Downtown Berkeley Parking Management Study

University of California at Berkeley

Fall 2007

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... ii Abstract ......................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction............................................................................................................2

1.1 Parking and Future Development ......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Framing the Issue of Parking in Downtown ......................................................................... 3 1.2 Studio Process....................................................................................................................... 4

2. Literature Review...................................................................................................5

3. Methodology ..........................................................................................................6 3.1 Major Studies ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.1.1 Occupancy/Turnover study............................................................................................ 6 3.1.2 Perception survey........................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Minor Studies........................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Drive-by night occupancy.............................................................................................. 7 3.2.2 Residential spillover....................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Garages .......................................................................................................................... 8

4. Assessment of Current Parking Conditions...........................................................8 4.1 Current Parking Census ........................................................................................................ 8

4.1.1 On-street parking ........................................................................................................... 8 4.1.2 Off-street parking........................................................................................................... 9

4.2 On-street parking occupancy .............................................................................................. 10 4.2.1 Occupancy rate............................................................................................................. 10 4.2.2 Base revenue calculations ............................................................................................ 12

4.3 Average stay........................................................................................................................ 12 4.4 Residential spillover............................................................................................................ 14 4.5 Off-street occupancy........................................................................................................... 14

5. Public Perception of Downtown..........................................................................15 5.1 Informal Survey .................................................................................................................. 16 5.2 Mail Back-Survey ............................................................................................................... 17

5.2.1 Methodology................................................................................................................ 17 5.2.2 Demographics .............................................................................................................. 17 5.2.3 Downtown Use............................................................................................................. 18 5.2.4 Downtown Improvement ............................................................................................. 19 5.2.5 Downtown Parking ...................................................................................................... 20

6. Proposed Parking Management Strategy.............................................................21 6.1 Program Components.......................................................................................................... 21 6.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................... 22 6.3 Revenue Calculations.......................................................................................................... 23

7. Income & Implementation ...................................................................................23

8. Expenditure Plans ................................................................................................25 8.1 Alternative Transportation Focused Expenditure Plan ....................................................... 26 8.2 Street and Sidewalk Maintenance....................................................................................... 26 8.3 Streetscape Improvements .................................................................................................. 27 8.4 Retail Environment (Façade) Improvements ...................................................................... 28

iii

8.5 Major Projects..................................................................................................................... 28

9. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................28 9.1 Summary of Recommendations.......................................................................................... 28 9.2 Additional suggestions........................................................................................................ 29

Appendix A: Downtown Berkeley Community Survey..........................................31

1

Abstract As Downtown Berkeley grows, encourages higher densities, and promotes measures to combat global warming, parking policies and management in the Downtown must be altered to reflect these changes. The objectives of this study are to provide an overview of current parking conditions in Downtown, highlight opinions of surveyed community members, provide a parking management strategy, and suggest improvements to Downtown that can be made with increased parking revenues. Based on current occupancies, it is estimated that Downtown parking spaces make an annual revenue of about $1.3 million. Raising all meters to $1.50/hour will create a revenue stream for Downtown improvements. Pricing a lollipop-shaped zone at $2.00/hour in Downtown in the highest-demand locations will help redistribute parkers to underutilized spaces and raise additional revenue. Downtown parking occupancy is highest at night, which leads to a proposal to extend meter hours until 12 AM at a fare of $1.00/hour. Eliminating time limits after 6 PM will allow for evening activities, such as dinner and a movie. The Pay & Display parking meter technology will facilitate the implementation of this parking management strategy and should replace all standard meters in Downtown. Finally, signage directing drivers to now-underutilized garage parking capacity should accompany these changes. Revenues generated from this plan can be used for a variety of improvements to Downtown and are estimated at a total of $1.5 million/year. Spending packages, such as transit initiatives and street maintenance and cleaning efforts are identified.

2

1. Introduction

Downtown Berkeley will continue to grow over the coming years, adding new buildings, residents, and attractions. Accommodating such growth in a way that promotes economic vitality, is environmentally sustainable, and preserves the character of the Downtown will be a difficult task requiring sensitive and coordinated planning. Chief among such concerns is the management of Downtown Berkeley’s parking supply. Maintaining an adequate and available supply of parking is critical to supporting the healthy diversity of businesses and activities that will make Downtown Berkeley an economically vital and attractive destination.

1.1 Parking and Future Development

The recently adopted draft Land Use Chapter of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan calls for dramatic increases in buildings heights and intensity of uses, and it is important to consider this proposal in some detail since it will profoundly shape the future parking environment of Downtown Berkeley.

The adopted Downtown Area Plan Land Use Chapter proposes a general increase in allowable

heights and densities in the Downtown, including a maximum allowable height limit of 85 ft high in the core area and 65 ft in the buffer / corridor zone. Additionally, a number of projects will be allowed that exceed these maximum heights. Such exceptions include 2 hotels of up to 225 ft, an additional 4 buildings of up to 120 ft, and a further 4 buildings of up to 100 ft. Additional polices (lu 9.1, lu 5.4) make it clear that the city is also planning for housing development to occur on the current site of the Berkeley Way Surface Lot . While it remains to be seen whether all of the projects planned for will actually be constructed, there is no doubt that Downtown Berkeley is anticipating a dramatic increase in the number of jobs, residents, and services in Downtown. At the same time, the Land Use Chapter, specifically Policy LU-1.9, makes it clear that little new parking will accompany such development. The policy forbids the provision of onsite parking within 1/8 of a mile of the Downtown Berkeley BART Station, while the provision of on-site parking elsewhere in the Downtown is discouraged.

As the intensity of land use in Downtown Berkeley increases, the number of trips to and within

Downtown will also grow. Since, however, the supply of parking in the Downtown will remain largely stable, the city of Berkeley is faced with the challenge of how best to manage an increasingly scarce resource. A lack of parking availability may frustrate or deter visitors and create unnecessary congestion as drivers cruise for open spaces. Drivers who cannot find parking in the Downtown area may also attempt to park in adjacent residential neighborhoods, competing with residents for spaces and creating additional congestion. If the Downtown is to avoid such confusion it must work aggressively to increase the use of alternative modes and manage what parking there is so that it is allocated in a manner that promotes the overall health and vitality of the Downtown. The figure below illustrates the long-term conceptual framework within which the city must strive to manage its Downtown Parking supply.

3

Figure 1.1: Required Mode Split as Trips Downtown Increase

1.2 Framing the Issue of Parking in Downtown

While framing parking in terms of future Downtown growth is important, preparing a parking management strategy for all of Downtown Berkeley also presents a variety of more immediate challenges. Foremost among these is the range of parking needs encompassed in the activities that occur Downtown. While over 60% of the respondents to a public survey conducted during the studio used private automobiles to access the Downtown, the same respondents came for any number of reasons ranging from shopping, to work, to movie going and relaxation. Such diverse trip purposes have correspondingly varied parking requirements. While a Downtown worker might be willing to park in a garage and walk several blocks, a shopper running a quick errand may expect to find an open space within a few yards of his or her intended destination. Similarly, a visitor stopping Downtown for lunch may not be concerned by a 90 minute time limit but a movie theatre patron would likely find such a limit restrictive. Accommodating such varied, and often competing, parking needs in a manner that provides visitors with choices while minimizing their frustration must be a central concern of any adequate parking management strategy.

Beyond addressing the individual parking needs of different Downtown visitors, a successful

parking management strategy should be crafted in a way that is mindful of parking’s broader economic and environmental context. A set of parking policies designed primarily to draw shoppers to Downtown and promote business vitality might prescribe the construction of additional off street spaces, the adoption of a validation program, or any number of other mechanisms aimed at reducing the barriers parking presents to potential Downtown shoppers. In contrast, a parking management strategy aimed at reducing vehicle traffic and encouraging transit use might raise the price of parking to a level comparable with transit fares and even eliminate some on-street or garage parking. Finally, a parking management strategy intended to shield adjacent residential areas form the effects of activity and growth in Downtown might be focused primarily on accommodating most parking within the Downtown core of Downtown while deterring visitors from parking in the neighborhoods.

4

While they differ markedly in their goals, such diverse parking “paradigms” also have a great

deal in common when it comes down to the specific kinds of parking management strategies and outcomes each suggests. The diagram below maps out three hypothetical perspectives on parking in Downtown and presents a set of representative concerns for each. While not intended to literally or exhaustively catalog the views of each group, the diagram suggests that diverse ways of thinking about parking’s role in Downtown need not be mutually exclusive and may actually agree on a number of desired outcomes and strategies.

Figure 1.2: Desired Outcomes by Perspective

Throughout our studio we have attempted to be mindful of diverse parking needs and perspectives and have framed our policies and proposals accordingly. Thus, while we attempt to provide parking opportunities that complement and support a vibrant and active Downtown we have avoided suggesting a strategy that would directly encourage an increase in vehicle traffic. At the same time, we have been careful to not suggest pricing or regulatory measures that would actively discourage visitors to Downtown or push them to park in residential areas. 1.2 Studio Process

5

This studio has accomplished several tasks towards the goal of developing a parking management strategy for Berkeley’s Downtown. First, we have engaged in a variety of data collection and analyses to ascertain current parking conditions in the Downtown. Coupling the results of these analyses with survey data about the public’s perceptions of Downtown we have identified a series of concerns and opportunities that we believe can and should be addressed through a parking management strategy. Employing a range of policy and implementation tools, we have developed a cost effective and politically realistic parking management strategy for Downtown Berkeley that addresses these issues and opportunities. Finally, we have estimated the revenue impacts of our proposed strategy and have assembled an expenditure plan that demonstrates how the anticipated increase in parking revenues could be used to fund a variety of targeted improvements in the Downtown.

2. Literature Review

Parking Benefits Districts (PBDs) meter on-street parking in a specific area and dedicate the revenue generated to improvements in that same area. PBD’s offer the opportunity for cities to generate additional revenues and focus that revenue on innovative transport and economic development efforts. Several California cities, including Old Pasadena, Redwood City and Walnut Creek have implemented or are in the process of implementing such districts.

In considering raising parking rates, one must take into account price elasticities, the fact that as prices increase some people will decide that it is too expensive to park. The greater the extent to which demand falls as price rises, the greater the elasticity of demand. TCRP’s report on Parking Pricing and Fees finds that demand elasticities range from -0.1 to -0.6 with -0.3 as the most frequently cited value. The significant variation depends on demographic, geographic, travel choice and trip characteristics. An elasticity of -0.3 indicates a 30 percent reduction in parking demand in response to each 100 percent parking fee increase.

The Berkeley General Plan, adopted in December 2001, includes a Transportation Element with a number of policies that address parking in the Downtown area. These include policies to provide Eco-Passes for all City employees; maintain streets, sidewalks and other public infrastructure; create satellite parking lots with express shuttle service to the Downtown; encourage high-tech computerized parking; and coordinate with UC Berkeley to increase all-day parking fees to market rates.

The Draft Downtown Area Plan also contains policies addressing parking. These include policies to develop and install way-finding to off-street parking; develop and install electronic signage; price on-street spaces to achieve 15% vacancy; discourage drive-alone commuter parking and all-day visitor parking with transportation demand management programs; phase out monthly garage spaces in City-owned Downtown parking facilities; and implement a streetscape and open space plan.

The issue of parking in Downtown Berkeley was an aspect of a previous transportation studio class at UC Berkeley. The study focused on the Downtown core and was conducted over a fourteen week period from September through November, 2002. Documented in a 2004 TRB paper, this studio attempted to shed light on the multiple roles that parking management, including

6

reduced parking requirements and parking pricing, can play in a Downtown area. The class inventoried on-street and off-street parking and conducted on-street and off-street commercial parking occupancy and turnover studies. The class determined that parking shortages are caused in large part by average stays in excess of parking limits, facilitated by broken meters and by meter feeding by employees. It found that increased parking enforcement and better use of off-street spaces would relieve the problem of parking shortages.

3. Methodology Data on parking revenue, occupancy and turnover for the Downtown area was not available

from the City of Berkeley due to the data collection limitations of traditional parking meters and the route structures of parking control officers. Thus, we conducted a number of field surveys. These included a Downtown parking space census, an occupancy/turnover study, an additional evening occupancy study, a residential spillover study, and a garage occupancy study.

Our first field survey was a parking space census to determine the number and type of parking spaces in the entire Downtown area. The census survey provided an estimate of the total supply of parking by category and a visual summary of where the various types of parking were located. . Items noted included the number of metered spaces, unmetered spaces, and colored curb spaces. In unmetered areas, where spaces are not delineated by meters or markings on the street, the number of spaces was estimated by pacing off 20 foot lengths. The results of the census survey were used to identify blocks according to the number and type of spaces. This in turn informed the route structure of the turnover study. 3.1 Major Studies

3.1.1 Occupancy/Turnover study

With the goals of creating a revenue model and determining when parking demand is greatest,

we conducted a weekday occupancy/turnover study of 100 percent of the blockfaces in the Downtown area as well as the blockfaces directly bordering the Downtown area. This was supplemented with a ~40 percent sample of blockfaces on Saturday. Due to limited resources and time constraints, we chose to focus our efforts on weekday data collection. All counts were taken hourly between the hours of 7:30 am and 9:30 pm. While this method misses some very short term parking, it is likely to provide a reasonable first cut estimate of space utilization. Counts involved walking a designated hour long route while writing down license plates, noting empty spaces, and recording the presence of handicapped placards. By recording license plates and not just whether or not a space was occupied, we were able to determine the average stay of a vehicle. Our notes on handicapped placards informed our revenue calculations as vehicles with handicapped placards are exempt from payment.

3.1.2 Perception survey

7

To understand how community members use and feel about Downtown Berkeley, our group performed surveys within the community. We performed both an informal survey and a formal mail-back survey. The surveys were intended to help us learn the following:

� How people use Downtown � How they get Downtown � Where they park if they drive � How they feel about parking options (on-street vs. garage) and methods (pay and display

vs. standard meters) � How they would like the City to improve Downtown

For our informal survey, we approached the public directly at a local event, the Spice of Life

Festival in the Gourmet Ghetto. Our primary activity was designed to see how participants would prioritize incremental changes that could eventually be supported through increased parking revenues. We did not specify where funding for these projects would come from, only that they were meant to be incremental improvements. Participants were given five pennies each, representing five installments of $10,000, and instructed to spend their “funds” on any of 16 different Downtown improvement projects/programs. We represented each category with illustrative images, such as a man steam cleaning a sidewalk for “Street Maintenance” and policemen on bicycles and Segways for “Increased Security”, so as to give voters similar reference points. We also asked people to tell us the top three things they love about and would like to change about Berkeley to help us further understand what people might like to see Downtown.

We then crafted a written mail-back survey, which we handed out in person along with prepaid

envelopes for returning the completed surveys. A copy of this survey is included in Appendix A of this document. Our questions fit into four general topics:

1. Use of Downtown 2. Improvements to Downtown 3. Parking Downtown 4. Participant demographics

Teams of two, one to approach passersby and one to count passersby, distributed the surveys in

six neighborhoods around Berkeley, during different times of the day and week to capture a large and distributed proportion of the Berkeley population. These sites were:

1. South of Campus: Telegraph at Dwight 2. Downtown: Shattuck at Center and Farmers Market 3. Elmwood: College at Ashby 4. North Berkeley: Solano (Peet’s Coffee), North Shattuck, Monterrey Market 5. West Berkeley: San Pablo at University 6. South Berkeley: Berkeley Bowl

3.2 Minor Studies

3.2.1 Drive-by night occupancy

8

Initial data showed that the highest demand for Downtown parking is during the evening hours.

Currently, meter hours end at 6 pm, and our occupancy/turnover study ran until 9:30 pm, so further evening data was needed to better evaluate the effects of extending meter hours into the late evening. Therefore, we conducted drive-by occupancy surveys of 100 percent of the blockfaces during evening hours up to 11pm on a weekday and a Saturday.

3.2.2 Residential spillover

Spillover parking has been a concern of residents in the neighborhoods around the Downtown

for a number of years. The neighborhoods are partially protected from nonresidential parking by the city’s residential permit parking (RPP) program. However, because the RPP program allows 2 hour parking some nonresidents (employees, students, visitors) park free on the neighborhood streets and move their cars every two hours to avoid a ticket. To determine the extent of nonresidential parking adjacent to Downtown, we sampled 24 blockfaces in and around the Downtown that are entirely comprised of residential permitted parking. Sample block faces were selected by creating a 1/4 mile buffer around a collection of Downtown establishments we postulated might have significant parking impacts and then selecting a set of clustered spatial samples of blockfaces from exclusively residential streets on the North, West, and South sides of Downtown. We established our best estimate of residential parking on each blockface by counting the number of permitted / un-permitted cars parked on the street on Monday at 1:00 am. This number was then compared with car counts of permitted / un-permitted cars on the same block faces at noon and 8:00pm on Saturday and Tuesday.

3.2.3 Garages

Downtown Berkeley has substantial garage capacity, and we conducted garage occupancy

counts to determine if garages have unused parking capacity. Counts were conducted in the six major public and private garages and lots in the Downtown area. These garages included the Center Street Garage, the Allston Street Garage, the Berkeley Way Lot, the Kittredge Street Garage, the Promenade Garage, and the University Hall Garage. Counts were taken at four times of the day, during morning, mid-day, afternoon, and evening hours on both a weekday and a Saturday.

4. Assessment of Current Parking Conditions

4.1 Current Parking Census 4.1.1 On-street parking

Downtown Berkeley, bordered by Hearst Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Dwight Way, and Oxford (Fulton) Street, contains 1,394 on-street parking spaces, excluding unmetered colored curb parking spaces. 955 of the 1,394 spaces are metered. Of these, more than two-thirds of metered spaces (689 spaces) are operated by individual meters; the remaining 266 spaces are operated by the pay-and-display parking system. The parking rate throughout the Downtown is $1.00 per hour. Figure 4.1.1 shows the number of spaces and the metering technology system of

9

each blockface in the Downtown. The figure clearly shows that pay and display meters are mainly found in the Shattuck corridor, and unmetered areas are found on the edge of the Downtown.

Figure 4.1.2 shows the dominant parking time limit of each blockface. 1/2 hour limits comprise 12% of metered spaces, 1 hour limits comprise 46% of metered spaces, 90 minute limits comprise 26% of metered spaces, and 2 hour limits comprise 16% of metered spaces. 2 hour metered spaces are only located in peripheral areas. All meters are in operation from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except Holidays. All unmetered spaces except colored curb parking spaces are part of RPP zones C, E or I. Parking in the unmetered RPP areas are limited to 2 hours without the RPP permit. Hours of enforcement in these spaces are 8AM to 7PM from Monday to Friday except Holidays and during posted street sweeping days. 4.1.2 Off-street parking

The City of Berkeley has nine off-street public parking garages in its Downtown; Berkeley Way Surface Lot, Golden Bear Garage, University Hall Garage, Promenade Garage, Center Street Garage, Allston Way Garage, Oxford Lot, UC Bancroft Way Lot, and Kittredge Street Garage. From our study, we excluded the Golden Bear Garage because it is almost always occupied by monthly contractors, the Oxford Garage because it is currently closed, and the UC Bancroft Way Lot because it is very small.

Figure 4.1.1 Downtown parking spaces by meter

technology

Figure 4.1.2 Downtown parking by time limit

This map is old version. Please replace it with new one that we used at the presentation.

10

The total capacity of the remaining six garages is 1,688 spaces. Hours of operation and rates of each are shown on Table 4.1.1. Two of them are owned by the public sector, three of them are owned by the private sector, and one of them is owned by UC Berkeley. Although hourly parking rates vary from garage to garage ($1.00 - $2.50), all of these garages, with the exception of the Berkeley Way Surface Lot, have higher rates than street parking. Except for the Promenade and University Hall Garages, garages are open to the public from the early morning to the late evening, seven days a week.

4.2 On-street parking occupancy 4.2.1 Occupancy rate

Overall, Downtown on-street parking is well utilized from morning to evening, not only on

weekdays but also on weekends. The average occupancy rate of all blockfaces in the Downtown during meter hours (9:30AM to 6:30PM) on weekdays is 76%. The highest average occupancy rate during meter hours is 80%, occurring between 12:30PM and 1:30PM. Figure 4.2.1 shows the average occupancy rate of each blockface during meter hours. Of note is the fact that adjacent metered and unmetered blocks have drastically different occupancy rates, with metered blocks largely empty and unmetered blocks fully parked. This indicates that people are willing to walk an extra block park for free. Figure 4.2.2 shows the evening occupancy rate of each blockface. The average occupancy rate during evening hours (6:30PM to 9:30PM) is 91%. Figure 4.2.2 indicates that throughout the Downtown occupancy rate during evening hours is higher than during meter hours. The highest average occupancy rate during all hours is 94%, occurring between 6:30PM to 7:30PM.

Table 4.1.1 Hours of operation and rates of Downtown garages

Parking Name Hours of Public Operation Rate

Berkeley Way Lot (Public)

Monday-Saturday 7:00 am -10:00 pm 15 minutes for $.25 4 Hour Maximum

University Hall Garage (University)

Monday-Friday: 5:00 pm - 5:00 am Saturday: 7:00 am - 5:00 am Sunday: 9:00 am - 5:00 am

$0.50 / half hour All Day $12 max

Promenade Garage (Private)

Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-7:00pm Saturday-Sunday: Closed

$1.00/ half hour Maximum: $10

Center Street Garage (Public)

Monday-Friday: 5:15 am - 12:00 am Saturday: 7:00 am - 12:00 am Sunday: 12:00 pm - 12:00 am

1 hr - $1.00 Each additional hour previous rate +$1.00

Allston Way Garage (Private)

Monday-Thursday: 6:00 am-12:00 am Friday: 6:00 am-2:00 am Saturday: 8:00 am-2:00 am Sunday: 8:00 am-12:00 am

$2.50 per hour $14.00 maximum

Kittredge Street Garage (Private)

Monday-Thursday: 6:00 am-12:00 am Friday: 6:00 am-2:00 am Saturday: 7:00 am-2:00 am Sunday: 7:00 am-12:00 am

$2.50 per hour $15.00 maximum $5.00 all day weekend

Berkeley Way Lot (Public) - 111

Promenade Garage - 120

Center Street Garage - 420

Kittredge Garage - 165

Allston Way Garage - 610

University Hall Garage - 262

Figure 4.1.3 Six major Downtown garages

Notes: The number shows the capacity of the garage.

11

On Saturdays, the average occupancy rate of the selected blockfaces during meter hours

(9:30AM to 6:30PM) is 78%. The average occupancy rate of those same blockfaces on weekdays is 77%. On Saturdays, the highest average occupancy rate during meter hours is 85%, occurring between 1:30PM and 2:30PM. This peak occurs a little earlier on weekdays. Figure 4.2.3 shows

Figure 4.2.1: Average weekday occupancy during

meter hours Figure 4.2.2: Average weekday occupancy during

evening hours

Figure 4.2.3: Average Saturday occupancy during

meter hours

Figure 4.2.4: Average Saturday occupancy during

evening hours

12

the occupancy rate of each blockface. On Saturdays, the average occupancy rate of the selected blockfaces during evening hours (6:30PM to 9:30PM) is 91%. The average occupancy rate of the same blockfaces on weekdays is 93%. The highest average occupancy rate during evening hours is reaching to 91%, occurring between 6:30PM and 7:30PM. Figure 4.2.4 shows the evening occupancy rate of each blockface. Overall, there are no large differences between weekday and Saturday parking conditions. 4.2.2 Base revenue calculations

Data collected in the occupancy/turnover study allows us to estimate the annual average revenue from parking meters in Downtown. Pay & Display meters have different occupancy characteristics than standard meterheads due to their geographic locations, and this is reflected in the revenue calculation. Based on this occupancy rate, yearly revenue from street parking meters is estimated at about $1,330,000.

Table 4.2.1: Current Downtown parking meter revenue estimates

(based on occupancy/turnover study, excluding disabled placard vehicles).

SpacesCurrent

OccupancyFare

Estimated

Revenue

Pay & Display 266 74% $1.00 $460,000

Meterheads 689 54% $1.00 $870,000

Combined $1,330,000

* Weekdays only

4.3 Average stay

Our one-hour turnover study

provides data regarding violations of time limits. Figure 4.3.1 indicates the distribution of average stay per license plate in Downtown Berkeley. Out of the 5,442 cars that parked in metered spaces surveyed, the average stay was 1.6 hours. This number is slightly inflated as we did not capture stays less than one hour and cars with handicapped placards and in RPP zones are averaged in. The amount of time that any given metered space is occupied by a car with a handicapped placard is 7.6%. Figure 4.3.1: Weekday Average Stay on Metered Spaces

13

These cars have average stays of 3.7 hours.

While the average stay in

a metered space is 1.6 hours, the average stay in an unmetered space is 3.4 hours. Figure 4.3.2 shows the distribution of average stay per license plate in unmetered spaces. This long average stay statistic is not surprising as time limits do not apply to cars with residential permit passes.

Figure 4.3.3 shows the weekday violation rate on blockfaces with a single time limit, but no

clear pattern is apparent. Our survey found a surprisingly large number of cars with handicapped

Figure 4.3.4: Disabled Placard: Hours per Space Figure 4.3.3: Weekday Violation Rate on Selected

Blockfaces

Figure 4.3.2: Weekday Average Stay on Unmetered Spaces

14

placards. Figure 4.3.4 illustrates the total disabled placard hours per space, averaged over the blackface. The figure shows a cluster of disabled placards around the civic buildings of Downtown Berkeley.

4.4 Residential spillover

The results of our spillover study indicate that spillover is an issue worth noting. Figure 4.4.1

shows the overall residential spillover on the 24 blockfaces surveyed. There are approximately 350 parking spots in the surveyed residential areas. From the five different survey times, it is clear that there are more cars with permits parked at nighttime than midday. The pattern suggests that during the day residents drive to work and their parking spots are filled by Downtown Berkeley employees and visitors. The pattern then reverses at night, with residents replacing employees and visitors.

Figure 4.4.1 shows that the base count (Monday 1AM) has more permitted cars than Tuesday evening’s. This is because the evening counts start at 8PM, the time when Berkeley visitors come to Downtown for a movie, or dinner. As most restaurants close at 11PM, it is fair to say that residential spillover from Downtown Berkeley visitors does not end until the Berkeley activities end. The same theory applies to Saturday. The study shows that on weekends, residential spillover worsens as more visitors come Downtown to shop, and dine. The figure confirms the theory and further indicates that at any given time during the weekend, there are always more non-permitted parked cars than permitted in a residential area.

The worst residential spillover case amongst the surveyed blockfaces is the east side of Fulton Street, displayed in Figure 4.4.2. Out of ten parking spaces, eight were taken by permitted cars from the base count. However, during any midday, half of the parking spaces were taken by non-permitted cars. Because Fulton Street is across from the UC Berkeley campus, it is unclear whether the spillover is from Downtown or the Berkeley campus.

4.5 Off-street occupancy

Figure 4.4.1: Overall Residential Spillover in Berkeley Figure 4.4.2: Residential Spillover on East side of

Fulton Street

15

Table 4.5.1 displays the occupancy rates of the six Downtown garages at varying times of day and days of the week.

Occupancy rates are the highest during the afternoon, especially on midday weekdays. In

many garages, occupancy rates do not exceed 70%, reflecting an excess garage capacity. While on-street occupancy reaches its peak during the evening hours, garage occupancy reaches its peak in the afternoon. The Berkeley Way Surface Lot is the only lot that maintains a high occupancy rate in the evening. Overall, weekend usage of Downtown garages is much lower than weekday usage, never exceeding 54%. The University Hall Garage always maintains a low occupancy rate, seemingly resulting from the fact that people are unaware that it is open to public after peak-hours and on weekends. This lack of information about parking garages is common to other garages. For example, the Kittredge Garage manager mentioned that he is not allowed to post signs to the Garage outside of his property. The Promenade Garage is similarly difficult to find, especially without prior knowledge.

5. Public Perception of Downtown

To understand how community members use and feel about Downtown Berkeley, our group performed surveys within the community. We performed both an informal survey and a formal mail-back survey. The surveys were intended to help us learn the following:

• How people use the Downtown

• How they get to the Downtown

• Where they park if they drive

Table 4.5.1 Occupancy Rates

Center Garage

Allston Garage

Berkeley Way Lot

Kittredge Garage

Promenade Garage

University Hall Garage

Morning 10-11am

51% 69% 47% 58% 67% N/A (closed to public)

Mid-Day 12-1pm

67 85 95 70 73 N/A (closed to public)

Afternoon 4-5pm

75 84 86 70 58 N/A (closed to public)

Week

day

Evening 7-8pm

29 27 85 34 N/A (closed)

4

Morning 10-11am

30 51 21 47 N/A (closed)

6

Afternoon 4-5pm

43 33 54 39 N/A (closed)

19

Week

end

(Satu

rday

)

Evening 7-8pm

29 36 50 47 N/A (closed)

N/A (closed to public at a point of our fieldwork)

16

• How they feel about parking options (on-street vs. garage) and methods (pay and display vs. standard meters)

• How they would like the City to improve Downtown 5.1 Informal Survey

Initially we approached the public directly at a local event, the Spice of Life Festival in the Gourmet Ghetto. Our primary activity was designed to see how participants would prioritize incremental changes that could eventually be supported through increased parking revenues. We did not specify where funding for these projects would come from, only that they were meant to be incremental improvements. Participants were given five pennies each, representing five installments of $10,000, and instructed to spend their “funds” on any of 16 different Downtown improvement projects/programs. We represented each category with illustrative images, such as workers steam cleaning a sidewalk for “Street Maintenance” and policemen on bicycles and Segways for “Increased Security”, so as to give voters similar reference points.

1,621 coins were counted by the end of the day indicating that approximately 324 people participated. The results of the exercise were focused on the enhancement of public spaces (represented by an image of an outdoor amphitheater and public eating area) and social services and shelters for the homeless (represented by an image of a homeless man eating at a shelter, and another sitting on a bunk bed in a shared bedroom).

Improvements to Downtown

Votes (Each representing $10,000) Percentage of Votes

Public Spaces 229 71% Shelters and Social Services 223 69% Street Maintenance 164 51% Landscape Improvement 161 50% Bicycle Amenities 137 42% Public Art 106 33% After School Programs/Activities 99 31% Security 98 30% Parking Improvement 94 29% Improved Streetscapes 91 28% Retail Strategy 78 24% Facade Improvement 47 15% Street Furniture 43 13% Bus Shelters 34 10% Public Toilets 17 5% Total # of voters (votes/5 pennies)

324

We also asked people to tell us the top three things they love about and would like to change

about Berkeley to help us further understand what people might like to see Downtown. Approximately one-fifth of the people who did the penny survey also took the time to write out

17

their top choices. Aggressive panhandlers, lack of free and convenient parking, lack of landscaping, poor street cleanliness, and dysfunctional retail mix (signified by storefront vacancies) were high priorities. However, participants reported appreciation of public transportation options, the diverse and educated population, and unique and independent stores1, and great restaurants in Berkeley.

5.2 Mail Back-Survey

With these initial results, we designed a written mail-back survey, which we handed out in person along with prepaid envelopes for returning completed surveys2. Our questions fit into four general topics:

• Use of Downtown Berkeley

• Improvements to Downtown

• Parking around Downtown

• Participant demographics 5.2.1 Methodology

Teams of two, one to approach passersby and one to count the sample population, distributed the surveys in six retail districts around Berkeley3 over a two-week period in October 2007. Our teams surveyed during different times of the day and week to capture a diverse and distributed proportion of likely Downtown Berkeley users. At the time of writing of this report 128 of 630 distributed surveys had been returned. Additional surveys were not included in the findings of this report. 5.2.2 Demographics

We collected a variety of demographic data in order to highlight potential patterns of issues among different groups. Although we intended to gather data from a diverse population, we expected that our sample group would not be exactly representative of Berkeley demographics. Our survey was directed more towards the users and potential users of Downtown. Summarized below are some of the demographics of our respondents, compared to Berkeley statistics4:

• Mean age was older than Berkeley’s mean

• More females than males

• Significantly more Caucasian and fewer Hispanics5

• Higher than the median income of Berkeley residents Age Groups 18-24 years 25-34 years 35-49 years 50-64 years 65 or older

1 It is unclear whether the stores people were referring to were in Downtown Proper, or if they were referring to neighboring areas such as North Shattuck and the Elmwood. 2 A copy of this survey is included in Appendix A of this document. 3 Places we distributed the written surveys are detailed on page 6. 4 Based on 2006 American Community Survey data, ACS, from the Census Bureau.

5 Surveys were in English only.

18

Percentage of respondents

10% 19% 33% 25% 13%

Berkeley Statistics

Median Age ≈ 30 – 37 years

Gender Male Female

Percentage of respondents

43% 57%

Berkeley Statistics

49% 51%

Race Caucasian Asian African American Hispanic Other6

Percentage of respondents

74% 10% 7% 4% 5%

Berkeley Statistics

61% 19% 10% 12% 14%

Household Income <$30,000

$30,000-59,000

$60,000-89,000

$90,000-99,000

$100,000-149,000 >$150,000

Percentage of Respondents

25% 13% 21% 4% 22% 13%

Berkeley Statistics

Mean household income ≈ $81,990 – 72,280 Median household income ≈ $46,400- 56,110

5.2.3 Downtown Use

We asked people how they use Downtown Berkeley to ascertain what enhancements are most desirable to a wide range of Downtown users. Downtown workers, for example, likely place value on amenities differently than people who primarily use Downtown for recreation. When items are combined into larger categories, the results are as follows, and clearly show that Downtown is used mostly for non-work-related reasons:

• Most people visit Downtown for shopping, entertainment, and recreation.

• Most people also use City services in the Downtown.

• Many come Downtown briefly for its transit centrality.

Activity Percentage Activity Percentage

Shopping 86% Medical or other services 27% Movies 85% Indoor recreation 27% Public services 70% Relaxing outdoors 26% Socializing 62% Relaxing indoors 22% Transit 59% School 16% Art exhibits, performances 54% Off-site work 15% Outdoor recreation 47% other 15% Private services 38% Medical or other services 27%

6 The ‘Other’ category includes ‘Native American’ and ‘Other’. ACS’ ‘Other’ includes ‘American Indian’, ‘two or more races’ and ‘Some other race’

19

We also looked at how often people visit Downtown, and it turns out that a large proportion (44%) visit Downtown often (multiple times a week).

Trip Frequency Once a day

Several Times a Week

Once a Week

Once a Month Rarely

Proportion of population

38% 6% 31% 21% 4%

• At least 51% generally stay within the 2-hour time limit of most meters.

• At least 26% tend to stay longer than the 2-hour time limit. Length of Stay

Less Than 1 hour 1-2 Hours 3-4 Hours

5 or more Hours Varies

Proportion of population

12% 39% 15% 11% 23%

Our results show that while private cars are the most popular form of transportation to get

Downtown, most people use multiple modes of transportation for different trips.

• 59% use two or more modes

• 22% use three or more modes Most commonly used modes are listed below. Category Private Car Walk BART Bus Bicycle

Proportion of Votes

34% 27% 14% 14% 8%

Asked to indicate where they park Downtown, at least 73% of drivers said they generally park

in non-garage alternatives.

Category On-Street (meter and pay & display) Garage

Residential Permit Areas

Proportion of Votes 52% 19% 14% 5.2.4 Downtown Improvement

We gave survey participants a list of 14 improvement options, including an “other” category, based on general concerns about Downtown. The list of options we gave was not comprehensive, but was based on the results of our earlier surveys. After the survey was completed, we divided the 14 items into four categories shown in the table below, not including the “other” votes. Of note, “panhandler behavior” and “homeless services”, which are incorporated in the “Social Issues” category, each received more votes than any other specific item, and together received 28% of total votes. The second most popular item was “Vacant Storefronts”, which is included in

20

the “Physical Improvements” category, with 12%. As a group of general improvements, “Physical Improvements” received the most votes.

Category Physical Improvements Social Issues

Transportation Alternatives

Parking System Improvements

Proportion of Votes

41% 37% 12% 8%

We also asked participants about specific projects and programs the City could implement,

such as “pedestrian improvements to Center Street”, as opposed to more general improvements listed in the previous question. We grouped these items into three categories listed below. “Improved sidewalk cleaning and maintenance”, included in “Physical Improvements”, received the most votes of any specific item, with 21%. 7 However, as a bundle of improvements, “Transportation Alternatives” received the most votes.

Category Transportation Alternatives

Parking System Improvements

Physical Improvements

Proportion of Votes 38% 34% 21%

By looking at where people lived and their priorities for Downtown improvement, we found

that Downtown residents (living within the 94704 zip code) are most likely to support Physical Improvements and Transportation Alternatives (98%). People living outside Downtown (94704) or Central Berkeley (94702 & 94703) are more likely to support Parking Improvements (26%, compared to Downtown and Central Berkeley, at 12% and 20% respectively). 5.2.5 Downtown Parking

This section was designed to assess popular opinion of current Downtown parking conditions.

• 39% of respondents like on-street “pay and display” payment system, while 21% do not. The remainder had mixed feelings.

We asked people to identify the biggest obstacles to on-street parking Downtown.

• People who stay 5 or more hours find fewer obstacles to parking.

• People making short trips have the most difficulty finding a space near where they want to be and find payment system complicated.

• 40% of the total votes identified difficulty finding available space as the biggest barrier.

• 22% identified as being too short.

• Among people staying over 2 hours, there was less concern about time limits, suggesting that those staying longer are able to avoid tickets.

• 16% of all parkers identified high parking costs as prohibitive. Regarding Downtown garages:

7 See Appendix B for a detailed review of the specific project and programs selected by survey respondents.

21

• 73% of respondents do not know of the 6 major garages Downtown.

• 75% are unaware of the garage locations.

We asked individuals what they perceived to be the major obstacles to parking in Downtown garages. We provided ten options (including one labeled “Other”) and grouped those barriers into the five categories listed below. Category Uncertainty Inconvenience High Cost Security None

Proportion of Votes

36% 22% 21% 15% 2%

6. Proposed Parking Management Strategy

A parking management strategy for Downtown Berkeley is necessary to better serve Downtown parking needs and to harness the revenue-generating potential of one of the City’s largest assets. The following proposed parking management strategy entails implementing a variety of measures, such as meter rate increases in targeted geographies, extension of meter hours of operation, variation of time limits, as well as the technological improvements necessary to achieve these measures. These recommendations are packaged into several implementation phases, but can be implemented simultaneously if desired. Gradual phasing of the strategy into the community will not only provide residents and visitors with adequate time to grow accustomed to these changes, but is necessary to generate the revenue stream that will fund the proposed improvements to the Downtown. 6.1 Program Components

Recommended actions for addressing parking in Downtown Berkeley focus on technological and demand-based changes that will permit the city to address not only current issues, but those that will arise as Downtown density rises. These actions include:

• Replacement of standard meterheads with Pay & Display parking meters

Berkeley’s Pay & Display parking payment system is currently in use at 266 of the 955 on-street Downtown parking spaces. These kiosks are located on select blocks and provide parking payment convenience for motorists by accepting cash or credit card. Pay & Display kiosks can be programmed with multiple fares and time limits, thus providing the flexibility to implement parking fare changes. Moreover, these kiosks remove the need for unsightly parking meters that are required for each individual metered space.

• Implement a zonal pricing structure

As seen in the occupancy survey, demand for parking varies widely across Downtown. By creating a zonal pricing structure, on-street parking spaces will be more appropriately priced to demand, and demand will be redistributed within the Downtown area. A lollipop-shaped corridor, as shown in the following figure, has been identified as the area with the greatest daytime demand. Parking fares in this zone should be set higher than the

22

remainder of Downtown spaces to more evenly distribute parking demand within the Downtown. Pay & Display meters will provide the mechanism for implementing this zonal pricing strategy.

• Raise meter rates

Based on current plans, Downtown parking rates have been raised to $1.25/ hour. An increase to $1.50/ hour on all Downtown meters will bring on-street (high demand) rates closer to those of Downtown off-street parking facilities, without placing an extraordinary burden on Downtown visitors carrying change for payment. As mentioned, the lollipop zone should have a higher price; thus, a fare of $2.00/ hour is recommended. This will also help redistribute parking demand from heavily used locations to areas that typically have lower occupancy rates.

• Extend meter hours

Currently, most of the on-street parking spaces in Downtown are regulated by fees during the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm and by time limits varying from thirty minutes to ninety minutes. Meter fees are not enforced, however, during the peak parking demand period – i.e., evening hours. Such a policy has several key implications. The absence of meter fares during the evening allows all motorists, including residents, to park for free Downtown. Due to free on-street evening parking, other Downtown parking facilities (garages and lots) are under-utilized, and there is the perception of a parking capacity problem by residents, visitors, and businesses. Extending meter revenue hours into the evening, from 6:00 pm until 12:00 am will help relieve this situation. This cannot be done, however, without an accompanying change in time limits for post-6:00 pm meters. Movie and theater-goers should be able to pleasantly enjoy dinner and a show without worrying about their meter time expiring. Thus, we propose eliminating parking time limits after 6:00 pm. Pay & Display kiosks have the technological capability to extend metered hours until 12:00 am and to remove the time limit from its existing restriction of 90 minutes. For evening hours, we propose charging $1.00/ hour at the current 266 Pay & Display stations to ease the transition from unpaid to paid spaces; time limits should also be eliminated after 6:00 pm.

6.2 Implementation To facilitate the transition to a new parking management system, several additional measures should be implemented alongside meter technology and fare changes.

• Parking management educational campaign

A broad-reaching educational campaign to raise the community’s awareness of on-street parking changes and to highlight the future use of additional parking revenue is essential to address community concerns for an effective parking management program.

• Garage parking signage

23

A large number of available Downtown parking spaces are found within garages; however, these structures are currently difficult to find when driving in the Downtown. Signage directing motorists to these off-street parking garages is extremely limited, and City restrictions prohibit advertisement of private garages on public property. Providing signage to all Downtown parking structures will help reduce cruising for parking by motorists by directing them to available parking locations.

6.3 Revenue Calculations

Expected annual revenues were calculated for the final stage of the parking management strategy. This expected revenue was calculated based on data from the occupancy survey. Note that occupancies are higher in the lollipop zone than elsewhere in Downtown. For each fare change, a new expected occupancy is calculated, based on the assumption of a fare elasticity of -0.1. This means that a 100% fare increase will result in a 10% decrease in occupancy. Note that expected revenues are for weekdays only, given Saturday data-collection constraints. The following table shows projected annual revenues at the final stage of implementation.

SpacesCurrent

Occupancy

New

OccupancyFare

Projected

Revenue

Pay & Display Daytime 77% 69% $2.00 $2,120,000

(lollipop) Evening 83% 75% $1.00 $760,000

Pay & Display Daytime 46% 44% $1.50 $460,000

(elsewhere) Evening 77% 69% $1.00 $330,000

Combined Total $3,650,000

* Weekdays only

301

654

Figure 6.1: Projected Weekday Revenues

7. Income & Implementation

We estimate that the Downtown parking program will reach a stable annual run-rate income stream of approximately $1,500,000. It is proposed that half of this, or $750,000 per year, will be used to fund Downtown improvements.

We arrived at this amount based on

several calculations. First, estimated revenues were reduced by the amount currently collected by the City of Berkeley. This amount is made up of the $1.00 fare assessed up to 11/07 and the additional $0.25 collected for the “Commons for Everyone”

R evenues 3,650,000$

Money to C ity of B erkeley

C urrent meter revenue (1,350,000)$

"C ommons for E veryone" (600,000)$

Operations (200,000)$

Inc ome 1,500,000$

G eneral fund s plit (750,000)$

Downtown initiative funds 750,000$

Figure 7.1: Estimated Expenditures in Stable Operation

24

project that has recently been collected. Additionally, the total estimated revenue was reduced by an estimated operating cost that will be incurred specifically because of the recommendations we have made.

This yielded $1.5M in income from the proposed parking program. The income was then

divided in half between the City of Berkeley general fund, in support of citywide operations, and Downtown improvements. Thus, it is posited that the recommendations will create approximately $750K available for Downtown improvements.

The selection of a 50% / 50% split is based on comments made by City of Berkeley Mayor’s Office staff indicating that a subdivision of funds had not been determined. Based on this input, we took a conservative route and assumed that some funds would be dedicated to overall Berkeley funding and another amount would be utilized specifically in Downtown. The 50% / 50% split is similar to the division of funds employed by San Diego parking districts which utilize a 55% / 45% general fund to local initiative split. Several other precedents dedicate funds either 100% to the general fund or 100% to local initiatives. The research group felt that 50% / 50% was an easy to understand subdivision and appropriate for completing our study.

To reach the point of stable operations, the new Pay & Display equipment must be paid for and

installed. In approaching implementation we considered two major factors. The first was how the project might be financed. The second was the timing of funding for Downtown improvements.

For financing the implementation, two sources were considered. Firstly, the program could be

almost entirely self-financing if city officials would further increase meter rates at the same time they implement the $1.25 switch. Higher rates could also be implemented on the existing Pay & Display machines at the same time. The combination of these two revenue streams could pay for more new Pay & Display units. We also considered implementation scenarios with full and immediate implementation of the program where the City of Berkeley paid for the improvements and would be reimbursed by operating revenues.

We also considered when Downtown improvement funding would be made available (rather

than funding Pay & Display installation—self financing—or reimbursing the city—city funded). We believe that a program that charges parkers should provide tangible results to those users early on. One wants to see that their money is being used wisely. To do so, we evaluated scenarios that began funding small improvements from day one while also paying for the implementation of the program. This was evaluated for both a city funded and self-financed option. See scenarios ‘A’ and ‘B’ below. It was easy to see that funding initiatives lengthened the time required to pay for the installation of new Pay & Display units and extended the time until the program reached stable operations.

In addition, scenarios were evaluated that only began to fund Downtown improvements once

implementation costs were paid for or reimbursed. This scenario delayed Downtown improvements but reduced the total time until the program reached stable operations. See scenarios ‘C’ and ‘D’ below.

Lastly, a scenario was evaluated where the city financed the implementation and Downtown

initiatives were funded at their stable operations level from the day one. This scenario, scenario

25

‘E’ below, yielded the greatest benefit to Downtown but was expensive to implement and yielded the least revenues to the City of Berkeley general fund.

In all cases, it was found that stable operations would be reached within 4 years. After 4 years,

the full $750K per year would be available to be invested in Downtown improvements.

We believe that the system could be self financed and could avoid burdening the City’s fiscal

health. We also believe that the system should be implemented as quickly and smoothly as possible to reduce user confusion. And most importantly, we believe that the program should show early and tangible results to maintain community support. For this reason, we would advise the city to adopt the self-financing implementation plan that provides some initiative funds in year one and every year thereafter (see scenario ‘A’ above).

This implementation plan is estimated to yield $100K, $300K, and $500K in initiative funding

over three years prior to reaching stable levels. This money can be used to implement parts of a larger plan that will come on line when the full $750K initiative budget becomes available in year 4 of the program. This $750K can be spent in many ways.

8. Expenditure Plans

A number of possible expenditure plans exist with the $750,000 projected to be received annually. While the actual choice of expenditure is beyond the scope of this report, since the focus was to manage parking and generate revenue, not to decide which public projects are most deserving of funding, some possible expenditure plans have been created to showcase the potential spending power this new revenue represents. This is simply to better understand the possible financial impacts on the community with the suggested parking management program in place.

Any expenditure plan relies on whether the money will be bonded or spent annually. This

factor vastly changes the funds that can be manipulated, and as a result also greatly changes the scope of projects that can be funded. Also, since the annual revenue amounts envisioned are substantial but not enormous, it would seem most appropriate to spend all of the money in targeted ways that would be most visible to the community and visiting shoppers. Along these veins, the following possible expenditure plans are arranged by the focus that would be achieved with the parking revenue, each of which specifying whether the money would be more useful spent annually or bonded.

E valuation of Implementation S c enarios A B C D E

Implementation T iming P has ed Immediate P has ed Immediate Immediate

C os ts Inc urred by C ity -$ 1,800,000$ -$ 1,700,000$ 2,500,000$

Y ear of F irs t Improvement F unds 1 1 2 2 1

Time to S table Improvement F unding (Y ears ) 4 4 3 3 1

Improvement F unds Y ears 1 - 4 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ 3,000,000$

Inc remental C ity R evenues Y ears 1 - 4 1,700,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$ 600,000$

Figure 7.2: Evaluation of Implementation Scenarios

26

8.1 Alternative Transportation Focused Expenditure Plan

One of the ideas behind managing parking is to reduce auto demand Downtown to manageable levels while keeping Downtown accessibility high. The main means of doing this is to allow visitors to arrive Downtown using modes other than the car. Therefore, some of the best spending options would be to improve the utility of these modes in some meaningful way to make them more favorable.

An alternative transportation-focused plan would prioritize spending on increasing transit

spending in the most effective ways to encourage a mode switch away from auto. This option would most likely be implemented in a number of small ways. First, expanding the eco-pass program to provide universal transit passes to a greater portion of Downtown employees would free up parking for visitors. While there may not be a drop in shoppers driving Downtown, it would be easier for them to find a spot since fewer employees are parking on the street, which would help in reducing circling for parking. Also, bus stop improvements could be gradually made to increase the transit-friendliness of the Downtown transit infrastructure. Lastly, the Transit Store, which was closed in 2003 due to lack of funding, could be reinstated.

Since these projects are largely annually funded expenditures, bonding the money is not

reasonable. Instead, the extent of these programs would be limited by the annual revenue generated and usable by the parking program. With an annual universal transit pass assumed to cost $60, large bus stops with next-bus signs estimated at $20,000 per stop, and the transit store predicted to cost $350,000 per year, the following expenditure plan is possible.

Table 8.1: Transit-Focused 10 Year Expenditure Option

Annual Expenditures Capital Expenditures

Year Universal Transit Passes ($60/pass/year)

Transit Store Operation ($350,000/year)

Bicycle Parking ($200/bike)

- or -

Bus Stops Built ($20,000/stop)

1 3,333 passes Instituted 1,000 bikes 10 bus stops

2 5,000 passes Instituted 500 bikes 5 bus stops

3+ 6,667 passes Instituted 0 bikes 0 bus stops

Total Benefit

6,667 annually for 10 yrs*

Transit Store Operational*

Parking for 1,500 bicycles

15 new bus stops

* If transit store not reopened, 12,500 transit passes can be funded annually

Under these options, capital expenditures on bus stops or bicycle parking racks could be made in the first year allowing subsequent years to focus on recurring costs, over a few years to allow for earlier adoption of transit passes, or not at all if they are deemed less important. 8.2 Street and Sidewalk Maintenance

27

Alternatively to creating transit improvements, an option is to fund more intensive maintenance programs to improve Downtown conditions without fundamentally changing the buildings or infrastructure. Instead, maintenance can consist of actions such as sidewalk repair/replacement, street cleaning, and sidewalk steam cleaning. Among the list of options to improve the Downtown, maintenance and cleaning was consistently high among responses by Berkeley residents and visitors.

Since maintenance is an inherently recurring cost, it makes little sense to bond the money for

this goal, so the best option is to spend the money annually as it comes in. To this end, a possible $750,000 annual expenditure plan over the course of the next 10 years is outlined below in table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Maintenance-Focused 10 Year Expenditure Option

Street Sweeper Sidewalk Steam Cleaner

Year Sidewalk Repair ($8/sq.ft.)

Sidewalk Replacement ($1,000/linear ft.)

Unit ($150,000)

Labor ($75,000/ year)

Unit ($150,000)

Labor ($75,000/year)

1 3 - 7’x500’ sidewalks

1 - 7’x265’ sidewalk

1 unit 1 laborer 1 unit 1 laborer

2+ 12 - 7’x500’ sidewalks

1 - 7’x265’ sidewalk

- 1 laborer - 1 laborer

Total Benefit

388,500 sq ft sidewalks

10 - 7’x265’ sidewalk

1 unit 1 laborer annually

1 unit 1 laborer annually

The appeal of this plan comes from the fact that the roughly 380,000 square feet of repaired

sidewalk over the course of 10 years approximately equals the amount of sidewalk in the Downtown. In other words, this expenditure plan could repair every sidewalk every ten years and additionally on average replace one of those sidewalks annually that can justify the additional cost. On top of this is the street and sidewalk cleaning aspect that keeps the built and repaired sidewalks in good shape. 8.3 Streetscape Improvements

Streetscape improvements can also be made to generally increase the aesthetics and pedestrian-friendliness of Downtown. This can range from individual minor improvements like lighting, landscaping, and street trees to major improvements like overhauling an entire block. Again, due to the small-scale nature of many of these improvements, it is more reasonable to fund streetscape improvements on an annual basis than bonding. Table 3 breaks down a possible list of these improvements over the next 10 years alternating between the smaller and large improvements mentioned. To help lend a sense of scale to these improvements, we have made a rough estimate that 80,000 linear ft. of sidewalks exists in the Downtown area.

Table 3: Streetscape-Focused 10 Year Expenditure Option

Year Street Trees ($1,000/tree)

Landscaping ($100,000

Lighting – Decorative

Complete Streetscape Overhaul

28

/acre) ($4,000/light) ($1,000,000/block)

1 7 – 500’ blocks w/ 25’ tree spacing

½ acre 7 – 500’ blocks w/ 25’ light spacing

-

2 ¾ block

3 7 – 500’ blocks w/ 25’ tree spacing

½ acre 7 – 500’ blocks w/ 25’ light spacing

-

4 ¾ block

. . .

Total Benefit

17,500 linear ft of sidewalks lined w/ trees

2.5 acres of landscaping

17,500 linear ft of sidewalk lined w/ lights

3.75 blocks overhauled

8.4 Retail Environment (Façade) Improvements

Façade improvements also increase the aesthetics of an area, though through improvement of private property rather than public. Façade improvements assume that the retailer will pay a certain amount and the city government will match that amount from the parking revenue fund. These improvements are estimated to cost roughly $25,000 to $75,000, so for calculation purposes each improvement will cost $50,000. Simply from comparing this cost with the annual funds expected it can be determined that 15 can be funded annually. 8.5 Major Projects

The last possibility considered here is that of major capital improvement projects in the Downtown. These projects can include public works and beautification projects such as daylighting Strawberry Creek, converting Harold St. into a park, creating a parking garage information system, or reconstructing the Downtown BART plaza. While these projects are difficult to predict costs for (from roughly $2m for the parking garage project to as high as $10m for the creek daylighting), it can generally be assumed that these projects would need a bond to be constructed. Though some of these projects would preclude any other public works being done using parking revenue for some time into the future, they would be useful as immediate marketing tools to show people one of the advantages and justifications for raising parking prices.

9. Conclusion

We believe our proposal provides a solid framework for managing Downtown Berkeley’s parking supply. The proposal addresses current parking issues and concerns and provides a significant revenue source that can be used to promote the use of alternative modes and improve the physical environment of the Downtown. It is important to acknowledge, however, that this proposal has been tailored towards Downtown Berkeley’s current parking supply and needs and should be monitored and updated regularly if it is to continue to be effective. 9.1 Summary of Recommendations

Our proposed parking management strategy is focused on generating additional revenue to improve Downtown and addressing particular parking issues and concerns observed during our

29

assessment of current parking conditions. Such concerns and issues include spatially clustered demand for parking during the day, a general lack of on-street parking during the evening, and general underutilization of off-street garages. We are thus proposing the following:

• A general rise in meter rates (above the current $1.25)

• A lollipop shaped zonal pricing strategy during meter hours, where $2.00 will be charged

within the lollipop and a $1.50 outside

• Extending meter hours until 12:00 am and charging $1.00 per hour throughout the

Downtown with no time limits.

Implementing this proposal will require the installation of pay and display technology throughout the Downtown, an educational campaign, and the installation of additional signage, all at the total estimated cost of $1,500,000. Once the proposal is implemented, however, we estimate that it will result in a stable annual revenue stream of $1,500,000 (above and beyond the city’s current parking revenue from Downtown). This money, or some portion of it, will provide an important revenue source for projects that increase transit mode share improve the aesthetics and livability of Downtown as a whole. 9.2 Additional suggestions

Our proposal has been crafted in the context of current parking conditions Downtown and will require adjustments as development patterns in the Downtown change and the cost of living increases. In order for Downtown Berkeley to maintain a parking strategy that continues to be both an effective management tool and revenue generator, there are a number of additional suggestions that city might consider.

First, we recommend that the city set up a statutory mechanism for adjusting the price of

parking. Currently, meter rate adjustments require approval by the city council. We suggest that a statutory mechanism be adopted that provides for upward adjustments of the meter rate to occur at more regular and programmed intervals. This could be accomplished by indexing the meter rates to either an average of off-street garage rates or the general rate of inflation. Adjustments in meter rates could also potentially be accomplished by pricing parking dynamically or semi-dynamically by block face based on observed levels of occupancy and a target vacancy rate. Regardless of the precise mechanism, however, the city should adopt a system to adjust meter rates in a regular and timely fashion.

Related to the adjustment of meter rates, we also suggest that the city plan to conduct

periodic reviews of parking occupancy in Downtown Berkeley and use the results of such data collection to adjust parking policies. As patterns of development change in Downtown, so will the spatial distribution of parking demands and it may be necessary to adjust the boundaries of the “lollipop” pricing zone. The installation of pay and display technology throughout the Downtown will likely make such monitoring efforts considerably less labor intensive.

30

Finally, it is important that the city also monitor the impact of any Downtown parking management strategy on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Spillover of parking into residential neighborhoods is an important concern and determining whether such spillover becomes more problematic over time should inform the city’s decisions about how to manage parking policy in both the Downtown and the neighborhoods.

31

Appendix A:

Downtown Berkeley Community Survey

University of California at Berkeley

32

Hearst Street

Dwight Way

Martin Luther King, Jr. W

ay

Oxford Street

Fulton Street

Dear Community Member of Berkeley:

As part of a study being conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, under the direction of Prof. Elizabeth Deakin, we seek your participation in a survey of your views of Downtown Berkeley, as shown here.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary, and participants may choose not to answer any particular questions. Responses will be kept

anonymous, and the information collected will be used to improve plans in Berkeley. Please know that personal information about you and your household is helpful to ensure that our results are representative of the larger community of the city of Berkeley.

Please take a moment and return the survey to us today, or place the completed survey in the enclosed, postage-paid envelope for return via the US postal service at your earliest convenience.

If you have any questions or would like further information, please e-mail survey@uctc.net or leave a message at (510) 643-7378. We very much appreciate your participation!

Sincerely,

UC Berkeley Transportation Planning Graduate Students

33

A. Downtown Berkeley Use

1) Which of the following activities do you do in Downtown? Check all that apply.

□ Work 25% □ Transit 46%

□ Movies 66% □ School 13%

□ Off-site work related (Business meeting, etc.)

12% □ Private services (copy centers, laundry, etc.)

30%

□ Art exhibits, performances, etc. 42% □ Socializing (indoors/outdoors) 48%

□ Medical or related services (therapy sessions, optometry, etc.)

21% □ Public services (government-related

offices, post office, etc.) 55%

□ Outdoor recreation (in parks, walking on streets, etc.)

37% □ Indoor recreation (in gyms, dance

studios, etc.) 21%

□ Relaxing outdoors 20% □ Relaxing indoors 17%

□ Shopping 67% □ Other__________ 6%

2) How often do you typically go Downtown?

Check one option:

□ Once a day 38% □ Once a year 2%

□ Once a week 31% □ Almost never 2%

□ Once a month 21% □ Other___________ 6%

3) How long do you usually stay?

□ Less than 1 hour 12% □ Varies a lot 23%

□ 1-2 hours 39% □ 5 or more hours 11%

□ 3-4 hours 15% □ Other ___________

34

4) How do you usually get Downtown?

Check all the apply:

□ Private car 63% □ BART 27%

□ Carpool 6% □ Bus 26%

□ Walk 51% □ Other___________ 2%

□ Bicycle 15%

5) If you drive, does your employer pay for all or some of your parking? 10% Yes 90% No

6) If you drive, where do you park?

Check all that apply.

□ On-street meter 74% □ Garage 43%

□ Disabled designated spot 1% □ Rarely park in the downtown 13%

□ On-street “pay-and-display” kiosk 47% □ Residential areas without meters 32%

□ Street-level lot 16% □ Other___________ 5%

7) Is there a parking system in another downtown area, such as Santa Cruz or Redwood City, you think the City of Berkeley should consider?

[18 people responded] •••• Santa Cruz

•••• Santa Barbara (90 minutes free)

•••• Palo Alto (free garage parking up to three hours)

•••• Detroit

•••• Tijuana

•••• Walnut Creek (three people - liked free parking)

•••• Pasadena

•••• Albany (free parking)

•••• Zagreb, Croatia

Other comments:

•••• Berkeley's old system - 1 hour free

•••• More parking outside downtown with free shuttle

•••• Tunnels for underground parking

35

B. Downtown Improvement

1) Please check your top 3 priorities for the Downtown.

□ Improved landscaping 23% □ More bike parking 4%

□ Sidewalk cleaning 26% □ More bike lanes 14%

□ Public transit amenities (bus shelters, signage, etc.)

18% □ Increased security presence (bicycle police, etc.)

16%

□ Public art 16% □ Homeless services 40%

□ Empty store fronts 36% □ Parking improvements 24%

□ Control of aggressive behavior of panhandlers

41% □ Control of teenager loitering 10%

□ Graffiti removal 13% □ Other__________ 8%

2) Please list your top 3 preferences of following projects or programs.

□ Pedestrian improvements to Center Street 18% □ Discounted bus passes for downtown workers

11%

□ Prominent, above-ground bike station 9% □ Real-time parking availability signage 7%

□ Additional parking garage capacity 13% □ Garage validation for theaters 14%

□ Improved sidewalk cleaning/maintenance 21% □ Other___________ 7%

C. Downtown Parking

1) Do you like the “pay-and-display” payment system?

39% Yes 21% No 39% Mixed opinion

2) What are the biggest obstacles to on-street parking Downtown? Check all that apply.

□ No major obstacles 8% □ Time limits too short 46%

□ Inconvenient location 10% □ Hard to find space on-street 82%

□ Payment method too complicated 18% □ High cost 33%

□ Other ___________ 8%

36

3) Did you know that there are 6 garages/lots in the downtown?

27% Yes 73% No

4) Do you know where they are?

25% Yes 75% No

5) What are the biggest obstacles to parking in the downtown garages? Check all that apply.

□ No major obstacles 5% □ Not sure of garage locations 50%

□ Inconvenient location 21% □ Not sure of parking availability 38%

□ Inconvenient payment system 9% □ Costs too much 50%

□ Concern for personal safety 18% □ Concern about car break-ins 18%

□ Takes too long 23% □ Other___________ 10%

D. Please tell us about yourself.

1) What is your age?

□ Under 18 years 0% □ 35-49 years 33%

□ 18-24 years 10% □ 50-64 years 25%

□ 25-34 years 19% □ 65 and over 13%

2) Your gender? 43% Male 57% Female

3) What is your ethnicity?

□ Hispanic 4% □ Asian/Pacific Islander 10%

□ Black 7% □ White 74%

□ Native American/Eskimo 1% □ Other 4%

4) How many people live in your household?

1 person 32% 2-3 persons 50% 4-5 persons 14% 6 persons or more 4%

37

5) What is your occupation?

□ Not Applicable 20% □ Legal Services 5%

□ Accounting 2% □ Manufacturing 0%

□ Computer Hardware/Software 6% □ Media/Publishing/Communication 7%

□ Finance/Banking 2% □ Non-Profit 7%

□ Agriculture/Mining 0% □ Research/Science 4%

□ Construction 4% □ Retail 2%

□ Education 11% □ Consulting Services 4%

□ Entertainment 3% □ Telecommunications 0%

□ Government/Public Services 2% □ Utilities/Transportation 1%

□ Hospitality 0% □ Wholesale 0%

□ Health Care/Medical Services 6% □ Engineering/Architecture 2%

□ International Trade 1% □ Advertising/Marketing 2%

□ Real Estate/Insurance 0% □ Other 11%

6) How many hours do you work per week?

□ Less than 8 12% □ 20-39 hours 26%

□ 8-19 16% □ 40 or more 47%

7) How many days do you work per week?

□ 1 5% □ 4-5 59%

□ 2-3 16% □ 6-7 21%

38

8) What is your total household income?

□ Less than $30,000 25% □ $90,000-99,000 4%

□ $30,000-59,000 14% □ $100,000-149,000 22%

□ $60,000-89,000 21% □ $150,000 and over 13%

9) What is your home zip code? _________________

94704 16% 94501 2% 94606 2% 94559 1%

94705 13% 94608 2% 94710 2% 94563 1%

94703 9% 94609 2% 94103 1% 94604 1%

94708 8% 94618 2% 94110 1% 94605 1%

94707 7% 94706 2% 94168 1% 94720 1%

94702 5% 94510 2% 94518 1% 94805 1%

94610 4% 94523 2% 94521 1% 94901 1%

94611 4% 94601 2% 94549 1% 98401 1%

94709 3% Other 19%