Parking Study

What is the purpose of the Parking Study?

As part of Richmond 300: A Guide for Growth, the city-wide Master Plan update, the City of Richmond's Dept. of Planning and Development Review is commissioning a Parking Study to review parking conditions and provide recommendations in seven areas in Richmond.
The major objectives of the Parking Study are:
  1. Support continued redevelopment of the city of Richmond while balancing the multi-modal transportation demands of its growing population.
  2. Provide existing parking conditions data. 
  3. Develop policy recommendations to address parking. 
  4. Create communications materials to present recommendations.
  5. Suggest policy that could be applied to other parts of the city.

What areas of the city does the Parking Study include?

The Parking Study includes 7 areas of the city listed below. Scroll down to read about the study areas and review materials.
Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points
Carytown
Downtown
Libbie/Grove/Patterson
Manchester
Scott's Addition
The Fan

What's the status of the Parking Study?

April-May 2018: DESMAN conducted parking counts
June 2018: DESMAN and the City hosted public meetings to present existing conditions (see materials below)
July-November 2018: DESMAN developed parking recommendations, met with groups in the 7 areas and developed analysis on the impact of future developments on parking in the 7 areas.
December 2018: DESMAN and the City hosted 3 public meetings to review and discuss parking recommendations for Libbie/Grove/Patterson, Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points, and The Fan. The rest of the meetings were canceled due to the snow storm.
January 2019: DESMAN and the City will host 4 meetings for the remaining study areas (see notices to the right)
February-March 2019: DESMAN will prepare the Parking Study report.

Who's developing the Parking Study?

The Dept. of Planning and Development Review hired DESMAN, a parking consultant via a competitive Request for Proposals process (see RFP at the bottom of this page under "Other Parking Study Materials). 

How do I stay informed?

Join our email list or like our Facebook Page so you receive notices.

Upcoming Parking Meetings

The city hosted 3 parking meetings in December 2018 for Libbie/Grove/Patterson, Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points, and The Fan. The rest of the meetings were canceled due to the snow storm. The other 4 meetings will be held in January 2019. See details below.
Meeting Purpose: review and discuss parking recommendations
Carytown Parking Recommendations Meeting
Tuesday, January 15, 6:00-7:30 P.M.
2810 Community Space (2810 W. Cary Street)
Scott's Addition Parking and Circulation Recommendations Meeting
Wednesday, January 16, 8:30-10:00 A.M.
Studio Two Three (3300 W. Clay Street)
Manchester Parking Recommendations Meeting
Wednesday, January 16, 6:00-7:30 P.M.
Plant Zero (Zero E. 4th Street)
Downtown Parking Recommendations Meeting
Thursday, January 17, 6:00-7:30 P.M.
Gellman Room at the Main Library (101 E. Franklin Street)

Please tell us your thoughts on the parking recommendations!

Provide your thoughts on the recommendations for Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points, Libbie/Grove/Patterson, and the Fan. We will post surveys for the other 4 areas after the meetings in January.
Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points Survey Libbie/Grove/Patterson Survey  the Fan Survey

Brookland Park Boulevard / Six Points

On December 5, 2018, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review and DESMAN hosted a meeting at Hotchkiss Community Center to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards and be downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions.

Please review the materials and give use your input by filling out the survey below by January 31, 2019.
TAke the Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points Survey
General Findings (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. There is no standardization or clear visual indication of where curbside parking is allowed and prohibited. 
  2. The only truly public supply in the area is on-street. The majority is unrestricted parking in residential neighborhoods; time limits are imposed only in the commercial areas. The curbside spaces in these areas are highly utilized. 
  3.  There are no truly public parking lots in the district; even those owned by public agencies have restrictions for use. Off-street parking is underutilized currently. 
  4. There are five proposed developments planned for the area representing over 22,000 square feet of commercial space and 76 residential units and only 60 parking spaces planned to support all of it. 
  5. The area is also experiencing a renaissance as existing commercial and residential properties are revitalized.   
Download Meeting Materials from the Existing Conditions Meeting in June 2018: Presentation and Maps.
Most Common Concerns (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. On-street parking in the residential districts needs to be reserved for residents as most of the buildings in the area were developed before the automobile age. 
  2.  The majority of individuals park on the street so they can see their car at all times; safety and security of off-street parking were consistent themes. 
  3. Curbside turnover and availability is a major concern for businesses in the area. There is no active enforcement of current parking regulations. 
  4. The majority of the population in these neighborhoods is aging in place and desires more designated handicapped parking. 
  5. Solutions need to consider and balance the concerns of residents, business owners, employees, and visitors/patrons. 
  6. No one wants to introduce any solutions which will create barriers to visitors and patrons coming into the area. 
‘Long List’ of Potential Initiatives 
Download the initiatives options table here (see summary below).
1. Standardize marking of parking and no parking areas on-street
Pros: Reduces unsafe practices. Makes the area more welcoming to outside visitors. Regulations are already in place.
Cons: Significant cost . May displace some existing parkers. Will still require enforcement.
2. Evaluate time limit assignments
Pros: Current assignments can be confusing, lack predictability. Can be adjusted to reflect emerging development. Opportunity to get community agreement before enacting.
Cons: Current time limits are 'tuned' to adjacent businesses. Make create initial confusion with long-time residents. Will still require enforcement.
3. Adopt ADA on-street policies for commercial districts (see Handicapped Parking boards)
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces.
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.
4. On-Street Parking Permit Program
Pros: Creates a mechanism for employee & resident parking. Relatively low cost. Increases traffic/visibility through neighborhoods.
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods. Would require commitment from both parties.
5. Create a parking benefit district (see Benefit District board)
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood.
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.
6. Promote shared parking agreements between parties to create 'public' parking (see Shared Parking boards)
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Creates resources, pedestrian traffic. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs.
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. May require significant physical improvements. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties.
7. Introducing 'in lieu' payment option to Zoning Ordinance (see 'In Lieu' board)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.
8. Resume active parking enforcement
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood.
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.
9. Evaluate strategic public parking asset development (see Pipeline Development boards)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.
10. Pro-actively initiate streetscape improvements to support walking/alternative transportation use 
11. Institute "Fee for Use" for on-street parking (see Paid Parking board)
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation.
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
Download Materials
Recommendations Meeting Materials (December 2018)
  1. Presentation uploaded 12/20/18
  2. Initiative Options Table uploaded 12/20/18
  3. Meeting Boards uploaded 12/20/18
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 
SURVEY!
Please review the recommendations materials and let us know what you think of the proposed initiatives.  Tell us your thoughts via the survey below.
TAke the Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points Survey

Carytown

The Carytown Parking Recommendations Meeting will be:
Tuesday, January 15, 6:00-7:30 P.M. 
2810 Community Space (2810 W. Cary Street) 

Join us at the meeting to learn about the Parking Recommendations. We'll post the meeting materials here after the meeting.

Downtown

The Downton Parking Recommendations Meeting will be:
Tuesday, January 17, 6:00-7:30 P.M. 
Gellman Room, Main Library (101 E. Franklin)

Join us at the meeting to learn about the Parking Recommendations. We'll post the meeting materials here after the meeting.

Libbie/Grove/Patterson

On December 4, 2018, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review and DESMAN hosted a meeting at Westhampton Day School to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards and be downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions.

Please review the materials and give use your input by filling out the survey below by January 31, 2019.
TAke the Libbie/Grove/Patterson Survey
General Findings (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. The areas of heavy on-street utilization were mostly around commercial districts. Many available curbside spaces in residential districts. Multiple incidents of parking in no parking areas or places where parking impeded safety or traffic. 
  2. A handful of highly utilized off-street facilities [all private] and a lot of underused lots 
  3. Unsafe parking practices in several areas related to personal parking or loading 
  4. Lack of designation/standardization for curbside parking areas 
  5. Challenging pedestrian crossing impacting walkability between open parking and destinations 
  6. A lack of designated employee or resident parking areas   
Download Meeting Materials from the Existing Conditions Meeting in June 2018: Presentation and Maps.
Most Common Concerns (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. Traffic through the area is already heavy, so proposed solutions cannot reduce the width or number of travel lanes or create excessive back-ups. 
  2. With the loss of the theater parking, there is no place for individuals to go (other than on the street) that can be identified as ‘public parking’. 
  3. Zoning does not seem to be requiring enough parking to support new uses as they are introduced. 
  4. Curbside turnover and availability is a major concern for businesses in the area. 
  5. Interviews with community stakeholder groups indicated their was an interest in understanding the costs and benefits to converting existing public park lands in the area into surface parking lots.
  6. Solutions needs to consider and balance the concerns of residents, business owners, employees, and visitors/patrons.     
‘Long List’ of Potential Initiatives 
Download the initiatives options table here (see summary below)
1. Uniform marking of ‘no parking’ and parking areas (see unsafe parking slides)
Pros: Reduce unsafe conditions/practices, Perceptibly open up new capacity. Potential traffic calming effects. Recognition of regulations already ratified.
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods. Cost and time intensive to implement. Change the neighborhood streetscape.
2. Designate one ADA space per block across the area
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces.
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.
3. Enforce existing regulations
Pros: Improves turnover/availability. Creates incentives for alternatives (parking/transportation).
Cons: Will displace other users, who will need alternatives. Perceived as antagonistic to area businesses
4. Better promotion of shared parking agreements between parties (see Shared Parking boards)
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs,
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties
5. Investigation of a on-street permit program to manage residential and employee parking (see On-Street Permit boards)
Pros: Creates a mechanism for employee parking. Relatively low cost. Increases traffic/visibility through neighborhoods. 
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods. Would require commitment from both parties.
6. Revising code to allow for ‘in lieu’ payments to a parking/transportation fund  (see 'In Lieu' board)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Can be a barrier to development.
7. Create a public lot in the neighborhood
Pros: Would add more parking to the public supply. Cheaper than building structured parking. Could address some employee parking issues. Could replace capacity lost in theater lot.
Cons: All options displace public green space. None of the sites are central to any of the commercial areas. Would disrupt adjacent neighbors during construction. Several options offer low net gains.
8. Institution of ‘fee for use’ on-street parking in high demand area to promote turnover with revenues going to a parking benefit fund (see Paid On-Street Parking boards)
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation. 
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
9. Introduce pedestrian amenities/speed control initiatives to promote walking (see Pedestrian Crossings board)
Pros: Will make it easier to cross major roadways. Potential traffic calming effects.
Cons: Cost and time intensive to implement. Could reduce parking/traffic capacity
Download Materials
Recommendations Meeting Materials (December 2018)
  1. Presentation uploaded 12/20/18
  2. Strategy Options Table uploaded 12/20/18
  3. Meeting Boards uploaded 12/20/18
  4. Maps uploaded 12/21/18
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 
SURVEY!
Please review the recommendations materials and let us know what you think of the proposed initiatives.  Tell us your thoughts via the survey below.
TAke the Libbie/Grove/Patterson Survey

Manchester

The Manchester Parking Recommendations Meeting will be:
Wednesday, January 16, 6:00-7:30 P.M. 
Plant Zero (Zero E. 4th Street)

Join us at the meeting to learn about the Parking Recommendations. We'll post the meeting materials here after the meeting.

Scott's Addition

The Manchester Parking Recommendations Meeting will be:
Wednesday, January 16, 8:30-10:00 A.M. 
Studio Two Three (3300 W. Clay Street)

Join us at the meeting to learn about the Parking Recommendations. We'll post the meeting materials here after the meeting.

The Fan

On December 6, 2018, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review and DESMAN hosted a meeting at Binford Middle School to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards and be downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions.

Please review the materials and give use your input by filling out the survey below by January 31, 2019.
TAke the FAN Survey
General Findings (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. Heavy on-street utilization on nights and weekends, with many instances of vehicles parking in unsafe/unsanctioned areas. 
  2. Comparatively lower off-street utilization rates at each interval. 
  3. Many “auxiliary” parking spaces off alleyways unused behind block faces parked at or over capacity. 
  4. Substantial subscription to the RPP program (3,626 permits for 1,057 spaces) 
  5. Absence of designated resident or employee parking areas outside the established RPP zones. 
  6. Limited number of ADA spaces (54) on-street. If the system were an off-street facility, the requirement would be for 2% of capacity (~140 spaces)       
Download Meeting Materials from the Existing Conditions Meeting in June 2018: Presentation and Maps.
Most Common Concerns (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. Constant concerns regarding emerging development impacts and VCU student encroachment. 
  2. Many conflicts between different land uses, primarily around on-street parking. 
  3. Zoning does not seem to be requiring enough parking to support new uses as they are introduced. 
  4. Curbside turnover and availability is a major concern for businesses in the area. 
  5. Constituents want to see changes, but are unclear how they should/could be funded. 
  6. Common concerns about the Residential Permit Program and potential abuses. 
  7. General acknowledgement that long-term growth will need to less car-centric, more focused on live-work or alternative transportations modes.     
‘Long List’ of Potential Initiatives 
Download the initiatives options table here (see summary below)
1. Apply uniform marking of on-street parking and "No Parking Areas"
Pros: Reduce unsafe conditions/practices. Perceptibly open up new capacity. Potential traffic calming effects. Recognition of regulations already ratified.
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods. Cost and time intensive to implement. Change the neighborhood streetscape.
2. Designate one ADA space per block across the area
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces.
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.
3. Revise/expand On-Street Permit Programs (see Parking Permit board)
Pros: Could improve curbside availability. Could compel better use of off-street alternatives. 
Cons: Could negatively impact some residences. May be perceived as punitive measure. 
4. Enforce existing regulations
Pros: Improves turnover/availability. Creates incentives for alternatives (parking/transportation). 
Cons: Will displace other users, who will need alternatives. Perceived as antagonistic to area businesses. 
5. Promote shared parking agreements between parties to create employee parking (see Shared Parking board)
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs. 
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties.
6. Revising code to allow for ‘in lieu’ payments to a parking/transportation fund  (see 'In Lieu' board)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Can be a barrier to development.
7. Promote collaborative interior development (see Conceptual Shared Parking Project board)
Pros: Would add more parking to the general supply. Cheaper than building structured parking. Could address some existing parking issues. Could replace capacity lost to curbside realignment.
Cons: Requires cooperative effort with multiple land owners. Disruptive during development period. Would disrupt adjacent neighbors during construction. No current funding/subsidy source identified.
8. Institute "Fee for Use" Pilot for on-street parking
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation.
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
9. Install pedestrian amenities to promote walking (e.g. bump outs, Belgian bumps, etc.)
Pros: Will make it easier to cross major roadways. Potential traffic calming effects.
Cons: Cost and time intensive to implement. Could reduce parking/traffic capacity.
Download Materials
Recommendations Meeting Materials (December 2018)
  1. Presentation uploaded 12/21/18
  2. Initiative Options Table uploaded 12/21/18
  3. Meeting Boards uploaded 12/21/18
  4. Maps uploaded 12/21/18
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 
SURVEY!
Please review the recommendations materials and let us know what you think of the proposed initiatives.  Tell us your thoughts via the survey below.
TAke the FAN Survey

Round 1 - Parking Meetings

Meeting materials from the parking meetings held in June 2018
Divider text here
Brookland Park Blvd/Six Points
Divider text here
Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: public assets have additional capacity to support non-public uses, standardization of curbside stalls would make utilization more efficient, large scale development of multi-unit housing could overwhelm supply
Carytown
Divider text here
Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: off-street public and private parking is underutilized, residents depend on on-street parking because there are limited alleys, maximizing curbside creates “sightline” issues 
Downtown
Divider text here
Downtown includes: Jackson Ward, Monroe Ward, Central Office District, Capital District, VCU Health, Biotech, Shockoe Slip, and Shockoe Bottom) 

Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: consistent pockets of high demand on weekends and weekdays in Jackson Ward, supply-side solutions in Downtown may be cost-prohibitive, intensity of demand in Shockoe Bottom suggests the area is reaching a crisis point 
Libbie/Grove/Patterson
Divider text here
Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: maximizing curbside creates “sightline” issues, shared use parking could alleviate some pressure, no blocks operating at or over capacity on weekdays 
Manchester
Divider text here
Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: demand along Semmes is spilling over onto adjacent blocks during weekdays, some “hotspots” are just successful projects that take an entire block without providing supply onsite, now is the time to start proactively setting policies to support continued development 
Scott's Addition
Divider text here
Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: stall definition and enforcement need to be examined, large lots offer potential for shared parking, many blocks operating consistently near or over capacity
The Fan
Divider text here
Existing Conditions Data: 
DESMAN's key findings from existing conditions: residential presence drives demand, significant under-utilization of off-street parking presents immediate opportunity, proposed solutions must incorporate support and promotion of multi-modality because it’s not realistic to build more parking, value assignments could improve turn-over

Other Parking Study Materials

Divider text here
The City has hired DESMAN to develop a Parking Study for seven areas of the City. Below you will find documents related to the creation of this study. 
  1. Intro Flyer: This 2-page flyer has background information about the Parking Study. Uploaded on March 1, 2018 
  2. February 20 Planning Commission Presentation: This presentation was given at the City Planning Commission on February 20, 2018. It provides a detailed summary of the process that DESMAN will follow to develop the Parking Study. Uploaded on March 1, 2018 
  3. Parking Study RFP: The original RFP that was issued on March 26, 2017 seeking contractors to bid on the work. Issued on March 26, 2017 
  4. 2009 Downtown Parking Plan: This plan developed in 2009 is a draft plan that was never officially adopted by the City. Uploaded on March 1 2018