FULL PACKET_2006-09-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~ ~. 6 ~- - ~~y'_ TY. • A' J~• - _ 1. :. n~ 4 a/lil~t~ ~~ - 0~~:%3`-` M1- _ y i_- ~' 7~ -- i 1 y lf~ ~27'iE ~~I` . .1 ,ni.. ... j. #' relationships. Depending on the particular land uses I involved and other site-specific characteristics, park- ing space reductions resulted from one or more of the effects of (1) hourly, daily, and seasonal offsets in parking accumulation patterns of individual land uses and (2) relationships among land use activities that resulted in people using more than one land use on a single auto trip, i.e., captive market effects. The captive market effect on parking demand at a partic- ular mixed-use development was dependent upon specific market conditions. The range of possible market conditions was reflected in the data obtained from survey questionnaires. Aggregate results of em- ployee surveys indicated that the percentage of all employees who were also patrons at a particular de- velopment ranged from 0 to 85 percent. However, on the average, there was a significant increase in employee patrons in central business district (CBD) developments relative to non-CBD developments and in combined-use developments relative to single- use developments. These results are summarized in Figure 4. Using the single-use analysis results, Figure 5, for example, illustrates the impact of time offsets in parking demand when 400,000 square feet (GLA oc- ~ cupied) of office space and 1.2 mtllion square feet (GLA occupied) of retail space are combined. On weekdays, retail parking demand is lower than Satur- day, but competes with office parking demand. The opportunity for shared parking results from having to provide the peak weekend retail parking demand for the development as a whole and when the office parking demand is at its lowest. In order to demonstrate the potential magnitude of shared parking effects, the parking demand find- ings for individual land uses were used to estimate demand for mixed-use developments. These results were compared to the actual peak parking accumula- tion counts to identify the difference. This test in- volved three steps as follows: • Compute gross peak parking demand. • Compute shared parking demand. • Compare results to actual parking demand. i ~k,~ a~,~j~,Y~~~ ,...~ ,, .~xF ,.. Figure 4 Captive Market Effects-Percent of :~:~. Employees Who Are Also Patrons In , . Same Or Nearby Development ' - =CBD ~ Range Non-CBD Range ~?=. Site ..Site Single-Use 29% 0-76% 19% 0-78% Sites Mixed-Use 61 22-85 28 0-83 Sites All Sites 43 0-85 24 0-83 Figure 5 Office/Retail Parking Accumulations (400,000 sq. ft. office and 1,200,000.. sq. ft. retail) r' twoo TOTAL F~DD o ~~er~n i~ "~~ 3 ~' t soon / . a ~ s ~t~ s ~ sooo / ~~ .. OffICE - IDDO / '. .:~ . ~• i' ~; ~ ~ ,, , ; S: d D ,. -•7 8 ~ ., iD 11 .~; 12 1 I 3 ~ --:6 6 7 8 0 .-/~~D~ ~71 X17 F;'t NOON ~ '~ ( ~ '" 4 I r ~:~,, fjFy~~ ="(~. w~ ~> i TIME OF DAY WEEKDAY ~i ~ t `- I ~ v `- ~ t^ trtL ~'. _f, ~~ ~~ ~ t 41F1 L I [~/ ' c+ ~~~' 1I ~„~ai '6000 T; , ,- .~ ., ~ .. ., ~. ~'~jl ~ /~ gy.~' X14 r~ i ~ 4000.. ,.w ~~~~~h .¢LSfti~rZC~1C~!~~~R14: ~~ ,_ 31~~8 0°~' ' ~D September 83 5