Downtown Battle Creek Parking Study

DOWNTOWN PARKING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF BATTLE CREEK

BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
Prepared for:
ABM Parking Services
December 2, 2013
FINAL REPORT
DOWNTOWN PARKING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Study Approach .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Stakeholder Input ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Current Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Current Parking Inventory ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Effective Parking Supply ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Current Parking Occupancy ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Summary of Current Parking Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 16
Shared Use Opportunities.................................................................................................................................................. 17
Future Parking Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Summary of Future Parking Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 19
Near-Term One to Three Years ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Long-Term Four to Ten Years ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Future Parking Considerations ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Manage Parking Demand ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Acceptable Walker Distances ................................................................................................................................................ 22
Near-Term Parking Lot Improvements ................................................................................................................................... 23
Long-Term Parking Improvements .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Capital Costs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Operating Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Breakeven Pricing...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Structural Repair Budget .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 1: Study Approach ................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Exhibit 2: Study Area .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Exhibit 3: Consolidated Stakeholder Comments .......................................................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 4: Current Parking Inventory................................................................................................................................................. 6
Exhibit 5: Current Parking Inventory by Type (Ramp, Lot & On-Street) ..................................................................................... 6
Exhibit 6: Effective Supply Factor ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Exhibit 7: Parking Inventory Map (Public/Private) ....................................................................................................................... 8
Exhibit 8: Detailed Parking Inventory Map wit Zones ................................................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 9: Parking Inventory and Effective Supply ...................................................................................................................... 10
Exhibit 10: Weekday Parking Occupancy with Evening Special Event .................................................................................. 11
Exhibit 11: Weekday Morning Parking Occupancy 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM ........................................................................ 12
Exhibit 12: Weekday Mid-Day Parking Occupancy 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM ......................................................................... 13
Exhibit 13: Weekday Afternoon Parking Occupancy 3:00 AM to 5:00 PM ......................................................................... 14
Exhibit 14: Weekday Evening Special Event 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM ........................................................................................ 15
Exhibit 15: Estimated Walking Distances ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Exhibit 16: Projected Parking Demand in 1 to 3 Years and 4 to 10 Years ............................................................................... 18
Exhibit 17: Community Approach to Parking Planning.............................................................................................................. 21
Exhibit 18: Parking Triangle ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Exhibit 19: Acceptable Walking Distances ................................................................................................................................. 22
Exhibit 20: Potential Sites for a New Parking Structure ............................................................................................................... 24
Exhibit 21: Breakeven Considerations Monthly Income Required to Breakeven ............................................................... 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Battle Creek (City) engaged Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) to evaluate
the downtown parking conditions and prepare a strategic plan that addresses current and
future parking needs. This evaluation is intended to provide decision-making information for
the City as it considers near- and long-term planning decisions. The results of this work are
summarized in the Key Findings and Recommendations section and presented in their entirety
in the subsequent report.
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Current Parking Conditions

Parking Inventory
7,172 parking spaces are located in the downtown study area
4,105 or 57% of the parking supply is private with limited access to the general public
2,778 or 39% of the parking supply is public and open to the general public
289 or 4% of the parking supply is located on-street
PARKING OCCUPANCY
Weekday Conditions
Large parking surplus during peak weekday conditions
3,655 vacant parking spaces during peak weekday conditions on a Wednesday near the hour of 2:00 PM
3,517 parked cars resulting in a 49% peak occupancy rate
Weekday Special Event Conditions
Large parking surplus during weekday event conditions
5,108 vacant parking spaces during a weekday evening event near the hour of 6:00 PM
2,064 parked cars resulting in a 28% weekday evening event occupancy rate
High demand for employee parking at the Michigan Avenue and Hamblin Avenue ramps creates localized
parking challenges that impact perceptions of the collective downtown parking system. Data indicates a
significant parking surplus exists in downtown and the challenge is to improve access to and utilization of the
unoccupied supply.
Future Parking Conditions

1 3 Years (Short-Term)
400 additional parking spaces are needed in or near Zone 2 by 2016 for weekday employee parking
4 10 Years (Long-Term)
600 additional parking spaces are needed in either Zone 2 or Zone 4 by 2024 for weekday employee parking
i
While a larger number of suggestions are included in this report, along with an essential
collection of explanations and justifications, there are eight (8) specific recommendations that
have been highlighted for immediate consideration as the City plans for short- and long-term
parking improvements.
The recommendations presented herein address parking policy and physical improvements
that the City can undertake to ensure that downtown parking works better and helps to make
downtown more attractive, more convenient, and more successful. These areas of
improvement include addressing downtown parking supply collectively; charging market or
performance-based prices for parking; and reinvesting increases in parking revenue in the
very area where the revenue is raised. These ideas are addressed in the following
recommendations.
1. Implement Downtown Shared Parking Program to Maximize Use of Existing Resources

Improve Access to Unoccupied Parking Spaces By Forming a Downtown Shared Parking Program
Current peak downtown parking occupancy on a typical Wednesday near 2:00PM is 49% with 3,655
unoccupied parking spaces. Expand shared parking practices throughout the downtown to include more
underutilized private parking areas and improve employee parking options.
PURPOSE:
Provide downtown employees with more long-term parking options at different price points
Improve access to unused parking supply
Reduce the need to build costly parking
Reduce the number of unused parking lots
Provide community an opportunity to generated additional revenue
COST:
Efforts to communicate shared parking program
The price one may pay to park in a private lot
PARTNERS:
City of Battle Creek
Battle Creek Unlimited
Downtown Parking Lot Owners
PROCESS:
Outreach to property owners to communicate parking revenue opportunities
Prepare database of participating locations with available supply, monthly rate, and contact information
Make database available to the public and update monthly
Identify responsible party for facilitating and posting monthly parking information
RETURN ON INVESTMENT:
Reduced construction costs for new parking
Improved business environment
Improved access to supply
Annual parking revenue for participating owners
FINANCING:
None required for program development and implementation
TIMELINE:
4 6 Weeks
ii
2. Implement Performance-based Pricing Strategy to Maximize Use of Public Facilities

The primary strategy of performance-based pricing is to set rates and policies to better manage demand and
maximize the use of existing supply.
Adjust rates to achieve optimal occupancy (85%-95%) by reducing daytime rates where demand is low and
raising rates where demand is high.
PURPOSE:
Maximize use of existing resources and park more cars
Improve access to premium parking supply in parking ramps
Provide a wide range of economic choices for downtown parkers
Reduce the need to build costly parking in the short-term
Proactively manage parking demand
COST:
Efforts to reform parking policy
New parking signage
PARTNERS:
Downtown Stakeholders
PROCESS:
Document parking demand characteristics
Define parking performance measurements
Develop performance-based pricing strategy for each public parking location
Develop proposal for Pilot Program
Obtain City Council approval to administer performance-based pricing pilot program
Conduct quarterly evaluation of the impact policy changes are having on the parking system and adjust as
where it is needed
Performance-based pricing is a proactive management tool that requires monitoring
Reduced construction costs for new parking in the short-term
Improved access to premium parking supply
Improved annual parking net revenue available for future capital improvement projects
Increased walkability of downtown street
FINANCING:
None required for program development and implementation
TIMELINE:
2 3 Months (Short-Term)
iii
3. Continue to Invest in Streetscape and Way-finding Improvements that Enhance

Downtown Walkability and Navigation
Continue to create pedestrian connectors between the outlaying surface parking lots and core downtown
destinations; along with clear and uniform parking signage.
Sidewalk improvements, lighting, security call-boxes, and landscaping elements all contribute to a greater level
of acceptance for walking in the downtown area. In coordination with proper placement of parking signage
directing drivers to parking options, the function and perception of the downtown parking system will likely
improve.
PURPOSE:
Expand the parking system by increasing the level of acceptable walking distances in downtown
Expand the parking system without incurring costs to add more parking spaces
Communicate more clearly the parking options to downtown employees and visitors
COST:
To be determined on a project basis
PARTNERS:
PROCESS:
Define pedestrian corridors between parking locations and the core downtown that need improvement
Coordinate with City departments to initiate projects
Identify key locations for parking signage
Design parking signs that are uniform in size, color and shape for public and private parking areas
Improved access to premium parking supply by distributing demand over a larger parking system
Reduced frustration in locating an area to park while visiting downtown Battle Creek
FINANCING:
General Obligation Bonds
Future Public Parking Operating Budget with revenue derived from performance-based pricing policy
TIMELINE:
Efforts to improve downtown walkability and way-finding should be coordinated with planned parking
improvements (Short-Term)
iv
4. Repurpose High School Parking Lot to Serve Downtown Employee Needs

Provide the High School Lot as a low-cost and convenient alternative to parking in the public ramps.
Open the 218-space High School Lot to the general public and expand parking area to McCamly Street. This
action would allow the City to lease more parking spaces to downtown employees.
PURPOSE:
Maximize use of existing resources and park more cars between 8AM and 5PM, Monday through Friday
Provide a low-cost economic choice for downtown monthly parkers
Alleviate parking constraints at the Hamblin Avenue Ramp and Michigan Avenue Ramp
Reduce the need to build costly parking in the short-term
COST:
Detailed analysis is required to provide an actual cost estimate
Conceptual Cost Estimate for Basic Lot Improvements: $200,000 to $300,000
Partial surface repairs, lined parking stalls, lighting enhancements and parameter landscaping
PARTNERS:
Battle Creek Central High School
PROCESS:
Coordinate with high school representatives on the student parking relocation effort
Perform any required maintenance on vacated city lot
Begin leasing spaces to downtown employees through the Citys parking operator
Improved access to premium parking supply
FINANCING:
General Obligation Bonds, Public Parking Operating Budget
TIMELINE:
4 5 Months (Short-Term)
Summer of 2014
v
5. Add New Parking Supply to Serve Employee Parking Demand in Zone 2

Increase employee parking supply by maximizing the use of vacant land adjacent to the Ice Rink Lot, near the
corner of Washington Avenue and Hamblin Avenue. Provide up to 400 new parking spaces.
PURPOSE:
Provide an option for dedicated employee parking near the Kellogg Company Headquarters
Provide additional special event parking supply to better serve larger downtown events
COST:
Conceptual Estimate of Cost: $750,000 to $800,000
PARTNERS:
Downtown Parking Committee
PROCESS:
Develop preliminary drawings for parking lot
Obtain support from the Downtown Parking Committee to request Council approval for the project
Coordinate with City departments to initiate project
Improved access to premium parking supply by distributing demand over a larger parking system
Low cost monthly parking option for employees
FINANCING:
TIMELINE:
4 6 Months
Summer of 2014
6. Add New Parking Supply to Serve Employee Parking Demand in Zone 5

Increase employee parking supply by maximizing the use of the 143-Space Ralston Lot located between
McCamly Street and Capital Avenue. Lot is currently underutilized.
PURPOSE:
Provide access to supply that could help address employee and special event parking needs
Enhance one of the gateways to downtown by improving the highly visible surface parking lot
COST:
Estimated $200,000 to $250,000
PARTNERS:
Private land owner
PROCESS:
Develop preliminary drawings for parking lot
Low cost monthly parking option for employees
FINANCING:
TIMELINE:
4 6 Months
vi
7. Consider Building Structured Parking in 4 to 10 Years to Support Higher Density

Development and Future Parking Needs
Consider building 600 to 750 parking spaces in Zone 4
Current vacancy rates in downtown parking lots suggest that no new structures are needed in the near future 1
to 3 years. However, the anticipated increase in employees working downtown over the next ten years would
suggest a need for up to 600 more parking spaces.
Site for Consideration:

Covance Lot and adjacent surface lots located along Hamblin Avenue
Large contiguous parcel located along primary thoroughfare
Positioned behind Michigan Avenue commercial buildings
Serves to balance the Michigan Avenue commercial district with a large source of public parking
Currently used for public and private parking total supply consists of 86 public and 85 private spaces
Approximately 171 surface parking spaces would be displaced
PURPOSE:
Support downtown businesses by providing public parking for downtown employees and visitors
Provide structured parking to support infill and higher density development
COST:
$10.8 million to $13.5 million
Base project cost of $18,000 per space (excluding land acquisition)
Options
600 spaces less 171 displaced = 429 new spaces. $25,175 per net space gained
750 spaces less 171 displaced = 579 new spaces. $23,300 per net space gained
PARTNERS:
PROCESS:
Obtain support from Downtown Parking Committee
Obtain support from City Council
Assemble project site
Solicit bid for design/build
Improved public parking options for downtown employees in Zone 4
Increased opportunity for higher density development and tax revenue
FINANCING:
General Obligation Bond
TIMELINE:
Within 4 10 Years
Timing impacted by the Citys ability to fund project-related capital costs and ongoing operating expenditures
vii
8. Special Event Parking Improvements

Implement standard operating procedures for special events and value-price event parking
An overall lack of parking supply is not the primary challenge; rather the challenge is directing attendees to
available parking options and distributing the demand before arriving at the Arena. Successful downtown event
parking operations manage the demand, provide clear choices, and have walkable streets.
Proactive operating measures can improve how the City delivers special event parking services without building
costly parking improvements. Key operating recommendations are as follows:
1. Define the special event parking locations according to the projected parking need taking into
consideration the Type of Event, Event Time, and Event Duration.
2. Designate non-employee parking in Hamblin Ramp for Premium Event Parking Only
3. Price event parking so that rates cascade from the Hamblin Ramp (Example: $20, $10, $5, Free)
4. Prepare print and web-based event parking maps with rates and regulations to allow attendees the
opportunity to make parking plans before arriving in downtown
5. Offer event parking shuttle service to and from surrounding lots
6. Staff each location with at least one trained parking attendant
7. Use standardized parking signage at each location to clearly communicate Event Parking Area and
Price
PURPOSE:
Improve overall special event experience in downtown Battle Creek
Manage event parking perceptions
Improve access to unoccupied parking supply surrounding the Arena
Provide clear parking options based on location and price
Provide special event stakeholders with standard operating expectations
COST:
Cost to be determined based on further analysis of the required staff and materials needed to deliver
special event parking services at the highest level that stakeholders and the City are willing to pay
PARTNERS:
Battle Creek Police Department
Calhoun County Visitors Bureau
Kellogg Arena
McCamly Plaza Hotel
PROCESS:
Coordinate with special event partners to define event parking expectations, procedures, costs and
available funding sources for additional operating expenses
Form standardized event policies and performance measurement
Coordinate effort to make available unoccupied parking supply in large private surface lots
Develop a staffing plan and budget that coincides with partner expectations
Obtain funding to implement event parking improvements
Improved special event experience resulting in pleased attendees and event partners
Improved access to parking supply by distributing demand over a larger parking system
Reduced traffic congestion by reduced time drivers are on city streets searching for a place to park
FINANCING:
Public Parking Operating Budget and Special Event Partners
TIMELINE:
2 3 Months
viii
INTRODUCTION
The City of Battle Creek is experiencing an economic resurgence in the downtown area in
larger part to the forward looking actions taken by City Officials and Battle Creek Unlimited.
The City believes that the public parking system should also plan for the future by identifying
improvement opportunities that could support the economic vitality of downtown. The City is
asking the following questions:
Is our current downtown parking supply sufficient? If not, what immediate adjustments are
necessary?
Is additional downtown parking needed in the near future (one to three years)? Will it be
needed after that?
If additional downtown parking is needed

How many spaces will be needed?
When will the spaces need to be added?
Where should the spaces be located?
How much will new parking cost?
Will there be opportunities to reduce the number of additional parking spaces needed
through shared parking within the collective parking system?
Are there opportunities to utilized private parking spaces instead of adding more public
parking?
STUDY APPROACH
The following study approach was applied to address the Citys key parking-related questions.
Walker conducted a physical inventory of public and private parking spaces within the
downtown study area. The inventory was categorized as either on-street, off-street, public or
private, and then tabulated by zone. A series of seven parking utilization counts were
conducted during a typical peak weekday to identify local parking characteristics. The
primary field observations occurred on Wednesday, February 13th, 2013 with subsequent field
observations conducted during the weeks of March 4th and March 25th, 2013. The observed
parking occupancy was compared to the effective supply to determine the current parking
adequacy during typical market conditions.
1
Walker applied proposed future development and vacancy absorption assumptions provided
by Battle Creek Unlimited to calculate the projected future parking demand. Walker applied
parking demand ratios according to the type of land use to determine the projected parking
demand. The projected increase in parking demand was added to the baseline parking
utilization data obtained during field observations and then compared to the current effective
parking supply to determine future parking adequacy.
The study approach is presented in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: Study Approach
Inventory Parking Supply (5-Zones)

Occupancy Counts:
Wednesday + Special Event
2 Hr. Intervals: 8AM 8PM
Projected Future
Downtown Parking Demand &
Market Data & Current Parking Adequacy Study Results &
Battle Creek
Parking Needs Field Observations Occupancy & Recommendations
Adequacy
Assessment Alternatives for
Downtown Parking
Stakeholder Input Improvements
Kellogg Company
City of Battle Creek Transit
City of Battle Creek Full Blast
Kellogg Arena
McCamly Plaza Hotel
Calhoun County Visitors Convention Bureau
Battle Creek Public Schools
Battle Creek Community Foundation
Battle Creek Public Library
Hinman Company
Covance
WJ Schroer Agency
2
STUDY AREA
The study area is defined for the purpose of this analysis as the geographical area generally
bound by Champion Street to the north; Dickman Avenue to the south; Division Street to the
east; and Washington Avenue to the west. The geographical area represents two market
components, one from which the majority of existing and potential parking patrons will be
drawn, and another in which the primary parking resources are located. The study area is not
uniform in size or shape, nor does it extend equally in all directions. Rather, this purposeful
configuration encompasses the wide variety of land uses and captures the unique parking
characteristics within downtown Battle Creek. The study area is presented in the following
exhibit.
Exhibit 2: Study Area
Source: Study area defined by the City of Battle Creek
3
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Stakeholder interviews were held with a sample of individuals and business leaders in the
downtown community that are directly impacted by public parking policies and decisions.
Information was obtained from stakeholders through telephone calls and individual meetings.
Each stakeholder was asked to provide insight with regard to the current parking conditions in
downtown Battle Creek based on their experience. The following summary highlights common
subjects and reflects key comments obtained from stakeholders. Specific comments on
potential developments or proprietary operating information are excluded for this written
report, but considered by the project team when preparing the analysis.
Exhibit 3: Consolidated Stakeholder Comments
Subject Comment
Enforcement is necessary if the City is going to maintain free on-street parking policies
1
Enforcement going forward. The 2-hour time limit is appropriate now, but may need to change as more
diverse land uses enter the market.
3 Enforcement is fair and the citation fee is relatively small compared to other communities.
Enforcement Enforcement is not perceived as predatory. The 2-hour duration is generally adequate for
the type of land uses that are located downtown.
It would be practical for the City to invest in adding more on-street parking spaces rather
3
On-Street Parking than build a ramp on top of existing parking supply or surface over green space.
The public on-street parking is underutilized in most areas of downtown. Consider an on-
4
On-Street Parking street permit program for employees in select areas of downtown.
Two-hour on-street time limits are generally fine. The purpose of on-street time limits is to
5
Time Limits encourage turnover and free up more parking for other patrons. If someone wants to stay
longer than two hours they should park in one of the City lots.
Infrequent visitors to downtown may find it difficult to locate public parking or become
6
Parking Signage confused with the various parking signs and regulations on private lots. The inconsistency
and Wayfinding makes it difficult for infrequent visitors to know where they are allowed to park. A
System centralized parking identification program should be implemented by the City in
cooperation with private lot owners and Battle Creek Unlimited.
Special event parking signage is needed to proactively manage demand and direct
7
Parking Signage parkers to available supply. This should be prepared in coordination with the Arena, Full
Blast, the Convention Visitors Bureau, the City, and ABM Parking Services.
Hamblin Avenue Ramp experiences parking challenges about 40 to 50 days per year. The
8
challenges relate to a conflict in user groups when the Arena, hotel and Kellogg all require
supply. This becomes more of a challenge when there is a weekday event at the Arena
Event Parking
and the hotel has high occupancy, plus an event in the meeting spaces. Arena and hotel
patrons can be turned away at the parking ramp gate and directed to no other
alternative location. This creates confusion and frustration among parkers.
9
Parking is generally not a challenge on weekends, but becomes difficult to manage when
Event Parking there is a multi-day event starting on Friday. The overlap with employee parking presents a
challenge.
4
Exhibit 3 (Continued): Consolidated Stakeholder Comments
Topic Comment
Most private parking lots are restricted to specific user groups. Very few owners officially
10
Private Parking share parking during peak times of the day even when they have available supply.
11 The improvements along Michigan Avenue have dramatically improved the walking
Walkability environment in that area. There still remains concern about overall security downtown that
impacts the areas and distances employees are willing to walk and park their cars.
Consider investing in street improvements that would bridge downtown areas and possible
12
Walkability improve the use of fringe parking areas. Improvements may include lights, more security,
sidewalk repairs, landscape, art, security phones, etc.
The most desirable parking supply, near Kellogg, McCamly Plaza, and Kellogg Arena is
13
used during the daytime by employees. The employee levels downtown continue to grow
Parking Need and additional parking supply near the center of downtown would be utilized now and
allow for future growth.
The need for parking must be considered in relation to the overall cost of building more
14
Parking Need supply. A management solution should be considered before a commitment is made to
build more parking that requires a subsidy or higher rates to break-even.
15 At this time, most downtown tenants do not need additional parking. A select few,
Parking Need
although large, tenants are driving the need for additional employee parking.
A surplus of public parking would allow for developers and existing tenants to repurpose
16
buildings without parking holding them back. If feasible, additional structured parking
Parking Need should be considered in the near-term. If it is not feasible, proactive parking management
strategies to maximize use of available supply should be implemented.
Public structured parking must make economic sense to build, operate and maintain,
17
Parking Need otherwise lower cost options for adding supply should be considered first.
Office tenants in downtown Battle Creek think much like suburban office tenants and ask
18
for 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This parking ratio is high because very few downtown
Parking Need employees live downtown, rideshare, ride the bus, bike or walk to work. The number of
people who drive to work is very high, much like a suburban office park.
Parking is required for downtown commercial real estate to succeed. By building a public
19
parking ramp, the private developers could use the public supply to meet parking code
Parking Planning
requirements. This allows development to focus dollars on core land use improvements
which result in higher density developments.
20 Parking improvements should be financially self-supporting and paid for by the people
Parking Planning
using the parking facilities.
5
CURRENT CONDITIONS
The assessment of current conditions includes a comprehensive review of parking inventory,

the effective parking supply, parking occupancy trends, and parking adequacy during peak
weekday and special event conditions. The current information provides a baseline for
analysis and recommendation of future parking solutions.
CURRENT PARKING INVENTORY
A total of 7,172 parking spaces are located within the defined study area. Of the total
supply, approximately 62 percent is privately owned, 34 percent is publicly owned, and 4
percent is provided on-street by the City. For this analysis, private parking is classified as supply
that is privately owned or dedicated to a specific private entity. Public parking is defined as
parking that is owned and managed by the City and accessible to the general public. The
current parking inventory is presented by zone and type in the following exhibit.
Exhibit 4: Current Parking Inventory

Zone Private Public On-Street Total % of Total
1 895 0 90 985 14%
2 772 838 44 1,654 23%
3 568 127 42 737 10%
4 595 1,238 93 1,926 27%
5 1,579 271 20 1,870 26%
Total 4,409 2,474 289 7,172 100%
% of Total 62% 34% 4% 100%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, February 2013.
Exhibit 5: Current Parking Inventory by Type (Ramp, Lot & On-Street)

Number of
Parking Inventory Facilities Supply % of Total
Public Ramps 3 1,613 80%
Private Ramps 1 396 20%
Total Supply in Ramps 4 2,009 100%
Public Lots 8 861 18%

Private Lots 49 4,013 82%
Total Supply in Surface Lots 57 4,874 100%
Total Off-Street Supply 61 6,883 96%

Public On-Street - 289 4%
Total Parking Supply 7,172 100%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, February 2013.
6
EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY
When discussing the utilization of a parking system, it is important to consider the concept of
an effective supply. Effective supply is the maximum number of parking spaces that can
realistically be used within a given system. An effective supply cushion helps to protect
against the inevitable loss of spaces resulting from temporary disturbances such as
construction, misparked cars, snow removal, etc. This cushion also helps to decrease traffic
congestion by minimizing the amount of time visitors must spend looking for an empty space.
For on-street parking we generally recommend an effective supply of 85% to 90% of the total
capacity. This allows a sizable cushion of spaces so that traffic does not back up on streets.
Off-street private parking can require an effective supply of 90% to 95% of the actual supply,
depending on the type of facility and the anticipated user group. Smaller cushions are
needed for long-term parking, since employees tend to be familiar with the facilities and their
spaces are not subject to frequent turnover.
The parking supply may be perceived as inadequate even though there are some spaces
available in the parking system. To evaluate whether the system is currently impacted, we do
not look for occupancy rates of 100% but rather occupancy rates of 85% to 90%. A weighted
average of the effective supply factors applied to the Battle Creek parking supply is
approximately 88% of the total supply. The study area includes a total of 7,172 spaces before
any adjustments are made to account for an effective supply. After the adjustment factors
are applied, the study areas effective supply is 6,311 spaces, as shown below.
Exhibit 6: Effective Supply
Effective Supply Calculations
Parking Actual Supply Effective Supply Factor Effective Supply Operating Cushion
Public 2,778 0.85 2,361 417

Private 4,105 0.90 3,695 410
On-Street 289 0.88 255 34
Total 7,172 0.88 6,311 861
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
7
The location of public, private and on-street parking in downtown Battle Creek is shown in the
following exhibit.
Exhibit 7: Parking Inventory Map by Ownership Type (Public vs. Private)
Community
Center
High
School
Willard
Kellogg Library
Company
Post
Office
Kellogg
Arena Hotel
Full Blast
Covance
Kellogg
Company
8
The location of each parking facility in the study area is presented in Exhibit 8. The parking
identifications coincide with supply data presented in Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 8: Detailed Parking Inventory Map with Zones
9
Exhibit 9: Parking Inventory and Effective Supply

PRIVATE PARKING SUPPLY PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY
Site P riv a t e Effective Supply Effective Site P ublic Effective Effective
Zo ne Zo ne
Identificatio n S upply Facto r Supply Identificatio n S upply Supply Facto r Supply
1 1 122 0.90 110 2 11 218 0.85 185

1 2 171 0.90 154 2 14 750 0.85 638
1 3 118 0.90 106 2 15 88 0.85 75
1 4 47 0.90 42 3 20 127 0.85 108
1 5 65 0.90 59 4 28 154 0.85 131
1 6 79 0.90 71 4 34 86 0.85 73
1 7 245 0.90 221 4 43 197 0.85 167
1 8 48 0.90 43 4 45 163 0.85 139
2 9 16 0.90 14 4 46 24 0.85 20
2 10 94 0.90 85 4 47 700 0.85 595
2 12 10 0.90 9 5 51 86 0.85 73
2 13 38 0.90 34 5 52 97 0.85 82
2 16 396 0.90 356 5 53 88 0.85 75
3 17 84 0.90 76 Subtotal 2,778 0.85 2,361
3 18 15 0.90 14
ON-STREET PARKING
3 19 46 0.90 41
3 21 60 0.90 54 Site O n- S t re e t Effective Effective
3 22 45 0.90 41 Zo ne Identificatio n S upply Supply Facto r Supply
3 23 81 0.90 73 1 A 32 0.88 28
3 24 113 0.90 102 1 B 25 0.88 22
3 25 48 0.90 43 1 C 25 0.88 22
3 26 60 0.90 54 1 D 8 0.88 7
3 27 16 0.90 14 2 E 7 0.88 6
4 29 150 0.90 135 2 F 14 0.88 12
4 30 18 0.90 16 2 G 14 0.88 12
4 31 30 0.90 27 2 H 9 0.88 8
4 32 29 0.90 26 3 I 6 0.88 5
4 33 26 0.90 23 3 J 36 0.88 32
4 35 15 0.90 14 4 K 19 0.88 17
4 36 18 0.90 16 4 L 18 0.88 16
4 37 27 0.90 24 4 M 2 0.88 2
4 38 26 0.90 23 4 N 9 0.88 8
4 39 27 0.90 24 4 O 7 0.88 6
4 40 51 0.90 46 4 P 7 0.88 6
4 41 30 0.90 27 4 Q 2 0.88 2
4 42 15 0.90 14 4 R 16 0.88 14
4 44 47 0.90 42 4 S 7 0.88 6
5 48 71 0.90 64 4 T 6 0.88 5
5 49 240 0.90 216 5 U 6 0.88 5
5 50 174 0.90 157 5 V 6 0.88 5
5 54 7 0.90 6 5 W 8 0.88 7
5 55 143 0.90 129 Subtotal 289 0.88 255
5 56 165 0.90 149
5 57 58 0.90 52 Summary of Total Parking Supply
5 58 82 0.90 74
5 59 497 0.90 447 Actual Effective
5 60 95 0.90 86 Type Supply Supply
5 61 47 0.90 42 Public 3,067 2,616
Subtotal 4,105 0.90 3,695 Private 4,105 3,695
Total 7,172 6,311
10
CURRENT PARKING OCCUPANCY
The current parking occupancy data measures the number of spaces used on a typical
weekday in downtown Battle Creek. This information reflects actual parking demand and
provides an understanding of local demand patterns, parking challenges, and opportunities
for improvement.
As shown in Exhibit 10, the peak conditions occurred near the hour of 2:00 PM on a
Wednesday with a total of 3,517 parked vehicles. There are 3,655 unoccupied parking
spaces in the study area when peak occupancy is compared to the actual supply of 7,172
spaces. The parking surplus decreases to 2,794 spaces when peak demand is compared to
the effective supply of 6,311spaces.
The parking occupancy rates documented during the daytime and evening hours are
summarized and presented in the following exhibit.
Exhibit 10: Weekday Parking Occupancy with Evening Special Event

8,000
7,500
7,172 = Actual Supply
7,000
6,311 = Effective Supply
6,500
6,000
Weekday Peak: Special Event Peak:
5,500
3,655 = Actual Surplus 5,108 = Actual Surplus
5,000
2,794 = Effective Surplus 4,247 =Effective Surplus
4,500
Parked Cars
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM
On-Street 74 129 153 142 155 91 82
Off-Street 2,839 3,221 3,320 3,375 3,301 1,973 1,773
Total 2,913 3,350 3,473 3,517 3,456 2,064 1,855
Weekday Conditions Special Event Conditions
Observation Period: Wednesday, February 1, 2013

Event Activity: 7:00 PM Concert at Kellogg Arena. Artists - Shinedown, Three Days Grace and P.O.D
Weather Conditions: Partly Cloudy, Temperature: Mean = 11F, Max = 15F, Min = 6F, No Precipitation
11
DECEMBER 2, 2013
Exhibit 11: Weekday Morning Parking Occupancy 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM
MORNING OCCUPANCY BY ZONE

Zone 1 Effective Actual
Parked Cars Supply Surplus Occupancy Supply Surplus Occupancy
Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Private Off-Street 422 806 384 52% 895 473 47%
On-Street 45 79 34 57% 90 45 50%
Subtotal Zone 1 467 885 418 53% 985 518 47%

Public Off-Street 772 898 126 86% 1,056 284 73%
On-Street 23 39 16 59% 44 21 52%
Subtotal Zone 2 1,211 1,435 224 84% 1,654 443 73%

On-Street 18 37 19 48% 42 24 43%
Subtotal Zone 3 201 656 455 31% 737 536 27%

Public Off-Street 648 1,125 477 58% 1,324 676 49%
On-Street 38 82 44 46% 93 55 41%
Subtotal Zone 4 888 1,665 777 53% 1,926 1,038 46%

Private Off-Street 524 1,421 897 37% 1,579 1,055 33%
On-Street 5 18 13 28% 20 15 25%
Subtotal Zone 5 556 1,669 1,113 33% 1,870 1,314 30%
Study Area Effective Actual

Public Off-Street 1,491 2,361 870 63% 2,778 1,287 54%
Private Off-Street 1,703 3,695 1,992 46% 4,105 2,402 41%
On-Street 129 255 126 51% 289 160 45%
Total Study Area 3,323 6,311 2,988 53% 7,172 3,849 46%
12
DECEMBER 2, 2013
Exhibit 12: Weekday Mid-Day Parking Occupancy 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM
MID-DAY OCCUPANCY BY ZONE

On-Street 47 79 32 59% 90 43 52%
Subtotal Zone 1 482 885 403 54% 985 503 49%

On-Street 29 39 10 75% 44 15 66%
Subtotal Zone 2 1,249 1,435 186 87% 1,654 405 76%

On-Street 17 37 20 46% 42 25 40%
Subtotal Zone 3 215 656 441 33% 737 522 29%

On-Street 44 82 38 54% 93 49 47%
Subtotal Zone 4 1,006 1,665 659 60% 1,926 920 52%

On-Street 5 18 13 28% 20 15 25%
Subtotal Zone 5 565 1,669 1,104 34% 1,870 1,305 30%

On-Street 142 255 113 56% 289 147 49%
Total Study Area 3,517 6,311 2,794 56% 7,172 3,655 49%
13
DECEMBER 2, 2013
Exhibit 13: Weekday Afternoon Parking Occupancy 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM
AFTERNOON OCCUPANCY BY ZONE

On-Street 53 79 26 67% 90 37 59%
Subtotal Zone 1 537 885 348 61% 985 448 55%

On-Street 23 39 16 59% 44 21 52%
Subtotal Zone 2 1,194 1,435 241 83% 1,654 460 72%

On-Street 22 511 489 4% 42 20 52%
Subtotal Zone 3 184 1,130 946 16% 737 553 25%

On-Street 54 82 28 66% 93 39 58%
Subtotal Zone 4 1,008 1,665 657 61% 1,926 918 52%

On-Street 3 18 15 17% 20 17 15%
Subtotal Zone 5 528 1,669 1,141 32% 1,870 1,342 28%

On-Street 155 255 100 61% 289 134 54%
Total Study Area 3,451 6,311 2,860 55% 7,172 3,721 48%
14
DECEMBER 2, 2013
Exhibit 14: Weekday Evening Special Event 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Events hosted at Kellogg Arena that occur on a weekday evening frequently

cause localized parking challenges as daytime employee and event parking
needs converge. The greatest strain on the parking system during an overlap
period is apparent in the 700-space Hamblin Avenue Ramp, adjacent to the
Kellogg Arena, McCamly Plaza Hotel, and directly across the street from the
Kellogg World Headquarters. The ramp was at near capacity during our event
observation period on Wednesday, February 13th, 2013. Although the concert
attendance was considered to be high and the Hamblin Ramp was highly
utilized, a parking surplus of 2,457 was documented in the defined event walk-
shed area, outlined in blue. The area represents a combination of public and
private event parking options with the highest utilization documented in the
public facilities. Event parking occupancy rates by zone are presented below.
SPECIAL EVENT OCCUPANCY BY ZONE
15
SUMMARY OF CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS
The overall analysis of current parking conditions indicates that the existing downtown parking
system can support an increase in the total downtown parking demand during peak
weekday conditions. However, because some parking facilities demonstrate higher utilization
rates than the overall average, the actual availability of specific parking resources will vary
depending on location, level of convenience and restrictions (time limits, tenant parking only,
etc.). This results in localized parking deficits that have the ability to shape overall perceptions
of parking adequacy for the entire study area. As presented in this section, the challenge
with parking in downtown Battle Creek relates more to gaining access to available supply,
rather than an actual shortage of supply.
The Citys recent streetscape and pedestrian improvements made along Michigan Avenue
and the Battle Creek have enhanced the walkability of downtown. Improvements made to
lighting, architectural features, pedestrian crosswalks and walking surfaces positively
influence perceptions of the downtown area and help create a sense of security and place.
This type of connectivity expands the geographic area where people are willing to park and
the acceptance of walking further distances. With a total parking occupancy rate of only
forty-nine percent during peak weekday conditions, it is critical that the City continue to
improve pedestrian connections in order to maximize the use of current assets.
There are 3,655 vacant parking spaces during peak weekday conditions in the study area.
Approximately 2,525 spaces or sixty-nine percent of the vacant supply is located in privately-
owned and managed parking lots, with 827 vacant spaces in public facilities and 157
vacant parking spaces on-street. The unused supply is dispersed throughout the study area
with the majority located within a 5 to 8 minute walk to the downtown core. To better define
the value of this supply, it would require an investment of nearly $55 million in construction
costs to replace the vacant parking supply with new structured parking. In terms of land use,
the vacant parking spaces represent approximately 24 acres of underutilized downtown
property. We recognize that these figures are conceptual in nature, but it helps to put the
amount of underutilized parking into context when considering options for future parking
improvements.
The current downtown community largely requires parking from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday
through Friday. This presents an opportunity to provide parking for new land uses entering the
market that generate peak demand during evening or weekend periods. For example,
lodging properties, residential developments, restaurants, or a theater could share current
parking resources. The use of private and public parking resources is a viable option that
should be pursued to maximize opportunities for infill development.
16
SHARED USE OPPORTUNITIES
As the market data indicates, there are opportunities in the study area to employ shared
parking strategies and reduce the localized strain on public parking facilities. A shared
parking solution for daytime, long-term, employee parking should be considered knowing
that available resources exist during peak weekday conditions.
The downtown Battle Creek parking environment is more similar to the suburbs than a mature
urban center in that employee expectations are for parking to be proximate, low cost, and
available. A challenge will be to convince downtown stakeholders that employees would be
willing and find it acceptable to park and walk distances of 400 to 800 feet to their
destination. As downtown revitalization creates more pressure on the existing parking system,
the concept of shared parking becomes more acceptable, especially if implemented with
suitable regulations, pricing and walkability improvements.
The following exhibit shows that the average walking times in downtown Battle Creek.
Exhibit 15: Estimated Walking Distances
Estimated Walking Times
Level of Service A B C
Distance in Feet 500 1,000 1,500
RECENT STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Walking Time in 2.5 5.0 7.5
Minutes
ENHANCEMENTS ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT A MORE
WALKABLE DOWNTOWN. Additional Time for 1.0 1.5 2.0
Street Lights
Total Walking Time 3.5 6.5 9.5
Walking Speed Range = 3 to 4 feet per second
Recent streets and pedestrian walkway

enhancements encourage and support
a more walkable downtown.
17
FUTURE PARKING CONDITIONS
The calculation of future parking adequacy considers the incremental parking demand
generated by new commercial development, vacancy absorption, and employment growth
assumptions. Walker obtained market assumptions from community stakeholders, local real
estate professionals, and City staff. The development assumptions represent potential
changes in the study area that may occur in the near-term over the next one (1) to three (3)
years and the long-term over the next four (4) to ten (10) years.
FUTURE PARKING DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTED ADEQUACY
Exhibit 16: Projected Parking Demand in 1 3 Years

Additional Banquet Projected New Projected
Downtown Meeting Peak Demand Parking Parking
Zone Office Employees Apartment Hotel Area Restaurant Retail 1:00 PM Supply Deficit
13,150 SF
2 GLA
- - - - - - 46 - -46
22,000 SF
2 GLA
- - - - - - 84 - -84
Existing
2 Office
300 - - - - - 300 - -300
4,000
4 SF GLA
- - - - - - 14 - -14
3,207
4 SF GLA
- - - - - - 11 - -11
15,000 SF
4 GLA
- - - - - - 57 - -57
4 - - 63 Units - - - - 80 32 -48
4 - - 43 Rooms - - - 27 55 28
4 - - - - 5,000 SF - - 59 - -59
4 - - - - - 3,000 SF - 15 - -15
4 - - - - - - 3,000 SF 17 - -17
85,037
Total 300 63 Units 43 Rooms 5,000 SF 3,000 SF 3,000 SF 710 87 -623
SF GLA
Projected Demand in 4 10 Years

Peak
Additional Banquet Parking New Projected
Downtown Meeting Demand Parking Parking
Zones Office Employees Apartment Hotel Area Restaurant Retail 1:00 PM Supply Deficit
Existing 100/Year
2, 4, 5 - - - - - 595 - -595
Space (7 Years)
Total 700 - - - - - 595 - -595
Source: Battle Creek Unlimited, City of Battle Creek, Downtown Parking Commission October 2013.
18
SUMMARY OF FUTURE PARKING CONDITIONS
Near-term 1 3 Years:
Future parking demand in Zone 2 is projected to exceed the effective supply by 234
spaces, if downtown parking is viewed as a collective system of public and private
spaces. The projected deficit increases to 403 spaces if only public parking spaces are
expected to address future parking needs.
Future parking demand in Zone 4 is projected to increase by 174 spaces. This increase in
demand would consist primarily of employee parkers with a small amount of visitor
demand. In Zone 4, the current surplus in the public supply is greater than the projected
need, and could accommodate the projected growth over the next one to three years.
The effective surplus in the public lots would be approximately 154 spaces, while the
actual surplus would be approximately 340 spaces.
We recommend that the City evaluate the opportunities for making better use of the
private parking supply by opening up as much of it as possible to the public. The private
opportunities are best served for monthly employee parking. Monthly parking permits for
daily employees are needed to help support downtown economic growth. The City
should consider working with private land owners with surplus parking to help facilitate
permit parking agreements that generate additional income for the land owner,
maximizes the use of existing resources, and helps mitigate the need to construct new
parking in the near-term. We think this option should be investigated regardless of new
growth, because it will make the existing parking system work more efficiently.
Long-term 4 10 Years:
Long-term future parking demand is derived solely from downtown employment growth
assumptions. This study includes the assumption that 100 new employees per year will
enter the downtown marketplace. The result is 700 new employees working downtown by
2024. A portion of the new employees will likely choose to live downtown and reside
within walking distance to their workplace. The quality of local transit services, residential
parking, cost to lease a public parking space, and the walkability of downtown all impact
future employee parking requirements. A projected need for approximately 595 parking
spaces would be required to accommodate employee parking demand in 2024.
Walker has relied on community stakeholders, real estate professionals, and Battle Creek
Unlimited to provide the one to three-year build-out and reabsorption estimation of vacant
space. This report assumes that 100 percent build-out and absorption occurs as it is outlined in
the two previous exhibits. We also assume that new downtown businesses will generate
parking demand at a level consistent with national averages. If for any reason there are
changes to the square footages or land-use projections, future parking demand may also be
affected. Also, the addition of new parking facilities or the removal of existing supplies will
have an impact on the future adequacy projected later in this report.
19
FUTURE PARKING CONSIDERATIONS
The options for future parking improvements are based on the results of the Current and
Future Parking Needs Assessment. The projected need for more long-term, employee, parking
in the next one to three years can be addressed through policy measures and surface
parking lot improvements. Long-term parking demand over the next four to ten years is
primarily driven by a forecasted employment growth of 700 additional downtown employees.
To meet long-term future parking needs, a significant capital investment will likely be required
to construct a new public parking facility. The following section includes a discussion on
various parking improvement options.
MANAGE PARKING DEMAND
While parking is clearly one important part of downtown development, it should not detract
from intrinsic qualities such as a pedestrian-friendly environment and a unique sense of place
that make downtown Battle Creek the distinctive destination that people seek. This unique
environment and combination of attractions bring people downtown. With that in mind,
parking should be viewed as a supportive tool to help make downtown attractions easier to
access. Based on the analysis of current and future parking adequacy, there is a surplus of
parking in downtown during peak weekday conditions. The primary objective of managing
parking demand is to make better use of current parking resources and capitalizes on the
community strengths already in place.
There are areas of downtown Battle Creek that temporarily experience high levels of demand
that strain local parking supply, while nearby areas have an abundance of unoccupied
supply. Even though available supply may exist within one or two blocks, these localized
challenges form perceptions that parking is inadequate. The community can either address
the parking challenges by building more supply or better managing the existing resources.
Many communities are rethinking how best to address the challenges of downtown parking
and pursuing management solutions before committing to a long-term capital investment.
This course of action may improve perceptions and increase access to underutilized supply.
The following exhibit provides an overview of how communities are starting to think about
parking planning.
20
Exhibit 17: Community Approach to Parking Planning
Old Parking Paradigm New Parking Paradigm
Parking Problem means inadequate parking There are many types of parking problems
supply. (management, pricing, enforcement, etc.)
Abundant parking supply is always desirable. Too much supply is as harmful as too little. Public
resources should be maximized and sized
appropriately.
Parking should be provided free, funded Users should pay directly for parking facilities. A
indirectly, through rents and taxes. coordinated pricing system should value price
parking with on-street the highest.
Innovation faces a high burden of proof and Innovations should be encouraged. Even
should only be applied if proven and widely unsuccessful experiments often provide useful
accepted. information.
Parking management is a last resort, to be Parking management programs should be applied

applied only if increasing supply is infeasible. to prevent parking problems.
There is a resistance in some downtown

communities to properly price parking or Exhibit 18: Parking Triangle
even charge a small fee out of fear that
the added cost will turn customers away.
Our research has identified that customers
are more concerned with availability than
having to pay a nominal fee to park their
car. A fee-based parking program serves
as a management tool that aims to
increase availability on-street, while
offering lower-cost alternatives for long-
term patrons. Parking challenges often
arise from a communitys desire to offer
free or low cost, convenient and
available parking at all times. The reality is
that only two of the three objectives can
be achieved simultaneously. The exhibit
on the right illustrates three possible
options.
Recommendations for consideration:

1. Implement a downtown shared parking program to maximize us of existing resources.
2. Implement a performance-based pricing strategy to maximize use of public facilities.
21
ACCEPTABLE WALKING DISTANCES
Though a total parking surplus exists in downtown Battle Creek during peak conditions, the
type of parking and perceived walking distances are a concern to some downtown
community members. These concerns are based on expectations that parking options should
be adjacent to or on the same block as a destination. It is important to note that standards
for visitors and patrons should differ from downtown employees. On-street parking is intended
for short-term patrons visiting downtown businesses, while parking areas such as the Michigan
Avenue Ramp and Hamblin Avenue Ramp are more appropriate for long-term employee
parking. This allocation of supply aligns with local expectations for walking distances.
When planning for parking solutions that include shared parking or the location of a future
parking facility, it is important to consider the walking distance from parking facilities and the
intended users final destination within the study area. Walker has developed the Level of
Service (LOS) approach to parking design. The Level of Service classification system is similar
to the grading system used in traffic engineering: LOS A is best or ideal, LOS B is good, C is
average, and D is below average but minimally acceptable.
The following table includes the level of service walking distances for various parking
environments. Walker applies the level of service for outdoor/uncovered parking when
considering shared parking opportunities in downtown Battle Creek.
Exhibit 19: LOS Conditions: Walking Distances
Level of Service A B C D
Outdoor/Uncovered 400 ft. 800 ft. 1,200 ft. 1,600 ft.
Through Surface Lot 350 700 1,050 1,400
Outdoor/Covered 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Climate Controlled 1,000 2,400 3,800 5,200
Inside Parking Facility 300 600 900 1,200
Source: Parking, May/June 1994, Butcher, T. and Smith, M.
Recommendation for consideration:

3. Continue to invest in streetscape and way-finding improvements that enhance downtown
walkability. These improvements broaden the collective parking system and provide a
functional and financial benefit to the community.
There are cases where parking management alone is not the solution. While an organized
parking system provides the framework for future growth, additional supply in the form of a
surface lot or parking ramp may be required to support new development. It is rare that a
community would build a fully subsidized, stand-alone parking ramp without clear plans for
new commercial development. The preferred approach is to develop new parking in
coordination with a high-density mixed-use project. This approach maximizes development
space by integrating parking into the development program.
22
There is an opportunity to better use an existing parking lot in downtown. The High School lot is
owned by the City and presently used to service daytime high school parking needs. The 218-
space lot would be better used to serve downtown employees. This option is viable without
impeding the operation of the high school since the high school has identified a parcel on-
campus that can be converted to student parking.

4. Repurpose High School Lot to serve downtown employee parking needs.
NEAR-TERM PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
The City has the opportunity to improve

parking conditions for downtown
employees by developing a 400 space
surface lot and improving an existing
surface lot that is underutilized most
days. An available parcel of land is
located adjacent to the Ice Rink Lot,
near the corner of Washington Avenue
1
and Hamblin Avenue. The location of
the vacant parcel is within a five minute
walking time along Hamblin Avenue to
the Kellogg Company Headquarter and
Kellogg Arena. The purpose of the lot 2
would be to serve weekday employees
and downtown special event
attendees.
Recommendation for consideration: 1

5. Add new parking supply on the
parcel of land adjacent to the Ice
Rink Lot to serve employee and
event parking demand in Zone 2.
The Ralston Lot is a 143-space parking area located between McCamly Street and Capital
Avenue. This lot is underutilized on most days and could be better utilized if shared-use an
agreement was established between the City and Ralston, and site improvements were made
to increase the aesthetic and overall function of the parking area. The parking lot would
provide downtown employees with another option and serve event attendees during large
venues. This low-cost option seeks to maximize the use of existing resources. An added benefit
of this option would be the physical improvements to a highly visible parking lot. The adjacent
roadways serve as gateways to the core downtown area and improvements to the surface,
lighting and parameter landscaping would have a material impact on the local area.
Recommendation for consideration: 2

6. Add new parking supply to serve employee and event parking demand in Zone 5.
23
LONG-TERM PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
Future parking demand is projected to exceed the present parking supply over the next ten
years if forecasted downtown employment growth comes to fruition. The results of the analysis
identify a need for up to 600 more spaces in Zone 2 or Zone 4. Walker evaluated potential
development sites that included the following:
Parking Structure on the Jackson Street Lot

Vertical Expansion of the Michigan Avenue Ramp
Parking Structure on the Library Lot
Parking Structure on the State Street Lot
Parking Structure on the High School Lot
Parking Structure on the Covance Lot
Numerous factors can impact the preferred location for a parking structure. The parcels
located along the Battle Creek may have a higher and better use for the community than
structured parking ramps. This impacts the Library Lot, High School Lot, and State Street Lot.
The Jackson Street Lot has a narrow footprint that would impact the potential capacity that
could be added in that location. A vertical expansion of the Michigan Avenue Ramp is an
expensive option that would not yield the target supply. The Covance Lot and adjacent
private lots are located along Hamblin Avenue and would bookend downtown with a large
supply of public parking. The site dimensions would allow for a functional and financially
efficient design. The site locations are shown in the following exhibit.
Exhibit 20: Potential Sites for a New Parking Structure
Potential Structured Parking Improvements
1 Parking Structure on the Jackson Street Lot
2 Vertical Expansion - Michigan Avenue Ramp

3
2
1
4 3 Parking Structure on the Library Lot
4 Parking Structure on the State Street Lot

5
5 Parking Structure on the High School Lot
6 Parking Structure on the Covance Lot
24

7. Consider building structured parking in Zone 4 in four to ten years to support higher density
development and future parking needs. The Covance Lot is recommended for
consideration based on the current placement of public parking in downtown; proximity to
future parking demand growth; site position behind existing commercial buildings; site
accessibility from a primary thoroughfare; and site dimensions that allow for an efficient
design.
CAPITAL COSTS
Walker understands that future parking improvements in downtown Battle Creek may be
developed as a stand-alone parking ramp or incorporated with the design of a future mixed-
use building. A parking facility that is built into a project as either the upper or lower floors of
that development, compared to a stand-alone parking facility, requires that the garage use
short-span construction. Short-span construction uses an increased number of columns to
support the weight of the structural elements above it. In short-span construction, the column
grid is roughly 30 feet on center. The efficiencies of short-span construction are less than long-
span construction because of the column projections that interfere with the parking layout. A
typical short-span construction garage has an efficiency in the range of 400-450 square feet
per space, depending upon the geometrics of the footprint. If the ramp is a stand-alone
structure, the columns can be located at the front of the parking stalls so that there are no
column projections; this is long-span construction. The efficiency of the garage can be
increased to an approximate range of 315 to 350 square feet per space, depending upon the
geometrics of the footprint. The increase in efficiency is due to the ability to increase the
number of parking spaces inside the same footprint.
A general guideline for determining the conceptual estimate of probable cost for a parking
ramp is to apply a cost per space figure to the target capacity. The cost of parking ramps vary
greatly based on location, architectural features, sustainability features, and whether the
facility is above or below-grade. A reasonable range for an above-grade, 200-300 space
parking facility is $15,000 to $18,000 per space, assuming long-span construction. The cost per
space can increase significantly when built below ground.
OPERATING COSTS
Expenses can vary dramatically since these depend on a number of independent variables.
Traditional expenses can include costs associated with labor, utilities, daily maintenance,
supplies, management and accounting, and insurance. Key factors in determining operating
costs include the proposed hours of operations, type of parking access and revenue controls,
and the application of active or passive security measures. The operating expenses for a
parking facility are typically presented on a cost per space basis. Walkers 2012 research
indicates actual operating expenses that range from $150 to over $1,000 per space annually.
The operating costs are lower at facilities with limit revenue and access controls and limited
hours of operation. Conversely, operating costs are higher at facilities that are staffed; monitor
access to the property with revenue and access controls; and operate 24 hours, 7 days a
week. All facilities require some degree of daily janitorial service that includes trash removal,
sweeping, and minor repairs and maintenance such as lighting replacement.
25
BREAKEVEN PRICING
The following table provides a contextual reference of the breakeven price needed for a
freestanding parking ramp to breakeven. If we assume a $15,000 to $18,000 range for cost per
space, and annual operating expense of $150 to $200 per space, the breakeven monthly
income per space would range from $117 to $142. This table demonstrates why most
municipal parking ramps are financed and operated as part of a larger parking system. The
insolvent parking ramps are often subsidized by more profitable on-street parking within a
system. This allows for a municipality to charge fees that are below breakeven if lower market
rates dictate. Since the City of Battle Creek does not charge for on-street meter parking, any
excess revenue from monthly permits and daily transient parking would be pledged to a new
parking project.
Exhibit 21: Breakeven Considerations Monthly Income Required to Breakeven
Annual Operating Expense Per Space

Cost per
Space $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 $250
$ 1,000 $9 11 13 15 17 19 22 24 26 28
$ 3,000 23 25 27 29 31 33 36 38 40 42
$ 5,000 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 52 54 56
$ 8,000 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 75 77
$ 9,000 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 82 84
$ 10,000 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 91
$ 11,000 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 98
$ 12,000 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 105
$ 13,000 93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111
$ 14,000 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
$ 15,000 107 109 111 113 115 117 119 121 123 125
$ 16,000 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132
$ 17,000 121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 139
$ 18,000 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146
$ 19,000 135 137 139 141 143 145 147 149 151 153
$ 19,500 138 140 142 144 146 148 151 153 155 157
$ 20,000 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158 160
$ 21,000 149 151 153 155 157 159 161 163 165 167
Assume 100% Financed, 20-Year Term, 5.5 Percent

26
STRUCTURAL REPAIR BUDGET
In addition to operating expenses, Walker highly recommends that funds be set-aside on a

regular basis to cover structural maintenance costs at a minimum of $75 per structured space
annually, to be placed in a sinking fund. Once a sinking fund is established, contributions to
this fund accumulate over time and are available to cover structural maintenance and
structural repairs. Even the best designed and constructed parking facility requires structural
maintenance. For example, expansion joints need to be replaced and concrete invariably
deteriorates over time and needs to be repaired to ensure safety and to prevent further
deterioration. The structural maintenance cost typically represents the largest portion of the
total maintenance budget. Property owners tend to grossly underestimate the structural
maintenance cost and do not budget adequately for timely corrective actions that must be
performed to cost effectively extend the service life of the structure. The cost of structural
maintenance is relatively small considering the potential waste of the improvements
associated with the failure to perform proper maintenance on a timely basis.
The periodic structural maintenance includes items such as patching concrete spalls and
delaminations in floor slabs, beams, columns, walls, etc. In many instance there are
maintenance costs associated with the topping membranes, the routing and sealing of joints
and cracks, and the expansion/construction joint repairs. The cost of these repairs can vary
significantly from one structure to another. The factors that will impact the maintenance cost
include, but are not limited to the value the owner places on the maintenance of the facility,
the local climate, and the age of the structure.
A review by a restoration specialist is usually necessary to identify the preventive maintenance

needs of a facility. In addition to the annual or other periodic inspections, material testing and
examinations may also be necessary to determine and recommend maintenance measures.
One example of this is the chloride monitoring testing that is necessary to monitor the
effectiveness of sealer and coatings. The chloride testing also helps to determine the
frequency and extent of sealer reapplications. The results of the periodic inspections may also
indicate the need for other material examinations and laboratory testing.
The capital cost, operating expense and capital repair and maintenance information
presented in this report are provided to help the City determine if a new parking structure
could be supported by the Parking System. Further financial feasibility analysis is required to
determine if there would be a funding gap or if there would be any reliance on the General
Fund to subsidize the parking operation.
27

Downtown Battle Creek Parking Study

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Downtown Battle Creek Parking Study

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DOWNTOWN PARKING

CITY OF BATTLE CREEK

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................................... i

Exhibit 1: Study Approach ................................................................................................................................................................. 2

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Current Parking Conditions

Future Parking Conditions

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

1. Implement Downtown Shared Parking Program to Maximize Use of Existing Resources

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

2. Implement Performance-based Pricing Strategy to Maximize Use of Public Facilities

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

3. Continue to Invest in Streetscape and Way-finding Improvements that Enhance

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

4. Repurpose High School Parking Lot to Serve Downtown Employee Needs

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

5. Add New Parking Supply to Serve Employee Parking Demand in Zone 2

6. Add New Parking Supply to Serve Employee Parking Demand in Zone 5

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

7. Consider Building Structured Parking in 4 to 10 Years to Support Higher Density

Site for Consideration:

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

8. Special Event Parking Improvements

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

If additional downtown parking is needed

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

The study approach is presented in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Study Approach

Inventory Parking Supply (5-Zones)

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit 2: Study Area

Source: Study area defined by the City of Battle Creek

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit 3: Consolidated Stakeholder Comments

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit 3 (Continued): Consolidated Stakeholder Comments

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

The assessment of current conditions includes a comprehensive review of parking inventory,

CURRENT PARKING INVENTORY

Exhibit 4: Current Parking Inventory

2 772 838 44 1,654 23%

3 568 127 42 737 10%

4 595 1,238 93 1,926 27%

5 1,579 271 20 1,870 26%

Total 4,409 2,474 289 7,172 100%

% of Total 62% 34% 4% 100%

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, February 2013.

Exhibit 5: Current Parking Inventory by Type (Ramp, Lot & On-Street)

Public Lots 8 861 18%

Total Off-Street Supply 61 6,883 96%

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, February 2013.

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY

Exhibit 6: Effective Supply

Effective Supply Calculations

Public 2,778 0.85 2,361 417

On-Street 289 0.88 255 34

Total 7,172 0.88 6,311 861

Source: Walker Parking Consultants

DECEMBER 2, 2013 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit 7: Parking Inventory Map by Ownership Type (Public vs. Private)