|
<br />
<br />relationships. Depending on the particular lancluses
<br />involved and other site-specific characteristics. park-
<br />ing space reductions resulted from one or more of
<br />the effects of (I) hourly, c1aily, and seasonal offsets
<br />in parking accumulation patterns of individual land
<br />uses and (2) relationships among land use activities
<br />that resulted in people using more than one land use
<br />on a single auto trip, i,e., captive market effects, The
<br />captive market effect on parking demand at a partic-
<br />ular mixed-use development was dependent upon
<br />specific market conditions, The range of possible
<br />market conditions was ref1ected in the data obtained
<br />from survey questionnaires. Aggregate results of em-
<br />ployee surveys indicated that the percentage of all
<br />employees who were also patrons at a particular de-
<br />velopment ranged from 0 to 85 percent. However.
<br />on the average, there was a significant increase in
<br />employee patrons in central business district (CBD)
<br />developments relative to non-CBD developments
<br />and in combined-use developments relative to single-
<br />use developments. These results are summarized in
<br />Figure 4,
<br />Using the single-use analysis results, Figure 5, for
<br />example, illustrates the impact of time offsets in
<br />parking demand when 400,000 square feet (GLA oc-
<br />cupied) of office space and 1.2 million square feet
<br />(GLA occupied) ofretail space are combined. On
<br />weekdays, retail parking demand is lower than Satur-
<br />day, but competes with office parking demand. The
<br />opportunity for shared parking results from having
<br />to provide the peak weekend retail parking demand
<br />for the development as a whole and when the office
<br />parking demand is at its lowest.
<br />In order to demonstrate the potential magnitude
<br />of shared parking effects, the parking demand find-
<br />ings for individual land uses were used to estimate
<br />demand for mixed-use developments. These results
<br />were compared to the actual peak parking accumula-
<br />tion counts to identify the difference. This test in-
<br />volved three steps as follows:
<br />. Compute gross peak parking demand.
<br />. Compute shared parking demand.
<br />. Compare results to actual parking demand.
<br />
<br />~.iit~~~f.: ~~~~i.(!:~rli~::j,"~i}f~~P!~1fo'!.' ,', .
<br />:t~ ~,."'-'~ ~ Il r 1.>' .~ ~ . '1 ., ,
<br />
<br />';'t:~f.~~~~~;f~1~~1~~~. -"/.~1~f~~~1r~r~_
<br />
<br />
<br />, Figure 4 .....
<br />Captive Market Effect~:g,~,f~~~~,.;of.{\";',
<br />Employees Who Are Also Patrohs In"
<br />:,'. ~~~,~,Q~,..~::,~~~tH~~j~!,~,f.!:~~;::'.,':,;';~~"
<br />
<br />'. ,':~~;';:,,;..,:.,,;:j:;~;~~~.;;.:,t..,~;:~~,.,,'.. :~.o~!~~~:,~,:,:=0:ag:t[:~',
<br />
<br />Single-Use
<br />Sites
<br />Mixed-Use
<br />Sites
<br />All Sites
<br />
<br />29%
<br />61
<br />43
<br />
<br />0-76%
<br />22-85
<br />0-85
<br />
<br />19%
<br />28
<br />24
<br />
<br />0-78%
<br />
<br />0-83
<br />0-83
<br />
<br />Figure 5
<br />Office/Retail Parking Accumulations
<br />(400,000 sq. ft. office and 1,200,000
<br />sq. ft. retail) , , I'
<br />
<br />
<br />31Ari8
<br />
<br />lIDI!IDJ!J f1lill!ID /Se p te ill ber 83
<br />
<br />5
<br />
|