Getting Around

New technologies are creating new alternatives for urban mobility—from smaller and more efficient cars, to transit systems and new information technologies which inform you on the status of transportation availability. How are these technologies impacting land use patterns to create a more integrated network of choices that promote health, quality of life, and regional competitiveness?

 Jung Kim, Director of Community Data Services for Community Research Partners, answers the key questions for Getting Around in Columbus.

1)    How must real estate assets be adapted to accommodate new transportation technologies?

To look forward, it often helps to look back. At the intersection of real estate and transportation, we have a tale of two Virginia counties (Arlington and Fairfax) and how each responded to the Washington Metro system as it was extended into their areas in the 1970s and 1980s.  Arlington County created development plans and regulations for transit-oriented development around their metro stations. Fairfax County maintained a suburban development model with park-and-ride as the main feature at their stations.

Both counties have grown in population and economy over the years. However, the similarities end there. In Arlington County, denser mixed-use development supports a wider range of amenities with greater independence from the car. In Fairfax County, businesses and residents who once found a suburban haven now have little choice but to drive in congested traffic every day. One county adapted to new infrastructure; the other did not.

With regard to the future, rather than attempt to forecast all the possibilities, a more useful exercise may be to think through the ramifications of a particular technology.  For example, what would a future of electric cars entail for real estate? In a single-family house with a garage, it’s easy to imagine being able to charge up an electric car. But how about in a multifamily structure with a shared lot or garage? Unless there is a comprehensive network for charging electric cars akin to today’s gas stations, residential garages may need to have docking facilities with the hardware or software necessary to connect to the household’s electric meter. The additional demand for electricity will require more of not only the property at hand but also of the underlying electric grid.

Regardless of the technology, the electric car example highlights the need for careful, long-term alignment of real estate to transportation. If Fairfax County had gone through this type of thought process, the results would be very different today.

2)    Can new technologies reduce the number of required parking spaces?

Let’s consider parking as an economic problem of supply and demand, where neither the supply of parking spaces can be increased nor the demand for parking reduced. What other issues can be addressed to best match supply and demand?

One solution is to improve the quality of information available by harnessing technologies such as web and mobile applications. Another is to make the price of parking appropriate to the levels of supply and demand.

For a comprehensive parking solution, we can look to San Francisco and its new pilot program. SFPark (http://sfpark.org/) is a municipal service that uses a variety of technologies to provide information to drivers in search of parking. Each street parking space has a sensor that determines whether the spot is available. Garages and lots have sensors to determine the count of available spaces based on the number of cars entering and exiting. (Here in Columbus, Easton Town Center already uses this technology at its garages). The sensors are linked to real-time data feeds that inform drivers about parking availability through mobile applications, text messages, and electronic signs.

In addition to collecting and providing information, SFPark uses its data to refine pricing in response to demand by time and location. The goal is to set pricing so that at least 15% of spaces are available at all times. This helps manage demand and keeps options open for drivers who are in need of parking. Overall, compared to the one-price-fits-all strategy being implemented in downtown Columbus, SFPark is a market-based alternative that is fairer to neighborhoods, businesses, and drivers alike.

3)    What is the carbon impact of transportation demand strategies?

Transportation demand management (TDM) seeks to reduce overall traffic and peak traffic by: 1) shifting traffic to off-peak hours, 2) encouraging ridesharing, 3) improving alternative transportation modes, 4) encouraging telecommuting and 5) altering land use patterns to improve access. TDM includes a wide range of strategies, including transit-oriented development, flextime at work, and HOV lanes. TDM strategies have also proven to reduce carbon emissions, even though this tends to be a secondary objective.

Universities have been at the forefront of TDM, out of necessity in response to the demand for on-campus parking from employees and students. In 1990, Cornell University began to implement TDM measures for its faculty and staff (http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/gettingaround/demand.cfm). A new tiered parking permit system aligned rates more closely with the convenience of parking locations. The university also provided incentives for carpooling, subsidized bus transit and created park-and-ride areas.

According to Cornell, the TDM program participation rate of one third of faculty and staff has translated into approximately 10 million fewer vehicle miles per year and 417,000 fewer gallons of fuel. The annual emissions reductions are 6.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2), 600,000 pounds of carbon monoxide (CO), 35,000 pounds of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and 60,000 pounds of hydrocarbons.

In 2002, London introduced a congestion charge for the central city, where vehicles on average were moving slower than did the horse-and-buggy of a century earlier. Drivers were charged 5 pounds to enter central London between 7AM and 6PM on weekdays (now 8 pounds and a larger congestion charge zone), the revenues from which went towards transit improvements.

The congestion charge had an immediate impact on traffic, with drivers in amazement at how much more easily they were able to get around. The reduced congestion had an additional benefit of emissions reduction. Transport for London estimated that between 2002 and 2003, the program was directly responsible for the following reductions inside the congestion charge zone: 16 percent in road traffic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 8 percent in emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 7 percent in emissions of fine particulate matter (PM10). http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/sixth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2008-07.pdf

4)    How are new infrastructure investments translating into rising land value?

Research shows a positive relationship overall between transportation investment and property value. Variations exist, however, depending on a wide range of possible factors, including the socioeconomic characteristics of a neighborhood and land use patterns. For example, a University of California study sponsored by the National Association of Realtors and the Urban Land Institute in 2002 found a 120 percent premium for commercial land in a business district within a quarter-mile of a commuter rail station in Santa Clara County. On the other hand, the benefits in Los Angeles County, especially for single-family homes, were mixed. (http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/smart_growth/land_value_impacts)

Overviews of existing research by Booz Allen Hamilton (2002, http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nm/impacts_of_rail_transif_on_property_values.pdf) and Parsons Brinckerhoff (2001, http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/show/bestpractice162) show a similar range of results. If anything is conclusive, it is that the extent to which infrastructure investments lead to a rise in land values depends on the measures in place to strengthen that relationship. Transit-oriented development is one alternative for ensuring that the surrounding land benefits as much as possible from new infrastructure.

In addition to the regular set of planning tools, Ohio is one of several states that allow for the creation of Transportation Improvement Districts. A key TID feature is the option of a special assessment on properties within the district. In this case, the relationship between infrastructure investments and rising land values is assumed. The special assessment provides an additional funding source for transportation investments directly from the property owners who are likely to benefit the most.

5)    What is the latest thinking in shared parking?

Shared parking is based on the notion that different land uses vary in when they generate parking demand and that some of those uses may be part of the same automobile trip. The Urban Land Institute first published a book on shared parking in 1983. It outlined methods for analyzing parking demand, testing scenarios and developing a parking plan. Although not explicitly stated, its methods and case studies were focused on new projects, especially ones large enough to contain a mix of land uses between which parking can be shared.

The basic concepts for shared parking in new developments are well established. In contrast, the latest trends in shared parking may be found in existing and infill development. Shared parking that involves multiple existing property owners is a different animal, especially in planning and implementation, compared to the negotiation process for a single large project.

At the simplest level is an agreement between two owners. Perhaps one store has extra parking that an adjacent business could use. Examples of shared parking agreements can be found on the municipal web sites of San Diego (http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/industry/pdf/forms/ds267.pdf ) and College Station, Texas (http://www.cstx.gov/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3508).

To include more participants in a shared parking scheme introduces greater challenges as well as opportunities. One mechanism that can accommodate shared parking is a parking benefit district, which gives property owners in the district greater authority over parking rules and revenues. In Old Pasadena (http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/02/local/me-wheel2), business owners set parking meter hours and rates and then use the revenues to make streetscape and other improvements.

A parking benefit district contradicts much of today’s normal practice. In commercial districts, business owners want parking to be as cheap and plentiful as possible. In residential neighborhoods, homeowners respond to encroaching parking demand from visitors by asking the city for a residential permit program. The end result is often a political solution, designed to appease constituencies and to maintain or enhance public revenues. The real parking problem goes unabated.

Would businesses and residents behave differently if they had control of the purse strings and responsibility for something greater than their individual parking needs? The answer from Pasadena – where business owners set higher meter rates for a longer period – is a resounding yes.