PPD 619 Final Project - Anthony Guardado, Gary Byrne, Zhan Wang

1. Memorandum
Transportation Demand Management Update
Los Angeles, CA
To: Tanner Blackman
From: Gary Byrne, Anthony Guardado, and Zhan Wang
Date: 4/18/12
RE: Revisions to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
Executive Summary
As part of their Congestion Management Plan (CMP), local jurisdictions must include a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. This ordinance should be constructed
such that it encourages a reduction in the use of single-occupancy vehicles and an increase in the
use of alternative modes of travel as opposed to the private automobile. The previous TDM
ordinance in the City of Los Angeles relied heavily upon the reduction of work trips through the
sponsorship of carpools and vanpools. Within the last 20 years, the realities of alternative
transportation in Los Angeles have changed dramatically. The Metro Rail system has burgeoned
from a single fledgling light rail line to the backbone of the transit network, while pedestrian and
cycling advocates are making significant headway in the promotion of active transportation
modes. Meanwhile, carpool rates have shown decline in recent years.
In order to address these changes, additional tools in Transportation Demand Management are
needed. To that end, this report introduces those tools through several revisions to the existing
TDM ordinance. The dominance of single-occupancy vehicle travel has an Achilles’ heel: a
large surplus of free and easily accessible parking. Variable pricing and shared parking have
been successfully used by other municipalities to reduce demand for parking while also reducing
the overall supply of parking required.
The staff has reviewed and discussed the model ordinance with representatives of the
Department of Transportation. The staff subsequently modified the proposed revisions to ensure
clarity and consistency with existing City code provisions.
ACTION RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF – THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THIS
REPORT AND APPROVE THE REVISIONS PRESENTED HEREIN.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 1

2. Staff Report
Initiation
Commissioner Blackman has asked planning staff to review the Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance and analyze whether there exists a possibility for revision. An increasing
marginal societal cost in terms of congestion and air pollution has prompted this type of review.
Transportation demand management centers upon reducing the demand of automobile use.
Specifically, strategies that encourage modes other than single-occupancy automobile
transportation form the foundation of the management strategy.
Background/Issues
The parking system in Los Angeles currently encourages the cost of automobile use to be shared
unequally among all taxpayers. Those who might not use automobiles have been paying for
parking through lower wages and higher rents. In addition, the on-street parking system is
overloaded as the current supply cannot sufficiently provide for the high level of demand.
In updating the ordinance, we revisited the original intent for a Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance. The 1993 ordinance focused on creating design standards that would
promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The ordinance sought to do that in order
to reduce the overall number of automobile trips and also reduce the number of trips made by a
single driver.
The original ordinance centered on a mix of education and employer provided incentives. For
new commercial developments over 25,000 square feet, the ordinance stipulated a condition for
employee education on carpooling and vanpooling to be provided on informational boards within
the workplace. These boards were meant to encourage workers to begin finding others to carpool
to work with. In addition, preferential parking close to the building was to be given to those
carpooling to work.
Although the intent of the original ordinance was well placed, the results have been minimal.
Evidently, there has not been a significant shift in the number of workers carpooling due to the
two conditions of the ordinance. No statistically significant evidence has tied this policy to the
goal envisioned when first passed, and from a qualitative analysis, the policy has created an
unnecessary level of complexity in enforcement and compliance. As such, our analysis focuses
on a shift from the original ordinance because it seems that minor changes augmenting the
current ordinance will have little to no significant effect on transportation demand in Los
Angeles.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 2

3. Analysis of Proposed Ordinance
Variable Pricing for On-street Parking
Variable pricing of on-street parking addresses the issue of a shortage of on-street spaces. By
leveraging a parking system that prices at market rate, it is expected to alleviate the current
problem of parking space shortage.
The primary motivation for variable pricing is to account for the changes in on-street parking
demand, both by area and across different time periods throughout the day or day of the week
(geographically based and time based). Focusing on these two dimensions of variability is key to
understanding the effect of pricing. The geographic dimension addresses the imbalance of
density in urban and suburban areas and the time dimension addresses the flexible demand for
parking during peak hours and off peak hours.
Variable on-street parking price in different locations:
Geographically variable pricing starts from the difference in parking demand, but it shall serve
more purposes than simply neutralizing traffic congestion by market leverage. Higher priced
parking in a specific location will discourage people from parking their cars at these spots during
peak-pricing periods, lowering the demand for the spot. The price factor is what people normally
consider. However, adjusting parking price has another consequence that will affect people’s
preferences for parking locations. For instance, the price of on-street parking near Civic Center
in Downtown Los Angeles is currently about $6 per hour during rush hour, while Metro Rail
lines charge $3 for a round trip. If the total expense for parking at a suburban Metro station and
taking the train to downtown is lower than parking in downtown, a certain proportion of parking
demand in downtown shall shift to the suburban stations creating a modal shift in transportation
demand. However, the cost of parking in downtown must also be limited so that it does not over
suppress demand which could provide a disincentive for travelling to downtown and reduce
parking meter revenues to the city. Additionally, because the private parking lots supply a large
amount of parking space, this strategy could encourage people to utilize private lots and leave
some on-street spaces available for more turnover. This allows for a single parking space to
service more people over the course of a day.
To implement the plan, we recommend the following:
1. Raise the price of on-street parking price in urban centers where there are high
demands for parking, while keeping the average price of on street parking at a steady
level. Specifically, that means an increase in on-street parking prices at spots with the
highest demand and lower prices at locations with less demand.
2. Adjust on-street parking rates at transit hubs in urban sub-centers and suburban areas.
We recommend lowering the total expense of parking at transit hubs in order to
encourage people to choose multiple transportation modes. Essentially, parking prices
for park-and-ride parking lots located near transit should be kept low to minimize the
cost of utilizing public transit.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 3

4. Variable on-street parking price in different periods of time:
Varying parking expenses across different times throughout the day mainly serves goal of
alleviating road congestion during peak hours. In peak hours, the price of parking at some spots
with high demand shall rise in order to keep some parking spots open for use (VTPI). Enforcing
this in Los Angeles is possible due to previous investment into on-street parking pricing systems.
LADOT has already initiated a pilot project called ExpressPark. Combining demand-based
pricing principles and technology, the City’s newest parking meter-related program, the
ExpressPark Intelligent Parking Management Project, began in Downtown Los Angeles in the
summer of 2011. The one-year demonstration project was expected to achieve a number of
environmental and congestion reduction goals (LA DOT). ExpressPark proposes to guide drivers
toward open parking spaces and display current parking rates. The rates in the project area will
be determined in real-time by the number of vehicles parked there, the time of day and drivers’
length of stay (LA DOT).
The project will allow more vacant spots because it prices at a rate where some spaces will be
priced too high to be filled. This will allow for less congestion and less air pollution by
shortening or eliminating long searches for parking. The project should improve traffic flow
while encouraging some drivers to switch to other modes of travel.
Real-time monitoring of the parking allows for certain high-demand areas to have some parking
spots available while at the same time reducing the externalities associated with a price that
allows for higher demand than can be supplied.
Currently, ExpressPark is only functional in downtown Los Angeles area. We are recommending
that it be initiated citywide to help solve the issue of parking demand.
There is a current challenge to ExpressPark and that is the abuse of disabled parking placards
(Lopez). In a series of articles by LA Times journalist Steve Lopez, the abuse was uncovered.
This presents a big challenge because those with disabled placards are allowed to park for free
and Lopez notes that there are an increasingly higher number of cars using disabled parking
privileges. As the price for parking increases, the incentive to illegally use those placards for free
parking increases and the abuses will continue. This issue has gained the attention of the press,
the LAPD, and parking enforcement officials and measures to discourage abuse are beginning.
One idea might be to eliminate the current policy that allows those with a disability the right to
park for free. That would be the most equitable solution. However, since that is State of
California policy, the political investment for such a change is very high. As such, we
recommend that fines for illegally parking with a disabled person placard be increased as high as
necessary to reduce abuse. Increased fines and increased enforcement could provide the
necessary means to discourage those who are abusing the disability system and harming the
availability of parking in the city.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 4

5. Shared Parking
Shared parking is a method of increasing the efficiency of parking facilities. Essentially,
different uses are likely to have peak parking demand at different times of the day. For example,
while an office building may be busiest between 9 AM and 5 PM, a restaurant may be busiest
between 5 PM and 8 PM, and a nightclub may be busiest between 10 PM and 1 AM. By
requiring each business to produce independent parking facilities to meet their own peak
demand, you create redundancies during the non-peak hours. Allowing each of these businesses
to share a parking lot results in a reduction in the overall number of parking spaces required
(VTPI).
This lowers development costs and reduces the overall amount of land set aside solely for
parking. Shared parking encourages “clustered development” and as such it may result in an
increase in alternative modes of travel and/or “park once” behavior such that a driver no longer
has to re-park their car for each individual use (VTPI). The creation of one centralized facility
instead of scattered smaller facilities improves traffic flow and reduces the number of accidents
by reducing the number of necessary curb cuts (Forinash, 6). However, it is also important to
note that the added convenience shared parking facilities provide may actually encourage
automobile travel (VTPI).
Examples of effective shared parking include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Park & Ride parking facilities (peak demand during work hours), sharing with adjacent
restaurants (peak demand during the evening hours).
- City-owned parking facility which meets the parking demand of numerous uses in a
central business district.
- Church parking lot (peak demand on Sunday) sharing with a parochial school (peak
demand during the week).
Implementation can be managed in a number of ways. A parking sharing brokerage agency can
be formed to investigate and match potential partners. A city can conduct a parking inventory
study and encourage the use of the results to facilitate shared parking agreements among both
new and existing developments. A city may also establish special parking districts wherein all
parking is provided publicly and businesses lease the required parking directly from the city.
Contrarily, a city may choose to do very little except streamline the process to better enable those
who wish to engage in a shared parking agreement.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 5

6. Public Outreach
In presenting these proposed revisions to the public, special considerations must be made in
terms of public outreach.
First, the introduction of parking meters will, in some districts, prove controversial. This issue
must be proactively framed. It will be essential to highlight that the introduction of variable
meters will allow for the targeted 85% occupancy rate to occur (i.e. with the meters, you will no
longer have to cruise for parking). “Parking Meters ‘Free’ Up Spaces.” This angle will help
assuage public concerns. Similarly, business owners will require specialized outreach to remind
them that higher parking turnover is better for business. Instead of one parking space serving
one to two people for an entire day, a variably priced meter can result in its use by a far larger
number.
Secondly, for the shared parking agreement method to be effective, it must be widely promoted.
Businesses and developers will not use a program if they know nothing about it. They’re
knowledge and understanding of the new streamlined process is vital to the success of this
ordinance.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the ordinance will provide greater clarity, consistency, and brevity and
are in substantial conformance with the model circulated by the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission. They will also better enable the City to meet its changing needs
through the provision of new tools in Transportation Demand Management.
Adoption of the proposed changes will demonstrate the City’s commitment to the Congestion
Management Plan and further the goals of the City’s General Plan.
Findings
General Plan Findings
The proposed ordinance is in conformance with the goals, purposes, objectives, and policies of
the General Plan and its various elements (City of LA General Plan). Some examples of how the
ordinance is in support of the General Plan include:
a. Goal A: “Adequate accessibility to work opportunities and essential services, and
acceptable levels of mobility for all those who live, work, travel, or move goods
in Los Angeles.”
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 6

7. b. Objective 2: “Mitigate the impacts of traffic growth, reduce congestion, and
improve air quality by implementing a comprehensive program of multimodal
strategies that encompasses physical and operational improvements as well as
demand management.”
c. Policy 2.24: “Implement shared-parking, peripheral parking, and parking-pricing
strategies in high-employment areas
The variable pricing of on-street parking fulfills the above goal, objective, and policy. By pricing
on-street parking at a rate that leaves 15% of parking spots available, it provides the necessary
accessibility for people to reach their destination and have an easy to find and available parking
spot. Additionally, a variable pricing rate improves mobility as required in Goal A. It has been
shown to reduce the number of cars on city streets looking for parking, thus reducing the
congestion of streets by removing the total number of cars in street traffic.
Variable pricing also reduces the total demand of parking. By pricing at a level closer to people’s
willingness to pay, the strategy encourages other modes of transportation (transit, biking,
carpooling) because the alternatives will cost less to the parking consumer and it fulfills
Objective 2. In addition, variable pricing reduces total vehicles miles traveled and thus reduces
total air pollution.
The shared parking strategy ensures a high level of mobility by reducing the overall supply of
parking required and promoting “clustered development” with limited curb cuts. This results in
both less automobile accidents and more “park-once” behavior. This in turn reduces traffic and
automobile emissions, thus meeting Objective 2. Following Policy 2.24, this strategy also fulfills
another element of the General Plan.
Findings of Consistency with the Transportation Framework Element
The consistency findings with the transportation framework element were found in the General
Plan Transportation Element, Chapter 7, Plans and Policies, P20,
a. “Develop and implement a Parking Awareness/Promotion program to increase
acceptance of parking management by the general public.”
b. “Implement shared parking, peripheral parking, and parking pricing programs in major
employment areas and mixed-use districts”
c. “Improve and expand enforcement of on-street parking restrictions (e.g. time limits, tow
away/no stopping, loading zones), especially where such restrictions provide an
additional peak hour travel lane/bus lane or additional loading areas in industrial
districts.”
Following the General Plan Transportation Element, Chapter 7 Plans and Policies section P20
part B, the ordinance is implementing a demand management system that encourages the
efficient use of land and reduces to total supply of parking. A supply-side reduction through
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 7

8. shared parking indicates that new development will not internalize the cost of parking
regulations to all those who lease space within the development. Accompanying variable pricing
for parking, the ExpressPark system as well as a computer system to provide adequate
monitoring ensures proper adherence to the policy being set forth and conforms to part C of the
above Transportation Element.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 8

9. Appendix A: Proposed Ordinance Language
Definitions:
A Shared Parking Agreement is a legally binding contract between two or more land owners such that
one’s surplus of parking shall be used to meet the minimum parking requirement of another.
The City shall make the following changes to the Transportation Demand Ordinance:
1. The City will continuously look for ways to improve access and mobility throughout the city
with strategies that complement or improve the goals of the Transportation Demand
Ordinance.
The City shall create a citywide variable pricing strategy for on-street parking as follows:
1. The City shall price all on-street metered parking to achieve a target parking occupancy of
85% at all times.
2. The City shall implement the ExpressPark system. If the opportunity exists to retrofit the
system with better technology to assist with the goals of this ordinance, the City shall do so.
3. The City shall implement heavy fines to abusers of disabled placards who park in on-street
spaces without paying.
4. The City shall consider the implications of this strategy when determining any future land use
changes.
The City shall encourage the use of shared parking agreements through the following measures:
1. The City shall establish a formal application process to streamline shared parking approvals.
2. The City shall also establish an electronic database to track shared parking applications and
approvals. This database will be used in conjunction with detailed parking inventories on the
properties in question to prevent confusion and abuse (double-dipping).
3. The City shall also ensure the Zoning Code establishes appropriate parking reductions such
that there is an incentive for developers to utilize shared parking agreements.
Appendix B: Environmental Impacts
The proposed changes to the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance will change the pricing,
supply, and demand for parking in Los Angeles. As per State of California CEQA Guidelines, the
ordinance does not constitute a significant impact upon land use. Further, the ordinance is an action which
aims to protect the environment by adhering to the “vehicle miles traveled” requirements set forth in SB
375. As stated in the report, our analysis proves that the proposal will assist in reducing traffic congestion
and air pollution. Thus, the proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 9

10. Appendix C: Best Practices
Shared Parking, San Diego, CA
The City of San Diego currently supports the use of shared parking agreements as one of a set of
tools to “address parking and mobility problems comprehensively” and meet its goal of reducing
the overall amount of land devoted to parking while still providing adequate levels (City of San
Diego General Plan: Mobility Element). The city’s Development Services Department utilizes a
standardized application form to enable efficient leasing of off-site parking to meet parking
requirements on another nearby site. The agreement is in perpetuity and runs with the land,
excepting the termination of the use requiring shared parking or the provision of adequate on-site
parking (San Diego Developer Services Dept).
Shared Parking, Seattle, WA
As part of Seattle’s Transportation Demand Management program, its Municipal Code currently
allows for shared parking agreements between two or more users to satisfy off-street parking
requirements. “Shared parking is allowed between different categories of uses or between uses
with different hours of operation, but not both.” Also, any use taking advantage of the shared
parking must be located within 800 feet of the parking in question. The Code establishes a
complex array of potential shares between varying uses and the burden is on the applicant to
establish no significant conflict between the standard operating hours of the uses which will be
sharing parking (SMC 23.54.020 G).
Variable On-street Parking Pricing, San Francisco, CA
In September 2009, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority conducted a study on on-
street parking management and pricing (SFCTA). For price-based regulations on on-street
parking, the study indicates two main strategies as follows:
1. Set on-street parking rates to achieve an availability target. This strategy is the same
as ExpressPark in Los Angeles. The goal is to keep an occupancy level of 85% on
street parking by real-time adjustments on meter rates.
2. Charge higher rates for successive time periods. This strategy is implemented by
charging a higher hourly meter rate for each additional hour. The goal is to encourage
short-term parking and increase turnover, this providing flexibility and convenience
to users. This strategy shall be implemented in conjunction with relaxed time limits
on on-street parking. Long-term parking shall be allowed but it charges more the
longer the car is parked.
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 10

11. Variable On-street Parking Pricing, Ventura, CA
The City of Ventura introduced variable on-street parking rates, with prices set to achieve a 15%
vacancy rate and sought to reinvest revenue from parking into the adjacent neighborhood. The
municipal bylaw states, “All moneys collected from parking pay stations, and meters in this city
shall be placed in a special fund, which fund shall be devoted exclusively to purposes within the
geographic boundaries of the parking district from which the revenue is collected. Such moneys
shall be used for the purposes stated in the parking district establishment ordinance” (VTPI,
Parking Pricing).
Variable On-street Parking Pricing, Glendale, CA
In 2007, Glendale adopted a comprehensive mobility strategy designed to help revitalize the
downtown core (VTPI). The plan focused on improving downtown customer parking
convenience, limiting congestion from cruising for parking, and using the available parking
supply more efficiently. Glendale now has an integrated on-street and off-street pricing system
that efficiently prices the most convenient on-street spaces, and offers free short-term (90
minute) parking in the surrounding garages (VTPI).
While on-street parking spots in the commercial area had higher than 90% occupancy rates
during peak periods, public garages were often only half full and virtually never totally full. This
problem resulted from a lack of market-rate pricing between on-street parking and garage
parking (VTPI).
“While the garages are not overly expensive, it is difficult to justify going into a garage to pay
for something that seems to be given away for free…Market-priced on-street parking will save
time, reduce traffic, conserve energy, improve air quality and increase public revenue” (Glendale
Mobility Study).
Glendale chose to eliminate free parking on the main commercial streets of its downtown. The
city utilized electronic, pay-per-space meters that could price according to the current demand
for parking. This allowed the city to monitor demand and adjusts rates to achieve 15% vacancy
rates to allow a few spaces to be available throughout the downtown.
Ending free parking in the downtown core required significant stakeholder involvement. Before
the city began operation of the plan in December 2008, the city launched a public relations
campaign. At first, “parking ambassadors” provided help at the parking meters and for six weeks
only warning tickets were issued for first offenses; after a year Glendale experienced significant
improvement in downtown parking efficiency (VTPI). Prime parking spaces became available
near businesses (the parking occupancy rate along Brand Boulevard that was previously above
90% had been reduced to about 80%) and parking structures had increased occupancy (VTPI).
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 11

12. References
City of Los Angeles General Plan, Transportation Element. <
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/transelt/index.htm>.
Forinash, Christopher V., Adam Millard-Ball, and Charlotte Dougherty. "Smart Growth
Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements." Proc. of 2nd Urban Streets Symposium
(7/28-30/2003), Anaheim. <http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/
Volume%202/Forinash_session_7.pdf>.
Glendale Mobility Study. <http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/mobility.asp>
Ibanez, Jose and Andrea Broaddus. “Parking in San Francisco”. Kennedy School of Government.
2007.
“Los Angeles City Planning Department: Staff Report to the City Planning Commission” CP3
93-0101. March 11, 1993.
Lopez, Steve. “L.A. program aims to make parking easier”. Los Angeles Times. 2010.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/22/local/la-me-express-park-20100822>.
Lopez, Steve. “Cracking down on parking meter cheaters”. Los Angeles Times. 2012.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/local/la-me-0215-lopez-placardsting-20120213>
Lopez, Steve. “It’s time for a crackdown on abusers of disabled placards”. Los Angeles Times.
2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/29/local/la-me-lopez-disabled-20120129>.
Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Express Park.
http://ladot.lacity.org/tf_Parking_meters.htm
San Francisco County Transportation Authority. <http://www.sfcta.org/>.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “TDM Encyclopedia: Shared Parking.”
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “Parking Pricing
<http://www.vtpi.org/parkpricing.pdf>
Forinash, Christopher V., Adam Millard-Ball, and Charlotte Dougherty. "Smart Growth
Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements." Proc. of 2nd Urban Streets Symposium
(7/28-30/2003), Anaheim. <http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/
Volume%202/Forinash_session_7.pdf>.
City of San Diego General Plan: Mobility Element. “Parking Management (Sub-section H)”
<http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/discussiondraft/gpme.pdf>
San Diego Development Services Department. “Shared Parking Agreement.”
<http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/industry/pdf/forms/ds267.pdf>
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 12

13. Seattle Municipal Code 23.54.020. “Parking Quantity Exceptions (Sub-section G)”
<http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-
brs.exe?s1=23.54.020&s2=&S3=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=COD
E1&d=CODE&p=1&u=%2F~public%2Fcode1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=G>
Seattle Urban Mobility Plan. “Best Practices in TDM”
<http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20
Practices%20in%20Transportation%20Demand%20Management.pdf>.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “TDM Encyclopedia: Shared Parking.”
<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm>
Byrne, Guardado, Wang. Page 13