BEST PRACTICES IN STATION AREA PARKING/DEVELOPMENT Background

BEST PRACTICES IN STATION AREA PARKING/DEVELOPMENT
CASE STUDIES
Background
In spite of its benefits, light rail transit can lead to unintended consequences related to parking. Problems of this nature can be mitigated by
appropriately designed development and provision of adequate park-and
-ride (P&R) facilities near stations.
During planning for the Central Corridor line in Minneapolis-St. Paul,
University UNITED, a coalition of community organizations and business
people in the Corridor, asked the Urban Studies Studio to prepare a report on best practices in station area parking and development. The report contains five case studies with applications to the Central Corridor.
Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD)
Residential and commercial centers
designed to maximize access to transit


In San Jose:
- Database provides information on highpriority TOD sites
- Transit authority communicates with cities
about development proposals
In Portland:
Development-oriented transit plans the
transit route and stations based on potential
future development locations, rather than
the other way around
Shared Parking
Acquire land near future transit stations to retain
some control over development
Reduction of required parking based on
different peak demand times


In St. Paul:
Best-suited TOD areas are between Fairview
Avenue and Rice Street where underutilized
land is available
Parking Management

In Denver:
Transit authority leases land from TOD
developers for park-and-ride (P&R)— lease
must be bought out from city, with interest,
before development
St. Paul is recommended to look into it

Different uses have different hours of peak
parking demand; complementary uses can
share a parking lot
Helps businesses by lowering individual
parking requirements—especially
important in the Central Corridor

In St. Louis:
P&R lots are located in suburban areas but not
the urban corridor
- Urban users live near their stations
- Suburban users park at end of line
In St. Paul:
- Maintain detailed inventory of spaces
- Consider P&R facility at eastern edge of
corridor
Preferential Resident
Permit Parking




St. Paul’s ordinance should be clarified and
simplified, using Minneapolis’
clear-cut table (below) as a guide
Monitoring supply and demand of parking
to prevent shortages or excesses
Public/private development partnership

In St. Paul:
Most appropriate in same area as TOD


Joint Development

In San Jose:
Ohlone-Chynoweth mixed-use/mixedincome development created in location of
underutilized P&R
SIDEBAR

Land Banking
“Park-and-Hide”:
Also called spillover parking,
this occurs when transit riders
find full parking lots at their station and “hide” their car on
neighborhood streets instead.
The final two best practices address this phenomenon.


6 Lines
34 Miles
36 Stations
27 P&Rs
 Portland MAX
3 Lines
44 Miles
64 Stations
56 P&Rs
Source: TriMet
NOTE: As displayed, the system has since expanded to four lines.
This graphic was not included in the original studio report.
On-street parking is time-limited for
non-residents but not for residents
Strong enforcement is necessary
Administered in parts of Minneapolis
St. Paul is recommended to consider if it
becomes necessary
Parking Benefit Districts

Denver RTD
San Jose VTA
3 Lines
42 Miles (plus)
62 Stations
21 P&Rs
Revenue from metered on-street parking
is dedicated towards neighborhood
pedestrian infrastructure improvements
Implement strategic pricing and time limits on
a district level
St. Paul is recommended to create a
pilot program; districts may be based on
neighborhood or station area
 Saint Louis MetroLink
2 Lines
46 Miles
37 Stations
33 P&Rs
Source: Saint Louis MetroLink
Central Corridor Light Rail Transit
Parking Analysis
Urban & Regional Studies Institute - Graduate Studio Project
Original Project Date:
Fall 2007
Poster Created:
Fall 2010
Project Participants:
Poster Compiled by
SURSI Volunteer:
Daniel Edgerton
Jacob Steen
Michael Elhard
Aaron Sedey
 Minneapolis Hiawatha
1 Line
12 Miles
17 Stations
2 P&Rs
Jerald Wuorenmaa
Computation: Multiply the minimum parking requirement for each use by the percentage in each column; add the resulting
sums for each column; the highest-sum column yields the minimum parking requirement for the shared parking participant.
SOURCE: City of Minneapolis