collection is just a picture of a sign in a parking lot.

Sort of revealing, actually...
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B8207.jpg)

Here is the link to the article posted below.  Comments and discussion follow the article but are too numerous to post here.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/10/dont_build_parking_and_theyll.html

Don't Build Parking, And They'll Come--Without Cars
For decades, the District and residents wary of overdevelopment have used the city's parking regulations as one of their main weapons in the war against congestion. Complex formulas require a certain number of parking spots for each chunk of new residential or office space.

But now D.C. planners and a growing number of urbanists are proposing to scrap those minimum parking requirements on the theory that big urban parking garages are a destructive and unnecessary public subsidy for car owners. The argument is that building garages in densely populated urban neighborhoods undermines public transit, wastes space that could be used for affordable housing and more attractive retail, and pushes up the cost of housing, guaranteeing lower-quality development.

The city's proposal notes "a growing shift across the nation away from parking minimums as cities realize the hidden costs of over-parking."

The District's planning commission will meet Oct. 16 to consider reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements, and generally making the city's parking rules more flexible--letting developers use nearby parking spaces rather than building their own, and encouraging builders to provide space instead for car-sharing services and bicycles.

David Alpert, the Greater Greater Washington blogger and urban advocate, has been pushing hard for this relaxation of parking rules, and planning director Harriet Tregoning says she will hold hearings all around the city before any changes are made.

Tregoning argues that the city has diminished its own ability to foster a car-free environment by forcing developers to build enormous numbers of parking spaces that then sit unused. Cases in point: The new DC USA shopping mall in Columbia Heights (Target, Marshalls, etc.) has a huge indoor lot that remains mainly empty, as most customers arrive by Metro or on foot. In Adams Morgan, the new Harris Teeter supermarket similarly has far more parking than it needs.

"I use a granny cart and we walk to the store," says Tregoning, who lives not far from the new market. The new Giant in Columbia Heights has also found itself with more parking spaces than it knows what to do with; I've repeatedly been startled to find that I can park within three or four spaces of the store's doorway, even when the shop is teeming with customers.

"People come from all over the city to Target," the planning director says, "but the parking is hardly used." Similarly, at many new apartment buildings in close-in neighborhoods, the parking spaces required by the city are going unsold--some buildings report selling garage space to only one of every 10 apartment buyers.

Free or nearly free parking induces car usage, the planners say. And in a city with 140,000 parking spaces in garages or other off-street parking, there's a strong case to be made that in some places, there is plenty of parking already. Indeed, if you think about it, the city's most walkable and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods tend to be those with the least parking--Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Capitol Hill. That doesn't mean there aren't tremendously frustrating experiences searching for parking in those neighborhoods, but it does mean that people find ways around that problem.

"Since alternatives to driving are abundant on transit-available streets in the District," the city's proposal says, "dedicated off-street parking for housing should not be required but can be permitted as an option for developers."

Don't build the parking, and residents will be more likely to buy into a transit- and walking-based urban life. That pretty well sums up my experience living in neighborhoods that had very difficult parking vs. those where parking is plentiful. If you know you're going to have to spend an hour roaming around searching for a space, you are dramatically less likely to take the car out on the next shopping or leisure venture.

Do you buy the theory? And do you think the city can get this idea past the neighborhood activists who have long clung to parking minimums as a tool to wield against developers?

It makes sense that abundant free parking puts drivers in the mind set that they should bring their car and then drive rather than walk from store to store even though those stores are in proximity. I regularly see people get in their car after leaving Target at 21st and Yale and then drive next door to the Reasors.

Let's say you need a haircut, a DVD, groceries, some new towels a few plants and a sandwich for lunch. You can get all of these things at 21st and Yale but odds are that you would drive to Supercuts, Hollywood Video, Lowes, Target, Reasors and the restaurant.

http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/link/bcpid1766638491/bctid1697162938

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

It makes sense that abundant free parking puts drivers in the mind set that they should bring their car and then drive rather than walk from store to store even though those stores are in proximity. I regularly see people get in their car after leaving Target at 21st and Yale and then drive next door to the Reasors.

Let's say you need a haircut, a DVD, groceries, some new towels a few plants and a sandwich for lunch. You can get all of these things at 21st and Yale but odds are that you would drive to Supercuts, Hollywood Video, Lowes, Target, Reasors and the restaurant.

---

This is where psychology and design come in to play.  The distance between Target and SuperCuts at 21st St. is very small, easily walkable for most.  However, as there is a significant parking lot that is very disorienting to the pedestrian in between those destinations that distance is perceptually greater.  Further, the paved environment in between is perceptively harmful and abrasive to the would-be pedestrian therefore people don't even think twice about not walking between the two.  

That center could be fundamentally redesigned and filled in such that walking between Target and Supercuts would not only be the most convenient choice but the most desirable choice.

All this to say, IMO, large or even moderately sized parking lots placed in front of and in between uses can negatively impact a pedestrian environment.

It's funny how walking along an interesting street is relaxing and enjoyable, and walking the same distance from one pad to another in a large commercial development is like working out on a treadmill: boring and tedious!  If the weather's hot, the black asphalt creates another dis-incentive to pedestrians by adding 10 degrees to the outside temp!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

You want examples of excessive parking and underutilized land?  The newer the development, the bigger the parking lots.  For instance...

96th and Riverside
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2890663484_78ef6d1211.jpg?v=0)

81st and Yale
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2889828837_8039ca8ac3.jpg?v=0)

71st and 169 area
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2890695850_b87b88fb0c.jpg?v=0)

---

The pic from the kohls at 71st and 169....on any given, fri, sat, sun and mon nights, that parking lot is full.  Primarily due to the restaurants in the area.

I would be willing to bet that "full" is an exageration, since any restaurant would also have it's own dedicated spaces.  

I was surprised to see people parking in the "back 40" at the Lowes at 15th and Yale the other day.  Then I realized the spaces were being used by fair-goers.  Even with the extra influx of cars, the lot wasn't "full."  There was a wide gap between the cars parked in front of Lowe's and those parked near Yale.

Sad!