Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2005.04.28PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(650) 558-7230 Fax:(650) 685-9310 !V The City of Burlingome CITY F|ALL.5O1 PRIMROSE ROAO BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 G3997 Website: www.burlinsame.ors CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) ss8-7670 SPECIAL MEETING TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING STUDY UPDATE APRIL 28,'2005 - 6:00 P.M. BURLINGAME MAIN LIBRARY, LANE ROOM 480 PRIMROSE ROAD AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING STUDY A. PRESENTATION (William Hurrell - Wilbur Smith Associates) Background/History Study Results Conclusions Potential Actions QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION (Staff & Pubtic Participation) COMMISSION DISCUSSION NEXT STEPS a. b. c. d. ./),t I B. c. D. ADJOURNMENT S:\A Public \{orkr Direcrory\TsP Comission\Agenda\Spsial M@tirgs Ag€nds\Agends - Sp@ial Meting +28-05 BIrRL AV PARKING STlrDy.wpd ilt. BUR a%" V,4r/%"r,hry"*" crTY HALL - (650) 558-7230 PUBLIC WORKS - 5OI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 940I0.3997 CoRPoRATTON YARD - (650) 558-7670 I36I NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 940I0.3906 WWW,BURLINGAME,ORG BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA PARKING STUDY POSS!BLE ACTIONS (Response to TSPC April 28,2005 public comments) PUBLIC EDUCATION Short term actionso lnstall parking information signage. Provide parking information with tickets. Provide brochures to Chamber, DBID and business owners. Post projects funded by meter revenues on meter poles ENFORCEMENT/METERS Short term actions. Be flexible in issuing tickets. Provide a more friendly interaction with the publico Consider beginning street parking enforcement one hour later in the morningo Continue to monitor for possible Caltrain parker abuse (study indicates none now). Provide stronger enforcement of free lot usage by residentso Encourage businesses to provide parking meter change. Explore pilot project to install one change machine Longer term actions. Consider introducing additional change machines. Provide flexible meter payment methods such as crediUdebit cards or paper bills. Study the use of smart meters No action. Do not extend meter times to evenings or weekends due to impact on residents, possible business loss to other cities and increased enforcement costs C:\Documents and Settings\lbrock\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK94\4.28 RevisedParkingStudyPossibleActions.doc PARKING Short term actionso lncrease time limits for underutilized lots B-1 and V as well as along Howard Avenueo Make lot G free. Have merchants investigate employee permit system potentially using lots G,H,ForOo Have merchants investigate business valet service using lot O. Have merchants explore shuttle service between lots Longer term actions. Determine amount, timing and location of new parking in conjunction with the Specific Area Plan (SAP)o Determine need for any parking rate increase in conjunction with the SAP. Evaluate elimination of planters to provide more parking in conjunction with the streetscape design No Actiono Do not consider extending Burlingame Avenue time limits due to decreased turnover effects. Take no specific action to accommodate short term parking for business needs but rely on other actions to create turnover C:\Documents and Settings\lbrock\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK94\4.28 RevisedParkingStudyPossibleActions.doc ll. Presentation l. Background & History ll. Study Results lll. Conclusions lV. Potential Actions Aqenda l. lntroduction lll. Feedback/Comments lV. Next Steps BU RLINGAM E AVEN U E DI STRICT I PHASE 2 PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW i f WSA conducted a comprehensive parking study in 1999. I That study concluded that there was a shortage of 360 parking spaces I The study recommended that the City consider both: O Parking mana.gement measures to modify behavior and improve usage of ex,st,ng parKtng O A new parking structure I After an extensive public review process the City Council voted tD to proceed with the parking management program, O to defer any decision on a parking structure until after the effectiveness offfie par,<ing management program was determined. Background f Phase 1 -2002 O lncreased Fees- One-Hour: S.25 to S.50 per hour- Two-Hour: S.25 to 5.375 per hour- Ten-Hour: S.10 to S.20 per hour tD Replaced Mechanical Parking Meters with Electronic Meters O Converted Lots F & H to free parking tl lmplemented Parking Lot lmprovements f Phase 2-2004 a lncreased Fees - One-Hour: S.50 to $.75 per hour- Two-Hour: $.375 to S.75 per hour- Ten-Hour: S.20 to S.25 per hour a Converted Lots K & W to 10 Hour Parking tD Prepared Parking Map and Brochure a Conducted Business/Employee Outreach Program History 6 \tiltx,,\trnth,..5) t Parking Turnover & Duration I Parking lntercePt SurveY I Parking OccuPancy I Business SurveY R-t[u ""*)11 ilbur \nrilh \ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 (,c(E o. (,oo ot) oc 2002 DAIIS E Core Area I Peripheral Area Surveys Comparison of OccuPancY 2004 versus 2002 -^l-. *,,,,,,.ili'*,.u,-\ 2004 BUSfr6IIIE PffiM fiPLTtrMrATON EUEW C s Er-El -I ,_ e FigurcI S'ilbot snith.{Eie ,ffi^urrr. 9.0 8.0 , 7.0 H o.o CL? s.o tLo oE 3.0o z.o 1.0 0.0 2004 tr One Hour lTwo Hour lTen Hour Comparison of Weekday Turnover @:,,:)i.2004 r"rtUt 2002 *dr""s";tr,r,",y) 2002 70 oHoo CL?sooi= ao =o6E 30-Hroo\o 10o\ 0 2002 2004 R-l-t-rnad .*)\\ ilhrr srrith \r tr One Hour ITwo Hour lTen Hour tr All Spaces 90 80 $ro Esotsoo E40 $sotzo 10 0 0- 60 60- 90 Minutes Parked 90+ IGr- rr \n"th \\,(r.il,^ \ tro - 60 Mi"rG;-l I60 - 90 Minutes I D 90 Minutes or Morel 1285 respondents in 2004 a310 respondents in 2005 ITIEE,,,,ffi,.**) 4$o/o 35"/o lOYo 250h 2OYo l5Y" lOo/o sYo OYo fJ- 2002 2004 -16,)*alt-- ffi ------r;0" ning IBusiness trOther Parker lntercept Survey Resu/fs f Four survey locations in the downtown 1236 respondents in 2003 I nte rc ept S u rvey Resu/ts; What is the Purpose of Your Trip? IG\- -r\'ll{"\'n'lh,-g) l./. 70o/o 6O0/" 50o/o 4$o/o 3OVo 20o/o lOo/o Oo/o 2004 a-ItltEl u,,,,,,ili.,.,,,-\ lE Brrlirfi;-l lt ott "r Peninsuta I l. s* Francisco I lo ottrer I 26 o/- 4o/o 5o/o 3SVo 3OVo 25o/o 2OVo lSYo l0o/o 5o/o Oo/o 2t"/" I l"t 2002 2004 IEl.l. E Vert'Convenient Fairh' Convenient Somenhat Convenient !'ery I nconvenaent 64"/o FY-- .-. 2002 lntercept Survey Resu/fs; 6,,,,,,. How Convenient is Parkinq for you? sa.""frr*.*-\ 3s%o 3Oo/" 25o/o 2OVo lSYo lOVo 5o/" Oo/o r Snrilh .\rv 2002 2004 R- I) tr 0-l a t-2 tr 2--1 tr 3-4 El 4-s l>5 'h l|2, It',,lao 15o,160/"16": I 40010 3i%o 3Oo/o 25o/o 2OYo l5o/o lOo/o s%o OVo I Hour or l-2 Hours 2-4 Hours 4+ Hours N/A Less 2701, I lo/o ------8:V;- --------tffi- 26"/n l.nterc.ept Survey Resu/fs; @-,,,,1i.How Long Do You Park? "ur"#,'",:) 4sYo 4OYo 35o/" 300 25o/" 2Oo/" l5V" l00h sYo OYo Yes N/A R- s) No 1lillxn Smith.\$( +4ya__ B Verv Much I Somewhat I Not at all tr Not Sure lm "*) t 500h 45o/" 40o/" 35o/" 30o/" 2sVo 20o/o l5o/" lOYo 5o/" 0Yo Difficulty in Chance of finding space gstting ticket Need to carry change --+*+-- 190 "--4q%- I nte rc ept S u rv ey Resu/fs; Do You Park Less Time Because of Rates? 43"/o 43"/o - Cost of Parking 45 40 35 30 25 20 t5 t0 ! 0 2002 2001 '^*)\\ ilhu Srrrrth \ lE Y*- l. No lr Not su""20 34 43 7 35 30 ,< Ezo tts l0 5 0 Emplovees Customers 14 66 tG -r5u"l' \'-i, ) r City Lot or Garage tr On-Street Meters tr On-Street Unmetered E Private Lot E Don't Knowll 35 in tr Very Much I Somewhat I Not at all tr Not 26 20 Cost f=, u,,,,, ili,."*.u.\ 9 40 35 30 25 20 r5 t0 5 0 Getting a Difficultf in parking tickct finding spacc Nced to carry change I Somewhat I Not at all D Not Sure llillxrr Snrith \rv 2l lt l\l uch s) Ve 35 30 25 20 l5 t0 5 0 Chance of getting ticket Difficultl in finding space Need to carry change ,, 1l 7 Business Survey Results: What are Customers Concerned Abaut? Business What are Cost 6 R. _) Conclusions t6,tlE r,1," "-'l s-.,-.I f Parking Occupancy O Occupancy is at practical capacity O Liftle change from 2002 to 2004 - 869/o in the core O 70 long term parkers moved out of the core -creating new spaces for customers a Lots B-1 , K-1, K, L, G and V still have capacity available O Convert On-Street meters on Howard Avenue from 2 hours to 4 hours Canclusions f Turnover and Duration Surveys C Very high turnover on Burlingame Avenue - approaches practical capacity O Turnover in the two-hour spaces increased from 2002-2004 as antici pated O Durations in the 10 hour spaces increased, suggesting more use by employees O Parking durations match well with actual time limits ! Parking lntercept Surveys a Overall parkers are more satisfied than in 2002 a Customers are able ao find parking closer to theh destination than in 2002 a Costumers are concerned about: 1. Findinq a space 2. Avoiding getting a ticket 3. Paying for parking or finding the necessary change a The le.ng.th ol slay desired by customerc matches up well with the currentltme ltmtls a Pa*ing improvement suggeslions were: 1. Ptovide morc spaces - 24Yo 2. Don t make parking too expensive - 24% 3. Don t make enforcement too aggressive - 10olo 4- Provide longer time limits for shoppers - 10% I Business Survey O Business owners' concerns: 1. Availability of parking 2. Over aggressive enforcement 3. Customers finding change for the meters 4. Customer complaints about receiving parking tickets O Parking cost was not a major concern with the business owners/managers Conclusions Conclusions a lncrcase tine linits on Hosatd Aveiue lrod ? to 4 hoors Edployee Parking Pe.mils a Con.i<let aD enployee petuing petuit p.og@n siaite. to the .u.rcnt ciwi.,e rcsi.leatiat pa.kiogpe.frtl p.ogtan a Erplo.e the leasibiliu ol instaltinq chadge machines or new .eve.ue coltectoi eqoipmqt Etplote lechniques lo lEhel rcpeal olleodcts whtlegividg noe latitu.te to customcB who bave dothad any lickets I a I a a conbnuelo exp.nd tis prcgram a Conven LoG B-1, L, and V to ten-hou par*ing a Codven Lot G to frea parking a Public lnform.tion Potential Actions I Coordinaiion wilh other projects a cahtan statrcn Pla(otu tdptovements a Saleway sile development a Bu iagene Avenue Districtspecilic Arca Ptan Wilbur Smith Associates Burlingome Avenue District Phose 2 Porking Progrom Review prepored CITY OF BU P["A.NNERS Apri! 14,2OO5 BURLINGAME AVENUE DISTRICT PHASE 2 PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW ovERvtEw This report describes the findings of the Burlingame Avenue District Parking Program Phase 2 Review, undertaken by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). The purpose of this report is to evaluate the changes in parking utilization that have occurred since the implementation of the Phase 2 parking program recommendations which were implemented in early 2004. As part of the improvements, the one-hour meter rates along Burlingame Avenue were increased from $0.50 to $.75 per hour. The two-hour meter rates in the area were increased from $ 0.375 to $0.75 per hour, and the l0 hour meters were increased from $0.20 to $0.25 per hour. Lots K and W were converted from 2 hour to l0 hour parking creating I 17 new l0 hour spaces for employee parking. The City also implemented a parking information program which included the development and distribution of a Burlingame Avenue District parking information brochure, and the posting of parking information on the City's website. SURVEYS As part of this study WSA undertook the following data collection and survey efforts: o Parking Occupancy - Parking occupancy (the total number of cars parked at a given time) studies of all metered curb faces and all public off-street parking facilities in the Burlingame Avenue study area on Wednesday and Thursday, October l3 and 14,2004 between the hours of l0:00 AM and 3:00 PM, and on Saturday, October 24,2004 between I 1:00 AM and 2:00 PM. An analysis of the hourly survey data indicated that the peak weekday hour for parking was between 1:00 and 2:00 PM on Thursday. This data was then summarized by block face and off-street facility and compared with the results of a similar survey taken in October of 2002 prior to the recent increases in parking fees. o Parking Turnover & Duration - At the same time as the occupancy study, surveys of parking tumover (the number of cars using each space throughout the day) and parking duration (the length of stay for each car) were also conducted. . Parking Intercept Survey - In November of 2004 interviews were conducted with individuals on the streets of the Burlingame Avenue District at four locations. This survey mirrored a similar previous survey done as part of the 2002 study effort. A second more in-depth intercept survey was done in January 2005. o Business Survey - A telephone survey of business owners and managers was conducted in January and February of 2005. A similar survey was conducted as part of the 2002 review of the Phase I improvements. 521 730 BURLINGAAAE PARKING PHASE 2 R,EVIEW Poge I WI-BUR SM'TH ASSOC'ATES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAAA RB/IEW For the purposes of long term historical comparisons there was also a full set of parking surveys done in early November of 2001 which was prior to the initial rate increases and parking lot changes that occurred in early 2002. This report focuses on the more recent changes since 2002, but the tables in the appendix do also provide historical comparisons with the 2001 data. 2OO4 VERSUS 2OO2 PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCY Table I presents a summary comparison of the peak midday parking occupancy for the year 2004 versus 2002. As can be seen, parking activity at on-street (curb) facilities was marginally higher (by 5 cars) and slightly lower (by 6 cars) at off-street facilities in the core area. Overall, there was no significant change in the parking occupancy of the Core Area. For all practical pulposes, parking activity in the core area can be said to be unchanged from 2002 to 2004. It is worth noting, though, that for curb parking on Burlingame Avenue itself, the number of parked cars in the peak hour increased from 107 to 116, an increase of 8 percent. There was construction activity in Lot E, which may have resulted in a reduced occupancy there, although the totals were adjusted to reflectthe24 spaces that were closed at the time of the survey. The current peak occupancy of the core area remains at 86Yo of all spaces. It is important to note that this is a very high level of occupancy and that many on-street areas and off-street facilities are at 95-100 percent occupied. Typically when an area reaches 85 to 90 percent of capacity it is approaching the practical limits of its capacity. In the peripheral areas there was a drop in parking occupancy from 2002 to 2004, with 42 fewer cars parked on-street and 35 fewer cars parked off-street, representing a reduction in occupancy from 82 percent to 74 percent. At off-street facilities in the peripheral area, a net loss of 35 cars was noted in the peak hour in 2004 compared with 2002, though a drop in two facilities (Lots O and G) account for more than this net loss; if these two facilities are excluded from the equation, there would actually be a net gain. 521730 2002 2004 87o/o 860/o 82Yo 86% 80o/o 86% 86%660/o 80o/o 74% 8201 74% Uo/" Summary Comparison of 20{l,2 and 2004 Midday Parking Occupancy Ail Core Area On-Street Core Area Off-Street Core Area Total Peripheral Area On-Street Peripheral Area Off-Street Peripheral Area Total 82Yt BURLINGA AE PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW Poge 2 W' LBU R SM'TH ASSOC'AIES t PHASE II PARKING PROGRAAA RB/IEW The more likely cause of the decrease in the occupancy of the peripheral area was the closure of a major restaurant near Lot O and a car dealership on California Drive near Lots N, F, and G. The restaurant was known to direct its customers to Lot O, and the car dealership was known for using much of the on-street parking west of California Drive. Using the parking demand model that was developed for the area as part of the original parking study, the peak midday demand generated by the restaurant would have been 54 cars and the peak midday demand for the auto dealership would have been 91 cars. The closure of these two uses more than explain the reduction in occupancy that was observed from 2002 to 2004. Figure I graphically illustrates shifts in peak occupancy from 2002 to 2004 in the core area. Lots colored green experienced an increase in usage, while facilities coded red experienced a decrease in peak parking activity. (Facilities where the degree of parking activity was unchanged are coded in yellow.) ln general, other facilities at the east and west ends of the study area tended to increase in utilization than the mid-corridor ones, and long-term facilities more than short term facilities. It is interesting and important to note that despite the overall high level of occupancy, a number of off-street facilities have space available. Lots B-1, K-1, K, L, G, O and V all have peak occupancies below 60 percent. Also the data shows (see appendix Table A-l) that occupancies for the curb parking along Howard Avenue and Chapin Avenue are relatively low (70 percent or less). It may be possible to find ways to encourage better use of these facilities. Appendix Tables A-l and A-2 present detailed parking occupancy rates in 2004 and 2002 (with 2001 included for comparison) for the individual curb faces and off-street facilities in the commercial core and peripheral areas, respectively. In conclusion, in the core area there was literally no change in the number of spaces occupied during the weekday midday peak between the 2002 and2004 surveys. This area is at 86 percent occupancy, which is within the 85 to 90 percent range that the parking industry considers as the practical capacity of the parking system. There was a slight decline of parking demand in the peripheral area. However, this decline is more than explained by the fact that two major businesses on California Drive closed just before the surveys. Given this consideration ii is possible that overall demand for the use of the parking in the peripheral area actually increased slightly, suggesting that the higher parking fees in the core area did encourage some parkers to move to the peripheral area. The number of vehicles which shifted out of the core area is probably about 70 cars at the mid-day peak. PARKING TURNOVER AND DURATION SURVEYS Parking duration and turnover surveys were undertaken at all curb faces in the core area, and at a sample of spaces in off-street facilities. Duration and tumover surveys are undertaken by periodically recording partial (for privacy reasons) license numbers of parked cars on a space-by- space basis and later tallying the number of consecutive observations of the same car in the same space. This was done at half-hourly intervals on Burlingame Avenue, and at hourly intervals on all other streets and off-street parking facilities in the core area. These surveys were undertaken between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Thursday, October 28,2004 and Saturday, November 6,ZOO4 and compared with previous surveys on Thursday, May 15, and Saturday, May 17,2003. The 521730 BURLINGAME PHASE 2 REVIEW Poge 3 WI.8UR SM'TH AS'OC'AIES BURLINGAME PARKING IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW IC aa a a a o CHAPIN A!€ a NORTH NOT TO SCALE a A3"A*_\I a 1' ax ,00 aaa a a a a a a oaaaaaaaaoaaao HoWARD aa D.ICINEERS PI,ANNERS BAYSWATER AVE:-:':(- Figure I w aaaa I ,. ,' I Peok Hour Occuponcy Commerciol Core Number of Peok Porkers lncreosed No Significont Chonge in Porking Number of Peok Porkers Decreosed --t. I I I I I a !./ oo aaa t-. at'a Lot Time Limit A 2&9Hr. A-3 2&9Hr. 10 Hr.H 2 Hr. 2&10Hr. 2&4Hr. 2 & 4Hr. Free Parking 10 Hr.ft Free Parking B* 1 E J F* Gr H* 2&4Hr. K*10 Hr.* * Long-Term Parking* Pay-and Display Machines V w* K-1 N* L M 1 Hr.* 2Hr. 2 Hr. 2Hr. 10 Hr.* 10 Hr.* 2 Hr. Wilbur Smith Associates SHIFT IN WEEKDAY PEAK PARKING 2002-2004 a aoaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoa '..... \ 'i atttlOOO'o'' I I I ! i,| \ PHASE ll PARKING PROGRA ,t REvlEw surveys in 2003 were part of the overall phase I review that initiated in November 2002. To avoid confusion we will refer to these surveys as the 2002 surveys in the following tables. Table 2 summarizes the observed turnover and average duration of parkers for on-street parking based on the meter time limits. Appendix Table A-4 provides more detail. Table 2 Comparison of On-Street Tumover and Duration - 2002, and 2004 (Ten Hour Day - 8:00 AItl to 6:00 Pll) Number ofSpacet Weekday Tumover Weekdey Duratlon 2002'2004 2002"2001 Cars,/ Space Cars/Day Cars/ Space Cars/Day HourV Car Car Hours HourV Car Car Houft One Hour Meters - Burlingame Avenue 107 8.9 953 8.0 853 0.8 729 0.9 737 Two Hour Meters 313 4.4 1362 4.4 1 366 1.4 I 918 1.4 1901 Ten Hour Meters 68 2.7 186 2.O 't37 2.O 379 2.9 397 Total - All Spaces 488 5.1 2501 4.8 2356 1.2 3027 1.3 3035 Number of Spaces Seturday Tumover Saturday Duratlon 200?,2004 200?.2004 Cars/ Space Cars/Day Cars/ Space Cars/Day HourV Car Car Hours Hours/ Car Car Hours One Hour Mete6 - Burlinoame Avenue 107 7.9 843 7.4 793 0.9 785 0.9 742 Two Hour Meters 313 4.3 134.2 4.4 1 381 1.4 1844 1.4 't891 Ten Hour Meters 68 1.6 106 1.7 113 2.4 259 2.2 fotal - All Spaces 488 4.7 2291 4.7 2247 1.3 2888 1.3 2885 ' The aclual surve),s werB conducted in Mey of 2003 blt are part of theoverall Phase I reviow refened to as the 2002 surveys. During a ten hour period, tumover rates in excess of 6.0 to 7.0 cars per day per space indicate a very healthy level of parking activity. Turnover at the one-hour parking meters which are along Burlingame Avenue is very high, averaging 8.0 cars per space in 2004. Given that activity is typically low in the morning hours before retail businesses open, this rate suggests that the spaces on Burlingame Avenue are occupied almost all the time. The 107 metered one-hour spaces served 853 cars during the ten hours of observations in 2004. There was a slight decline in tumover from the 8.9 cars per space noted in the 20A2 survey. Turnover at the two-hour meters also is very high. There was a slight increase in turnover in these spaces from 2002 to 2004. The Saturday survey showed a very small decline in tumover between 2002 and 2004, less than one percent. There was a decline in turnover along Burlingame Avenue and an offsetting increase in turnover in the two-hour and l0 hours spaces. The average weekday durations in the two-hour spaces stayed the same between the 2002 and 2004 surveys at 1.4 hours, and the duration in the ten-hour spaces increase significantly from 2.0 to 2.9 hours. The increased duration in the ten-hour meters suggests that the increased parking fees in the one and two-hour spaces encouraged more long term parkers to use the l0 hour spaces. Durations on Saturday showed almost no change between the 2002 and 2004 surveys. The metered spaces along Burlingame Avenue and in much of the core area operate at very high ::::*. rates. These rates approach the practical capacity of the parking system. For example BURLINGAA,TE PARKING PHASE 2 REV]EW Poge 4 W'I.BUR SM'TH ASSOC'AIES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAA^ RF/IEW on Burlingame Avenue, a turnover of 8.0 spaces per day suggests that during the hours that retail businesses are open (10:00 AM to 6:00 PM) that there is one car per hour per space. With a one- hour parking time limit, this suggests the spaces are full virtually all the time. Table 3 provides a further indication of how intensely the existing off-steet spaces are utilized. It indicates what percent of the time between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM each parking space is occupied. The highest utilization levels are observed along Burlingame Avenue where the 107 one-hour meters spaces were occupied 69 percent of the time on both the weekday and Saturday surveys in 2004. The utilization index, which accounts for both turnover and duration, and therefore is a very useful indicator, suggests that there has been very little change in overall utilization between 2002 and2004. The levels of use are very high, with the exception of the l0 hour meters which are not intensely used on Saturdays, probably because there are fewer employees downtown on weekend than weekday as many office oriented businesses are closed. Table 4 provides a summary of the distribution of the durations of parkers using the one-hour meters along Burlingame Avenue. 521730 Table 3 On-Street Parking Space Utilization lndex AvailableNumber of 2002-*2004 2002"2004 One Hour Meters - Burlingame Avenue 107 680/o 690/o 73%690/o Two Hour Meters 313 61%61%59o/o 60% Ten Hour Meters 68 560/o 58o/o 38%37o/o 488 620/o 62%59%59o/o The actual surveys were conducted in May of 2003 but are part of the overall Phase I review on a assumed space 10 hours per day referred to as the 2002 Duration of Parkers on Burlingame Avenue time limit) Table 4 CARS OBSERVED PERCENT OF TOTALPARKING DURATION WEEKDAY SATURDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY 0-30 Min. 30 Min.-1 Hr, 465 240 418 223 54.80/o 28.3Yo 50.4o/o 26.gok Total a9 829 100.0%100.0o/o BURL]NGAAAE PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW Poge 5 WI.8UR SM'TH ASSOC'AIES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAAA REVIEW During the weekday survey, 83 percent of the parkers stayed for one hour or less in the metered spaces. The remaining 17 percent stayed more than one-hour as indicated by the shaded area in Table 4, potentially risking receiving a parking citation, although over half of this goup stayed between one hour and 1.5 hours. This suggests that the current pattern of use of the parking on Burlingame Avenue conforms well to the one-hour time limit. Table 5 provides turnover, duration, and utilization for the off-street parking spaces. The turnover and utilization for the off-street spaces is generally less than that experienced for the on- street spaces. It is important to note, however, that the utilization of the 9 and l0 hour spaces is very high on weekdays, as apparently many employees uses these spaces. Appendix Tables A-5 and ,{-6 provide more detail. Tabte5 Average Ofr-Street Parking Tumover and Duration by Off-Street Facllity, Fall 2(X!4 lTen Hour Day - E:00 AII to 8:00 Pt) Me,ter Off-Street Type Soaces Averago Parking Duration (Hoursl Tumo\rer CaEmrSoac Ac{iW Cars oer Dav Aclivity Car Hours Der Dav Lnilization lndo(' Car Hr9Soace Hrs Sampled Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekdav Saturday Weekday Salurday Weekdaylsaurday Total 2 Hour Spaces 128 1.5 1.4 3.1 4.0 397 5',t2 581 724 qsxl s7% Total 4 Hour Spaces 9 2.'t.4 2.3 4.7 21 42 43 59 llYol ffio/t Total 9 Hour Spaces 50 4.8 3.6 1.6 '1.8 80 90 384 324 llotol 6501 Total 10 Hour Spaces 54 5.1 3.4 1.3 1.2 69 66 351 223 osxl 41o*: Total All Speces 187 2.0 1.7 2.7 3.4 497 644 '|,009 1,107 il%l ss% The lndex thd the was Key conclusions from the turnover and duration surveys are: o Tumover levels at the one-hour meters along Burlingame Avenue are very high, approaching the practical limit of parking capacity for these spaces. o Turnover levels at the two-hour meters increased slightly between 2002 and2004, an indicator that the parking fee increase had some positive impact on turnover, although the tumover rate for these spaces also is near practical capacity. o Average parking durations at the one-hours meters are 0.9 hours and 83 percent of all cars stay for less than one-hour indicating that the one hour limit is suitable for a high percentage of the parkers. o Average parking durations at the two-hour meters are 1.4 hours. This suggests that two hours is more than a comfortable time limit for most parkers. . Parking durations in the 10 hour meters went up significantly from 2.0 hours in 2002 to 2.9 hours in 2004. This indicates that the rate increases had the desired effect of encouraging more employees to use the long-term parking meters and lots. PARKER INTERCEPT SURVEYS Parkers headed for the Burlingame Avenue area were interviewed at the same four locations as in 2002 and 2004, with a survey plan designed to capture the same sample size as the earlier surveys. The interviews were done on Saturday, November l3 and Wednesday November 17,2004, between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. Additional surveys were 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW Poge 6 W'I.BUR SM'TH A'SOC'AIES PHASE tI PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW performed in January of2005. The detailed results ofthese surveys, and comparisons with 1999 and 2002 surveys, are presented in Appendix Tables A-7, A-8 and A-9. This discussion focuses on the key results of the more recent surveys conducted n 2004 and 2005 as compared with the 2002 surveys. 2OO4 Porker lnlercept Survey As can be seen from Table 6, the 2004 surveys exceeded the previous survey in terms of sample size (285 versus 236 in 2002) and matched the approximate distribution by location. Overall, the survey found that a higher percentage of persons intercepted had come by car in 2004 (93 percent), compared to the two earlier years. In terms of parking location, a higher percentage of interviewees in 2004 parked at off-street facilities. Geographic distribution of interviewees in 2004 was quite similar to 2002, with 27 percent of interviewees coming from Burlingame in 2004 compared with 26 percent in 2002. when parkers were asked about the convenience of parking Downtown, interviewees in the 2004 surveys were more positive about their experience than in 2002, with 54 percent saying parking was either Very Convenient or Somewhat convenient in 2004 compared to 42 percent in 2002. The biggest shifts were in the extreme attitudes, with "Very Inconvenient" dropping from 25 percent to 13 percent, while ..Very convenient" went up from I I percent to 21 percent. There was also a decrease in the number of people who were willing to walk more than four blocks, with only 16 percent compared with 33 percent in 2002. 521730 260/. uo/o 60/0 40/o 27% 65% 3% 5'/o 110/. 31o/o 330/0 25% 21% 33'/o 330/" 13o/o 285EETil 43./. 290/. 21% ,: 42'/o 36./. 140/o 8% 420/. 460/0 5'/o 50/o 10/o 'to/o 57% 28o/o 3./. 70/o 3Vo 20/.N/A 2002 200/ otal Survey Respondents Respondents by Location Origin of Trip Convenience of Parklng Downtown Blocks Parkers are Willing to Walk by Parking Location D ingame Avenue/Lorlon Avenue n a Private Paking Facility ity Lovcarage in Front of a Residence in Front of a Business Table 6 Burllngame Avenue Disfict Parker lntercept Survey Comparison of 2002 & 2004 Surveys 2002 2004 Burlingame Olher Peninsula San Francisco Other Very Convenient Fairly Convenient Somewiat lnconvenient Very lnconvenient G,1 2-3 +5 More lhan 5 Lot E/Post Oftice Lot A3 NiA 8'/o 260/. 't6% 180/. 't70/o 160/o 310/o 280/. 160/o 70/o 9% BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW Poga 7 }r rBuR sMlrH ASSOCTATES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAA RB/IEW Table 7 summarizes suggestions for improvements to the parking experience by generalized categories. The greatest number of comments was expression of need for more spaces, especially from Saturday parkers (40 percent of all comments, and 64 percent of Saturday comments). The second most frequent category of comments (21 percent) was that parking was two expensive. Overly aggressive time limit enforcement and too steep fines was the third most common category of responses (8 percent of all responses), followed by the need for longer meter time limits, a permit program for residents and/or downtown employees, a need for meters with more flexible payment options. The results of the 2004 intercept survey suggest the following conclusions: o The percentage ofparkers that find parking "very convenienf' or "fairly convenient" increased from 42 percent in the 2002 survey to 54 percent in2004. . FortY percent of the parkers said they were willing to walk only l-2 blocks as compared with34%o in2002. Tlpically the expressed willingness to walk is based on the parkers' actual experience. It someone is used to being able to park within l-2 blocks of their destination, they are likely to say that they are willing to walk this distance. This implies that customers are finding that parking close is their destination in more available now than in2002. o The top four suggestions for improving parking were: l. Provide more spaces-24Yo 2. Don't make parking too expensive -24% 3. Don't make enforcement too aggressiveitickets too expensive - l0o/o 4. Provide longer time limits for shoppers - 10% 2005 Pqrker lntercept Surwey A special intercept survey was conducted in January of 2005 to provide further opportunity for input by downtown employees and visitors. A total of 310 surveys were conducted. This survey involved several new questions as summarized in Table 8. Respondents were asked how long they parked. A total of 27 percent indicated they parked for one hour or less, while the largest $rouP, 40 percent, said they parked from one to two hours. Twenty percent parked for two hours s2r730 WEEKDAY RESPONDENTS WEEKEND RESPONDENTS ALL COMMENTERS No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct. Suggestions for lmproving Parklng in Burlingame Avenue Area October 2004 Parker lntercept Survey 16 7 7 5 4 12 24I 7 6 4 24o/o 1Oo/o lOYo 7o/o 6% 2'.! 29 8 2 0 1 0 7 More Spaces Expensive/Should be free too aggressive/tickets too steep meter time limits for shoppers permits for residents/employees that accept more coins/bills/prepaid cards 18o/o 40h 0o/o 2o/o 0o/o '110/o 45 BURLINGAAAE PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW Poge 8 WI.8UR SM'TH ASSOC'ATES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAAA REVIEW or more. When asked if they either moved their car or feed the parking meter to avoid parking tickets, 14 percent of those responding said they moved their car and 37 percent said that they feed the parking meter. Several questions focused on the costumer's reaction to the recent changes in the parking system. In response to the question: Have the higher parking rates affected your length of stay? - 43 percent responded "yes" and 43 percent responded 'ho." The final new questions dealt with measuring how people have reacted to the increased cost of parking and other factors. When asked if the cost of parking made parking less pleasant - 36 percent said "very much" and 22 percent said "somewhat," A larger group, 42 percent said that the ease of getting a parking ticket made parking "very much" less pleasant. The geatest area of concem, however, was the "difficulty finding a space" which was cited by 49 percent of those interviewed as an issue. Thirty-nine percent indicated that not having enough change for the parking meter was very much an issue for them. 22Yo 20o/o 22o/o 20o/o 14o/o 27% Table 8 Burlingame Avenue District Parker lntercept Survey Results of 2005 Survey 27% 40% 11% 8% 14o/o requency of moving car or feeding meter 14o/o 37% 34o/o 15o/o r Satlsfaction with New Parking Measures ave higher rates affected length of parking? 43% 43% 140k How have these factoE made parking le*s pleasant? N/A ES Length of Parking car eed meter her 4 Hours of 1 Hour or less 1-2 Hours More than 4 Hours N/A Much Somowhat Not at all N/A Difficulty in finding a space Possibility of gefting parking ticket Need to cany so much change 21% 52r730 Pqg€ 9 lN/l I 42v.I 39"/. I 36% 9o/o---1749o/o @ 2'lo/o22o/o PHASE II PAR(ING PROGRAA,T RMEW The results ofthe 2005 intorcept survey can be summarized as follows: . The reported duration of parking matches well with the actual amount of parking that is available. For example: . 27 Wrcent of the parkers indicated they stay less than an hour while l0 percent of the spaces in the core area are restricted to one-hour parking. The one-hour spaces on Burlingame Avenue are well-suited to a large group ofparkers. r 40 percent of the parkers stay from I to 2 hours as compared with the supply which consists of 54 percent two-hour spaces. Thus there is more than enough two-hour parking for this group. . 19 percent ofthe parkers stay for more than 2 hours and 36 percent of the supply is for 2 to l0 hour parking. o 51 percent ofthe respondents said they either move their car or feed the meters to avoid parking tickets. This suggests that there are still many employees parking in the short-term parking areas. . 43 percent of the respondents said the higher pfiking fees have affected how long they park. While this could be viewed as negative, the intent of the higher fee was to encourage longer term parkers to park in the off-street lots and in the long-term meter zones, r The respondents found the following factors most displeasing about parking in the District: . Difficulty in finding a space - 49% . Potential of getJ,ing aticket- 42o/o ' The need to have change for the meters - 3970 . The cost of the parking - 36% 52r730 BURIINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WIBUR sM'TH A.SSOCIAIES Poge'lO PHASE I1 PARKING PROGRAA RMEW BUSINESS SURVEY The business survey involve telephone interviews with 5l downtown Burlingame businesses to gather information regarding parking conditions in downtown. Interviewees were asked to describe both the parking concerns of their customers and of their employees. This led to some open-ended comments that are summarized generally in Table 9 and described in more detail below. Table 9 Additional Comments Collected in the Business Survey Comment # of respondents Provide more parking (in general, in a parking structure or as long-term parking) 16 Parking enforcement officers are ruthless l0 I make change for customers/Why only quarters?/Can we get change- rnaking machines? l0 Customers complain about tickets/I pay my customers' tickets 6 How are parking enforcement funds spent by the City? 4 Build a parking structure J Meter times are too short J Provide employee permit parking 3 Free lots are full with commuters/residents/downtown employees when I arrive in the City for work 2 I don't feel comfortable using the free lots b/c I leave after dark 2 People are abusing meters 2 Other comments See below Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, February 2005. The most common response was an expression of support for more parking, either on behalf of customers or employees, including reserving parking spaces for employees. Specific comments break down as follows: r Four respondents supported more parking in general, o Three respondents supported an employee permit system and two respondents supported more long term parking (which would likely benefit downtown employees), . Three respondents suggested building a parking structure, . Three respondents reported that their customers want more parking, and 521730 BURLINGAAAE PARKING PHASE 2 RF/IEW Poge I I WI-BUR SM'TH,ASSOC'AIES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAAA RMEW . One respondent said that all downtown parking should be free. The next most frequent response is that parking enforcement is too stringent. Ten respondents made this comment, some noting that parking enforcement staffdoes the City a disservice due to their unfriendly attitudes. Conversely, one respondent felt that parking enforcement is too lax in front of his business and that one-hour meters need to be enforced. In addition, fiilo respondents are frustrated because meters are too often broken. One respondent added that she thought that parking meters should include information about how customers can telephone in a report of a broken meter to the City, rather than waiting for parking enforcement staff to reach the parking space and reporting it at that time. Six respondents reported that they provide change for customers. Two asked why the meters only accept quarters and two requested the City provide change-making machines on the street. Three respondents reported that customers are most concerned about getting parking tickets, as compared to their concern about the cost of parking, availability, and the inconvenience of carrying change for parking. Three respondents reported that they pay their customer's parking tickets for them. Four respondents had concerns about how much money was generated by parking fees and tickets and where this funding would be used. One respondent linked this concern with a comment about the upkeep at the City parking lots - she felt that the City lot was not well maintained (it is dirty and difficult to read the numbers on the stalls) and that the extra money generated by the parking program certainly was not being spent on lot upkeep. Three respondents reported that meter times are too short. Two respondents reported that they do not use free city lots because it is dark out when they leave their business location and it is too far to walk. Two respondents report that residents, commuters or employees are abusing meters or lots, noting that: . Certain free lots are full very early in the morning, and the respondent thinks that Caltain commuters or residents are parking in these spaces (and in the case of residents, illegally parking overnight), and . Employees are parking in two-hour meter spaces and adding coins throughout the day (rather than vacating the space). 521730 BURLINGAAAE PARKING PHASE 2 RB/IEW Poge I 2 WLBUR SM,THASSOCIAIES PHASE II PARKING PROGRA.A{ REVIEW coNcrustoNs The following findings resulted from this review ofthe Phase 2 parking program implementalion for the Burlingame Avenue area: Porking Occuponcy r Overall there was very little change in parking occupancy between 2002 and 2004. Peak parking occupancy was virhrally unchanged; with 86 percent ofall the spaces in the core area being utilized in the midday period. The fact that one major restaurant and an auto dealership on Califomia Drive has closed during this period, but that demands are still high, suggests that the demand for parking in the Burlingame Avenue area continues to be very strong. r After taking into account the fact that two major businesses have closed and lot J was partially under construction, it appears that the increases in parking rates had the impact of encouraging approximately 70 long-term parkers to relocate from the core area to the peripheral area. This had the positive effect ofopening up 70 spaces for short term parking in the core area during the mid-day peak period, by changing the behavior ofthe long-term parkers. r Parking occupancy has remained virtually unchanged, as short-tem parkers have taken the spaces in the core area that were vacated by the long-term parkers. It is important to note that much ofthe parking supply is operating at 85 to 100 percent ofcapacity, and at such there can not really be much ofan increase over current conditions. o While much of the parking in the area is virtually full, Lots B-1, K-1, K, L G and V all have peak occupancies below 60 percent. Also the data shows that occupancies for the curb parking along Howard Avenue and Chapin Avenue are relatively low (70 percent or less). Porking Turnover ond Durolion o The tumover of parking at the one-hour meters on Burlingame Avenue continues at a very high level - approaching the practical capacity ofthe system with 8.0 cars per space during a ten hour period. Given that the first two hours of the day, 8:00 - l0:00 PM have a low level of activity as most businesses have yet to open, this is a very high level ofuse. o Tumover in the two-hour metered spaces increased ftom 20021o 2004, suggesting that the rate increases had the desired effect of increasing turnover and reducing abuse ofthe time limits. . Observed parking durations match well with the actual parking time limits on the streets and in the lots. Porking lnlercepl Surweys o Overall parkers are more satisfied with the parking situation than in 2002 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW Pog€ 13 WlaUR SM'TH ASSOC'ATEs PHASE 1I PARKING PROGRAAA RMEW o Customers are able to find parking closer to their destination than in the past as indicated by where they park and how far they are willing to walk. o Customers and employees have concerns about: . Finding a parking space. . Avoiding getting a parking ticket. . Paying the parking fee or finding the change to pay it. . While there is interest in having more parking, there is very little expressed support for building a parking stucture. o The amount of time that costumers desire to stay matches up well with the time limit allocations of the available supply o The top four suggestions for improving parking were: l. Provide more spaces-24Yo 2. Don't make parking too expensive -24% 3. Don't make enforcement too aggressive/tickets too expensive - l0%o 4. Provide longer time limits for shoppers - l0% Business Surwey Business owners and managers are most concerned about (in order of importance): l. Availability ofparking 2. Over aggressive enforcement 3. Customers finding change for the parking meters 4. Customers complaints about receiving parking tickets It was interesting that the business survey respondents did not note the cost of parking as a key lSSUe. 521730 POTENTIAL FURTHER ACTIONS Overall the most recent set of parking improvements have accomplished the goal of maintaining high levels of utilization in the core area and encouraging employees and other long term parkers to park in the peripheral area. These actions have resulted in an estimated shift of 70 peak period long-term parkers from the core to the periphery, freeing up these spaces for customers. This has the same benefit as if the City had built a new 70 space parking lot in the core area, without all the impact or the cost. The findings also suggest several possible further actions or solutions: o Parking Lots - Several of the off-street lots still have available parking. Converting Lots K and W to l0 hour parking from 2 hour parking proved effective in increasing the use of BURLINGA^,IE PARK]NG PHASE 2 RB/IEW Poge I 4 VY'I.BUR sM'TH ASSOC'AIES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW these lots. Lots B-1, L, and V should be considered for conversion to ten hour parking. Pa*ing lot G should be considered for conversion to free parking. These actions should move another 50 -70 long-term parkers into these lots, freeing other spaces for short term parkers. On-Street Parking - Parking meters on Howard Street, which are underutilized, could be converted from two hours to four hours to provide more long-term parking close to Burlingame Avenue. Employee Parking Permia - If the above actions do not improve the use ofthese facilities by employees the Police Department should consider implementing an employee parking program similar to the residential parking permit program that currently exists. Lots H, G, and F would then be desigrated for employee permit parking. Public Information - Methods to better inform both employees and customers about their parking options in downtown, such as the parking map and brochure, appear to be well accepted. These informational programs should be continued and perhaps expanded. One example would be to use the existing parking map at a template to create parking information displays at strategic locations in the district. Another example would be to provide parking information along witl each parking violation ticket. Change Machines - There have been several suggestions that the City install change making machines to give customers a convenient option for using the parking meters. The City could also consider installing new meters or replacing the meters with ..pay-by- space" machines that would accept paper curency or even credit cards. Change making machines and the newer types ofparking revenue collection equipment are costly to purchase and to maintain. They do provide a high level of costumer convenience. The City should thoroughly investigate the suitability ofthese devices for application before making a decision. Enforcement - There have been both parking fee increases and parking citation fine increases in the last year. This has antagonized employees and customers, as well as business owners. At the same time the 2005 survey suggests that there are many employees who still either feed the meters or move their vehicles during the day to avoid tickets. There could be an effort to modifo enforcement techniques to focus more on repeat offendors, and to give the customers more latitude. This may require new city ordinances and enforcement practices, as well as educational programs. For example, first time offenders (based on license plate records) could be given an additional grace period before a ticket is issued, and a note would be left on their car advising them that they had been given this special treatrnent. a 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHAE 2 REuEW Poge 15 w,t8uR sMrrH Assocla7Es PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM RFYIEW a 521730 Coordination with other projects - There are several projects underway or soon to start that will impact parking in the area. These projects may represent an opportunity to improve current parking facilities or even add some small amounts of additional parking. Thus the parking elements of these plans should be coordinated with this effort to monitor and improve parking. The planning efforts include: r Improvements to the Calfain Station platforms . Efforts to redevelop the Safeway site . A Burlingame Avenue District Specific Area Plan BURLINGAA E PARK]NG PHASE 2 REVIEW Poge I6 W'LB UR SM'TH ASS OC'AIES PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW APPENDTX TABTES A-r TOA-9 BURLINGAME Pog6 l7 730 w[8uR sM,r8 AS5oC'AIES Table A.l Comp.rlson of 2001, 2002 and 20lN Wo.lrday Peak Parking Occupancy - Cotr Aro. Block Number Block Face Curb Face or Of-Street Facility Total SDaceg 2001 2002 2004 2001 2002 2004 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 2A 2-2 2-2 2-3 2-3 &1 4-1 +1 +1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-2 4-2 5-1 5-t s'1 E s E N s E E N S E S E N s E N s E N s E N s Bolween Chapin and Bellevle Betrveen El Camino Real and Pddsse Betvreen ChaF,in and BudinganD Bat$,een El Camho Realand Pdmro6e Between Primrose and El Camino Real Belween Bellevue and Donnelly Betwe€n Donnolly and Bellevue Bet'reeo Donnelt and BurlinganE Betw€en PdNose and Lorlon Belween Lorton and Pimrose Between Donnefly ard BudinganE Botween Bellevue and Burlinoame Betr{een Calllomia and Lonon Bei^/een Bellevue and BurlingmrE E€treen How"ard BM Burlingarne Belween Pdmrose end El Cemino Real Eetween Pdmose end El Csmino Real get',veen gudingadlB and Hotyaad getweon Primose and Pad( Between Pdmrcse and Paft Eelween Horard and Budingame Between Horvard and Budingarne Eetween Pa.k and Lorton Bet!,Yeen Park and Lorloh Betlveen Burllngam€ and Hovrard Between Howard and Budingamo Betvreen Lorlon and Highland Bet$reon Highland and Lorton Betu/een Budingame and Ho/yard Bet\reen Hovvaad and Burlinoame Primrose Rd Chapin Ave Primrose Rd Chapin Ave BurlirEern€ A\/e Lorton Ave Lorlon Av6 Dohneny Ave Budingame Ave Primaose Rd Caliomla Dr BudingEme A\/e Lodon At/e Primrose Rd Budingame Ave Howard Ave Park Rd Bu ingame Ave Primrose Rd Lorton Av6 Burlingame Ave Palk Rd Highland Ave Buding€fiE Ave Highland A\€ I 55 19 49 25 4 11 18 28 10 11 17 15 22 12 10 't8 15 13 15 19 8 17 2. 11 10 46 18 42 18 4 11 8 18 27 7 16 I 17 11 5 19 11 4 14 1t 7 19 13 7 13 16 1 8 30 1g 38 24 3 11 I 19 10 11 7 16 21 5 10 I t6 16 10 't3 z2 I 1 1'l 38 1? 38 28 4 12 I 18 27 8 14 8 14 16 2l 2 21 4 16 14 7 17 17 8 11 22 I 111% 8.oh 95% 86% 64% 100% 100% 8S% 100% 1U% 700h 't11.h 100% 100% 73% 91% 100% 7U/o 92% 40% 7 93% 85% 47% lB% 6a% 889/. ?60/r 73P/o B% 89% 55.h 95% 73t'/o 96% 75% 100% 1(x)% 106% l04% 100.h 79% 117% e1% 107% 950/. 100% 104$ 830h s0% 89% 1070h 770h 87% 9€% 68% '100% 7A% T7% 55% 122% 69'/6 89% 78% 'lu% 100% 109% 100% 100fh 104% 80% lOOo/r 133./o 8290 1070h ss./o 40o/o 89% 108./o 40./. a9% 93% r00% 47% 740h agfh 10o% 65% 1000/0 73% Core On-Skeet Subtotal 524 433 452 457 83.t A7%46./. 1-2 2-1 $1 3-'l +1 4-1 4-2 5.1 LdB Lot B1 Ldt K.l Lot A Lot 4"3 Lot C Lo( O Lo( X Lot L Loi J Loi w tot E (und€r codauaffoo - 2,t Bpace.s do8€O LdM 44 24 27 66 26 a2 ,t8 6S 20 74 68 2A 1 41 3 160 24 a2 47 21 11 71 54 l'l 49x 80 47 36 16 71 71 21 1 44 7 14 '147 24 7A 17 4'l 7 57 56 41 25 s3% N,/A 110h *./o s2yr 100% 98% 30% ?ooh 9A% 51% 04% 100% u% 46% 1U% so/o 1O0o/. 98% 08% 52./. 80% 98% 56% 104% 81% 100% 29% 52% 89% 92. 05% 98% 59% 35% s10h 95vo 9s% 9€% Core Off€treet Subtotal 73 583 626 598 80%80%82% Arl Core Aroa Spac.s 1257 1016 107E 1055 81%86%a6% Source: Wlbur Stuilh ?"sociates SUNeW on 11/8/01, 10131102 and 1W14n004 Table A-2 Comp.rlson ot 2001, 2(X)2 and 200,1Weekday Peak Pad(lng Occupancy - Periphei.l Area Blocl Number Block Face Curb Face or Off-Street Facility Total Spaces 2001 2002 2004 2001 2002 20M &1 6.1 6.1 62 6-2 G3 G4 7-3 't0-1 '11-1 'tl-1 11.1 12-1 12-2 12-2 E S s E N E N N E N N Csmlan South Lane Calitornia Dr Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave Calibmia Dr East Lane Bellevue Ave Calibmia Dr Highland Ave Ho,,vard Rd Lonon Ave Howard Ave Park Rd Hoi€rd Rd Prirnrose Rd Hotllard Rd Between North Lane ard East Lane W of tain tracks; E of Calibrnh Df S of Depot Between tlorth Lane and South Lane At Nodh Lane,/ Easl Lane At Nonh Lane/ Easl Lane Betrveen S Lane and Hori,atd Between No.th Lane and Sor(h Lane Between Almer and Primrose Between Bayswatea and Hoii,ard Between Bayswaler and Ho.vad Between Highland and Lodon Betneen BaysBsler and HoMard Betvi,ar Primrcse and E Camino Real Between Baysvater and I'loivard Bet$,een Primrose aM Park Betwee, Hoitard ard Bsy$r/at€r Betwe6n Park and Lorton 10 4 4 I 12 4 13 20 20 19 19 12 l8 't7 16 15 I 3 1 3 7 2 3 20 9 20 7 11 '13 I 13 12 '10 2 3 3 8 I 3 10 10 19 '16 12 15 16 2 1 3 2 3 7 1l E 17 '14 15 9 18 5 1' 12 90% 75% % 1@% 88% 17% 73% ,t540h 45% 10@/o 37% 68% 92!Y. 72Yo 47% 81% 80% 100% 5e6 7gPh lWh 10tr76 75% 75% 77% 50% 95% u% u% 10(M 89% 88% 100% 100% 20% 25% 7sya 67% 38% 58% 50% 85% 45% 85% 74Y. 79o/o 75% 100% 69% 80% Peripheral Onstreet Subtotal 211 ,t54 ltxl 141 86%66% &1 6-2 9-1 11-1 14-3 Lot v Lot X Lot O Lot N tot G Lot F tot H 19 55 107 98 98 85 18 36 93 6a 48 65 6 51 38 96 85 14 42 83 42 77 72 95% 65% 87% 99% 49Yo 85% 760h 749o 76% 78% 61% 790/o 99% gso,/" 3flo 93% 5"4Yo u% 39.h 98% 100% Peripheral Ofr-Street Subtotal 531 111 427 392 n 80./,74% A Pedph€,al Arca Spac*745 565 610 n3 7e/.82%72% &ur.e: Wilbur Snith Asociates SuNeys on 1 1/&O1, 10R1/02 and 1A1 12004 Table A-3 Avarago On-Strsst Parking Duration and Tunover by Curb Face, Fall 2O0z Burllngame Avonuo Commerclal Dbtrlct Parklng Study Curb Face Meter Tvpe Spaces Number Average Parklng Ouration (Hours) Tumover (Cars per Space) Weekday Saturday We€kday Saturday Between Pdmrose and El Camino Real Betu€en Lorton and Prlmroso Bei^Een Calltomla and Lorton Between Primrose and El Camino Real Belt,/Een Primrose and Pa.k BetwBen Park and Lorton Between Lorton and Highland Bet\,lgen Chapln and Bellevue Between El Camlno Real and Primrose Bett/ve€n El Camino Real and Primrose Between Chapin and Eudingame Between Bellevue and Oonnelly Between Donnelly and Bellevue Between Donnelly and Burlingame Belween Donnelly and Burlingame Between Prlmrose and Lorlon Between Bellevue and Burlingame Bet[€en Bellevue and Burllngsme Between Howard and Burlingame Between Pdmrose and Park Betwaen Howard and Burlingame Bett!tsen Burllngame and Howard Between Pdmroge and Park Bet\l€en Park and Lorton Bet €en Burllngame and Howard Betv/€en Hlghland and Lorton BetwBen Howard and Budingame Betll€en Burllngame and Howa.d Bet!'reen Burlingame and Howard Bet\,t/Ben El Camino Real and Primrose Behr'reen El Camlno Roal snd Prlmrose Bsh^€en Primrose and Lorton BetwBen Prlmros€ and El Camlno Real N Side N Slde N Stde S Side S Slde S Slde S Side W Slde N Side S Side W SIde W Sid€ E Slde E Side W Side S Side W Slde E Slde W Slde N Slde E Side W Side S Side N Side E SIde N Side W Slde E Slde E Side N Slde S Side S Slde N Slde Burlingame Ave Burlingam€ Av€ Burlingame Ave Burlingame Av€ Burlingame Avg gurllngame Ave Burllngame Ave Prlmroge Rd Chapin Ave Chapin Ale Prlmrose Rd Lorton Ave Prlmrose Ave Prlmrose Rd Lorton Ave Donnelly Ave Californla D. Lorton Av€ Primrosa Rd Hor.lrard Ave Primrose Rd Park Rd Howerd Ave Howard Ave Pa Rd Howard Ave Highland Ave Loion AvE Highland Ave Chapln Av6 Chapin Ave Donnelly Ave Howard Ave 'l-Hour 1-Hour 1-Hour 1-Hour 1-Hour 1-Hour 1-Hour z-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hgut 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour '10-hoiJr lo-hour '1o-hour 'l Ghour 24 26 0 21 12 10 8 11 3'l 19 't6 4 11 I 12 13 14 t5 I 18 27 13 't4 16 t0 13 22 s 22 2A 6 12 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 't.0 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 't.6 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 't.1 1.5 1.2 't.3 't.6 1.3 1.5 1.3 3.3 3.1 6.7 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 't.3 1.3 't.1 1.3 '1.3 't.3 3.2 2.6 '1.8 '1.7 7.O 9.0 6.0 8.6 7.9 8.5 6.8 5.3 4.3 3.2 5.3 5.0 5.5 5.0 6.3 5.1 1.2 56 1.1 29 4.5 31 4.1 3.1 4.4 4.2 41 4.0 5.3 1.4 2.0 1.2 3.6 5.1 8.6 7.6 8.2 8.0 3.0 2.4 2.9 4.3 5.8 4.S 5.4 5.'l 4.O 45 5.7 46 3.7 a2 4.9 4.6 4.0 4.7 4.3 5.4 5.4 5.8 0.4 1.8 3.7 2.6 Trbl. A{ Comp.rlton d On€ln.t Ountlil rnd lumowr - 2002 .nd 2004 M.B Nmb6r S.bdry T!@s tr*6y O[tt6 HdraJEJ Sdid.y Our.tm llout/Ct 8.t{a Ldbn ild ftil'!@ Bat6d C.lilofl{a lnd Loato B.ko Pdltt@ ard E Caiim R.C BudlnCEm Aw Builnlm Avc EudlnCoN Avr EuilnCMa Av. Budmld Av. s& sda Sd! s& grh sld. N N N s s s t+h, l+h0r l-lh0r t+htr t.ltoq 2a i 0 21 12 t0 a 6.6 to0 6.7 t.8 e.c lt.2 t.t u t05 il5 112 m-.-r f .0 't!t e.o aa6.0 st.6 t8r,.e e6t.5 856.8 3t 8.4 6.0 7.0 8.t 8.4 8.4 s t17 't6 E' L & 5.1 8.6 6.5 7.6 a2 0.0 8.8 s 160 08 00_4_ 7e3 t5t 10 32 r4{ 85 11g t.0 0.0 0.0 t.0 0.e 0.0 oa 197 3a 147 05 7! 54...r 0.9 0.e t.l t.0 o0 i.0 oa ml 43 'tc0 t0 l0 _g_7A 80'/a 76$ 7eL 6t* 7*_!v-ffi nx gta @% 71* 71!t -s!-g 76% 54* lVA 7{L 7A* 67*T 77!t 7?/. 7ea 71ir 096 71%ET E mchdnhdBdd$ Botr6o El C.dm Ra.l sd Primr@ B.mft El CrriD Rol .nd Hdr@ Bck6 ClEdn sd BuilE.ma B.lw Bold6.,d OonnCly B.MOmrly.ndtu 8.h0 Dmaly.nd Builngm. Batunln oonn.U.nd Builngtrm B.h6 Edd6 aM Budl@mc Batman HMrd rnd Sudinglm. EaM Hmrd.nd Eurlint m. B.ho Bulnom. frd tl@rd 8€ieo |lMrd .nd Bdng.mc Bawor gufnm..nd lMd S.M tfoil.d rd Lffin &imo HMrd and Bdngm. B.ieff Buding.m. and Howrd B.t[.n 8u!iMm. md turd 9& Prlrru. Rd Sd. ChernAv. Sid. Ch.dnAv. Slda Pdffior Rd Sld. LoMAv. 9& Prld€. Avc Sd. ftlffiRd Srd. Lorlon Ava sid. Donn.llyAvc gd. Crtrml. Or Sld. LffiAv. 3d. Pilmr6. Rd 9& Howd Av. S ftnmRd S& P.*Rd gd. P.lila. Rd gda tlmrd Av. Sld. P.*Rd SO lhrdd Au. Sid. HoHrdAE Sida LoilonAva Sld. Hitlsd Av. 2+ld, 2.+t)t 2-tuur 2-lhur 2-lbil 2-}(tI 2-Hdr 2+l@r 2-h. 2'Houi 2+lo0r 2-|iour 2+lour 2.hr 2J+u 2-Hout 2-ihur 2+'dtt 2+hu 2-HdI lt 3l te l6 I 1f t I 12 !3 t4 l5 t t8 v l3 11 16 t0 t3 2.I 5.0 4.7 a.t 4.9 5.6 6.r 5.7 5.7 1.2 5.2 5.9 3.0 4.0 5.1 3.0 3.9 1.t 1.2 3.3 3.1 5.0 2A 55 r46 It 70 a a7 {6 5l t3 ct 85 20 6l {0 37 6t 55 78 @ m 8' a. e, a8 70 a 5i) 8Ea 3.3 l.t 3.2 5.3 s.0 5.5 5.0 6.3 5.t 1.2 5.6 a.'l 2.9 4.5 3.1 4.1 3.4 1.1 1,2 1.1 1.0 5.3 3.7 2.1 3.6 56 5.3 4.0 5.{ 5.t 1.1 4.5 t3 4.5 3.7 5.4 a.t 4.5 3.3 4.6 ,1.6 1.4 5.1 2.e al 66 9o 53 43 3.0 za 2.0 1.3 5.0 a.e 5.4 5.'l 4.0 4.5 3.7 4.! 3.7 5.2 ,(.9 ,1.6 4.0 1.7 4.3 5.4 5.4 5.8 33 71 55 @ a 5a 6 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.3 1_2 1.2 ,l.3 t.0 t.3 l_2 t.3 1.2 1.2 t.4 1.4 t_4 4.0 t.e 1.0 1.4 82 i87 e7 tt9 2g e7 q, 88 06 c2 r&t 71 31 8e r38u t2 fi3 55 80 132 55 t.t 1.4 'L1 t_3 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 t.5 1.a 1.2 1.3 1.2 t.3 1.,4 1.7 1.3 '1.2 l.r 't.1 1a n 0, r0t ,16 30 @ m 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.3 t.4 't.3 't.5 1.7 1.6 ,.3 1.5 1.2 l_2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 t.3 ,l.3 t3 50 tgn lt0s 75 70l. 6ttt @A 839. 75* 7r* 1a* @!a 5t* 7t* 70t* 8a* 70rr 8* 53* 73% 71* 62ta a5* g% atx 39% 75X @* 5l 50 68 t3 30 92 4 53 50 7a 68 33 g7 llt {6 a8 50 8o 60 33 ea l9 6e 90 08 t04 8t ,(, 11f tu 60 g2 9a l0a 1(x 40 112 ts 71* c7* 68tt 7tlr 51ta 46% 0tr 7?pA 7l E* 73* 19* 36% 50* n 75% 68!a 74% 51% 4896 sla 77% 68% f,zX 71% 8g'/a &V.w. 57 t9 50 a0 71s d s 56 75 43 70 8C 79 06 55 B s 7's 60 et 55* flY. 50ta 63|T v% atlr u% 7W 55* w 63* 80* 56* 4* 60ti 52v. 6t% W 7W 112 23 1v2 Ire I i$t 157 -a-t8&t !54 m tSct 7e)$ -:ir-cl* 6o"t -g-0tx 71 114 50% 1e _!g-oct C&Cn Av. B&ro g C.dE R.d dd Prtfrm Ch.CnAv. B.trffElC.drcRa.lodP.lllr@ Oonncly Av. BlWff Hre.nd L&n ttffid Atrr Btufr Pd@.nd E C.rirc R.sl sld. Sid. Sld. st& tGhil 'tGhtr lOhtr tk 2. 2E I 12 2.1 3.4 't.o 32 $3l 56 76 t.a 2.0 t_2 36 o.1 1.7 3.2 ,n l5 48 oa t.8 3.7 zc 0 $ 3.3 3.r 4.7 1.7 1.7 7_A 102. 171 48 73 t.t 2.d 2.4 3.O 17 121 3.2 2.6 i.c t-7 n l3t sis sx 6\ a.a 13* s tg 3l Cub F6 n- la-u.-l r-.- t.-k.-t .-, t^-.c..r-- lc*l n-- o.l 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 o0 0.e 0.e o6 0.e ot l28ll--{? IFra-l flt- lnl !.4 t.a 1.6 1.1 t.{ 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.5 t.3 1.2 t.3 t.t 1.5 '1.2 t.t t.6 t.3 t.5 1.5 lTglIrol-;r-1 Table A-5 Average Off€treet Parklng Duration and Turnover by Off-Street Facility, Fall 2004 Burllngame Avenue Commerclal Dlstrlct Parklng Study Off-Street Facility Meter Type Sampl6d Spaces Average Parking Duration (Hours) Turnover Cars per Space Activity Cars per Day Activity Car Hours per Day Utilization lndex Car HrYspace Hrs Samplad Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Saturday Weekday Saturday Lot B-'l Lot K-1 Lot A-3 Lot D Lot C Lot L Lot J Lot E Lot M 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 2-Hour 14 10 17 21 13 10 14 't5 14 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 3 3 7 4 4 3 3 3 b 1 2.9 2 5.3 3.2 J 2.6 3.8 3.1 0.5 3.6 4 5.4 4.1 3.7 5.2 5 3.5 14 7 21 Y 15o/o 7o/o 29 36 ?6 47 35o/o 47o/o u 68 54 116 32%680/o 111 113 156 159 74%76% 42 53 75 75 58%57% 30 37 51 48 51Yo 48% 36 73 55 OE 39%680/o 57 75 74 98 49o/o 65% 43 49 61 78 43o/o 560/o Total 2 Hour Spaces 128 1.5 1.4 581 724 41Yo 57% Lot J 2.1 1.4 2.3 4.7 21 42 43 48Yo 66% Lot A 50 4.8 3.6 384 324 65% Lot B Lot K Lot W 10-Hour 10-Hour 10-Hour 1 1 1 9 9 o 7.4 3.1 4.6 3.4 2.3 4.5 1.2 t. t 1.6 0.9 1.3 1.5 169 58 89%31o/o 21 34Yo 30% 26 24 118 108 74Yo 68% Total 10 Hour Spaces 54 5.1 3.4 223 65o/o 59 't.3 4-Hour I I 9-Hour 3.1 J 4oT 3s7 512 41% m"kd"y Is? 13 I 1.2 J 6sT 66 [ 3sl 1.6[ lsf BoT eo ,5T 65 nl 17 Table A-o Compadson of Average Parklng Ouratlon 2002-20(M AVERAGE DURATION (HOURS) Weekday S.lurday 2002 2004,2002 2004 ON.sTREET SPACES 1-Hour 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.5 2-Hour 1.6 1.4 1.4 OFF€TREET SPACES 4-Hour 2.0 2.1 1.9 3.1 ALL SPACES 1.9 '1.4 10-Hour 4.7 l'lGHour I 2.3 I3.2 | 1.7 13.3 2.3 l2-Hour I 2.2 11.6 E-l--r:5- I 4f-T-4s 't.4 llo-Hour ffi l2-Hour I 1.9 I 15 I l.s f4-Hour I 2.0 12.1 I 1.51---zi- I 3.1 Table A-7 Burllngame Avenue District Parker lntercept Survey Comparison of 2004 & 2005 Survey with Earlier Surveys 1999 2W2 2004 Total Survey R6pondents 232 238 285 Percent Respondents by Location 2005 310 42% 35Yo 13% 10% 440h Yo/o 140h 504 30h 57% 35Yo 2% 1% 5% 44n/o 36"/o 9o/o 10% 84o/o 166/o 7 5o/o 3% 3o/o 19o/o Burlingame Aven ue/Lorton Avenue Lot D Lot SPost Office Lot A3 N/A Percent by Party Size 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4+ Persons 1.1/A Percent by Trip Purpose Shopping Eating/Entertainment Personal Business/Other l.l/A Percent Driving and Parking Yes No Non-DriveE by Altemate Modes Walk Bus Other N/A 43% 29o/o 21o/o ,": 42o/o 36% 14% goh 53o/o 19o/o 5o/o 3o/o 20o/o 34o/o 30Yo 34o/o 2Yo 760/o 24o/o 620/o 70/o 19o/o 12o/o 72Yo 15o/o 7% 5o/o 1% 33% 30% 360/o 1o/o 83Yo 13oio 2% 2o/o 37% 32o/o 22o/o 9o/o 90% 10% 93o/o 7o/o 50% 12o/o 26o/o 10o/o l.l/A N/A N/A N/A Table A{ Burlingame Avenue District Parker lntercept Survey Comparison of 2q)4 & 2005 Survey with Earlier Surveys 1999 2002 2004 2005 Percent by Parking Location City Loucarage On-Street in Fronl of a Business On-Steet in Front of a Residence ln a Private Parking Facility Other N/A Location Before Coming Downtown Home Wo* School Other wA Origin of Trip Budingame Other Peninsula San Francisco Other Convenience of Parking Downtown Very Convenient Fairly Convenient Somewhat lnconvenient Very lnconvenient Blocks Parkers are Willing to Walk 0-1 1-2 2-3 34 4-5 >5 47o/o 430h 1o/o 7o/o 1Yo 20h N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.1/A TI/A N/A I{/A 28% 30h 7o/o 30h 2o/o 46% 42o/o 57o/o 5o/o 5o/o 1Yo 1o/o 50o/o 8o/o 2o/o 1$Yo 22Yo 72% 9o/o 2o/o 160/0 1o/o 67Yo 9o/o 2% 9o/o 13o/o 35% 54o/o 7% 4o/o 26% 640/o 6Yo 4o/o 27Yo 65% 3o/o 5o/o 9Yo 24Yo 29o/o 38o/o 11% 3',t%o 33o/o 25Yo 21o/o 33% 33o/o '130/o 60/o 23'/o 27o/o 22o/o 1'tYo 't1% tvA NI/A TI/A tvA NI/A t{/A 55o/o 23Yo 4% 3% 3Yo 12o/o N/A I{/A N/A N/A 8o/o 26% 16% 18% 17o/o 16% 9o/o 3'.lo/o 28o/o 16V. 7o/o 9"/o Table A-8 Burlingame Avenue Dist ict Parker lntercept Survey Comparison of 2004 & 2005 Survey with Earlier Suryeys 1999 2002 2004 2005 Customer Satisfaction udth New Parking Measures Have higher rates affecied length of parking? Yes N/A No N/A TI/A N/A Length of Parking 1 Hour or less 1-2 Hours 24 Hours More than 4 Hours N/A Frequency of moving car or feeding meter Move car Feed meter Neither N/A Easier to find space Cheaper Don't need to carry so much change Less worry about parking tickets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Il/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A t{/A N/A N/A IUA l.l/A N/A Very Much Somewhat 5% 20h 3% 4o/o 3o/o 3o/o 4o/o 2o/o N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2Yo 3Yo 4o/o 3o/o 27o/o 40Yo 11o/o 8o/o 14o/o 43o/o 43o/o 14o/o Ho\fl have these factors made parking less pleasant? Very Much Somewhat Cost of parking 36o/o 22o/o Ease of getting parking ticket 42o/o 20o/o Difficully in finding a space 49o/o 22o/o Need to carry so much change 39o/o 20% Not at all 21o/o 16Yo 9o/o 14o/o N/A 21% 22o/o 19o/o 27o/o I Akeady Park 91o/o 91o/o 91% 91o/o Vvhat factoc would make it more likely for you to drive and park? ffhis question was only asked of those who said they currently do not park dor/ntown.) Not at all 14% 37o/o 34o/o 150/o T8ble A-9 Sugggltlons for lmp.ovlng Parklng ln Burllngame Avsnuq Aroa Octobsr 200,t P.rker lnigrcept Survey Ne6d More Spaceg Too Exponsive./Should be free Enforcement too aggrosslve,ltickets too steep Longer meter tlme llmils for shoppere Mothly pormits for re8idents/employees Meters that accept more coins/billgprepald cards Olher Total Ne6d Mor6 Spaces Too Expensive,/More lime on meters Entor6ment too aggresslv€/ticketg loo steep Mgter8 broken/don't give tlme paid for Monthly p€mitslong term parldng for residents/emplo Meters thal accept more colngbllls/prepaid cards,/char Don't come as oflan Parklng too tighuspaces covered Totsl 2005 Bullnssg Survey Commontt 29 8 2 0 1 0 5 45 5 1 2 0 1 0 3 1 13 16 16 7 7 5 4 12 67 5 7 4 3 2 2 4 3 30 240h 100h 100k 7Vo 6o/6 1Ao/. 't00% 17% 23% 13'/. 1Oo/. 70/o 7o/o 13./o 100/o 100% 20h 200/0 100/o 100/o 20% 60h 1000/. 64% 1A% 4"/o ooh 204 00/o 110/o 100yo 4oo/o 210/o 80/o 60/o 5% 46/o 150h 1000n 190/o 14% 7% 70k 50h 16% 9% 100% 38 45 24 7 6 4 17 112 0I 6 3 3 2 7 4 B% 15% oo/o 8% OVo 23% 8% 100%43 Need More Spacss Too Expensiv€/Should b€ free Enrorcement too aggra88Nenickets too steep Longer meter time limits Monthly permits/long torm lor residentsi/employees Metels that accept more coins/billdprepald cards Poor malntenance oI meters and lots Totel 16 ,| 10 5 5 10 3 50 IAEEKDAY RESPONDENTS V\IEEKEND RESPONDENTS ALL COMMEN]ERS Pd.No.Pct. WEEKEND RESPONDENTS ALL COMMENTERSI EEKOAY RESPONDENTS No.Pd.Pct. xilIIil Fobruary 2005 Parkor lntercept Survey No. lPd. I tto. IE I uo. I Pct.