i OVERPARKED AND UNDERSERVED: ANALYZING THE CONTRADICTION IN PARKING POLICIES IN PHILADELPHIA’S UNIVERSITY CITY DISTRICT A Professional Report In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Regional Planning by Lixian(Olivia) Jiang May 2024 ii CORNELL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, ART, AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PAPER, PROFESSIONAL REPORT, or THESIS (choose one type of exit project and delete the other two along with this line) Name of Candidate: First Name Middle Name/Initial Family/Last Name Graduate Field: CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING Degree: MASTER OF REGIONAL PLANNING (M.R.P.) Title: COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Chairperson: Date: Member: Date: Member: Date: Member: Date: Member: Date: LICENSE TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL I do hereby give license to Cornell University and all of its faculty and staff to use the above-mentioned copyrighted material in any manner consonant with, or pursuant to, the scholarly purposes of Cornell University, including lending such materials to students or others through its library services or through interlibrary services or through interlibrary loan, and delivering copies to sponsors of my research, but excluding any commercial us of such material. This license shall remain valid throughout the full duration of my copyright. _________________________________ Student Signature Professor Sophie Oldfield 23 May 2024 Nick Klein 2024-05-23 Nick Klein Nicholas Klein Lixian(Olivia) Jiang © 2024 Lixian(Olivia) Jiang ABSTRACT Despite the extensive attention given to broader transportation planning issues, parking studies have received insufficient focus. While many existing parking studies rely on quantitative data and modeling methods, there is a notable gap in research that incorporates interviews with key stakeholders at the grassroots level to truly understand the nuances of parking management and policies. Parking significantly influences the built environment, travel behaviors, housing patterns and the overall community well-being. This study reveals the oversupplied parking spaces fail to meet residents’ needs by integrating data from the 2023 Parking Inventory in University City District and insights from interviews with a city planner, a real estate developer, and a parking lot owner. This paper aims to shed light on this critical aspect of parking policies and propose actionable strategies to address the challenges and opportunities associated with parking. ii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lixian(Olivia) Jiang was born and raised in Shenzhen, China. From a young age, Olivia navigated the city’s extensive public transportation system by herself, which sparked her interest in transportation planning. At the age of 15, she moved to Los Angeles, experiencing a significant cultural and lifestyle shift as she faced the challenges of a car- dependent city without owning a car. This experience deepened during her studies in Environmental Design at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, where she recognized the crucial role of public transportation for marginalized communities. Determined to address these challenges, Olivia pursued a Master’s degree in City and Regional Planning at Cornell University, gaining insights into creating more accessible cities from a transportation justice perspective. Last summer, she interned at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, focusing on different transportation initiatives and parking studies, further solidifying her commitment to the field. These experiences helped Olivia understand the intricate balance between mobility needs and infrastructure, shaping her approach to urban planning. Upon graduating from Cornell, Olivia joined the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council, continuing her passion for enhancing public transportation. Her journey through cities like Shenzhen, Los Angeles, Buffalo, and Ithaca has uniquely equipped her to empathize with a diverse population and their transit needs. Her academic and personal experiences reflect her dedication to improving transportation systems to enhance the quality of life, making her a strong advocate for sustainable development. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Nicholas Klein and Professor Sophie Oldfield for their constant support and guidance throughout my research and my academic journey at Cornell. Their insightful feedback and comments have been instrumental in the completion of this project. I also would like to thank other professors and my peers in the City & Regional Planning department at Cornell. Their diverse perspectives and spirits have added vibrant colors to my academic journey. I am especially grateful for my internship supervisors, Nathan Grace and David Kanthor. Their mentorship provided me with hands-on knowledge in transportation planning that extended far beyond the classroom. Their willingness to guide me through many field trips in Philadelphia added a practical dimension to my learning. Their assistance with data collection, conducting interviews, and networking with local planners and stakeholders was invaluable to this research. I am truly appreciative of the opportunities to learn and grow under their guidance. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ vii LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................ viii PREFACE ............................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTON .................................................................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEWS ...................................................................................................... 3 CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY CITY .................................................................................. 11 METHOD .............................................................................................................................. 14 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 18 Data ................................................................................................................................... 18 Parking Capacities ....................................................................................................... 18 Parking Occupancy ...................................................................................................... 19 Parking Rates ................................................................................................................ 22 Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 23 Reflection .......................................................................................................................... 26 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 29 REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................ 31 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Long-term and temporary parking permit sales in Campustown, 2009–2021. ........ 9 Figure 2:the existing public parking facilities in University City District, Philadelphia ...... 15 Figure 3 A map showing parking occupancy rates ................................................................ 21 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Parking Requirements impacts on Typical Households ............................................. 6 Table 2 Public Capacity in 2017 and 2023 ............................................................................ 19 Table 3 Parking Occupancy Rates in 2017 and 2023 ............................................................ 21 Table 4 Parking Rates ............................................................................................................ 23 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS WWII – World War II ITE – The Institute of Transportation Engineers ARO – Adaptive Reuse Ordinance DVRPC – Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission PCPC – Philadelphia City Planning Commission CHOP – The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia viii LIST OF SYMBOLS ix PREFACE This paper is an extension of my internship tasks with Philadelphia City Planning Commission. This paper reflects my thoughts on the current parking policies in the US and their impacts on community well-being. 1 INTRODUCTON In urban centers across the globe, the intricate dynamics of transportation systems plays an important role that profoundly influences city layouts and provides commuting services to connect residents at different corners. While extensive attention has been given to broader transportation issues, parking studies have received little focus, despite their influence on urban design, car dependency, travel behavior, and housing affordability. University City District is a vibrant academic hub and residential district, which presents a great opportunity to study parking policies and management and how they could affect community well-being. This paper will provide a brief American history to identify the driving forces behind oversupplied parking infrastructure and comprehensive literature reviews to include previous parking theories, data, documents, and case studies from other cities in the US that have partially eliminated parking requirements. The study then assesses overall parking trends and occupancy rates in University City by analyzing the data from the 2023 Parking Inventory and comparing parking data between 2017 and 2023. This comparative analysis highlights changes over time and provides an understanding of current parking trends. Furthermore, through ground-truthing, direct observation, and interactions with grassroots stakeholders, this paper bridges the gap between data and reality, shaping a deep understanding of parking experiences in University City District, Philadelphia. This paper combines quantitative data with qualitative observations and insights from interviews, with a city planner, a parking lot owner, and a real estate developer to investigate the relationships between parking requirements and how it impacts local communities in University City District. These interviews provide valuable perspectives on 2 how parking policies are implemented and perceived at different levels of development. Through these methods, the study aims to uncover the significant influence of parking policies on affordability. By identifying the ways in which parking infrastructure affects real estate markets and resident experiences, the paper proposes actionable planning strategies to address these challenges. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that the needs and priorities of residents are more effectively satisfied, contributing to a more equitable and sustainable urban environment. 3 LITERATURE REVIEWS The long-lasting effects of the suburban car culture mindset have profoundly shaped life in America. With the end of WWII, thousands of returning soldiers and their families sought to seek education opportunities, find a job, and move into an affordable home of their own (Rudersdorf, 2015). Many of them headed to the suburbs, where houses were bigger and roads were wider. Although these Americans were segmented into distinct communities based on income and racial factors, they all shared the common need to commute to work, school, shopping, or socializing. However, life in the suburbs is often isolated and depressed without having access to many facilities. The old traditional mode of transportation failed to satisfy their growing desire for individual freedom and aspiration that they longed for. Consequently, owning a parking lot to store their private vehicle was the most practical solution at the time, ensuring that their car was conveniently parked close to their proximity. By 1960, 15% of families in suburbs had access to two or more cars (Walsh, 2004). Car ownership continues to rise. In 2022, 91% of American households registered more than one vehicle (Valentine, 2024). These numbers underscore the prevalence of car ownership in the US is deeply rooted in American culture and history. Everyone who drives must find a place to park for their vehicle. In the early 20th century, the advent of automobiles and the explosion in car ownership significantly increased the demand for parking spaces. The local government intended to implement minimum parking requirements to regulate traffic congestion and improve mobility. In America, parking requirements are dedicated by the municipal zoning ordinance (Caluori, 2016), which is a law requiring new buildings to include a fixed number of off-street parking spaces based on assumed occupancy rates and demand from Parking Generation 4 published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbooks (Shoup, 1999). “Zoning regulations typically demand one parking space per residential unit, one per 300 square feet of commercial space, and one per 100 square feet for restaurants (Hess and Rehler, 2021)”. These minimum parking requirements assume everyone has a car, thus mandating parking spaces for all new developments regardless of neighborhood characteristics, land use, demographics and actual demands for parking lots. Such mandates have resulted in oversupplied parking spaces all over the US. For example, in San Bernardino, California, 49% of the valuable land is dedicated to parking. Other cities with significant portions of their land allocated to parking include Arlington, Texas (42%); Lexington, Kentucky (38%); Wichita, Kansas (35%); and Virginia Beach (35%). Despite the initial intention purposed to streamline urban mobility and manage traffic flows, these parking infrastructures have also introduced a host of challenges, including inefficient land use, increased urban sprawl, and negative impacts on housing affordability. Donald Shoup critically examines the parking requirements and reveals many problems associated with such mandates. He claims that the trip generation and parking rates are insufficient and unreliable predictors of land use and transportation planning. Many planners and researchers argue that the data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers observed is based on suburban contexts with ample free parking and no public transportation (Shoup, 2011). Such data is outdated and unreliable, often leading to terrible policy outcomes that cause overestimated vehicle traffic in cities. The reliance on this insufficient data set to devise parking management and policy increases the cost of car ownership and wastes land resources turning to ample abundant vacant parking as the free parking attracts 5 the car owners into areas that sell their goods and services at higher prices than the market average. Numerous studies have demonstrated that parking requirements contribute to increased housing costs. These requirements mandate that new developments provide a specific number of parking spaces, regardless of whether households own cars. This outdated policy results in excessive parking spaces that residents may never use, leading to several effects that increase housing costs and the overall cost of living in cities. Direct costs include the construction expenses for parking structures in new residential developments. Indirect costs involve public land and funds used to provide parking at nonresidential facilities - resources that could otherwise be allocated to affordable housing or public transit (Litman, 2024). Seth Goodman estimated that the costs of land, construction, and maintenance of parking lots can add up to $225 per space to monthly apartment rent (Goodman, 2015, p.1). In 2013, Manville analyzed a sample of buildings in Los Angeles, and the study found that an “apartment with bundled parking is associated with $200 more in asking rent, and bundled parking with a condo is associated with a $43,000 increase in asking rents (Manville, 2013, p.12).” Litman estimated that “based on typical affordable housing development costs, one parking space per unit increases costs by approximately 12.5%, and two parking spaces can increase costs by up to 25%. (Litman, 2004). The implementation of parking requirements not only inflates the financial burdens on developers and homeowners but also reflects a broader inefficiency in planning that prioritizes parking over more sustainable development approaches. This hidden cost generated by parking requirements disproportionally affects low- income households and people who don’t have a car. Using data from the American 6 Housing Survey, Pierce and Gabbe concluded that 71% of carless renters who live in a housing unit with a parking garage pay an average of $621 a year or a 13 percent premium on their rent for parking they do not use (Pierce & Gabbe, 2017). This raises a serious equity issue since renter households, low-income families, people over 25 years old, and those with disabilities tend to have low vehicle ownership rates (Litman, 2024), but they still have to contribute to the cost of parking while they don’t even use the space. Litman further analyzed how parking requirements affect housing costs for various household types based on parking mandates, parking facilities and housing costs, and parking demands. His data analysis indicated that “low-income households car-free who pay $1,400 rent for a two- bedroom apartment overpay $300 per month for two unneeded parking spaces, which occupy 10% of their income, but a moderate-income one-car household pays their parking costs for a one-bedroom apartment but overpays $200 per month for a two-bedroom, about 4% of their total income (Litman, 2024)” This stark difference highlights the inequality in how parking cots impact different socioeconomic groups and their ability to afford rents or cost of living, which exacerbates the income disparity through the cost of parking. Table 1 Parking Requirements impacts on Typical Households 7 Rather than imposing the parking requirements, Shoup suggests to eliminate the minimum parking requirement to reduce the cost of urban development, control parking demand, increase the supply of affordable and encourage other potential development instead of oversupplied parking facilities(Shoup, 1999). Many cities across the nation have responded to Shoup’s recommendations. For example, In Buffalo, NY, parking spaces once made up more than half of downtown areas due to the old zoning code established in 1953, which reflected the dominance of the automobile as the preferred mode of transportation. In 2017, Buffalo enacted the Green Code, becoming the first city in the US to eliminate off- street parking minimums. The results have been significant. “Developers of 14 sites mixing retail space and residential units incorporated 53% fewer parking spaces than required under the previous zoning, the housing developers included 47% fewer parking spaces than before (Hess and Rehler, 2021).” Under the new ordinance, large development proposals are required to submit transportation demand management plans (Orbach & Minott, 2023), which allows developers to consider a variety of factors including the walkability of an area, the distance from bus or light rail stops, and the possibility of shared parking arrangements (Orbach & Minott, 2023). The elimination of parking minimums has facilitated the revitalization of Buffalo’s downtown areas, promoting the growth of small retails and providing more land for affordable housing development. Los Angeles’ Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO) enacted in 1999 has also waived parking requirements from new developments. The ARO was designed to convert downtown's vacant and underutilized buildings for new uses such as housing and hotels, aiming to address the housing crisis in the city. The law has been effective, which 8 introduced additional 12,000 homes to downtown (Sharp, 2023).Although the law didn’t mandate the removal of exiting parking spaces, it allowed developers to construct new building without consideration of minimum parking requirements. Manville surveyed 56 ARO developments and revealed that “when cities remove parking requirements for new developments, developers build more housing with less parking (Manville, 2014)” This emphasize how parking requirements can burden housing development and limited space for other opportunities. To achieve the social, environmental and climate benefits of adaptive reuse, municipalities should streamline such projects, including converting parking spaces into affordable housing (Lynam, 2023). For example, Wichita, Kansas converted a 500-car garage into a 44-unit apartment complex, using adaptive reuse to address the issues of excess parking and rising housing costs (Ionescu, 2021), which plays an important role to address the problems with affordable housing and homelessness. Sohoni and Lee investigated the broader outcomes of parking reform in Champaign, IL, home to the University of Illinois. Their study found that eliminating parking requirements led to an 84% reduction in on-site parking compared to previous mandates (Sohoni and Lee, 2023). This decline in existing parking facilities resulted in more efficient use of available parking, as residents increased their purchases of long-term permits, thereby improving parking revenue for authorities, parking lot owners, and housing developers. The reform also provided developers with an opportunity to better utilize their existing land resources. “Developers with multiple buildings could intentionally provide fewer parking spaces in new projects when located near older buildings with excess parking”. The researchers further revealed that removing minimum parking requirements 9 enhances urban housing density and promotes active building frontages, benefiting walkable and transit-rich districts (Sohoni and Lee, 2023). Figure 1: Long-term and temporary parking permit sales in Campustown, 2009–2021. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission(DVRPC), which is the federal designated Municipal Planning Organization for a diverse nine-county region including Philadelphia, provides potential strategies for managing residential parking in Philadelphia. Population growth and increasing development have significantly fueled the demand for parking, as they lead to higher number of commuters driving alone in the city. The DVRPC explores the potential parking reforms by proposing several recommendations, including “expanding permit eligibility to certain nonresidents; institute target prices increases based on housing location and/or characteristics; enable city staff to initiate Residential Parking permits activities.” (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2021). The report highlights the importance of understanding Philadelphia’s varying neighborhood contexts, 10 noting that "some neighborhoods have a parking crunch while others do not." However, in the University City District of Philadelphia, the situation is different. Since many students, interns, and researchers leave during summer vacations, the demand for parking in this area is seasonal. The study did not address this seasonal variation in parking demand and its potential impact on parking occupancy. This incongruency underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to managing parking that considers the unique, fluctuating demands of neighborhoods like University City. 11 CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY CITY Understanding the complexities of parking policies and their impact on urban environments requires a detailed examination of specific locales where these dynamics are most pronounced. University City District in Philadelphia is one such area, offering a rich context for exploring how parking mandates influence housing affordability and community well-being. This section delves into the distinctive characteristics of University City, highlighting its economic growth, diverse population, and extensive transportation options, while underscoring the paradox of its oversupplied parking facilities. Through this lens, the following background provides a comprehensive overview of the factors contributing to the current parking landscape and its broader implications for the community. University City District in Philadelphia presents an ideal setting to study the influence of parking mandates on housing affordability and community well-being. Located in the easternmost portion of West Philadelphia along the Schuylkill River, University City is home to world-renowned academic, research, and commercial institutions. Over the past decades, the district has experienced significant economic and population growth. There are approximately 77,000 workers across key areas such as 30th Street Station, Penn/Drexel, Medical Campus, and Saint Joseph’s University. The area is also flanked by commercial corridors and diverse residential neighborhoods, including Powelton Village, West Powelton, and Spruce Hill. There are over 50,000 students enrolled across four colleges and universities, office occupancy is high at 95.5 percent, and the area has seen almost 4,000 new units of multi-family housing, including 10 million square feet of new construction or major renovation over the past decade (The State of University City, 2023). 12 University City offers a variety of transportation options, including one of the business Amtrak stations in the country at 30th Street Station; SEPTA, a regional transportation authority, provides comprehensive trolly and bus networks; and the LUCY, which is a district shuttle bus that circulates within the area. Ample bicycle facilities in the University/Southwest support a six percent commute mode share by bicycle, which is among the highest share for a planning district in the city. Despite the many convenient and accessible transportation options provided in this area, the abundance of oversupplied parking facilities stands in contradiction to the city’s vision of supporting non-vehicle activities to reduce carbon emissions. This contradiction makes University City an excellent study area for examining the impacts of parking mandates on housing affordability and community well-being. Parking issues in the University City area involve balancing the needs of employees, visitors, and residents while managing the impact of parking overabundance on rents and housing values. The average rent in University City is currently around $1,890 per month. According to news reports, West Philly is exchanging 70 affordable housing units for a parking lot (Tung, 2021). Additionally, more than half of all renters and low-income households in West Philadelphia’s District 3, within the University City District, struggle to pay rent and face a risk of displacement (Allen, 2020). As of May 2024, median rents for apartment units have risen substantially over the past year. One-bedroom rental prices have increased by 11.25%, from $2,563 to $2,851 (renthop, 2024). Although rising rents and housing costs are not directly linked to parking supply, the abundance of parking limits the land available for housing development or other potential uses. This situation highlights how 13 underutilized parking facilities can negatively influence residents and housing supply, underscoring the disconnection between current parking policies and community needs. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission(DVRPC), which is the federal designated Municipal Planning Organization for a diverse nine-county region including Philadelphia, provides potential strategies for managing residential parking in Philadelphia. Population growth and increasing development have significantly fueled the demand for parking, as they lead to higher number of commuters driving alone in the city. The DVRPC explores the potential parking reforms by proposing several recommendations, including “expanding permit eligibility to certain nonresidents; institute target prices increases based on housing location and/or characteristics; enable city staff to initiate Residential Parking permits activities.” (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2021). The report highlights the importance of understanding Philadelphia’s varying neighborhood contexts, noting that "some neighborhoods have a parking crunch while others do not." However, in the University City District of Philadelphia, the situation is different. Since many students, interns, and researchers leave during summer vacations, the demand for parking in this area is seasonal. The study did not address this seasonal variation in parking demand and its potential impact on parking occupancy. This incongruency underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to managing parking that considers the unique, fluctuating demands of neighborhoods like University City. 14 METHOD In this study, I employed two primary methods to understand the contradiction in parking policies in University City District of Philadelphia. My involvement began during an internship with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) last summer, which provided me with the opportunity to access crucial parking data and sparked my interest in parking-related issues. The research began with a comprehensive field surveyed by PCPC, which gathered detailed information on existing parking facilities, including their capacity, occupancy rates, and pricing structures. This data laid the foundation for understanding how excessive parking problems can affect community well-being, especially marginalized population. To complement this, I conducted interviews with three key stakeholders, enriching the quantitative findings with thoughtful insights drawn from the interviews. These two approaches of integrating data analysis with stakeholder perspectives offered a multifaceted view, enhancing our understanding of the intricate parking dynamic in the city. The study thus provided a thorough analysis of the current conditions and illuminated potential future needs in the University City District. To understand the evolving parking trends associated with increased commercial, institutional, and residential development west of the Schuylkill River, this paper analyzes data from the 2023 University City, which is created by PCPC. This data includes a comprehensive review of off-street public parking spaces in University City, and evaluates 30 public facilities that contain 11,576 publicly available parking spaces. A parking facility is deemed public if it is open to anyone seeking parking and includes clearly posted rates for the cost to park. In some cases, some facilities include both private and public parking, such as garages with certain levels gated off and reserved for specific clients, and only the spaces 15 available for public parking were surveyed. All parking facilities were surveyed in 2023 on weekdays during daytime hours from 9 AM to 5 PM. Using ArcGIS Pro, I analyzed the existing public parking data to compare characteristics and map the distribution of parking lots across seven neighborhoods bounded by Spring Garden Street, Haverford Avenue, 45th Street, and the Schuylkill River (Figure 2). This data from 2023 was then compared with data from 2017 to identify trends and shifts in parking dynamics. By examining these changes in parking dynamics, we can align the provision and pricing of parking with community needs, manage the current parking supply without creating excess spaces, and ensure that the distribution of parking meets future market demand. Figure 2:the existing public parking facilities in University City District, Philadelphia 16 Given the difficulty in obtaining data for private parking lots and on-street parking due to privacy concerns and legal restrictions, I supplemented this quantitative data with qualitative insights through interviews with four key stakeholders to connect the current parking phenomenon with the real-life experience by sharing their perspectives on parking. These interviews organized by open-ended questions to avoid leading the participants and to allow themes to emerge naturally from the dialogue. For example, the interview started with a general question that initiated the conversation while encouraging reminiscing about personal experiences, such as, “Tell me about your experience in developing a residential parking project?” “How do you run the business as a parking lot owner?” “What kind of challenges do you have?” “From your perspective, How should the city manage parking facilities?” As the discussion progressed, additional questions were posed based on the participant's responses and reactions to deepen the understanding of their experiences. The questions include, “How did this influence your decision?”, “What kind of information did you receive?”, “What was your reaction when this happened?” Following this approach, the responses from the participants generated numerous themes that emerged organically from their experiences and data, rather than being constrained by any predetermined theoretical framework. The interviews, conducted both in person and remotely via Zoom, lasted between 40 minutes to an hour each. The participants included Anna Kelly, a Senior Policy Advisor for E-Vehicle and Parking in the city, who offered insights from a city management and policy revision perspective; Peter Epstein, an experienced Senior Development Manager at National Real Estate Development in Philadelphia, who presented a specific residential parking project on Spring Garden street; Ms. Ren (remain anonymous due to privacy 17 concerns), is a parking lot operator in Philadelphia for over five years, who provided valuable grassroots perspectives on parking management. 18 FINDINGS This section summarizes the findings from the 2023 University City Parking Inventory and the interview results. It also draws insights from literature reviews to relate these findings to the current parking situation in the University City District of Philadelphia. Data Parking Capacities The 2023 University City Parking Inventory reveals significant changes in the availability of public parking spaces. The inventory includes 30 public facilities, totaling 11,576 publicly available parking spaces. Compared to the parking spaces in 2017, there are approximately 4,800 fewer parking spaces available. Only the Penn/Drexel area and Powelton Village experienced an increase in public parking capacity from 2017 to 2023. The Medical Campus and Penn/Drexel neighborhoods have the highest public parking capacities, with 3,986 and 3,165 spaces respectively, whereas St. Joseph’s University and Powelton Village have the lowest capacities. The Medical Campus alone accounts for 35% of the total public parking availability in University City, Overall, the total capacity of public parking spaces has decreased by 28.5% over the past six years. This reduction in public parking capacity can be attributed to significant development activities in University City, which have reshaped the parking landscape. The trend of decreasing public parking spaces is expected to continue with ongoing and future developments, including University City Square, Schuylkill Yards, the expansion of The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) campus, and Amtrak’s 30th Street Station District Plan. These long-term projects are likely to further transform the neighborhood, prioritizing other land uses over public parking, and thus reinforcing the trend of reduced public parking availability. 19 Table 2 Public Capacity in 2017 and 2023 Parking Occupancy Data collection took place during the daytime hours in 2023 and surveyed all 30 facilities in the University City District. The occupancy rate for the 30 parking sites surveyed was 73.6%, with a total of 11,576 publicly available parking spaces. This shows an approximately 3.5% increase in occupancy from 2017 when the rate was 70.1%. Powelton Village had the lowest public occupancy rate at 50.98%, experiencing the greatest percentage change since 2017, with a decrease of nearly 41% from its previous rate of 91.9%. All the other neighborhoods had occupancy rate changes within 10%, indicating that there weren’t significant occupancy changes outside of Powelton Village. Penn/Drexel (82.8%) and the Medical Campus (78.8%) had the highest occupancy rates in University City, but they still had 544 and 844 parking spaces available during the daytime. In 2023, the inventory included 15 fewer public parking facilities than in 2017 due to facilities being 20 closed, under construction, transferred from public to private use, or inaccessible. Despite the significant reduction in parking capacity, there is a modest increase of 3.5% in occupancy rates compared to the 2017 public occupancy rates of 70.1%. This increase in occupancy may be related to the impact of Covid-19 on transportation choices and behaviors. From 2019 to 2022, government restrictions on public transportation led to a drastic decrease in SEPTA ridership, which fell by 92% across all modes between March and May 2022 (SEPTA, 2022). Social distancing measures and reduced mass transit usage increased people’s dependency on private vehicles, thereby increasing parking occupancy and demand. Furthermore, This data suggests that an almost 30% reduction in parking capacity does not materially affect parking occupancy rates, instead, it had a slight increase of 3.5%, supporting the proposition that eliminating some underutilized parking spaces in the University City District would not adversely impact current parking needs or commuting patterns. Additionally, according to “Optimizing the use of public garages: Pricing parking by demand” by Donald Shoup, he suggested, “a parking system operates most efficiently at an occupancy rate between 85 and 95 percent of capacity.” The parking data in 2023 showed just over 11500 off-street parking spaces with a current occupancy rate of 74%, below the optimal 85% for efficient parking facility operations, indicating that the parking system in the University City District is not functioning efficiently. This underutilized parking space could potentially be used for affordable housing or other land-use development. 21 Figure 3 A map showing parking occupancy rates Table 3 Parking Occupancy Rates in 2017 and 2023 22 Parking Rates Hourly parking costs range from $6.30 to $22 with an overall average cost of $9.03 and a median cost of $11.5. The Medical Campus institutions provide subsidies for parking, resulting in the neighborhood having the lowest average hourly rate of $6.3 due to an ample supply. Conversely, Spruce Hill, a residential neighborhood that comprises a large number of students, interns, and renters, has the highest one-hour rate at $22, often leading many visitors to opt for less expensive on-street parking over public garages or lots, which only cost 3 dollars an hour to park. For all-day parking rates in University City, public facilities vary from $17.60 to $29.5 per day, with an average cost of $17.60 and a median cost of $21.7. Similar to one-hour rates, Spruce Hill has the highest all-day rate at $29.5, while the Medical Campus offers the lowest average rate at $17.6, typically subsidized for patients and visitors. The all-day parking rates in University City indicate an outlier that drags down the average cost of all-day parking rates. St. Joseph’s University does not have public lots with hourly or daily rates. Instead, the university offers parking permits to students and employees on a first-come, first-served basis. Full-time faculty and students pay $250 for a parking permit, while part-time faculty and students pay $75. Current high pricing rates may lead residents and travelers to cruise for cheaper on-street parking, contributing to congestion. Lowering off-street parking rates and raising on-street rates could shift drivers to off-street facilities. Adjacent residential areas with fewer off-street parking facilities may experience tighter on-street parking constraints and have needed to implement the residential parking permit program to ensure that there is available parking for residents. The demand for on-street parking in these neighborhoods seems to be exceeding or nearly reaching the 23 supply of curbside spots. This situation may lead to spill-over effects, with University City residents parking outside the neighborhood boundaries. Table 4 Parking Rates Interviews In this research, I interviewed three people in different industries to understand their opinions and experiences about how parking requirements influence housing affordability. 1. City Planner - Anna Kelly Anna Kelly, a senior advisor for Electric Vehicles and parking in Philadelphia, provided insights drawn from her working experiences and responsibilities, which include collecting parking data and collaborating with the Philadelphia Parking Authority and the Complete Streets Department. She highlighted the complexity of parking issues, underscoring the need for policies tailored to the unique characteristics of each neighborhood, considering factors such as employment patterns, entertainment facilities, population densities, and current parking utilization. For example, University City houses at least five higher education institutions and a substantial residential population of students, young professionals, interns, and professors who often leave the city during summer 24 vacation, leading to underutilized parking spaces, which could have been utilized for other development. Kelly also pointed out the lack of significant policy initiatives or civic engagement to address or understand community parking needs. The data from the State of University 2023 indicates that 53% of residents use public transit compared to 42% who drive alone (the State of University City, 2023). The preference for public transportation raises questions about the necessity of extensive parking facilities, emphasizing the current parking policies and management's lack of public engagement and does not satisfy community needs. Despite the trend, new parking constructions continue, such as the recently completed nine-story parking garage at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, which cost $46.4 million to build. Kelly argued that such developments encourage more driving, potentially leading to further congestion. This approach appears incongruent with the actual transportation habits and needs of the residents, who favor public transit. Additionally, Kelly highlighted the scarcity of comprehensive parking studies available to inform city policymaking. She envisioned that moving forward, cities could employ advanced digitization techniques to assess underutilized parking spaces and create detailed parking inventories for better analysis and planning. This would help align parking policies with the real transportation preferences of residents and support more sustainable urban development. 2. Real Estate Developer - Peter Epstein Peter Epstein is a Senior Development Manager at National Real Estate Development in Philadelphia. He discussed one of his residential parking projects on Spring Garden Street within the University City District. The current parking requirement in the area is one parking space for three apartment units. For this specific project, it adheres to a modified parking requirement, resulting in 84 parking spaces for 360 housing units. Epstein 25 highlighted the high cost of construction parking lots, with expenses reaching $40,000 per parking space. After conducting the revenue performance, it indicated that the developers have to charge a minimum of $300 per month for one parking space to cover construction costs. After incorporating additional expenses such as taxes, maintenance, and technology to operate the parking lots, the total monthly cost to residents is $350 per space. The actual cost of parking fees may also vary depending on the market forces. Therefore, Epstein emphasized that from a cost-benefit perspective, constructing more parking spaces than actually required wouldn’t be practical. Instead, he prefers investing in additional amenities like retail spaces. Parking lots also occupy the total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allocated to developers; hence, building more parking spaces wouldn’t be beneficial because it would take away valuable land spaces for residential apartments. Currently, the parking lot is exclusively for residents, as predicting demand from outside of residents is challenging. Epstein also mentioned efforts to create a more urban-focused environment by integrating parking with existing transportation facilities, such as bus stops and bike-sharing stations, and by reducing the number of required parking spaces in favor of car-sharing spaces and bike decks. 3. Parking Lots Owner - Ms. Ren Ms. Ren has managed a surface parking lot in Philadelphia for over five years, offering valuable insights from her extensive experience. She said that parking demands spike only during major city events, such as the Auto Show and Flower Exhibition; otherwise, the business struggles to be profitable. She noted that the off-street parking lots do not typically attract local residents because “people would rather choose curbside parking which only costs $3 per house or is even free on the weekends, compared to the $10 per 26 hour rate at the facility I own.” This observation aligns with the findings from that the 2023 Parking Inventory data, where current high parking rates with a median cost of $21.7 lead more people to choose cheaper on-street parking options. The high price of surface parking lots is associated with parking tax rates and land rent. Ms. Ren mentioned that she faces substantial operational costs and financial pressure. She revealed that it costs $20,000 to $30,000 to rent parking garages per month including a 22.8% government tax. Additional expenses arise from labor and maintenance fees. Crime also poses a significant challenge in running a parking business, with incidents of vandalism to customer vehicles adding to the operational risks and costs. To break even, Ms. Ren’s parking lots must generate at least $1000 daily. She detailed her business model: she owns 40 parking spaces, 10 of which are reserved for monthly permits for special customers priced between $300 to $400, ensuring a steady income. Ms. Ren expressed her desire for reduced government land rents and taxes associated with parking, which would lower the daily revenue needed to cover expenses and help prevent a continuing increase in average parking costs. Reflection The interviews with Anna Kelly, Peter Epstein, and Ms. Ren provided a multifaceted understanding of how parking requirements influence housing affordability and urban development in University City, Philadelphia. The insights from Kelly, Epstein, and Ms. Ren highlights significant issues: the misalignment between parking supply and demand, the high construction cost of parking facilities, and the operational challenges faced by parking lot owners. Each interviewee brought a unique perspective, shedding light on the complexity and challenges of current parking policies. 27 Anna Kelly’s insights as a senior advisor for Electric Vehicles and parking highlight the intricate nature of parking issues, emphasizing the need for policies that reflect the unique characteristics of each neighborhood. While Kelly argues for more data collection and advanced digitization techniques to create detailed parking inventories, this approach may be insufficient to address the fundamental misalignment between parking policies and community needs. The example of University City's underutilized parking spaces during the summer underscores a critical flaw in current policies that prioritize parking over more flexible and community-oriented land uses. Despite the preference for public transit among residents, as evidenced by the 53% transit usage rate compared to 42% who drive alone, the city continues to invest in large parking structures. This suggests a deeper issue rooted in policy inertia and vested interests in data alone cannot resolve. Kelly’s critique lacks a concrete action plan to tackle these entrenched issues, and without significant policy reform and civic engagement, the current situation is unlikely to change merely through better data. Peter Epstein's perspective as a Senior Development Manager offers a pragmatic view of the financial implications of parking requirements. His analysis of the high costs associated with constructing parking spaces emphasizes a crucial economic consideration: the cost-benefit imbalance of excessive parking provisions. Epstein’s preference for investing in amenities over parking spaces aligns with a broader urban planning goal of creating more livable, mixed-use environments. However, Epstein’s insights also reveal the limitations of market-driven solutions. While he advocates for fewer parking spaces and more retail options, his approach is primarily driven by profitability rather than a holistic vision for community well-being. Moreover, Epstein’s position within a large real estate development company allows him to seek zoning variances to reduce parking spaces, a 28 privilege that smaller developers might not have. This creates an uneven playing field, as smaller developers often lack the land, resources, and political influence to secure such variances. Consequently, smaller developers are forced to adhere strictly to existing parking requirements, which can be financially burdensome and limit their ability to contribute to more sustainable urban development. This disparity underscores the need for regulatory frameworks that balance developer interests with public good, ensuring that urban development contributes to affordable housing and sustainable transportation options for all, regardless of developer size. Ms. Ren's operational challenges highlight the adverse effects of high taxes and rents on parking businesses, but her proposed solutions overlook the potential benefits of transforming parking spaces into more community-focused developments. Reducing government land rents and taxes might offer temporary relief, but it does not contribute to a long-term, sustainable urban strategy. In conclusion, the interviews underscore the necessity for comprehensive policy reforms that go beyond data collection and market adjustments. Addressing the identified gaps through bold policy initiatives, community engagement, and a shift towards sustainable urban planning can lead to more equitable and effective parking policies, ultimately aligning them with the true needs of the community. 29 CONCLUSION This study has explored the intricate relationship between parking policies and housing affordability within the vibrant, densely populated University City District in Philadelphia. The study highlights that, despite the apparent reduction in parking capacity and a slight increase in occupancy, the demand for parking has not significantly diminished. This supports the argument for reconsidering current parking infrastructure, which, as established, tends to favor car ownership and consequently affects housing costs. Significantly, the evidence from our mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data analysis with qualitative insights from community stakeholders, underscores a critical misalignment between parking requirements and actual transportation patterns. Most residents of University City prefer public transportation, which questions the necessity of extensive parking facilities that could, paradoxically, encourage more driving and congestion. Furthermore, the study identifies a potential opportunity for policy reform in parking management. By adjusting parking rates and redistributing parking spaces more in line with actual usage and demand, the city could alleviate some of the pressure on real estate values and, by extension, housing affordability. Such policy shifts could also support environmental goals by reducing vehicle dependence and promoting more sustainable urban transit options. Other potential parking reforms including collaborating with key stakeholders while devising parking policies; conducting more parking inventory studies to understand the particular parking patterns; encourage property owners to unbundle parking (rent parking separately from building space) (Litman; 2024); and encourage developers to develop parking management plans (Litman; 2024). 30 In conclusion, the findings suggest for a strategic reevaluation of parking policies in University City. By aligning these policies more closely with the real needs and preferences of the community—emphasizing public transit and reducing reliance on private vehicle storage—there is a substantial opportunity to enhance urban living, make housing more affordable, and foster a more sustainable and inclusive urban environment. This study serves as a call to action for city planners, developers, and community stakeholders to collaborate on innovative solutions that address these pressing issues. University City District, parking operators, institutions, City planners, and real estate developers should collaborate to effectively managing off-street parking while promoting alternative transportation options to create a more affordable housing environment. This collaboration should establish efficient and effective parking policies that meet the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses in University City District, Philadelphia. 31 REFERENCE Allen, Taylor. 2020. “Report:West Philadelphia Renters Face a Growing Risk of Displacement.” WHYY. December 6, 2020. https://whyy.org/articles/west- philadelphia-renters-face-a-growing-risk-of-displacement/. “Average Rent in University City, Philadelphia, PA | University City, Philadelphia, PA Rent Costs | RentHop.” n.d. Renthop.com. renthop. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://www.renthop.com/average-rent-in/university-city-philadelphia-pa. Bayer, Patrick. 2023. “The State of University Philadelphia 2023.” Edited by Chris Richman and Shawn Ryan. Universitycity.org. UCD. 2023. https://www.universitycity.org/sites/default/files/documents/The%20State%20of%20 University%20City%202023%20web_0.pdf. Caluori, Ladina. 2016. “Minimum Parking Requirements - Problem and Alternatives.” Parking Network. Skyline Parking. October 27, 2016. https://www.parking.net/parking-news/skyline-parking-ag/minimum-parking- requirements. Gabbe, C.J, and Greg Pierce. 2017. “The Hidden Cost of Bundled Parking.” https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/05/Gabbe-and- Pierce-Access-Spring-2017.pdf. “Greater Philadelphia’s Public Transportation System and COVID-19 – PART 3 | Economy League of Greater Philadelphia.” 2020. Economy League of Greater Philadelphia. September 23, 2020. https://www.economyleague.org/resources/greater- philadelphias-public-transportation-system-and-covid-19-part-3. 32 Hess, Daniel. 2021. “Parking Reform Could Re-Energize Downtowns.” Edited by Jeffrey Rehler. Buffalo.edu. June 15, 2021. https://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/stories/2021/06/conversation-hess-parking- reform.html. Ionescu, Diana. 2021. “Converting Unused Parking Garages to Affordable Housing.” Planetizen.com. July 2021. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2021/07/113990- converting-unused-parking-garages-affordable-housing. Knowles, Gordon. 2024. “Pandemic Parking Design: How COVID-19 May Affect the Future of Parking.” Edited by Michael Pendergrass. Watry Design, Inc. 2024. https://watrydesign.com/insights/pandemic-parking-design-how-covid-19-may- affect-the-future-of-parking. Litman, Todd. 2009. “Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/parking_housing_2009.pdf. ———. 2024. “Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability the Costs of Residential Parking Mandates and Benefits of Reforms.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. Lynam, Lauren. 2023. “Climate Resilient Development at the Local Level: Parking and Adaptive Reuse | Pace Environmental Law Review.” Pace.edu. 2023. https://pelr.blogs.pace.edu/2023/04/26/climate-resilient-development-at-the-local- level-parking-and-adaptive-reuse/. Manville, Michael . 2014. “Parking Requirements and Housing Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 2014. 33 https://escholarship.org/content/qt1828g968/qt1828g968_noSplash_75261cfb458a72 c0f995992c592c33b3.pdf?t=njo0ij. Manville, Michael, and Miriam Pinski. 2020. “Parking Behaviour: Bundled Parking and Travel Behavior in American Cities.” Land Use Policy 91 (February): 103853–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.012. Murat Olus Inan, Eren Inci, and C. Robin Lindsey. 2019. “Spillover Parking.” Transportation Research. Part B: Methodological/Transportation Research. Part B, Methodological 125 (July): 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2019.05.012. Ogorodnikov, Vitali. 2023. “Philadelphia YIMBY.” Philadelphia YIMBY. April 27, 2023. https://phillyyimby.com/2023/04/construction-nearly-complete-at-penn-presbyterian- medical-center-garage-in-university-city-west-philadelphia.html. Orbach, Rebecca. 2023. “Eliminating Parking Minimums in Buffalo, NY .” Edited by Owen Minott. Bipartisanpolicy.org. Bipartisan Policy Center. 2023. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-parking-minimums-in-buffalo- ny/#:~:text=Reforms%20Implemented,off%2Dstreet%20parking%20minimums%20 citywide.. Pierce, Gregory, Hank Willson, and Donald Shoup. 2015. “Optimizing the Use of Public Garages: Pricing Parking by Demand.” ScienceDirect 44 (November): 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.07.003. Rudersdorf, Amy. 2015. “Postwar Rise of the Suburbs .” Digital Public Library of America. DPLA. 2015. https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/postwar-rise-of-the-suburbs. 34 Seth Goodman. 2015. “How Much Does One Parking Spot Add to Rent?” Reinventingparking.org. Blogger. June 2, 2015. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2015/06/how-much-does-one-parking-spot-add- to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+R einventingParking+%28Reinventing+Parking%29. Sharp, Steven. 2023. “Planning Department Unveils Draft Citywide Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.” Urbanize LA. May 24, 2023. https://la.urbanize.city/post/planning- department-unveils-draft-citywide-adaptive-reuse-ordinance. Shoup, Donald. 1997. “The High Cost of Free Parking.” Researchgate.net. January 1997. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235359727_The_High_Cost_of_Free_Park ing. ———. 2011. “Truth in Transportation Planning | Bureau of Transportation Statistics.” Bts.gov. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2011. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/vo lume_06_number_01/paper_01/index. ———. 2016. “Cutting the Cost of Parking Requirements a City Can Be Friendly to People or It Can Be Friendly to Cars, but It Can’t Be Both.” https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost- of-Parking-Requirements.pdf. Shoup, Donald C. 1999. “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33 (7-8): 549– 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0965-8564(99)00007-5. 35 Srirang Sohoni, and Bumsoo Lee. 2023. “After the Minimum Parking Requirement.” Journal of the American Planning Association, September, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2248093. Svekla, Andrew, and Derek Lombardi. 2021. “Strategies for Managing Residential Parking in Philadelphia.” Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. May 2021. https://www.dvrpc.org/reports/20026.pdf. Tung, Will. 2021. “Opinion: Why Is West Philly Trading 70 Affordable Homes for a Parking Lot?” WHYY. December 23, 2021. https://whyy.org/articles/why-is-west- philly-trading-70-affordable-homes-for-a-parking-lot/. Walsh, Margaret. 2004. “Gender and the Automobile in the United States: Consumerism and the Great Economic Boom.” Automobile in American Life and Society. 2004. http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Gender/Walsh/G_Overview3.htm#:~:text=The% 20private%20car%20was%20the,to%2028%25%20a%20decade%20later..