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.