Holiday Parking - Counting peak demand

[heironymouspasparagus]

The tarmac business must be really good in Tulsa!

We are the Oil Capital....gotta find a place to dump all that asphalt!!


Even the king of retail seldom fills the WalMart or Sam's Club lots...and if anyone would, I expect it from them...

[PonderInc]

Oh, you mean like this one...


Nov 28, 2014 (Black Friday)

[sgrizzle]

Just wanted to throw in that during the opening of Star Wars at AMC, when almost every seat on all 20 screens was showing it (in 5 minute increments) parking was very full, I was over behind Reasons, but there were still probably a hundred spots left. They will never be more full.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oh, you mean like this one...


Nov 28, 2014 (Black Friday)

That's it...just don't need it all....


Black Friday was a little surprising to me this year - I guess many more are online shopping now - but the traffic didn't seem that bad, and we actually went to Sam's Club and had no trouble parking or shopping or getting checked out in a reasonable fashion.

[PonderInc]

I went back to Best Buy on Saturday (12/19/15).  It was 60 degrees and sunny on the Saturday before Christmas.  There were 146 cars parked on the 267 space lot.

Although people get excited about Black Friday, I'm convinced there are more procrastinators than there are early shoppers.  Saturday's count certainly supported this theory.  

On the Saturday before Christmas, with springtime weather, the parking lot was 55% full. 

[PonderInc]

Here's another fun one from Tulsa Hills on Sunday, 12/20/15 at 3:30 PM.

The Target store is connected to other stores, so I simply counted the spaces in front of the building.  
(This compares fairly closely to the assessor's map. According to the assessor, they probably have a few
more parking spaces within their lot.)

I counted the area shown in red.  The dotted line indicates the area where most people are willing to park/walk.  
Few people park beyond this point.


There are 558 parking spaces within the area I counted.
(Per old zoning for this 126,268 SF building, they should have 561.  In the new zoning, they would be required to have
421.  But this is moot because national chains want what they want, which is more than that.)

There are 342 spaces in the area closer to the building, and an additional 216 in the outer area, for a total of 558.

On the Sunday before Christmas, it looked like this:


There were 211 cars parked in the main area, and 35 parked in the outer area, for a total of 246 cars.

Thus, our parking ratio for the entire lot was 44% full.  In the main area, it was 61% full.  The outer area was 16% full.

Five days before Christmas.

[Red Arrow]

Thus, our parking ratio for the entire lot was 44% full.  In the main area, it was 61% full.  The outer area was 16% full.

Five days before Christmas.

I know empty parking lots are your "thing" but could this also be a sign of a poor spending season?

[Hoss]

I know empty parking lots are your "thing" but could this also be a sign of a poor spending season?

OR...

...less people spending at B&M stores and more online?

[cannon_fodder]

Too much parking.
Less people shopping.
More people shopping online.

All the same thing. It all equates to a rational decision to discourage wasted parking. Lack of density costs the City money and is an opportunity cost.

[PonderInc]

It's true.  I hate wasting land on parking. 

For decades we've been forcing these arbitrary parking minimums on everyone.  Even on small, local developers who might be smart enough to realize that surface parking lots are a waste of resources.  These minimums were never based on statistically sound studies over time.  Parking minimums across the country are based on a couple counts (decades ago) in places with no transit or alternative means of transportation.  All these years, people have treated them like some sort of sacrament.

Maybe this year is a "poor spending season."  Maybe it's a sign of the Amazon-buying times.  Does it matter?

Personally, I don't care what the maximum need is on 2 days out of the year.  I think that's irrelevant.  Why should a minimum requirement be based on maximum use during .005% of the year?  We know from looking at historical satellite imagery that typical parking needs are about 10-20% of what is provided.  So, one question is: Do we plan our city based on the (perceived) maximum needs of a couple days each year?  Or do we plan our city based on the typical needs of a typical day? 

We've been told for years that we have to have these huge lots to account for those big shopping days.  I want to start a dialogue that shows even on those big days, you don't need what we have.  If we do this for several years straight, we'll start to get valid numbers for those "maximum" days.  What if that allows us to free up 50% of the land currently wasted on surface parking lots?  That would be like the Louisiana Purchase, opening up vast swaths of land to development.

Then, if we start building true mixed-use (residential above commercial) places, maybe in a few decades, we'll be counting pedestrian, bike and transit traffic instead of cars.  Wouldn't that be a nice change?

[Red Arrow]

Well, at least today, the lots at Sprouts, Reasor's, and Walmart had a lot of cars in them down here in Bixby (and Tulsa for the WM).

[swake]

Well, at least today, the lots at Sprouts, Reasor's, and Walmart had a lot of cars in them down here in Bixby (and Tulsa for the WM).

I was all over town today. Only Reasons and Utica Square had what I would call full parking lots. Target and Tulsa Hills even today weren't half full. The Farm was mostly full.

[Conan71]

I was all over town today. Only Reasons and Utica Square had what I would call full parking lots. Target and Tulsa Hills even today weren't half full. The Farm was mostly full.

Parking like The Farm and Utica Square is much, much more reasonable and attractive than the model of Tulsa Hills or Woodland Hills, and the traffic flows pretty orderly in around and out of the centers.

Kind of OT, but I'm surprised some enterprising developer hasn't seen fit to infill the SW corner of 71st & Memorial where Target used to be.  Talk about a ton of wasted space that could be re-purposed with something like The Farm that would be a win for the developer and the city.  You could utilize the existing building spaces for the most part but build another set to the north and on the strip to the east of the old Target building.  That's not a very far out concept and would be similar to the center on the west side of Memorial at about 68th where the mini movie theater, Pep Boys, and Sun & Ski are.

[swake]

Parking like The Farm and Utica Square is much, much more reasonable and attractive than the model of Tulsa Hills or Woodland Hills, and the traffic flows pretty orderly in around and out of the centers.

Kind of OT, but I'm surprised some enterprising developer hasn't seen fit to infill the SW corner of 71st & Memorial where Target used to be.  Talk about a ton of wasted space that could be re-purposed with something like The Farm that would be a win for the developer and the city.  You could utilize the existing building spaces for the most part but build another set to the north and on the strip to the east of the old Target building.  That's not a very far out concept and would be similar to the center on the west side of Memorial at about 68th where the mini movie theater, Pep Boys, and Sun & Ski are.

Local company Reasons actually seems to do well, they often have full parking lots. I many times have had to wait on parking in Jenks and today on Brookside was the same. They don't have 50% unused spaces at all times. Isn't that the goal?

[PonderInc]

The other thing to consider is this: when you require free parking, you subsidize driving.  And when you subsidize driving, you elevate it above every other form of transportation--transit, biking, walking--by making them less convenient, attractive and desirable.  This creates demand for more driving.  So then you have to widen roads, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, which is another way we subsidize driving.  When you widen roads so cars travel faster, you make transit, biking and walking even less desirable and safe.  And when you dedicate the entire public right-of-way to cars, you make mixed-use impossible.  Our city streets effectively become wide, loud, unpleasant, dangerous highways for cars with deep asphalt setbacks and widely spaced, single-use destinations where no sane person wants to be...except when they are sheltered in the protective cocoon of their cars.

Many of us can imagine living above a store on Cherry Street or above a restaurant downtown.  No one would dream of living above a commercial space anywhere near 71st and Mingo.

But when people can live above commercial spaces, you get a magic synergy.  Suddenly, every square foot of land doubles (or triples or quadruples...) in value and productivity.  The land is not sitting vacant 2/3 of the time, it's being utilized night and day. Then, when people can walk to meet their daily needs (stores, services, etc), you don't need a car for every household member. This means we can dedicate even less space to parking and roadway lanes, which frees up more land to create walkable development that's attractive to people.

And when places are walkable and transit-friendly, even people who don't drive receive the same freedoms and benefits of drivers.  They have the freedom to utilize the public right of way.  They can exercise their right to be engaged in their community.  They have the ability to obtain employment because they can get to their jobs without a car. 

Because walkable places with efficient transit are not limited by the caste system of car-ownership, exciting opportunities occur. Suddenly, old folks can participate.  Kids can participate.  Disabled folks can participate. Less affluent people can participate. Everyone can be an active member of their community, whether they own a car and can drive, or not.

And that's the kind of place I want to live.  It's the kind of place I want Tulsa to be.