Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN COUNCIL
Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 121 West 27th Street, Suite 705 New York, NY 10001 May 2006

Table of Contents
PAGE INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................3 Study Area Profile .........................................................................................................3 Comparable Cities Review ............................................................................................3 Existing Conditions Analysis ..........................................................................................5 Policy Option Review ...................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 1. STUDY AREA PROFILE AND REVIEW OF COMPARABLES ........................................1-1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................1-1 Study Area .................................................................................................................1-1 Previous Studies Review: Key Parking Conditions .......................................................1-8 Comparable Cities Review .........................................................................................1-9 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY .......................................................................2-1 The Turnover Survey ..................................................................................................2-1 The Windshield Survey ............................................................................................2-20 Brooklyn Heights Meter Survey ................................................................................2-28 License Plate Survey.................................................................................................2-30 CHAPTER 3. FEASIBLE PROGRAM OPTIONS .........................................................................3-1 Geographic Options Implementation.......................................................................3-1 Policy Options Program Design...............................................................................3-2 Programmatic Components ........................................................................................3-7 Considerations for Analysis of RPP Options ................................................................3-9 APPENDIX A: TURNOVER BY BLOCKALL BLOCKS APPENDIX B: WINDSHIELD SURVEY FORM APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION PLAN
Page i Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Table of Figures
PAGE Figure ES-1 Resident and Vehicle Densities in Downtown Brooklyn.................................3 Figure ES-2 Population and Vehicle Densities in Comparable Cities .................................4 Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4 Figure 1-5 Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1-9 Figure 1-10 Figure 1-11 Figure 1-12 Figure 1-13 Figure 1-14 Figure 1-15 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 2-9 Figure 2-10 Figure 2-11 Figure 2-12 Figure 2-13 Figure 2-14 Figure 2-15 Figure 2-16 Figure 2-17 Figure 2-18 Figure 2-19 Figure 2-20 Figure 2-21 Figure 2-22 Race and Income in the Study Area.............................................................1-1 Study Area Population ................................................................................1-2 Study Area..................................................................................................1-3 Study Area Vehicular Densities ...................................................................1-5 Boerum Hill Vehicle Availability.................................................................1-6 Brooklyn Heights Vehicle Availability.........................................................1-7 Fort Greene Vehicle Availability .................................................................1-8 Study Area Vehicle Availability by Neighborhood.......................................1-8 Comparable Cities Race and Income.........................................................1-10 Comparable Cities Population...................................................................1-10 Comparable Cities Vehicular Densities .....................................................1-10 Vehicle Availability Boston ....................................................................1-11 Vehicle Availability Washington, D.C. ...................................................1-14 Vehicle Availability Toronto ..................................................................1-16 Review of RPP Programs Extended List...................................................1-21 Turnover Survey-Eligible Blocks..................................................................2-3 Study Area Occupancy ...............................................................................2-5 Study Area Hourly Occupancy ...................................................................2-5 Overall Occupancy ....................................................................................2-7 Brooklyn Heights Occupancy .....................................................................2-9 Brooklyn Heights Hourly Occupancy .........................................................2-9 Boerum Hill Occupancy ...........................................................................2-10 Boerum Hill Hourly Occupancy ...............................................................2-10 Fort Greene Occupancy............................................................................2-11 Fort Greene Hourly Occupancy................................................................2-11 Study Area Rates of Turnover ....................................................................2-12 Brooklyn Heights Rates of Turnover ..........................................................2-12 Mean Parking Stay (Hours)........................................................................2-13 Boerum Hill Rates of Turnover..................................................................2-15 Fort Greene Rates of Turnover ..................................................................2-15 Study Area Placard Parking .......................................................................2-16 Brooklyn Heights Agency-Permit Parking ..................................................2-16 Vehicles Parked with Municipal Placards ..................................................2-17 Boerum Hill Agency-Permit Parking..........................................................2-19 Fort Greene Agency-Permit Parking ..........................................................2-19 Search Time .............................................................................................2-21 Turnover Rates .........................................................................................2-22
Page ii Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Table of Figures
(continued)
PAGE Figure 2-23 Figure 2-24 Figure 2-25 Figure 2-26 Figure 2-27 Figure 2-28 Figure 2-29 Figure 2-30 Figure 2-31 Figure 2-32 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 On-Street Incentives .................................................................................2-23 Behavior Patterns......................................................................................2-24 Trip Purpose .............................................................................................2-25 Proximity to Destination ...........................................................................2-26 Probable Response ...................................................................................2-27 Placard Occupancy at Brooklyn Heights Meters .........................................2-28 Survey Times and Locations......................................................................2-30 Locally Registered Vehicle Utilization.......................................................2-31 Estimating Local-Registration Rate with Alternate Methodologies...............2-32 Residential On-Street Demand As Share of Overall Demand ..................2-34 Brooklyn Residential Parking Policy Options...............................................3-5 Revenue Projection ..................................................................................3-10 Registration Distribution (New York State Only) of Overnight On-Street Vehicles ...................................................................3-11 Where Parked Cars are Registered ............................................................3-12 Household Income and Vehicle Ownership..............................................3-13
Page iii Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Introduction
Residential Permit Parking (RPP) programs have proved extremely successful in many cities, helping to prioritize on-street parking spaces for residents living close to major trip generators, such as downtowns, schools, stadiums, and transit stations. They have been implemented in a wide variety of settings since ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1977, ranging from small communities such as Loma Linda, CA (pop. 18,000) to major cities such as Boston and Philadelphia.1 The strong competition for limited on-street space in neighborhoods in and around Downtown Brooklyn has generated interest in introducing an RPP program. The area is a major center of employment as well as a transit hub within which virtually every line of New York Citys subway system makes stops, providing quick car-less access to Manhattans Central Business Districts. Downtown Brooklyn, however, is a far more complex environment than most other neighborhoods that have successfully introduced RPP programs. Most fundamentally, local residents own more vehicles than the number of curb parking spaces. Despite low vehicle ownership rates, the combination of limited residential off-street parking and high population densities means that excluding commuters and visitors through RPP will, on its own, do little to make parking readily available. There are also special considerations to ensure equity for the 65 percent of residents who do not own a vehicle (who occasionally require parking for visitors or rental cars), and for shoppers and other short-term visitors. These unique circumstances warrant a careful analysis of the potential impacts of a standard RPP program as well as the development of alternative program options that take account of Downtown Brooklyns special constraints. Most importantly, the Downtown Brooklyn circumstances require outreach to build community understanding of the pros and cons of an RPP, and foster consensus on a preferred option. This report is the culmination of the Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study, commissioned by the Downtown Brooklyn Council, in partnership with the New York City Department of Transportation and the New York City Economic Development Corporation. It brings together the findings from the following project work tasks: A demographic profile of the Study Area and a review of programs in comparable cities (See Chapter 1); An extensive survey of existing parking conditions (See Chapter 2), based on the data collection plan included as an appendix; and An analysis of feasible program options (See Chapter 3).
See, for example, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2000), Residential Permit Parking, Informational Report.
Page 1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

The report concludes with a delineation of implementation options, including programmatic details and strategic alternatives for a potential RPP program. Implementation of any RPP program will require the support of households within the proposed boundaries most typically, cities require a petition signed by at least 50% of households. Were RPP implementation to proceed, the New York City Department of Transportation would also need to resolve various administrative and implementation details regarding permit issuance, petition verification and enforcement, since this would be the first program of its nature in NYC. This report does not provide a firm recommendation, but rather sets out the advantages and disadvantages of the different alternatives to be presented to the Project Advisory Committee (a committee representing local stakeholders, including the Brooklyn Heights Association, the Boerum Hill Association, the Fort Greene Association, Brooklyn Community Board #2, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and New York City Council members Letitia James and David Yassky). This report is submitted in support of the committees objective to arrive at a well-informed position on this important parking management issue for the Downtown Brooklyn community.

Executive Summary
Study Area Profile
The 1.3-square mile study area consists of three residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to Downtown Brooklyn: Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and Fort Greene. One of the most densely populated areas of the country, the Study Area is home to over 40,000 residents, with a population density of roughly 32,000 residents per square mile. This density means that despite a very low rate of vehicle ownership among local residents, the demand for resident parking is intense, with a very high rate of 6,063 resident-owned vehicles per square mile. Figure ES-1 shows a comparison of these characteristics across the Study Area and within its neighborhoods.
Figure ES-1 Resident and Vehicle Densities in Downtown Brooklyn

Study Area 41,936 7,858 0.40 1.30 32,358 6,063.3 3,733 Boerum Hill 11,276 1,996 0.41 0.46 24,728 4,377.2 1,769 Brooklyn Hts Fort Greene 20,794 9,866 4,103 1,759 0.39 0.41 0.48 0.36 43,321 27,406 8,547.9 4,886.1 876 1,089
Population Total Vehicles Vehicles per Household Land Area (in square miles) Residents per Square Mile Vehicles per Square Mile Approximate Number of RPP Suitable Spaces
These unique characteristics present challenges to any management strategy for on-street parking, with the intensity of residential demand presenting specific challenges for RPP implementation. Existing regulation of on-street parking is fairly minimal, consisting of street cleaning restrictions and meters on commercial frontages. Any new form of on-street management will be a significant departure from the current first-come, first-served arrangements. Reviewing the nature and results of RPP programs in cities with comparable challenges was therefore seen as a crucial component of the Feasibility Study.
Comparable Cities Review

RPP programs are prevalent among U.S. cities and have proven an effective tool when implemented appropriately. While some challenges will be common among most cities, attention was given to the unique circumstances in Downtown Brooklyn when identifying key cities for comparison. Basic RPP program components among a set of 11 RPP programs across North America were reviewed including:

Permit fees; Implementation processes; Number of permits offered per household; Visitor parking accommodation; Administrative approach; and Enforcement authority. With the help of the studys Project Advisory Committee, three cities were identified as most similar to Downtown Brooklyn, or as having innovative RPP elements, and were examined in depth Boston, Washington, D.C., and Toronto. All the programs which were reviewed require that neighborhoods petition for, and that a majority of their residents approve of, program implementation. Required majority levels range from 50% (Boston, MA and Portland, OR) to 80% (Chicago, IL). This factor could present a serious barrier to RPP approval in Study Area neighborhoods where roughly twothirds of all households own no vehicles and may perceive no benefit for supporting a conventional RPP program. The successes, setbacks, and programmatic details among the three key comparable cities programs were examined through a series of interviews and review of agency and census data. Figure ES-2 presents a comparison of these cities with the Study Area.
Figure ES-2 Population and Vehicle Densities in Comparable Cities

Population Land Area (in square miles) Residents per Square Mile Vehicles per Square Mile Boston 589,141 89.6 6,575.2 2,460.3 Washington, D.C. 572,059 68.3 8,375.7 3,232.3 Toronto 2,456,805 247.5 9,926.5 4,154.3 Study Area 41,936 1.30 32,358 6,063.3
Each program operates where the level of residential demand, at least in some neighborhoods, is much greater than curb-space supply. Each city has set out unique goals and approaches in response to this situation and offers three unique approaches to this challenge that are worth examining. The City of Boston has identified a modest goal for its RPP program of providing preferential status for residents for the use of on-street spaces within their neighborhoods. The City charges no fee for its permits and markets the program as a public service to its residents. The program offers no provision of visitor or temporary permits, which contributes to annual citation revenue of over $7 million generated by the program. Washington, D.C.s program was initiated to protect on-street spaces in residential neighborhoods from commuter demand generated by rail stations. It is the most traditional

of the three key comparable programs with modest permit fees and no explicit attempts to manage resident demand (i.e., no limit on the number of permits distributed). As a result, parking remains difficult to find in many neighborhoods where residential densities are higher. In response, changes are actively being sought to legislation that currently limits permit fees and prevents restrictions on the number of permits per household. Torontos program, initiated in various forms in the 1960s, is the oldest and at the same time the least traditional program examined for this study. Its goal of ensuring on-street availability for permit-holders is maintained by capping the number of permits at the number of regulated on-street spaces. The City maintains a wait list to handle remaining demand and uses a progressive pricing strategy to favor first permit availability for those without off-street options. Permit fees are much higher than in U.S. cities and at $130 $440 bring in over $5 million of revenue (excluding citations) that is directed to City environmental programs.
Existing Conditions Analysis

The existing conditions analysis was based on a review of existing studies and census data, combined with field surveys to quantify specific parking demand and supply conditions for the Study Area. In summary, on-street parking in Downtown Brooklyn is effectively fully occupied day and night, which in turn causes a number of problems from congestion, pollution, and travel delays as motorists circle in search of a space, to the inconvenience of having to park far from local destinations. The field surveys provided information on: Total supply of on-street spaces; Occupancy and turnover rates for non-metered spaces; Occupancy of metered spaces in Brooklyn Heights by vehicles with municipal parking permits; and Occupancy by residents versus non-residents (shoppers, commuters, students, etc.) through vehicle registration data. In addition to these direct surveys, printed questionnaires were distributed to on-street parkers to solicit information on the following areas of parker behavior and attitude: Time spent searching for an on-street space; Purpose of the trip into the area; Length of stay in the area; Preferences and tendencies for choosing on-street parking over alternative options; Proximity of parking space to eventual destination; and Probable response to RPP program implementation. Key findings from these efforts include:

There are approximately 3,700 on-street parking spaces in the Study Area which would be available for a potential RPP program; Local residents occupy roughly half of all non-metered on-street spaces. A significant proportion of local residents register their vehicles at alternate locations in order to save on tax or insurance one-third of all locally parked vehicles are registered beyond New York City, and one-fifth are registered out of New York State; On-street parking is almost fully occupied. Average weekday on-street parking occupancy for the Study Area is over 97%; Mean length of stay for parked vehicles in the Study Area is just under 4 hours; More than two-thirds of surveyed on-street parkers searched at least ten minutes for their spot, meaning that parking scarcity is a significant cause of traffic congestion on Downtown Brooklyn streets; Cost is the primary incentive for choosing to park on-street. This is unsurprising given the large price differential between on-street parking (free) and garage parking ($200-$300/month); Nearly 50 percent of respondents parked more than three blocks from their final destination; and 59 percent of non-residents indicated that they would seek parking on nonregulated streets if an RPP program was implemented.
Policy Option Review

The findings reported above support the contention that the Study Area presents unique feasibility challenges for implementation of an RPP program. The study team therefore developed a set of policy options for various forms of RPP programs that are tailored to these unique opportunities and constraints. Beginning with a traditional RPP program and progressively incorporating innovative strategies for managing residential parking demand, the benefits and drawbacks of each approach were identified and compared to those presented by the option of not implementing a RPP program. A Traditional RPP Program would resemble many programs in other US cities, such as those in Boston and Washington, D.C. It is characterized by modest permit fees, few limits on the number of permits available to each household, and some form of visitor and shortterm parking accommodation. The strengths of such a program include: Prioritized parking for residents; Encouragement for local vehicle registration; and Potential congestion benefits as search traffic is reduced.

Drawbacks for such a program include: Lack of benefit to the non-car owning majority of local households, while making visitor and car rental parking more difficult for them; Little/no net improvement in parking availability as latent demand from residents replaces demand from those now restricted permits would serve as a hunting license rather than as a guarantee of a space; and No net revenue potential for a program requiring major implementation effort. Incorporating a Wait List and Multi-Space Meters is one potential means for addressing the high density of demand found in the Study Area. Similar to the program in Toronto, a wait list could be used to cap the number of permits to the number of regulated spaces. Multi-space meters could also be incorporated to allow for convenient, and more easily enforced, temporary parking for non-permit holders. The strengths of such an approach include: Guaranteed availability for permit-holders; Improved availability for non-residents; Potential congestion benefits as search traffic is reduced; Encouragement for local vehicle registration; and Modest revenue benefit. Drawbacks for such an approach include: On-street parking option eliminated for residents on the wait list; Little US precedent; and May increase resident driving. Another programmatic approach to local parking conditions would be to incorporate Market Pricing strategies for RPP permit fees and meter rates. This would eliminate the need for a wait list, as prices would be set to limit demand to the number of programregulated spaces. Additionally, this option would increase revenues from non-resident parking while eliminating the problem of enforcing time restrictions by using demand responsive pricing to manage turnover. The strengths of such an approach include: Guaranteed availability for permit-holders; Improved availability for non-residents; Potential congestion benefits as search traffic is reduced; Encouragement for local registration; and

Significant revenue benefits (estimated at $9-$15 million annually, exclusive of citation revenue). Drawbacks for such an approach include: Those unwilling/unable to pay lose the on-street parking option; Higher parking costs; Little US precedent; Undetermined legal feasibility; and May increase resident driving rates. The final option available is the No Action/Maintain Existing Regulations alternative and not implementing any form of RPP. This option would maintain existing regulations meters on commercial frontages and street cleaning restrictions only on residential streets. This option has the advantages of simplicity of administration and enforcement, and would provide equal access to public curbspace for all groups of users including residents who only occasionally require parking. However, the potential benefits of the other options such as ease in finding a space would be foregone. The strengths of such an approach include: Avoids drawbacks of other options; and Maintains free minimally regulated parking. Drawbacks for such an approach include: Search traffic continues to frustrate and cause congestion; and Revenue potential lost. In addition to these programmatic options the existence of three well-established and recognized neighborhoods within the Study Area presents the option of implementing a pilot program restricted to one or two neighborhoods, as well as implementing an areawide pilot program.

Chapter 1. Study Area Profile and Review of Comparables

Introduction
This chapter presents a profile of the Study Area while summarizing key parking conditions identified in previous studies. This profile serves as a basis for a review of RPP programs in several North American cities. Of these cities, Washington, D.C., Boston, Massachusetts, and Toronto, Ontario were determined to have similar demographic characteristics to Downtown Brooklyn (including dense neighborhoods and constraints on on-street parking). This chapter details the specific elements of these comparable cities RPP programs, with discussion of each ones management, results, and lessons learned. This chapter also includes a comparison of eight additional RPP programs to provide context for the current study (see Figure 1-15).
Study Area
The study area consists of three residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to Downtown Brooklyn: Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and Fort Greene (see Figure 1-3). The study area exemplifies the racial and ethnic diversity commonly found in urban districts. As shown in Figure 1-1, the area population is roughly half White and half nonWhite, with African-Americans making up about one-fourth of the population, representing the largest minority population. The areas median household income of nearly $60,000, also shown in Figure 1-1, is relatively high for an inner-city district (as will be seen later in the comparison of other cities).
Figure 1-1
Race and Income in the Study Area

Boerum Hill Number Share 11,276 100.0% 5,640 50.0% 1,898 16.8% 2,582 22.9% 514 4.6% 642 5.7% $57,427.75 Brooklyn Heights Number Share 20,794 100.0% 15,601 75.0% 1,837 8.8% 1,694 8.1% 1,059 5.1% 603 2.9% $67,465.77 Fort Greene Number Share 9,856 100.0% 1,988 20.2% 5,611 56.9% 1,458 14.8% 372 3.8% 427 4.3% $42,533.08 Study Area Number Share 41,926 100.0% 23,229 55.4% 9,346 22.3% 5,734 13.7% 1,945 4.6% 1,672 4.0% $59,511.75
All White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Asian Other Median Household Income Source: 2000 U.S. Census
The 1.3-square mile study area is one of the most densely populated areas of the country. As shown in Figure 1-2 the area is home to more than 40,000 residents, with a population density of approximately 32,000 people per square mile. This compares to under 25,000
Page 1-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

people per square mile in New York City and approximately 80 people per square mile in the United States. The study area also includes nearly 8,000 vehicles, resulting in a vehicle ownership rate of more than 6,000 vehicles per square mile. In comparison, the study area boasts an auto-ownership rate of 0.4 per household, which is one of the lowest in the country (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4).
Figure 1-2
Study Area Population

Boerum Hill 11,276 0.46 24,728 Brooklyn Heights 20,794 0.48 43,321 Fort Greene 9,866 0.36 27,406 Study Area 41,936 1.30 32,358 New York City 8,008,278 321.8 24,886 United States 281,421,906 3,794,083.1 80
Population Land Area (in square miles) Residents (per square mile) Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Figure 1-3 Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

ASSEMBLY RD
WELDING RD
BROOKLYN, NY
BK BR ET RP
PROSPECT ST
1 AV
BQ E
3S T
Brooklyn Study Area
BIA H
NAVY ST
RED C R
CADMAN PZ E
OSS P L HIGH ST
COL UM
WILL OW ST HICK S ST
FUR MAN ST
ADAMS ST
DUFFIELD ST
Borough of Brooklyn
CLA RK
ST
MON ROE PL
WI LLI AM
PIER REP ONT PL
GRA CE
CT
BIA PL WIL LOW PL
LAWRENCE ST
LOV E LA PIER REP ONT ST MON TAG UE S T REM SEN ST HUN TS L A
CATHEDRAL PL
TILLARY ST
CHAPEL ST
CONCORD ST
AV
14 AV
7 AV
NASSAU ST
AN CE
8 AV
BQ EE N
SB
TS
SANDS ST
T 5S
NB
4 ST
OR DN
T 8S
MARKET ST
PAULDING ST
FLUSHING AV
SOUTH ST
GOLD ST
BQ EC NT B GH Y TS EE BQ
SB UR GP L WILLIAM BQ SBUR EE G ST W TN B
BK BR VINE AP ST B S POP LAR EN ST QE B MID DAG H ST CRA NBE RRY ST ORA NGE ST PINE APP LE S T
FLEET AL
GEE AV
JAY ST
PRINCE ST
METROTECH WK
FLEET WK
JOHNSON ST
NAVY WK
D D OL
BQE
YORK ST
T 2S
COL UM
GAR DEN PL
PEARL ST
COUR T SQ
WILLOUGHBY ST
GOLD ST AL BE ES Q FLE ET ST FLEET PL
SIDN EY P L
JORAL EMON ST
ON ON LT F FU S ST
TH WY WY
NT EN KE AV
CN T
HY
BQE EN
W HE
ST ES
H H MAN
NN PE
ST
E V AV
V V V AV IIS A V CK RR AV V V M D DO MO GH AV EY A U C OU N NCE NO TO GT AU DO IING HA CH V M A MC ARR A AV Y W W A AV RY Y EY ER PE NC UN AU AV YA C CH RY ER PE
BR A AP
H NH MA BR BR R RP
PARK A V
LIOTT N ELLIOTT PL
R N N OXFOR D D ST
FE PL T TAAFFE
PO N PORTL
AN C M CADM P PZ W
BQE
OXFORD N OXFORD WK
N LA CLASSO
AN AND AV
N EN ST S STEUBE
TECH PL
N SON R RYERSO
V AV GR GRAND A
MYRTLE AV
MO NU
AUBURN PL ME NT WK
L L ERS N P EMERSO
A AV
U TBU F A FLA
HA HALL ST
ST
V SH A
HBY AV WILLOUG
EX
HIN TO WASHING
DUFFIELD ST
ST
PL
STA TE
BRIDGE ST
GA LLA TIN
HEN RY
BO ER UM PL
BQE RP
CLIN TON ST
BO ER UM PL
WA RRE NP L
BIA S
HO YT
SS T
CON GRE SS S WA T RRE NS T BAL TIC ST
HA NO VE R
PL
ST
TIFF ANY PL
CHE EVE R PL
BO ND
STR ON
TG H
BQE CN
TIM E
SM ITH
Parking Meters
PRE SID
TOM PKIN S
Legend
SU MM IT ST
SAC KET T ST
G PL
3A V
DE G R
KAN E
WA RRE NS T BAL TIC ST ST
ST
N N EN QE BQ B
RM NT CLERMO
SON ST RYERSO
V AV GR GRAND A
ST
RSITY UNIVERSITY PZ
TA T AV ND BIL VANDER
Fort Greene Park
A N AV CL CLINTON
E BE STEU
NP N PK
LP ST ADELPHI
NA NAVY ST
ND ASHLAND PL
AV AV
AMIT Y
ST
PAC IFIC ST
SC HE RM
LIV ING STO NS T ER HO RN ST
AV DE KALB
N AV H HUDSON AV
N N ST
Y LY A W WAVERL V
ND ND ST MB LA CUMBER
D RD ST S S OXFOR
COL UM
COU RT
HICK S
NE VIN
TE LAFAYET
ST
AV
PL CLIFTON
INGTO WASHIN
NE ENE PL FT FT GREE
LIX ST ST FELIX
PL CKW ROCKWELL
LTON A CARLTO
L PL LL T P S ELLIOT
AND AND AV PO S PORTL
AW S
PL
WA RR BU TLE RS T DO UG LAS SS T
WY CK OF F EN ST
ST
ATL AN TIC
AV PAC IF IC S T ST
AV GREENE
ON AV LEXINGT
ST
A N AV
PL HANSON
ST QUINCY
SP
ST
ST
IM LA Y
ST
NT
BR U
IT S NE T SE ST AB RI Source: NNYDOT, New York City Planning Dept, and ESRI. G ST 2 PL
4A V
VA N
1 PL
EN ST
6 AV
5A V
TNL R T TRY BK B
PL PL BR GE CAMBRID
S TJ ST JAME
NT S T Study Area BlocksN ST C
Parks S
ARR OLL ST
UNIO
BAL TIC
V AV GR GRAND A
D ORD ST S S OXFOR
ST WA RR EN ST
DE AN
BO W
Curb Blocks SUMM

AP B E BQE
UMM IT S T
PRE SID
BER GE NS T ST M AR K'S PL
ACAD EM
Y PK
V GATES A
G ING ST D DOWNIN
PL PL
PL
CAR ROL L ST
ENT ST
DE GR AW S
FULT ON S T
LPHI ADELP
AV PUTNAM
LEFF ERT
HA HA U US TB L T FLA
P EP V V US NA NU TON ILT WA WA H M HAM GO
ST ST
BU TLE RS T DO UG LAS SS T
WA RR
PACIF IC
ST
0.25
0.5 Miles
S PL

Figure 1-4
Study Area Vehicular Densities

Boerum Hill 4,883 0.46 1,996 0.41 4,377 Brooklyn Heights 10,535 0.48 4,103 0.39 8,548 Fort Greene 4,336 0.36 1,759 0.41 4,886 Study Area 19,754 1.30 7,858 0.40 6,063
Households Land Area (in square miles) Total Vehicles Vehicles per Household Vehicles per Square Mile Source: 2000 U.S. Census
The Neighborhoods
Boerum Hill Bordered by Schermerhorn Street to the north and Warren Street to the south, Boerum Hill lies just south of the CBD. The neighborhood shares Court Street with Cobble Hill and Brooklyn Heights, and 4th Avenue with Park Slope. The Boerum Hill section of the study area includes the following census tracts and block groups (as presented in Figure 1-3): Census Tract 39 41 69 71 Census Block Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 4 1, 2
Since the 1970's, Boerum Hills historic brownstones have attracted multiple generations of young homeowners. The section of Atlantic Avenue running through the neighborhood is the antiques capitol of Brooklyn and boasts a concentration of Middle-Eastern food establishments known throughout the region. Like the overall study area, Boerum Hill is marked by very low rates of vehicle ownership1. As shown in Figure 1-5, vehicles are available to only one-third of all households in this neighborhood.
For purposes of this report, vehicle ownership and vehicle availability are used interchangeably.

Figure 1-5
Boerum Hill Vehicle Availability

Number of Households 4,883 3,147 1,565 143 28 1,996 0.41 Share 100% 64% 32% 3% 1% NA NA
All Households Without Available Vehicle With 1 Available Vehicle With 2 Available Vehicles With 3 or more Available Vehicles Total Available Vehicles Vehicles Per Household Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Brooklyn Heights
The Brooklyn Heights neighborhood is bounded by the East River, Old Fulton Street/Cadman Plaza West, Atlantic Avenue, and Court Street. It is one of the oldest and most distinctive residential neighborhoods in New York City, with dozens of landmarked 19th century brownstones lining narrow streets; these characteristics are exemplified in the Brooklyn Heights Historic District. The neighborhood gains its Heights distinction from its occupation of a bluff that rises up sharply from the East River and gradually recedes inland. The Brooklyn Heights section of the study area includes the following census tracts and block groups (as presented in Figure 1-3): Census Tract 1 3.01 5 7 13 Census Block Groups 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 3 1
Brooklyn Heights is the most densely populated neighborhood in the study area, with more than 43,000 residents living within 0.48 square miles (see Table 2). As shown in Table 5, two-thirds of neighborhood households do not have a vehicle available, and 97 percent of households own less than two cars. Despite these ownership characteristics, the neighborhoods compact setting results in a resident-owned vehicle density of well over 8,000 vehicles per square mile (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-6).

Figure 1-6
Brooklyn Heights Vehicle Availability

All Households Without Available Vehicle With 1 Available Vehicle With 2 Available Vehicles With 3 or more Available Vehicles Total Available Vehicles Vehicles Per Household Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Fort Greene
The portion of the greater Fort Greene neighborhood included in the study area is composed of two separate pieces of land situated around Fort Greene Park. A rectangleshaped area just west of the park is bordered by Myrtle Ave to the north, Willoughby Street to the south, and Flatbush Avenue to the west. The study area also includes the section of Fort Greene to the south of the park between Ashland Place and Adelphi Street, and north of Atlantic Avenue. The Fort Greene section of the study area includes the following census tracts and block groups (as presented in Figure 1-3): Census Tract 33 35 179 181 Census Block Groups 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4
Fort Greene contains two city, state, and nationally registered historic districts: the Fort Greene Historic District and the Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District. The neighborhood is a center for in-migration for artists and young professionals, with new shops and restaurants appearing along its avenues. Local arts and culture institutions include: the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the Mark Morris Dance Group, a new High School of the Arts, a revitalized Brooklyn Music School, and the Alliance of Resident Theatres/New York. Like the other neighborhoods in the study area, Fort Greene is characterized by very low vehicle ownership rates (see Figure 1-7). Fort Greene is the least densely populated neighborhood within the study area (see Figure 1-1), and has the highest rate of households with more than one vehicle available, as shown in Figure 1-8.

Figure 1-7
Fort Greene Vehicle Availability

All Households Without available vehicle With 1 Available Vehicle With 2 Available Vehicles With 3 or more Available Vehicles Total Available Vehicles Vehicles Per Household Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Figure 1-8
Location
Study Area Vehicle Availability by Neighborhood

Brooklyn Heights Number Share 10,535 100% 6,740 3,506 270 19 4,103 0.39 64% 33% 3% 0% NA NA Fort Greene Number Share 4,336 100% 2,931 1,128 236 41 1,759 0.41 68% 26% 5% 1% NA NA Study Area Number Share 19,754 100% 12,818 6,199 649 88 7,858 0.40 65% 31% 3% 0% NA NA
Boerum Hill Number Share Households 4,883 100% Number of vehicles available: 0 3,147 64% 1 1,565 32% 2 or more 143 3% 3 or more 28 1% Aggregate Vehicles 1,996 NA Vehicles Per 0.41 NA Household Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Previous Studies Review: Key Parking Conditions

Several previous studies were reviewed to provide the context for the current RPP study, including historical trends regarding vehicle ownership and density, and variations within the study area. These previous studies include the Hoyt-Schermerhorn Parking Disposition Survey (Empire State Development Corporation, 2001) and the Atlantic Avenue On-Street Permit Parking Study (Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association, 2003). While the three neighborhoods are dominantly residential, each is marked by a highly diverse mixture of uses. Local residents are within easy walking distance of daily goods and services, including virtually every line in the New York City subway system. Numerous entertainment, institutional, educational, cultural, and recreational uses are all

within easy access as well, and proximity to the Downtown Brooklyn CBD places residents nearby to large concentrations of employment. These dense conditions foster a pedestrian-oriented character within the study area, and support the low vehicular-ownership patterns. However, the high residential densities, a tight-knit street network, and development patterns that mostly pre-date the automobile, leave little room on local streets to accommodate the visitor and commuter parking demand also generated by these concentrations of non-residential uses. Restricting the use of on-street spaces to residents therefore, may be a powerful tool for reducing the intensity of competition for these spaces, but it is not enough to eliminate shortages altogether. For this reason, the selection of peer cities RPP programs included municipalities which face elevated levels of on-street demand.
Comparable Cities Review

Similar to Downtown Brooklyn, the three comparable cites (Boston, Washington, D.C., and Toronto) are each urban centers characterized by racially diverse populations (see Figure 1-9). However, the median income (Figure 1-9) and population density (Figure 1-10) within the Brooklyn study area are significantly different from those in the comparable cities. These variations are attributed to the comparably narrow focus of the Downtown Brooklyn study versus the citywide demographics of the other cities. While certain characteristics differ between the cities, high vehicular densities, which may be the most important demographic, are present in all three comparable cities (ranging from approximately 2,500 to 4,200 vehicles per square mile; see Figure 1-11). Beyond the demographic similarities, the three peer cities were also selected due to the specifics of their RPP programs and how well each city addresses its own parking shortfall. The applicability of any solution found in these cities to the study area can be assessed once the details and the results of those solutions are examined.

Figure 1-9
Comparable Cities Race and Income
Location Boston Washington D.C. Toronto Study Area Residents No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share All 589,141 100.0% 572,059 100.0% 2,456,805 100.0% 41,936 100.0% White 290,972 49.4% 158,617 27.7% 1,405,680 57.2% 23,231 55.4% Black or African American 138,902 23.6% 340,061 59.4% 204,075 8.3% 9,351 22.3% Hispanic or Latino 85,199 14.5% 14,605 2.6% 712,515 2.2% 5,735 13.7% Asian 44,084 7.5% 45,015 7.9% 54,350 29.0% 1,945 4.6% Other 29,984 5.1% 13,761 2.4% 80,195 3.3% 1,672 4.0% Median Household Income $39,629 $40,127 $49,345 $59,512 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and Statistics Canada 2001.
Figure 1-10 Comparable Cities Population

Boston Washington D.C. Population 589,141 572,059 Land Area (in square miles) 89.6 68.3 Residents per Square Mile 6,575 8,376 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and Statistics Canada 2001 Toronto 2,456,805 247.5 9,926 Study Area 41,936 1.30 32,358
Figure 1-11 Comparable Cities Vehicular Densities

Boston Washington D.C. Toronto Study Area Households 239,528 248,338 943,300 19,754 Land Area (in square miles) 89.6 68.3 247.5 1.30 Total Vehicles 220,445 220,766 1,028,197 7,858 Vehicles per Square Mile 2,460 3,232 4,154 6,063 Vehicles per Household 0.92 0.89 1.09 0.40 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; Statistics Canada 2001; and The 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (University of Toronto Data Management Group)

Boston, Massachusetts 2
Boston, Massachusetts is the peer city that is most similar to the study area in terms of age and style of development. Both are among the oldest urban centers in the country, with development patterns that were firmly set before the advent of the automobile and the subsequent need for generous rights-of-way and storage capacities. It is however, the least similar peer city in terms of vehicle density (see Figure 1-12) rates. Despite this fact, the number of permits issued under its RPP program greatly outnumbers the spaces the program regulates. In part, this is due to the fact that Bostons program is the only peer program to neither charge for or limit the number of permits distributed. The disparity between residential demand and program supply, as well as the citys acceptance of such constraints within its program, makes Boston a valuable program to evaluate.
Figure 1-12 Vehicle Availability Boston

Boston Households No vehicle available 1 vehicle available 2 or more vehicles 3 or more vehicles available Aggregate Vehicles Vehicles Per Household Vehicles Per Square Mile Source: 2000 U.S. Census Background The City of Boston has had some form of RPP Program since 1975; the program has been in its current form since 1983. The initial goal was to provide local residents with an advantage in obtaining on-street parking in their respective neighborhoods. The program was initiated in reaction to elevated levels of on-street demand in residential neighborhoods near commuter stations. The program currently operates in 16 unique neighborhoods throughout the city. Number 239,528 83,608 106,269 40,115 9,536 220445 0.92 2460.32 Percent 100% 35% 44% 17% 4% NA NA NA Study Area Number Percent 19,754 100% 12,818 65% 6,199 31% 649 3% 88 0% 7,858 NA 0.40 NA 6,063 NA
Information on Bostons program was collected directly from interviews with James Mansfield and Dan Hoffman of the Boston Transportation Department.

Program Management Administration The Boston Transportation Department (BTD) administers the Citys RPP program, with five full-time clerical staff positions. Enforcement is shared between BTD and the Boston Police Department. Implementation Initiation of the RPP program within a neighborhood starts with an individual communitys request for designation. BTD responds to this request with community meetings during which the program is explained in detail. BTD also presents a plan with particular neighborhood needs and goals in mind. Following the meetings, neighborhood organizers must circulate petitions and garner signatures in support of the program from 51 percent of the residents 18 years of age and older in the affected area. The department also conducts a parking inventory in the proposed area, including an assessment of occupancy and non-resident occupancy rates. There are however, no fixed thresholds for these measures in making a designation decision. Regulations The days and times that the programs restrictions are in effect vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, and are determined by the local residents as well as the types of uses generating non-resident demand. Eligibility All residents within program districts are eligible. There are no restrictions on the number of permits that can be obtained by either individual or households. The Boston program does not provide permits for visitors. It does however offer each business one permit, the use of which is restricted to business-registered vehicles. Exemptions The only exemption from permit regulations in program districts is for commercial vehicles, which are allowed three hours of parking while working within a permitregulated area. Fees Bostons permits are offered free of charge.

Financial Framework Cost The BTD does not keep track of program costs. The program is considered a benefit to the citizens of Boston and is not subject to financial audit. Revenue In 2004, the department issued approximately 193,000 citations for RPP violations. Each fine costs $40, resulting in $7,720,000 worth of issued fines. According to the BTD, the City of Boston has one of the highest collection rates in the country for parking fines, estimated at roughly 90 percent. An estimated $7 million has therefore been collected and attributed to the RPP program. All revenues from these and other parking violations go directly into the Citys General Fund. Surplus Fund Uses All funds go directly into a general fund. Program Results Successes and Setbacks The defining characteristic guiding Bostons RPP program is the fact that there are far more permits than spaces. While the program has been successful in providing parking preferences to city residents, it has not addressed the high level of resident driven demand. Key Strategies According to the BTD, the two keys to the RPP programs success are the lack of permit fees and the community involvement process included in district designation. The lack of fees helps sell the fact that these permits are not space reservations. The community involvement requirements for district designation help to avoid the impression that the program is something the city imposes on its citizens. New Strategies The department recently revised its permit renewal process. Previously permits expired yearly. As a cost savings measure (mailings of new permits were estimated to cost $100,000 annually), permits will now be valid for three years.
Washington, D.C. 3
Washington, D.C. has a vehicle ownership rate nearly double that of the study area (see Figure 1-13) its relatively low population density, however, brings its vehicle density level
3
Information on Washington D.C.s program was collected directly from interviews with Richard Rybeck of the Districts Department of Transportation and Cheryl Cort of Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities.

well below that of the study area. Nonetheless, the city does have a number of programregulated areas where residential demand alone overwhelms on-street supply.
Figure 1-13 Vehicle Availability Washington, D.C.

Washington D.C. Number Percent 248,338 100% 91,699 37% 108,151 44% 38,395 15% 10,093 4% 220,766 NA 0.89 NA 3232.30 NA Study Area Number Percent 19,754 100% 12,818 65% 6,199 31% 649 3% 88 0% 7,858 NA 0.40 NA 6,063 NA
Households No vehicle available 1 vehicle available 2 or more vehicles 3 or more vehicles available Aggregate Vehicles Vehicles Per Household Vehicles Per Square Mile Source: 2000 U.S. Census Background
The District of Columbia initiated its RPP program following the opening of the Metrorail subway system (Metro) in 1976. The impetus for the program was a concern that parking demand generated by commuters would overwhelm residential streets surrounding Metro stations. The program has been very successful in meeting its initial goal of mitigating this effect. The focus of the program is currently expanding to address parking demand patterns in mixed-use neighborhoods where visitors to shopping and entertainment venues compete with residents for on-street spaces. Program Management Administration The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) designates permit zones and the Department of Motor Vehicles for the District (DMV) provides permits. The District Department of Public Works (DDPW) employs parking control aides who enforce program restrictions and issue citations. The Metropolitan Police Department may also issue citations for RPP violations. Implementation New permit zones are initiated by citizen petition or by DDOT designation. Regulations and Permits Permits are restricted to local residents. The annual fee is currently $15, and is legislatively limited to the cost of program administration. There is no limit on the number of permits

allowed for each household. Visitor permits can be obtained free of charge at local police stations by residents providing proof of residency. Standard regulation hours are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., with hours in some neighborhoods extending to 8:30 p.m. Non-permit holders are restricted to two-hours of parking during these hours. Program Results Successes According to representatives from DDOT and the Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities, the program has worked very well in shielding residential parking supplies from commuter demand. However, it has been suggested that this goal remains too narrow considering the potential for a more comprehensive street management approach, incorporating progressive pricing strategies for on-street permits. Such an expanded approach would address issues including high levels of purely residential demand in certain neighborhoods. Setbacks Permit zones are drawn along the Districts relatively large Ward boundary lines, allowing permit holders to park anywhere within the Ward in which they reside. This has led to a significant amount of permit misuse among intra-Ward commuters who find their permits valid near job sites many neighborhoods away from, but within the same Ward as, their home. Another setback has been a pattern of permit zoning that has left isolated patches of residential streets, including single blocks of streets, outside of the program. Residents on these streets are ineligible to receive permits, and therefore face severely limited local parking options. New Strategies Hours of residential permit regulation have been expanded into the evening in order to address growing parking demand from visitors to shopping and entertainment destinations in mixed-use districts. Other suggestions have included multi-space meters, at which permit holders would be exempt. Legislation is also being drafted to limit the number of permits issued per household to three. This legislation also proposes to increase the fee for a households second and third permits. A special visitors permit program has been instituted in largely residential neighborhoods surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Stadium in response to the recent introduction of professional baseball games at the stadium. This additional element exemplifies the RPPs

adaptability, by responding to a new neighborhood element which alters parking patterns without negatively impacting local residents. An additional proposed modification currently being evaluated is to reduce the size of permit zones to remedy intra-Ward commuter parking pressure.
Toronto, Ontario 4
Among the comparable cities, the City of Toronto, in Canadas Ontario Province, has the highest rates for both vehicle ownership and vehicles per square mile (see Figure 1-14). This intensity of residential vehicular use makes Toronto a particularly valuable comparison city for Downtown Brooklyn.
Figure 1-14 Vehicle Availability Toronto

Study Area Number Percent Number Percent Households 943,300 100% 19,754 100% No vehicle available 235,825 25% 12,818 65% 1 vehicle available 443,351 47% 6,199 31% 2 or more vehicles 216,959 23% 649 3% 3 or more vehicles available 47,165 5% 88 0% Aggregate Vehicles 1,028,197 NA 7,858 NA Vehicles Per Household 1.09 NA 0.40 NA Vehicles Per Square Mile 4154 NA 6,063 NA Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; Statistics Canada 2001; and The 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (University of Toronto Data Management Group) Background The City of Toronto has operated an on-street RPP program, in one form or another, since the 1960s. City-wide expansion of the program is currently under consideration. The program was initiated to preserve on-street parking spaces for local residents in areas where residents own cars but have no access to off-street parking facilities, or in areas of interest where non-residential demand threatens to overwhelm on-street parking in surrounding neighborhoods. In most cases this demand is the result of tourism, area entertainment and services, or the proximity of transportation nodes. Toronto
Information on Torontos program was collected directly from interviews with Eric Jensen and Angie Antoniou of the Citys Transportation Services Division.

Program Management Administration The Permit Parking Branch of the citys Transportation Services Division, under its Right of Way Management Section, administers the RPP program. Its restrictions, as well as all other on-street parking regulations, are enforced by the Parking Enforcement Unit of the Toronto Police Service. Implementation Designation of RPP districts is applied both on an area-wide basis and on a street-specific basis, depending upon resident preference. Implementation of the program is entirely resident driven. City law requires that a formal poll of residents in a specific request area be undertaken. In order to establish a new district or street, a favorability response rate of at least 51 percent is required. The law also places a two-year moratorium on re-polling the same area or street after an unsuccessful poll. Regulations The RPP program is designed with flexible and adaptable operations, allowing significant differences in the hours of operation within each permit area. Within Toronto, there are currently 54 unique combinations of permit parking operating hours, which were developed over time and in response to specific concerns (e.g., long-term commuter parking). These hours of operation are clearly posted at regular intervals on each street licensed for permit parking. Permit regulations may be established for specific streets, instead of larger areas. In streetspecific locations, residents are only granted permits for parking on their block of residence. In the larger permitted areas, residents may park on any licensed street within their permit area, but are not guaranteed a parking space on their specific street. Eligibility Permits are restricted to residents who present a valid drivers license and local vehicle registration with their applications. Residents are not restricted in the number of permits they may obtain. All citizens residing within permit regulated districts, or on permit regulated streets, are eligible. Consideration has been given to the issuance of permits to members of auto share groups and those who can demonstrate frequent rental car use. Permits for businesses or places of employment are not available. Wait List The total number of permits for each street or district is limited to the actual number of regulated on-street spaces available. When no spaces remain within a district or on a street, no more permits are issued and a wait list is created for the remaining qualified

permit applicants. In cases where a wait list exists, residents with multiple permits may be forced to surrender a permit to those on the wait list with none. This process begins with the person holding the highest number of permits. Exemptions Only vehicles displaying a valid Disabled Persons parking permit are exempt from permit program restrictions. Fees Permit fees vary according to a priority system based on need as reflected below: First vehicle for residents with no access to on-site parking: $10.70/month Second and subsequent vehicles for residents with no access to on-site parking: $26.75/month All vehicles for residents with access to on-site parking: $37.45/month Temporary (resident/visitor) parking permits are available for streets or districts where 90 percent or less of permits have been issued. These permits allow weekly on-street parking within the limits of a permit parking street or area, up to a maximum of eight consecutive weeks, at a cost of $14.98 per week. Financial Framework Cost Annual program costs, including leasing of vehicles for inspectors, office/permit supplies, staffing, and administrative overhead is roughly estimated at $550,000.00. Revenue Torontos program generates approximately $5.5 million in net revenue annually through the sale of permanent and temporary permits. Although specific dollar values for ticket revenues attributable to permit parking are not available, it is estimated that an additional several hundred thousand dollars are collected each year from enforcement of program restrictions. Surplus Fund Uses Surplus program funds are placed in general Transportation Services Department accounts that fund the majority of the Citys green environmental programs and the Clean and Beautiful City initiative.

Program Results Successes The program has been highly effective in ensuring that on-street spaces are available for those residents who need them. Enforcement is considered to be highly effective and supportive of this objective. Setbacks The only notable program setback has been the integration of separate programs following the 1998 municipal amalgamation that incorporated seven municipalities into greater Toronto. Issues associated with this integration were not attributed to the RPP program and have since been mitigated. Key Strategies Toronto, like Downtown Brooklyn, is characterized by high residential densities along its program streets. Permit districts regulate 73,212 on-street spaces for an approximate residential population of 800,000. As a result, permit demand greatly outstrips controlled supply in many neighborhoods. Strategies implemented to address this situation include: The establishment of a wait list policy Pricing Strategies: High base permit fee; An escalating fee structure that provides a disincentive for second and subsequent vehicle permits, as well as to those seeking a permit despite access to off-street parking.
Summary: Methods of Addressing Elevated Residential Parking Demand

All three comparable cities face the constraint of high residential parking demand, where, at least in some program areas, resident demand is greater than available on-street supply. Each program has addressed this constraint differently, as summarized below, and each method is recommended for consideration in the Brooklyn RPP. Boston No Fees The BTD in Boston implemented a no fee strategy to avoid the impression that a parking permit was a guarantee of a parking space near ones home. This represents an acceptance of parking shortages in the face of resident demand. By having no fee attached to the permit however, the department believes it is easier to sell the program as a means for giving residents preferential parking treatment in their own neighborhoods.

Washington, D.C. Pricing and Permit Limits The Districts supply constraints are less systemic than the other peer cities, though it is clear that there are numerous individual neighborhoods where residential demand is much greater than on-street supply. So far the program has operated in these areas without attempts to mitigate this demand. The DDOT is, however, now seeking to limit the number of permits allowed to individual households, and to charge a higher fee for second and third permits issued to the same household. In doing so the department has identified pricing and permit restrictions as potential tools for mitigating residential permit demand in the District. Toronto Aggressive Pricing Structures and Wait Lists Torontos Transportation Services Division has set a base fee for permits that is nearly ten times higher than Washington, D.C.s. Beyond this base fee, it charges more than twice as much for second and subsequent permits issued to single households. For residents with on-site options the fee is set at more than three times the base rate. In addition to the pricing strategys objective of reducing permit demand, the program attempts to ensure parking availability for its permit holders by restricting the total number of permits issued in each district to the number of parking spaces that exist. Once all permits have been issued, a wait list is initiated. Further, residents with no on-site parking options seeking initial permits are given preference. Those with multiple permits may lose all but one permit when those lacking a permit are placed on a wait list. Torontos two-fold approach is by far the most aggressive in dealing with elevated levels of purely residential parking demand in its neighborhoods. It not only places an absolute limit on the number of permits issued to match available spaces, but it has also used pricing strategies to discourage multiple-permit applications as well as applicants with obvious on-site parking alternatives.

Figure 1-15 Review of RPP Programs Extended List

Berkeley, California
Hours and Days of Operation Residential Permit Parking Criteria* 8:00 am- 7:00 pm, Monday Friday (some areas are Monday - Saturday)
Boston, Massachusetts
Varies up to 24 hours, up to 7 days a week
Chicago, Illinois
Monday - Sunday, 24 hours
Los Angeles, California

Data not available
Minneapolis, Minnesota
6am-9pm, Monday - Friday
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Portland, Oregon
San Francisco, California

Monday - Friday 8 am-6 pm (varies)
Seattle, Washington
7am-6pm, Monday Saturday
Toronto, Ontario
Washington, D.C.
8:00 am-6:00 pm, Monday - Friday (can Monday - Friday, 7:00am-6:00 vary by area) pm (varies) 75%/ 25% for 4 days of the week and 9 months of the year I per register vehicle + guest permit
54 unique combinations of 7:00 am-8:30 pm, Monday operating hours Friday
75%/ Not Applicable 1 per each car registered to household
Varies
Not Applicable/ 45%
Data not available
Data not available
Data not available
80%/ 50%
75%/ 25%
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Number of Permits Allowed
1 per registered vehicle
2 permits per person
4 250 signatures from area wanting to join.
Equal to number of spaces.
Petition Process**
51%
50%
80%
Data not available
75%
70%
50%
60%
51% Ranges from $10.70 to $37.45 per month
51%
Permit Fee
$30
Free
$25
$15 annually
$25
35/ $20 to renew
$32 annually
$60 annually/ $30 six months
$35 2 year (though some are 1 year)
$15
Permit Period
1 year
3 years
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year
Visitor Pass Type Visitor Pass Maximum Duration
Placards
No visitor pass
Sticker
Paper permit for rear view mirror
Plastic cards
Passenger side windshield
Scratch off or decals
Placards
Hang tag
Temporary permit
Sticker
14 days
No visitor pass
1 day
16 weeks
No limit; I per household
15 days
No Limit
8 weeks
No Limit
8 consecutive weeks
15 days
Visitor Pass Fee Open to Business Employees? Time Limit for NonPermitted vehicles? What Department Establishes RPP? What Department Issues RPP Decals? What Department Collects RPP Fees? What Department Enforces RPP?
$2-$20
No visitor pass
$5 (Packet of 15)
$10
$10
$15
$32
Graduated scale $20-$50 1 per business; up to 3 additional for delivery trucks
$15
$14.98 per week
Free
1 per business
1 per business
No
Data not available
2 per business
No
Yes
No
2 hours
No
0 hours
Varies from no parking to 2 hours
1-2 hours
2 hours
Office of Transportation
Boston Transportation Dept
City Clerk
Department of Transportation Preferential Parking Permit Department
Traffic and Parking Services
Philadelphia Parking Authority
Finance Customer Service
Office of Parking Clerk
City Clerk
Finance Customer Service
Parking Enforcement
No fees Boston Transportation Department and Boston Police Department
Department of Revenue
Data not available
2 hours (sometimes 1 hour) Bureau of Transportation System Management and Parking Control Bureau of Transportation System Management and Parking Control Bureau of Transportation System Management and Parking Control
1-2 hour
2 hours
Municipal Transportation Agency
SDOT
Department of Parking and Traffic
SDOT
Traffic Permits Counter
No Vehicles with Disabed Persons permit exempt from restrictions. Division, Right of Way Management Section, Permit Parking Branch Division, Right of Way Management Section, Permit Parking Branch Division, Right of Way Management Section, Permit Parking Branch Toronto Police Service, Parking Enforcement Unit
No
2 hours District Department of Transportation
DMV
Department of Revenue
Data not available
Traffic Control
Parking Enforcement
Parking Enforcement
DMV Public Works and Metropolitan Police Department
Meters in RPP Zones?
Web Resources
No Yes Data not available http://www.chicityclerk.co http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/tr ansportation/Parking/Residenti http://www.cityofboston.gov/acce m/residential_parking/ind ex.html alPermits.html ssBoston/parking.asp
Data not available http://www.lacityparking.org/laopm/permit.htm
No
Yes http://www.philapark.org/permits/reside ntial_permit.aspx
No
Data not available
jay.rogers@pdxtrans.org
No No Yes http://app.ddot.dc.gov/servi http://www.seattle.gov/trans http://www.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.a portation/parking/parkingrp http://www.toronto.ca/transpo ces_dsf/rpp/index.asp?ddot Nav=|32397| z.htm rtation/onstreet/index.htm sp?id=13442
Some
Notes: *First number refers to daytime occupancy levels (percentage), second to percent of cars which must be non-resident **Percent of Households in area requesting to be permitted.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions Survey

The Turnover Survey
An integral part of the study of on-street parking conditions in the Study Area was a survey of parking occupancy levels and turnover rates during weekday mornings and afternoons. Occupancy refers to the number of parking spaces utilized throughout the day. Turnover refers to the length of time each vehicle occupies each parking space. Thirty-nine blocks were randomly selected from among the non-metered blocks in the Study Area (see Figure 2-1). Blocks to be surveyed were randomly selected in advance to provide a statistically significant representation of the Study Area (see Appendix C for the complete data collection plan). These blocks were surveyed hourly between 10AM to 5PM to document the location and identity (license plate) of each vehicle parked along these blocks. This data was matched with a previously established inventory of parking spaces within the Study Area to calculate occupancy levels and turnover rates for each block. Data was collected through field observation of the Study Area on Tuesday, September 20th, when schools were in session, no significant holidays were being observed, and parking regulations were enforced. These efforts were undertaken to assess existing parking behavior within the Study Area during typical hours of RPP enforcement (8AM 5PM). Where alternate side of the street regulations were in effect during a count, vehicles double parked on the permitted side of the street were counted as parked legally. Surveyors also noted the presence and type of any vehicles with municipal agency issued parking permit placards. The location and volume of such vehicles were then calculated for each block.

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2-1 Turnover Survey-Eligible Blocks

WASHINGTON ST
B NS
POP
BROOKLYN, NY
MID
DAG
PROSPECT ST
EC
1 AV
E QE
LAR
ST
BQ
T 2S
CRA
H ST
NT
NBE
RRY
NAVY ST
ORA
ST
BK BR ET RP
HY
BQE
7 AV
FUR MAN ST COL UMB IA H TS WILL OW ST
S ST
RK S T
ADAMS ST
Borough of Brooklyn
CADMAN PZ E
CLA
LE S T
NASSAU ST
CONCORD ST
CE
AV
FLUSHING AV SOUTH ST
DUFFIELD ST
HICK
CHAPEL ST
PL
CATHEDRAL PL
REP ONT PL
ONT
GRA
URT
JAY ST
CE C T GRA C
SEN
FLEET WK
REM
PRINCE ST
PIER
UE S T
JOHNSON ST
TECH PL
NAVY WK
MON
ST
GOLD ST
MON
PIER
REP
LOV
E LA
TILLARY ST
E BQ
SB NB ET BQE EN
ROE
PARK A V
PARK AV
BQE
TAG
ST
AL HU N
TS L A
METROTECH WK
PED OVPS
E CO
AUBURN PL
IA P L
MYRTLE AV
LOW
PEARL ST
GAR
WILLOUGHBY ST
FLEET PL
COL
DEN
JORALE
EY P L
WIL
MON ST
LAWRENCE ST
UMB
PL
PL
SIDN
T SQ
DUFFIELD ST
BQE ET NB
EE
PL
STA
RY S T
TIN
FL
TE S T
COUR
NS T
GOLD ST
FU
TS T
LTO
WILLOUGHBY AV
Fort Greene Park

NAVY ST
GA
UM
BE
RP
HEN
BQE
ES Q
PL
LLA
IA S T
RP L
CON
TON
UMB
GRE
ST
PL
VE
RT S T
SS S T
ER
HO
RN
ELM
BO
AMIT
PL
ER
Y ST
HE
RM
NS T
AL
PAC
IFIC
ST
SC
LIV
ING
STO
ST
DE KALB AV
CLIN
COL
UM
NO
S ST
NP L
COU
ER
HA
HICK
RRE
WA
BAL
RRE
BO
WA
NS T
ATL
TS T
AN
NY P L
GH Y
TIFF A
ST
PL
KAN
BQE
CHE E
ST
ONG
3A V
RR
INS
EN ST
BO ND
CNT
ES T
WY WA
CK
OF
VER
FS T
HO Y
TIC
TIC
ST
AV
LAFAYET
TE AV
PL
GREENE
AV
S PL
STR
NE V
ES PZ
TOM
DE G
PKIN
HS T
SM IT
SAC UNIO PRE CAR SIDE
KET
UG
T ST
LAS
TIM
RAW
BU DO
PAC DE AN
ST
TLE
IFIC
RS T
BAL
ST
HANSON
PL
Turnover Survey-Eligible Blocks

ONS
V GATES A
14 AV
PINE
APP
DN
AN
8 AV
NGE
ST
HIGH ST
BQ
EN S B
SANDS ST
T 5S
T 8S
MARKET ST
PAULDING ST
EE
NB
4 ST
OR
ASSEMBLY RD
3S T
Brooklyn Study Area
VINE
ST
BR
AP
FLEET AL
BQE
BRIDGE ST
BK
D OL
ON LT FU ST
YORK ST
H MAN BR
AV AV RIS R CK AV AV MO GH DO AV CEY U N NO ON AU DO INGT CH MC RR AV WA AV RY EY PER NC AU V CH YA
AP
PE
RR
ND CUMBERLA
N ELLIOTT PL
N OXFOR
WASHING
BQ E TG CN HY
D ST
ST
TON AV
AN CADM PZ W
N OXFORD WK
N PORTLA
MONUME NT WK
WAVERLY
ND AV
FLA TBU SH A V EX
AV
ST EDWA RD'S ST
ROL
0.25
2 PL
1 PL 0.5 Miles
5A V
DO
RS T SS T
6 AV
L ST
BU
RR
TLE
EN ST
4A
BQE
NT S T
EN
N ST
UNIVERSITY PZ
NB
WASHING
ADELPHI
VANDER
CLERMO
CLINTON
ASHLAND PL
ST
TON PK
BILT AV
NT AV
HUDSON AV
AV
CUMBER
S OXFOR
CARLTO
S PORTLA
S ELLIOT
ST FELIX ST
FT GREE NE PL
LAND ST
N AV
D ST
ND AV
T PL
ROCKWELL PL
S OXFORD
TIC
ST
WA RR EN
SS T
BER
ST
ST
ST
GE
MA
NS T
ACAD
EMY
PK P L
COMM ATLANTIC
Eligible Blocks Parking Meters Study Area Blocks Parks
ST
RK
'S P L WA
ADELP
FLA TB US V HA
PACIF
HI ST
IC ST
UG
Source: NYDOT, New York City Planning Dept, and ESRI.
LAS

Occupancy
Study Area Occupancy rates were consistently high throughout the day within the overall Study Area, and individually within each of the three neighborhoods; see Figure 2-2 (The only exception to the high occupancy rate was midday in Fort Greene, when occupancy drops to 57 percent.) The Study Area reached peak occupancy around 1 PM when 433 vehicles were observed compared to a supply of 434 parking spaces (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4).
Figure 2-2
Study Area Occupancy

Study Area 434 3028 2939 15 703 97.06% 97.56% Brooklyn Heights 137 959 1047 7 248 109.18% 109.91% Boerum Hill 186 1302 1242 8 262 95.39% 96.01% Fort Greene 111 767 650 0 193 84.75% 84.75%
Occupancy Total Spaces Total Space Hours Occupied Space Hours Double-Parked-Vehicle Space Hours Total Number of Vehicles Parked Overall occupancy (%) Overall occupancy, including Double Parking (%)
Figure 2-3
Study Area Hourly Occupancy
Occupancy by Brooklyn the Hour Study Area Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene 10:00 AM 95.85% 105.84% 96.24% 82.88% 11:00 AM 98.39% 109.49% 99.46% 82.88% 12:00 PM 92.86% 113.14% 99.46% 56.76% 1:00 PM 99.77% 113.14% 97.85% 86.49% 2:00 PM 98.16% 107.30% 92.47% 96.40% 3:00 PM 97.00% 108.03% 90.32% 94.59% 4:00 PM 95.16% 107.30% 91.94% 85.59% Note: Occupancy of greater than 100% indicates vehicles parked in locations not designated for parking.

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2-4 Overall Occupancy

WASHINGTON ST
B NS
POP
BROOKLYN, NY
MID
DAG
PROSPECT ST
EC
1 AV
E QE
LAR
ST
BQ
T 2S
CRA
H ST
NT
NBE
RRY
NAVY ST
ORA
ST
BK BR ET RP
HY
BQE
7 AV
S ST
RK S T
ADAMS ST
Borough of Brooklyn
CADMAN PZ E
CLA
LE S T
NASSAU ST
CONCORD ST
CE
AV
DUFFIELD ST
HICK
CHAPEL ST
PL
CATHEDRAL PL
REP ONT PL
ONT
GRA
URT
JAY ST
CE C T GRA C
SEN
FLEET WK
REM
PRINCE ST
PIER
UE S T
JOHNSON ST
TECH PL
NAVY WK
MON
ST
GOLD ST
MON
PIER
REP
LOV
E LA
TILLARY ST
E BQ
SB NB ET BQE EN
ROE
PARK A V
PARK AV
BQE
TAG
ST
AL HU N
TS L A
METROTECH WK
PED OVPS
E CO
AUBURN PL
IA P L
MYRTLE AV
LOW
PEARL ST
GAR
WILLOUGHBY ST
FLEET PL
COL
DEN
JORALE
EY P L
WIL
MON ST
LAWRENCE ST
UMB
PL
PL
SIDN
T SQ
DUFFIELD ST
BQE ET NB
EE
PL
STA
RY S T
TIN
FL
TE S T
COUR
NS T
GOLD ST
FU
TS T
LTO
WILLOUGHBY AV
Fort Greene Park

NAVY ST
GA
UM
BE
RP
HEN
BQE
ES Q
PL
LLA
IA S T
RP L
CON
TON
UMB
GRE
ST
PL
VE
RT S T
SS S T
ER
HO
RN
ELM
BO
AMIT
PL
ER
Y ST
HE
RM
NS T
AL
PAC
IFIC
ST
SC
LIV
ING
STO
ST
DE KALB AV
CLIN
COL
UM
NO
S ST
NP L
COU
ER
HA
HICK
RRE
WA
BAL
RRE
BO
WA
NS T
ATL
GH Y
ND ST
PL
TIFF
KAN
ANY
CNT
ES T
WY WA
CK
OF
CHE EVE R
BQE
ST
ONG
3A V
RR
FS T
HO Y
PL
TIC
TS T
AN
TIC
Overall Occupancy
50 - 75 %
GREENE AV
ST
AV
LA
AV FAYETTE
14 AV
PINE
APP
DN
AN
8 AV
NGE
ST
HIGH ST
BQ
EN S B
SANDS ST
T 5S
T 8S
MARKET ST
PAULDING ST
EE
NB
4 ST
OR
ASSEMBLY RD
3S T
Brooklyn Study Area
VINE
ST
BR
AP
FLEET AL
BQE
BRIDGE ST
BK
D OL
ON LT FU ST
YORK ST
H MAN BR
AP
PE
RR
ND CUMBERLA
N ELLIOTT PL
N OXFOR
WASHING
BQ E TG CN HY
D ST
ST
TON AV
AN CADM PZ W
N OXFORD WK
N PORTLA
MONUME NT WK
WAVERLY
ND AV
FLA TBU SH A V EX
AV
ST EDWA RD'S ST
NE VIN S
ST
BO
PL
S PL
STR
TOM
HS T
SM IT
KET
UG
TIM
RAW
ST
DO
RS T
BAL
TIC
T ST
LAS
ST
WA RR EN
DE BER
ST
ES PZ
DE G
PKIN
ROL
0.25
2 PL
1 PL 0.5 Miles
5A V
DO
RS T SS T
6 AV
L ST
BU
RR
4A V
BQE
NT S T
EN
N ST
UNIVERSITY PZ
NB
WASHING
ADELPHI
VANDER
CLERMO
CLINTON
ASHLAND PL
ST
TON PK
BILT AV
NT AV
HUDSON AV
AV
CUMBER
S OXFOR
CARLTO
S PORTLA
S ELLIOT
ST FELIX ST
FT GREE NE PL
LAND ST
N AV
D ST
ND AV
T PL
ROCKWELL PL
EN
75 - 100 % 100 - 110 %
S OXFORD
BU
PAC AN
TLE
IFIC
ST
HANSON
PL
ST
SS T
ST
GE
MA
NS T
ACAD
TLANTIC EMY A PK P L
COMMO
NS
V GATES A
110 - 135 % Parking Meters Study Area Blocks Parks
ST
RK
'S P L WA
H ADELP
FLA TB H US AV
I ST
TLE
EN
ST
PACIF
IC ST
UG
LAS

Brooklyn Heights The highest occupancy levels of the survey were found in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood (see Figure 2-5). As presented in Figure 2-6, overall occupancy for the neighborhood was over 100 percent throughout the day, and peaked at just over 113 percent from Noon to 1 PM (155 cars compared to 137 parking spaces).
Figure 2-5
Brooklyn Heights Occupancy

Brooklyn Heights 137 959 1047 7 248 109.18% 109.91% Study Area 434 3028 2939 15 703 97.06% 97.56%
Figure 2-6
Brooklyn Heights Hourly Occupancy
Occupancy by the Hour Brooklyn Heights Study Area 10:00 AM 105.84% 95.85% 11:00 AM 109.49% 98.39% 12:00 PM 113.14% 92.86% 1:00 PM 113.14% 99.77% 2:00 PM 107.30% 98.16% 3:00 PM 108.03% 97.00% 4:00 PM 107.30% 95.16% Note: Occupancy of greater than 100% indicates vehicles parked in locations not designated for parking.

Boerum Hill Boerum Hills highest occupancy levels were observed in the early part of the day, remaining at 96 percent or higher from the beginning of the survey through 1 PM (see Figure 2-7). Occupancy dropped slightly in the afternoon, but remained steady at approximately 91% from 2 PM to the conclusion of the survey (see Figure 2-8).
Figure 2-7
Boerum Hill Occupancy

Boerum Hill 186 1302 1242 8 262 95.39% 96.01% Study Area 434 3028 2939 15 703 97.06% 97.56%
Figure 2-8
Boerum Hill Hourly Occupancy

Boerum Hill 96.24% 99.46% 99.46% 97.85% 92.47% 90.32% 91.94% Study Area 95.85% 98.39% 92.86% 99.77% 98.16% 97.00% 95.16%
Occupancy by the Hour 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM

Fort Greene Occupancy levels within Fort Greene varied much more significantly throughout the day than in the other neighborhoods. In the morning, occupancy remained at a steady 83 percent, before dropping to 57 percent during the Noon hour, and rising back up into the mid-80s again by 1 PM (see Figure 2-9). Occupancy then rose into the high 90s for the next two hours and then dropped back into the 80s in the late afternoon (see Figure 2-10).
Figure 2-9
Fort Greene Occupancy

Fort Greene 111 767 650 0 193 84.75% 84.75% Study Area 434 3028 2939 15 703 97.06% 97.56%
Figure 2-10 Fort Greene Hourly Occupancy1

Occupancy by the Hour 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM Fort Greene 82.88% 82.88% 56.76% 86.49% 96.40% 94.59% 85.59% Study Area 95.85% 98.39% 92.86% 99.77% 98.16% 97.00% 95.16%
Alternate side of the street parking regulations were in effect the date of the survey, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Turnover
Study Area The average length of stay for vehicles parked within the Study Area was just under four hours. As presented in Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-13, approximately 41 percent of vehicles stayed less than three hours, while just over 48 percent remained parked at least five hours.
Figure 2-11 Study Area Rates of Turnover

Turnover Mean Parking Stay (Hours) % of Vehicles Staying Less Than 3 Hours % of Vehicles Staying 5 or More Hours Study Area 3.94 40.88% 48.26% Brooklyn Heights 4.22 44.35% 44.35% Boerum Hill 4.74 29.77% 59.16% Fort Greene 2.75 49.58% 40.25%
Brooklyn Heights Turnover in Brooklyn Heights was slightly higher than the Study Area average, with vehicles remaining parked for just over four and one quarter hours on average (see Figure 2-12). Vehicles in this area were evenly split between those staying less than three hours and those staying at least five hours.
Figure 2-12 Brooklyn Heights Rates of Turnover

Turnover Mean Parking Stay (Hours) % of Vehicles Staying Less Than 3 Hours % of Vehicles Staying 5 or More Hours Brooklyn Heights 4.22 44.35% 44.35% Study Area 3.94 40.88% 48.26%
Figure 2-13 Mean Parking Stay (Hours)

WASHINGTON ST
B NS
POP
BROOKLYN, NY
MID
DAG
PROSPECT ST
EC
1 AV
E QE
LAR
ST
BQ
T 2S
CRA
H ST
NT
NBE
RRY
ST
NAVY ST
ORA
ST
BK BR ET RP
HY
BQE
7 AV
S ST
RK S T
ADAMS ST
Borough of Brooklyn
CADMAN PZ E
CLA
LE S T
NASSAU ST
CONCORD ST
CE
AV
DUFFIELD ST
HICK
CHAPEL ST
PL
CATHEDRAL PL
REP ONT PL
ONT
GRA
URT
JAY ST
CE C T GRA C
SEN
FLEET WK
REM
PRINCE ST
PIER
UE S T
JOHNSON ST
TECH PL
NAVY WK
MON
ST
GOLD ST
MON
PIER
REP
LOV
E LA
TILLARY ST
E BQ
SB NB ET BQE EN
ROE
PARK A V
PARK AV
BQE
TAG
ST
AL HU N
TS L A
METROTECH WK
PED OVPS
E CO
AUBURN PL
IA P L
MYRTLE AV
LOW
PEARL ST
GAR
WILLOUGHBY ST
FLEET PL
COL
DEN
EY P L
JORALE
WIL
MON ST
LAWRENCE ST
UMB
PL
PL
SIDN
T SQ
DUFFIELD ST
BQE ET NB
EE
PL
STA
RY S T
TIN
FL
TE S T
COUR
NS T
GOLD ST
FU
TS T
LTO
WILLOUGHBY AV
Fort Greene Park

NAVY ST
HEN
GA
UM
BE
BQE
RP
ES Q
PL
LLA
IA S T
RP L
CON
TON
UMB
GRE
ST
PL
VE
RT S T
SS S T
ER
HO
RN
ELM
BO
AMIT
PL
ER
Y ST
HE
RM
NS T
AL
PAC
IFIC
ST
SC
LIV
ING
STO
ST
DE KALB AV
CLIN
COL
UM
NO
S ST
NP L
COU
ER
HA
HICK
RRE
WA
BAL
RRE
BO
WA
NS T
ATL
GH Y
ST
PL
TIFF
KAN
ANY
EVE R
BQE
ST
CHE
ONG
3A V
RR
EN
VIN S
ST
BO ND
CNT
ES T
WY WA
CK
OF
FS T
HO Y
PL
TIC
TS T
AN
TIC
ST
AV
LA
AV FAYETTE
AV
Mean Parking Stay (Hours)

1.75 - 2.00
GREENE
14 AV
PINE
APP
DN
AN
8 AV
NGE
HIGH ST
BQ
EN S B
SANDS ST
T 5S
T 8S
MARKET ST
PAULDING ST
EE
NB
4 ST
OR
ASSEMBLY RD
3S T
Brooklyn Study Area
VINE
ST
BR
AP
FLEET AL
BQE
BRIDGE ST
BK
D OL
ON LT FU ST
YORK ST
H MAN BR
AP
PE
RR
ND CUMBERLA
N ELLIOTT PL
N OXFOR
WASHING
BQ E TG CN HY
D ST
ST
TON AV
AN CADM PZ W
N OXFORD WK
N PORTLA
MONUME NT WK
WAVERLY
ND AV
FLA TBU SH A V EX
AV
ST EDWA RD'S ST
PL
S PL
STR
NE
TIM E
T ST
SM IT
KET
UG
HS T
RAW
ST
DO
RS T
BAL
TIC
LAS
ST
WA RR EN
DE BER
ST
SP Z
DE G
TOM PKIN
ROL
0.25
2 PL
1 PL 0.5 Miles
DO
UG
LAS
SS T
5A V
RS T
6 AV
L ST
BU
RR
TLE
EN
ST
4A V
BQE
NT S T
EN
N ST
UNIVERSITY PZ
NB
WASHING
ADELPHI
VANDER
CLERMO
CLINTON
ASHLAND PL
ST
TON PK
BILT AV
NT AV
HUDSON AV
AV
CUMBER
S OXFOR
CARLTO
S PORTLA
S ELLIOT
ST FELIX ST
FT GREE NE PL
LAND ST
N AV
D ST
ND AV
T PL
ROCKWELL PL
2.01 - 4.00 4.01 - 5.00
S OXFORD
BU
PAC AN
TLE
IFIC
ST
HANSON
PL
ST
SS T
ST
GE
MA
NS T
ACAD
ATLANTIC EMY PK P L
COMMO
NS
V GATES A
5.01 - 6.24 Parking Meters Study Area Blocks Parks
ST
RK
'S P L WA
H ADELP
FLA TB US V HA
PACIF
I ST
IC ST

Boerum Hill Turnover patterns in this neighborhood displayed a stronger long-term utilization trend compared to the rest of the Study Area. Lengths of stay averaged close to five hours with nearly 60 percent of vehicles staying at least five hours (see Figure 2-14).
Figure 2-14 Boerum Hill Rates of Turnover

Turnover Mean Parking Stay (Hours) % of Vehicles Staying Less Than 3 Hours % of Vehicles Staying 5 or More Hours Boerum Hill 4.74 29.77% 59.16% Study Area 3.94 40.88% 48.26%
Fort Greene Turnover within the Fort Greene neighborhood was much more frequent compared to the Study Area. The average length of stay was two hours and 45 minutes (see Figure 2-15). Approximately half of all parked vehicles stayed for less than three hours, with only 40 percent staying as long as five hours. Note: The turnover survey in Fort Greene occurred on a day with alternative side of the street parking regulations in effect. Where this occurred, vehicles double parked on the permitted side of the street were counted as parked legally.
Figure 2-15 Fort Greene Rates of Turnover

Turnover Mean Parking Stay (Hours) % of Vehicles Staying Less Than 3 Hours % of Vehicles Staying 5 or More Hours Fort Greene 2.75 49.58% 40.25% Study Area 3.94 40.88% 48.26%

Placard Occupancies
Study Area Overall, vehicles displaying municipal agency parking-permits accounted for approximately five percent of all occupied space-hours in the Study Area (138 out of 2,939; see Figure 2-16 and Figure 2-18). The New York City Police Department, the Fire Department of New York City, and the New York City Department of Transportation accounted for 107 of the 138 hours, with 45, 32, and 30 hours, respectively. Vehicles with permits accounted for 25 percent or more of the occupied space hours on only four of the 39 blocks surveyed. While vehicles with permits are perceived as utilizing a large portion of the on-street parking supply, the parking turnover survey indicates these vehicles are a less significant factor, at least on un-metered streets. (The survey of metered blocks in Brooklyn Heights will provide a more detailed representation of the parking patterns for these vehicles.)
Figure 2-16 Study Area Placard Parking

Occupancy by Permit Type No Permit All Permits NYPD FDNY NYCDOT Study Area Space Hours Share 2801 95.30% 138 4.70% 45 1.53% 32 1.09% 30 1.02% Brooklyn Heights Space Hours Share 984 93.98% 63 6.02% 13 1.24% 0 0.00% 23 2.20% Boerum Hill Space Hours Share 1171 94.28% 71 5.72% 28 2.25% 32 2.58% 7 0.56% Fort Greene Space Hours Share 646 99.38% 4 0.62% 4 0.62% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Brooklyn Heights Vehicles with government permits accounted for six percent of the occupied space hours in this neighborhood (see Figure 2-17).
Figure 2-17 Brooklyn Heights Agency-Permit Parking

Occupancy by Permit Type No Permit All Permits NYPD FDNY NYCDOT Brooklyn Heights Space Hours Share 984 93.98% 63 6.02% 13 1.24% 0 0.00% 23 2.20% Study Area Space Hours Share 2801 95.30% 138 4.70% 45 1.53% 32 1.09% 30 1.02%
Figure 2-18 Vehicles Parked with Municipal Placards

WASHINGTON ST
B NS
POP
BROOKLYN, NY
MID
DAG
PROSPECT ST
EC
1 AV
E QE
LAR
ST
BQ
T 2S
CRA
H ST
NT
NBE
RRY
NAVY ST
ORA
ST
BK BR ET RP
HY
BQE
7 AV
S ST
RK S T
ADAMS ST
Borough of Brooklyn
CADMAN PZ E
CLA
LE S T
NASSAU ST
CONCORD ST
CE
AV
DUFFIELD ST
HICK
CHAPEL ST
PL
CATHEDRAL PL
REP ONT PL
ONT
GRA
URT
JAY ST
CE C T GRA C
SEN
FLEET WK
REM
PRINCE ST
PIER
UE S T
JOHNSON ST
TECH PL
NAVY WK
MON
ST
GOLD ST
MON
PIER
REP
LOV
E LA
TILLARY ST
E BQ
SB NB ET BQE EN
ROE
PARK A V
PARK AV
BQE
TAG
ST
AL HU N
TS L A
METROTECH WK
PED OVPS
E CO
AUBURN PL
IA P L
MYRTLE AV
LOW
PEARL ST
GAR
WILLOUGHBY ST
FLEET PL
COL
DEN
JORALE
EY P L
WIL
MON ST
LAWRENCE ST
UMB
PL
PL
SIDN
T SQ
DUFFIELD ST
BQE ET NB
EE
PL
STA
RY S T
TIN
FL
TE S T
COUR
NS T
GOLD ST
FU
TS T
LTO
WILLOUGHBY AV
Fort Greene Park

NAVY ST
GA
UM
BE
RP
HEN
BQE
ES Q
PL
LLA
IA S T
RP L
CON
TON
UMB
GRE
ST
PL
VE
RT S T
SS S T
ER
HO
RN
ELM
BO
AMIT
PL
ER
Y ST
HE
RM
NS T
AL
PAC
IFIC
ST
SC
LIV
ING
STO
ST
DE KALB AV
CLIN
COL
UM
NO
HICK
RRE
WA
BAL
RRE
WA
NS T
ATL
TS T
AN
GH Y
ND ST
PL
TIFF
KAN
ANY
CNT
ES T
WY WA
CK
OF
CHE EVE R
BQE
ST
ONG
3A V
RR
FS T
HO Y
PL
TIC
TIC
Vehicles Parked with Municipal Placards

Less than 5 %
GREENE AV
S ST
NP L
COU
ER
HA
BO
ST
AV
LAFAYET
TE AV
14 AV
PINE
APP
DN
AN
8 AV
NGE
ST
HIGH ST
BQ
EN S B
SANDS ST
T 5S
T 8S
MARKET ST
PAULDING ST
EE
NB
4 ST
OR
ASSEMBLY RD
3S T
Brooklyn Study Area
VINE
ST
BR
AP
FLEET AL
BQE
BRIDGE ST
BK
D OL
ON LT FU ST
YORK ST
H MAN BR
AP
PE
RR
ND CUMBERLA
N ELLIOTT PL
N OXFOR
WASHING
BQ E TG CN HY
D ST
ST
TON AV
AN CADM PZ W
N OXFORD WK
N PORTLA
MONUME NT WK
WAVERLY
ND AV
FLA TBU SH A V EX
AV
ST EDWA RD'S ST
NE VIN S
ST
BO
PL
S PL
STR
TOM
HS T
T ST
SM IT
KET
UG
TIM
RAW
ST
DO
RS T
BAL
TIC
LAS
ST
WA RR EN
DE BER
ST
ES PZ
DE G
PKIN
ROL
0.25
2 PL
1 PL 0.5 Miles
5A V
DO
RS T SS T
6 AV
L ST
BU
RR
4A V
BQE
NT S T
EN
N ST
UNIVERSITY PZ
NB
WASHING
ADELPHI
VANDER
CLERMO
CLINTON
ASHLAND PL
ST
TON PK
BILT AV
NT AV
HUDSON AV
AV
CUMBER
S OXFOR
CARLTO
S PORTLA
S ELLIOT
ST FELIX ST
FT GREE NE PL
LAND ST
N AV
D ST
ND AV
T PL
ROCKWELL PL
EN
5 - 25 % 25 - 50 %
S OXFORD
BU
PAC AN
TLE
IFIC
ST
HANSON
PL
ST
SS T
ST
GE
MA
NS T
ACAD
TLANTIC EMY A PK P L
COMMO
NS
V GATES A
50 - 100 % Parking Meters Study Area Blocks Parks
ST
RK
'S P L WA
H ADELP
FLA TB H US AV
I ST
TLE
EN
ST
PACIF
IC ST
UG
LAS

Boerum Hill
Vehicles with government permits accounted for approximately six percent of the occupied space hours in this neighborhood (see Figure 2-19).
Figure 2-19 Boerum Hill Agency-Permit Parking

Occupancy by Permit Type No Permit All Permits NYPD FDNY NYCDOT Boerum Hill Space Hours Share 1171 94.28% 71 5.72% 28 2.25% 32 2.58% 7 0.56% Study Area Space Hours Share 2801 95.30% 138 4.70% 45 1.53% 32 1.09% 30 1.02%
Fort Greene Vehicles with government permits were nearly non-existent in this neighborhood, accounting for a mere four occupied spaces hours all day (see Figure 2-20).
Figure 2-20 Fort Greene Agency-Permit Parking

Occupancy by Permit Type No Permit All Permits NYPD FDNY NYCDOT Fort Greene Space Hours Share 646 99.38% 4 0.62% 4 0.62% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Study Area Space Hours Share 2801 95.30% 138 4.70% 45 1.53% 32 1.09% 30 1.02%

The Windshield Survey

On September 21st, 2005, 1,003 surveys were placed on the windshields of cars parked on streets within the Study Area; 215 surveys were returned. Streets to be surveyed were randomly selected in advance. Because surveys were returned by decision of the vehicle owner, the results are not considered scientifically conclusive. However, the large percentage of survey responses does provide the study with a valuable, qualified data, which can help create a framework for decision-making. The survey (see Appendix B) contained a brief explanation of the purpose of the survey, a series of seven parking-related questions, and an entry form for a raffle offering a chance to win a gift certificate to Juniors Restaurant. The following sections present a review of the seven survey questions and the responses received for each question.

Question 1 Search Times

Responses to Question 1 indicate that on-street parking demand is generating a high level of search traffic within the Study Area. Sixty-nine percent of overall respondents indicated that they spent more than 10 minutes searching for their parking space. Among individual neighborhoods, Brooklyn Heights had the highest incidence rate for searches of more than 10 minutes (79 percent), while Fort Greene had the lowest (58 percent); see Figure 2-21.
Figure 2-21 Search Time

1 A B C D ALL Approximately how much time did you spend looking for a parking space today? Found space right away Within 5 minutes 5-10 minutes More than 10 minutes Study Area 14 12 40 146 212 Boerum Brooklyn Hill Heights 6 7 9 1 21 9 65 63 101 80 Fort Greene 1 2 10 18 31
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood Found space right away Within 5 minutes 5-10 minutes More than 10 minutes

Question 2 Turnover
Responses to Question 2 indicate that long-term parking is the primary generator of onstreet demand in the Study Area. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated that they had parked for more than four hours; this response rate was consistent among the three Study Area neighborhoods with each neighborhood reporting levels between 93 and 94 percent (see Figure 2-22).
Figure 2-22 Turnover Rates

How long did you park in this neighborhood today? A Less than 1 hour B 1-4 hours C More than 4 hours ALL 2 Study Area 3 11 200 214 Boerum Hill 3 3 96 102 Brooklyn Heights 0 6 75 81 Fort Greene 0 2 29 31
100%
98%
96% Less than 1 hour 94% 1-4 hours More than 4 hours 92%
90%
88% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood

Question 3 Reason for Choosing On-Street

Responses to Question 3 indicate that cost is the primary incentive for parking on the street rather than parking in an off-street lot or garage in the Study Area (see Figure 2-23). Cost was indicated by 71 percent of Study Area respondents as their reason for parking on the street. This response was fairly consistent between the neighborhoods, ranging from 67 to 76 percent (see Figure 2-23). Other was the second-most common response in the Study Area and for each neighborhood, with no other reason other than cost accounting for more than nine percent of responses.
Figure 2-23 On-Street Incentives

3 Reason for parking on the street? A Cost B Distance to destination C Easier to get in and out D Other ALL Study Area 164 14 13 40 231 Boerum Hill 77 10 3 23 113 Brooklyn Heights 65 2 8 10 85 Fort Greene 22 2 2 7 33
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood Other Easier to get in and out Distance to destination Cost

Question 4 Parking Tendencies

Responses to Question 4 indicate that those who parked on the street on the day of the survey, nearly always park on-street. Eighty-one percent of respondent indicated that they always park on-street, while just one percent indicated that a garage is a more typical choice for them (see Figure 2-24). This was consistent among the neighborhoods, with always park on the street accounting for between 78 and 87 percent, and usually park in garage remaining at one percent.
Figure 2-24 Behavior Patterns

4 A Always park on the street B Look on the street then park in a garage C Usually park in garage, but today found a street space D Other ALL Study Area 178 19 2 21 220 Boerum Brooklyn Hill Heights 86 65 9 9 1 1 10 8 106 83 Fort Greene 27 1 3 31
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood
Other Usually park in garage, but today found a street space Look on the street then park in a garage Always park on the street

Question 5 Trip Purpose

Responses to Question 5, which asked respondents to identify their primary reason for driving to the area, indicate a strong presence of local resident-owned vehicles on Study Area streets. Across the area, Residence was indicated by 68 percent of respondents (see Figure 2-25). This was consistent among the neighborhoods, ranging from 64 percent to 72 percent. For the Study Area, and for each neighborhood, Work or School received a response rate of between 20 and 23 percent. Shopping and errands was indicated by less than five percent of respondents across the Study Area and within each neighborhood.
Figure 2-25 Trip Purpose

5 Primary reason you drove here? A Work or School B Shopping C Errands D Residence E Subway/Bus Connection F Other ALL Study Area 50 2 6 154 3 12 227 Boerum Brooklyn Hill Heights 26 17 1 0 3 3 71 60 1 2 9 2 111 84 Fort Greene 7 1 0 23 0 1 32
100% 90% 80% 70% Other 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood Subw ay/Bus Connection Errands Shopping Work or School Residence

Question 6 Proximity to Destination

Responses to Question 6 support the answers given to Question 3, which indicated that destination proximity was not a major reason for choosing on-street parking. Across the study area, nearly 50 percent of respondents indicated that they had parked at least three blocks away from their destination (see Figure 2-26). Furthermore, only one more respondent parked adjacent to the destination than five blocks away from the destination (39 and 38, respectively). This condition is most chronic in Brooklyn Heights where twothirds of respondents indicated that they had parked at least three blocks from their destination, while approximately 60% of respondents from the other neighborhoods parked within two blocks of their destination.
Figure 2-26 Proximity to Destination

6 How close to your destination did you park? A Directly in front of or across the street B within 2 blocks C 3-5 blocks D More than 5 blocks ALL Study Area 39 70 68 38 215 Boerum Brooklyn Hill Heights 22 13 42 14 25 34 14 20 103 81 Fort Greene 4 14 9 4 31
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood
More than 5 blocks 3-5 blocks within 2 blocks Directly in front of or across the street

Question 7 Probable Response to Program Implementation

Asked if and how their parking choices would change if an RPP program restricted their parking space to residential use, non-residents indicated a strong inclination to continue parking on-street. Fifty-eight percent of non-residents indicated that they would park on another street (see Figure 2-27). This represents only 18 percent of overall respondents however, and no other answer accounted for as much as five percent of those surveyed.
Figure 2-27 Probable Response

If parking on the street were limited to residents, would you: A Park off street B Park on another street C Switch to another mode of transportation D N/A - I am a resident E Reduce/Eliminate trips to the area F Other ALL 7 Study Area 4 41 8 151 8 10 222 Boerum Brooklyn Hill Heights 2 2 22 14 4 2 71 58 2 5 6 3 107 84 Fort Greene 0 5 2 22 1 1 31
100% 90% 80%
Other
70%
Park off street

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Study Area Boerum Hill Brooklyn Heights Fort Greene Neighborhood
Switch to another mode of transportation Reduce/Eliminate trips to the area Park on another street N/A - I am a resident

Brooklyn Heights Meter Survey

A survey of metered streets in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood was conducted on Thursday, September 15, 2005. The purpose of the survey was to assess the rate at which these commercially-oriented spaces are occupied by vehicles displaying a municipalagency parking permit. On-street spaces are regulated by meters for several reasons. One of the most common reasons is to ensure a consistent rate of turnover for spaces in close proximity to commercial businesses. This is particularly important for businesses in urban areas where land constraints restrict off-street options for customer parking. Thus a high occupancy rate by vehicles displaying a permit that, in effect, allows indefinite parking stays would reduce the effectiveness of these meters to serve local commercial interests. Based on recommendations provided by the Project Advisory Committee, the project team designed the meter-survey to collect data regarding this issue. The Brooklyn Heights portion of the Study Area was specified for this survey because of its concentration of metered streets and commercial businesses. A survey of this neighborhood, would be representative of parking patterns within the study area, and thus could substitute for a more exhaustive (and expensive) survey of the entire area. In addition, a previous study of Atlantic Avenue parking conditions will provide the parking data from meters in Boerum Hill. All Brooklyn Heights blocks which are regulated by parking meters were included in the survey. The effort consisted of visually surveying all metered spaces during the midafternoon to note vehicles displaying agency permits as well as the agency identified on each permit. The rates of occupancy were analyzed for all permits, as well as for permits with New York City Police Department (NYPD), Fire Department of New York (FDNY), and New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) identified on them.
Figure 2-28 Placard Occupancy at Brooklyn Heights Meters

Category Total Spaces Vehicles with Placards Vehicles with NYPD Placards Vehicles with Official Business Placards Vehicles with NYCDOT Placards Occurrences 322 24 11 1 12 Share 100.00% 7.45% 3.42% 0.31% 3.73%
As shown in Figure 2-28, the occupancy rates for placarded vehicles at these spaces are quite low. Of the 322 parking spaces surveyed, only 24 were found to be occupied by permit-displaying vehicles (7.5 percent). Permits issued to the DOT accounted for 12 of the 24, while permits issued to the NYPD accounted for 11.

Review and Summary of Previous Boerum Hill Study

A similar study and survey of placard use at metered parking spaces was conducted for the Boerum Hill neighborhood in August of 2003. The Atlantic Avenue On-Street Permit Parking Study was conducted by Yuko Nakanishi, an independent consultant, on behalf of the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association. The survey documented agency-placard use along 18 streets in the neighborhood, each of which was surveyed at least three times during a 3-week period. This study found that, on average, approximately 50 percent of the 175 meters surveyed were occupied by vehicles with agency-placards. The following is a list of blocks with the highest observed rate of meter-use by placard-displaying vehicles. Bond between State and Schermerhorn 100% Smith between Atlantic and State 100% Hoyt between Atlantic and State 95% Atlantic between Boerum and Smith 94% Schermerhorn between Hoyt and Bond 80% The survey also documented that approximately 24 percent of the placards observed at meters were bogus. In addition, while most placard types allow only three hours of parking at a meter, 35 percent of the placard-displaying vehicles found at meters violated this timelimit for their placard-type. This study points to a much higher rate of metered-space utilization by placard-displaying vehicles than was found in Brooklyn Heights. While a higher rate can still be expected under present conditions, the vacation of the Brooklyn House of Detention and enforcement actions focused on reducing permit-abuse are expected to have reduced this level of meter-occupancy significantly.

License Plate Survey

A central component in any assessment of Residential Permit Parking Program feasibility for a given area is determining the level of residential parking occupancy within the area. For this purpose, a total of 11 surveys were conducted between the 13th and 21st of September within the Downtown Brooklyn Study Area. As seen in Figure 2-29, these surveys consisted of an overnight survey of the entire Study Area, three weekday daytime surveys of each of the three Study Area neighborhoods, and a Saturday daytime survey that was limited to the Fort Greene neighborhood. This section outlines the methodology used to calculate an estimate of residential demand from the data collected at these times and locations.
Figure 2-29 Survey Times and Locations

Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 7 8 9 11 Date 9/13 9/13 9/13 9/14 9/14 9/14 9/17 9/19 9/19 9/19 9/21 Day of Week Tuesday Tuesday Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Wednesday Saturday Monday Monday Monday Monday-Tuesday Time 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 9AM - 5PM 10PM - 1AM Location Brooklyn Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene Brooklyn Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene Fort Greene Brooklyn Heights Boerum Hill Fort Greene Study Area
The simplest method for estimating residential demand for on-street parking is to record license plate identities from a survey of parked vehicles and match them to zip codes identified on registration records. The proportion of parked vehicles that are registered within the study area serves as the estimate of residential demand. While many cities like Boston (which was reviewed as a Comparable City for the Peer Review portion of this study) use this methodology in their assessment of potential RPP zones, it fails to account for local residents whose vehicles are registered at an alternate address outside the survey area. Such registration behavior can affect a substantial share of resident vehicles in highly urbanized areas, where higher levels of vehicle taxation/regulation, transient residency patterns, and elevated second-home ownership rates can combine to obscure geographic connections between residency and registration. The rate of alternate-address registration in the Downtown Brooklyn RPP Study Area was anticipated therefore to be significant

enough to recommend a more sophisticated method of estimating residential on-street demand. To simplify the discussion of the methodology and calculations implemented for our analysis, three rates of behavior are labeled as follows: A = Locally-Registered Vehicle Utilization: the share of on-street utilization attributed to locally-registered vehicles. B = Local-Registration Rate: the rate at which resident-vehicles are registered locally. C = Residential Demand: the share of on-street utilization attributable to residentowned vehicles. The purpose of the analysis is to determine a value for C for each survey period. To do that, under this methodology, the A value is adjusted by the B value, to account for alternate address registration rates.
Establishing Locally-Registered Vehicle Utilization (A)

The A value was determined by matching plate identities from parked vehicles to zip codes identified by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) from registration records. This involved providing a single set of non-duplicate plate identities, culled from data collected during all surveys, to the DMV. The DMV returned a data set linking a zip code to each plate identity for which a registration record was found. The zip codes were then matched to those plate identities where they appeared within the field data from each survey. Plates that were matched to the three zip codes within the Study Area, and the eight zip codes adjacent to the Study Area, were calculated as locally registered and used to determine the share of on-street utilization for locally-registered vehicles(A), for each survey. Figure 2-30 shows the utilization rate of locally-registered vehicles found during each survey, expressed as share of overall utilization.
Figure 2-30 Locally Registered Vehicle Utilization

Survey Area Parking Share (%) Overnight All 36% Weekday1 All BKH 28% 28% Weekday2 All BKH 27% 29% Weekday3 All BKH 29% 33% Saturday FG 23%
BMH 29%
FG 25%
BMH 28%
FG 25%
BMH 29%
FG 25%
Estimating the Local-Registration Rate (B)

Establishing a value for B requires the identification of a set of vehicles that can reasonably be assumed to be resident-owned, regardless of registration information. The rate of localregistration found within this set would serve as an estimated rate of local registration for all resident vehicles (B).

It was determined, in consultation with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), that an overnight survey, conducted between 10PM and 2AM, would help identify such a set. This survey was conducted and the occupancy rate of locally-registered vehicles was calculated using the steps outlined for determining the A-rate. One option is to use this rate (i.e., B=36%) to calculate the rate of local registration. This is not recommended, as the uniquely urban nature of the Study Area, characterized by highly diverse and concentrated land-uses, and 24-hour activity patterns, creates some doubt about the assumption that all vehicles parked on-street between 10PM and 1AM are resident-vehicles. Additional analysis was therefore conducted to address this concern. Two subsets of the vehicles recorded during the overnight survey were identified by matching license plates from that survey to those recorded during the daytime surveys. Subset 1 consists of all vehicles observed during the overnight survey and at least one of the three daytime surveys. Subset 2 consists of all vehicles observed during the overnight survey and at least two of the three daytime surveys. Figure 2-31 shows the result of this method, using the overnight group and the alternative subsets, for determining the B value of local-registration rates. The fact that higher rates of local registration are observed for vehicles that are recorded in both the overnight and daytime surveys supports the contention that many vehicles parked overnight are not resident-owned. We recommend that a 52% value be used for B, i.e. assume that 52% of resident-owned vehicles are locally registered (see Figure 2). An alternative is to use a 60% value, based on vehicles observed in both the overnight and at least two daytime surveys; however, this is based on a smaller sample size.
Figure 2-31 Estimating Local-Registration Rate with Alternate Methodologies

Vehicles Recorded in: Overnight Survey Overnight and 1 or more Daytime Surveys Overnight and 2 or more Daytime Surveys All Vehicles 498 245 129 Locally-registered vehicles 181 128 78 Share 36.35% 52.24% 60.47%
Calculating Residential Demand (C)

When values for both A and B are set, the C value can be calculated through the following relationship: A/B = C

This then becomes our base formula where the estimated local registration rate (B) is used to adjust the share of on-street utilization for locally-registered vehicles (A), to calculate overall residential parking demand (C), for each survey. Figure 2-32 shows C values for each survey, calculated using this formula and the B values resulting from the alternate methods for determining the local-registration rate (see Figure 2) described above. It is important to understand that different assumptions for local registration rates have major implications for the study results. Using the recommended rate, the residential share of on-street vehicles is less than 60% in all neighborhoods, and particularly low in Fort Greene, and would almost certainly qualify for RPP using thresholds in common use across the country. However, if a lower rate of residential vehicle ownership is assumed (i.e., using a 36% value for B or local registration of resident vehicles), the probable triggers for achieving RPP are likely only achieved in Fort Greene.

Figure 2-32 Residential On-Street Demand As Share of Overall Demand

Survey Location Using B-Rate of all Overnight Vehicles Using B-Rate of Sub-Set 1 Vehicles (Recommended) Using B-Rate of Sub-Set 2 Vehicles Overnight Study Area 100.00% Weekday 1 Study Area BKH BMH FG Study Area Weekday 2 BKH BMH FG Study Area Weekday 3 BKH BMH FG Saturday FG 64.05%
76.45% 78.29% 80.35% 69.00% 75.21% 80.23% 77.55% 68.33% 79.42% 90.24% 80.33% 68.98%
69.57%
53.18% 54.47% 55.90% 48.00% 52.32% 55.82% 53.95% 47.54% 55.25% 62.78% 55.88% 47.99%
44.56%
60.11%
45.95% 47.06% 48.30% 41.47% 45.21% 48.23% 46.61% 41.07% 47.74% 54.24% 48.28% 41.47%
38.50%

Chapter 3. Feasible Program Options

Residential Permit Parking (RPP) is a common strategy used in cities that experience parking pressures on residential streets. Typically used around major parking generators such as commercial cores, schools, and stadiums, RPP programs prioritize parking for residents, their guests, and short-term visitors, while discouraging long-stay employee and commuter parking. Cities typically set a two-fold test for introduction of RPP. First, a specified proportion of parking spaces must be regularly occupied typically at least 75%. Second, a specified proportion of these parked cars must belong to non-residents typically at least 35%. The survey results in the three Downtown Brooklyn neighborhoods, reported in Chapter 2, show that all three neighborhoods clearly pass the first test. They also show that Fort Greene, and possibly Brooklyn Heights and Boerum Hill, passes the second test. RPP programs have had limited success in contexts where residential densities are high, such as since the number of permits issued far exceeds the number of spaces available. Data for Downtown Brooklyn show that the number of resident-owned vehicles is more than double the amount of useable curb spaces within the Study Area. This chapter therefore sets out several options for how RPP could be implemented in the unique context of Downtown Brooklyn. These options are not intended to be recommendations, but rather to set out the advantages and disadvantages of different alternatives including maintaining the status quo which is also a feasible alternative. As a substantial majority of residents currently park their cars off-street, some options include strategies that discourage the owners of these vehicles from abandoning garage parking for an on-street permit. The first section of this chapter outlines different options for implementing RPP on a geographic basis, including the No Action alternative (maintaining existing regulations), implementing a limited pilot program, and implementing a Study Area-wide pilot program. The second section outlines various options for program design to maximize the benefits of any RPP program for area residents and the wider community.
Geographic Options Implementation

Option 1 No Action/Maintain Existing Regulations This option remains a viable recommendation following the results of the analysis. Despite a modest estimate of the resident-vehicle share of on-street occupancy, the census estimate of the volume of resident-owned vehicles (7,110) is more than double the roughly 3,500 usable spaces in the Study Area. Under these circumstances, significant demandmanagement strategies and administrative efforts (pricing, lottery, wait listing) would be necessary to prevent the programs permits from becoming more than merely hunting licenses. This option would also avoid administrative costs which would be passed on

to residents through permit fees and ensure that all residents, including those who only occasionally rent or borrow cars, have access to the parking resource. Option 2 Limited Pilot Program Fort Greene is marked by the lowest residential on-street share among the three Study Area neighborhoods (48% average). Boerum Hill has the most favorable balance between resident demand and on-street supply among the three neighborhoods (1,996 residentowned cars for 1,769 on-street spaces). A pilot program limited to either, or both, of these neighborhoods could increase on-street opportunity throughout the week. At the very least, hundreds of resident vehicles should be able to move from garage spaces to on-street spaces following program implementation. Conversely, non-residents currently enjoying free on-street spaces would incur charges for storing their vehicles during area visits. Option 3 Study Area-Wide Pilot Program Resident-vehicle shares of on-street parking are higher in Boerum Hill and Brooklyn Heights than Fort Greene, and a decision on whether to introduce RPP in these neighborhoods depends on the threshold that is used for the proportion of vehicles that are non-resident. Permits could be neighborhood-specific, or a single zone could cover all three neighborhoods in order to ease administration and give residents maximum flexibility.
Policy Options Program Design

The design of a pilot program, whether implemented across the Study Area, or limited to a single neighborhood, affords options for crafting regulations and administration to the specific needs of the Study Area. The four basic alternatives are outlined in Figure 1 and are summarized below: Option 1 No Action/Maintain Existing Regulations This option would maintain existing regulations meters on commercial frontages and street cleaning restrictions only on residential streets. This option has the advantages of simplicity of administration and enforcement, and would provide equal access to public curbspace for all groups of users including residents who only occasionally require parking. However, the potential benefits of the other options such as ease in finding a space would be foregone. Option 2 Traditional RPP This option is similar to RPP programs in other U.S. cities, such as Boston, MA and Washington, DC. It would prioritize parking for residents, and potentially reduce traffic congestion from long-stay parkers searching for free on-street spaces. However, experience in these cities suggests that there will be little to no net improvement in parking availability, as residents will take advantage of the additional on-street parking by shifting

vehicles from off-street garages. The residential permit becomes a hunting license, rather than giving holders a meaningful chance of finding a parking space. The main impact of this option will be to redistribute the benefit of free on-street parking from all users to residents and short-stay visitors. Moreover, this option would raise significant enforcement challenges should free two-hour parking be granted to non-residents.

Page intentionally left blank

Figure 3-1
Option Summary
Brooklyn Residential Parking Policy Options

A No Action/Maintain Existing Regulations No regulation of on-street parking, apart from street cleaning and retention of existing meters B Traditional RPP Residential permits issued to all residents on request. Administrative charge only. Non-residential parking regulated through time limits (2-hour daytime maximum) or existing meters. Yes Set at cost recovery. Likely range is $15-$60 per year. Price for second or third permit per household could be set at a higher rate. No. Possible restrictions on multiple permits per household (e.g. one- or two-permit maximum). Determined by demand; likely 6 AM to midnight. 2-hour free parking for guests. Longer-stay guests need to park off-street. Non-residents may park on commercial (metered) frontages. Parking on other streets is limited to two-hours. Commercial (metered) frontages: existing rates. Other streets: no charge. C Allocate Through Waiting List Number of residential permits limited to actual parking capacity. Waiting list used to manage demand (lottery in first instance). Administrative charge only. Non-residential parking regulated through multi-space meters on all streets. Yes Set at cost recovery. Likely range is $15-$60 per year. Costs could be increased to cover the costs of street maintenance as well as program administration, as in Ottawa. Yes. Could be set at existing overnight occupancy by residents to provide space for visitors (i.e. total on-street spaces multiplied by % of spaces occupied by residents overnight). Determined by demand; likely 6 AM to midnight. Guests pay at multi-space meters. D Market Pricing Number of residential permits limited to actual parking capacity. Market pricing used to manage demand. Non-residential parking regulated through multi-space meters on all streets. Yes Price set at the level needed to reduce demand to the actual parking capacity. Cost depends on demand, but likely to be significantly less than off-street garages. Yes. Could be set at existing overnight occupancy by residents to provide space for visitors (i.e. total on-street spaces multiplied by % of spaces occupied by residents overnight). Determined by demand; likely 6 AM to midnight. Guests pay at multi-space meters.
Residential Parking Are residential permits introduced? How much does a permit cost? Is the number of permits restricted? Hours of Operation Guest Arrangements Non-Residential Parking Location How much does it cost?
No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Non-residents may park on all streets. Commercial (metered) frontages: existing rates. Other streets: no charge.
Non-residents may park on all streets. Commercial (metered) frontages: existing rates. Other streets: Multi-space meters or pay-and-display during highdemand periods (likely 6 AM to midnight). Price set to ensure 85% occupancy. Guarantees parking availability for residents. Improved availability for non-residents. Some revenue from additional meters. Reduced congestion from cruising for parking. Encourages residents to register vehicles locally, with associated tax benefits to the City. Fewer options for residents who are on waiting list. Little experience in the US with this approach. May encourage residents to drive more, as they would be able to find parking easily on their return
Non-residents may park on all streets. Multi-space meters or pay-and-display on all streets during high-demand periods (likely 6 AM to midnight). Price set to ensure 85% occupancy. Escalating charges (i.e. 2nd and 3rd hour more expensive). Could be reduced rates in evening. Guarantees parking availability for all users, including residents. Major revenue benefit. New payment options can be user friendly (e.g. smart cards, credit cards). Promotes alternatives to driving. Eliminates congestion from cruising for parking. Encourages residents to register vehicles locally, with associated tax benefits to the City. Higher parking costs. Little experience in the US with this approach. May encourage residents to drive more, as they would be able to find parking easily on their return
Key Advantages
No administrative or enforcement issues.
Prioritizes parking for residents Encourages residents to register vehicles locally, with associated tax benefits to the City. Potentially reduced congestion from long-stay parkers searching for free on-street spaces. Fewer parking options for non-residents and residents with intermittent need for parking (e.g. visitors and rental cars). Residents likely to shift their cars from off-street garages, meaning no net improvement in parking availability. Experience in peer cities shows that residential permits in dense neighborhoods are a hunting license and full occupancy is often the norm. Enforcement challenges with two-hour limits likely abuse. High enforcement costs to chalk tires. No revenue benefits.
Key Disadvantages
No improvement in parking availability. No revenue benefits.

Option 3 Allocate Through Waiting List This option is similar to the RPP program in Toronto, where the number of permits would be limited to the amount of available curbspace. It would be coupled with installation of multi-space meters on residential streets, which would be priced to limit demand by nonresidential vehicles. This option would, in most circumstances, guarantee parking availability for permit-holding residents, and for non-residents who are willing to pay. However, there would be fewer parking options for the large number of residents vehicles on the waiting list. Option 4 Market Pricing This option is similar to the waiting list, as permit numbers would be limited to the amount of available curbspace. However, permits would be allocated according to willingness to pay, rather than a waiting list in other words, the price would be set at the level that restrains demand to the number of permits. This option would both guarantee parking availability for all users, and raise revenue that could be redirected to neighborhood improvements and/or transportation alternatives. It would have the maximum impact on congestion. However, there would be fewer options for residents who are not willing or able to pay to pay their vehicles.
Programmatic Components
Multiple programmatic components are available for any of the RPP options: Permit Pricing Number of Permits Issued Hours of Operation Visitor Parking Non-Residential Parking Options for each element are further described below, including cited examples of implementation from our Peer Cities Review. Permit Pricing Setting the permit fee is a primary component of program design. Some cities, like Boston, offer the permits free of charge, treating the program as a service provided to residents. In the United States, fees are frequently priced at a level that offsets most or all of the programs administrative costs ($15-$60 annually). In contrast, Canadian cities commonly set their fees much higher ($10-$40 per month), and base the fees on the cost of roadway maintenance (set at the cost of maintaining one space worth of roadway for a year) as well as program administration. While this is likely a result of the elevated costs of maintaining curbside access in winter-prone Canadian municipalities (Ottawa increases its monthly RPP fee 250% during winter ), the model, along with other pricing strategies aimed at

reducing demand, is gaining supporters in U.S. cities where residential competition for spaces in urban neighborhoods is intensifying. Number of Permits Issued The overall number of permits issued under an RPP program can be constrained to reduce the level of competition between permit-holders for limited curbside spaces. The number of offered permits can be limited to the number of program-regulated spaces (Toronto). A market-based approach to permit pricing can also serve to bring demand in line with supply. Most programs however do not contain any limits on the overall number of permits offered under the program, most notably including Boston, where permits greatly outnumber regulated spaces. A more common means of managing permit supply is to reduce the quantity for which individuals or households are eligible. This can be done by setting limits per household (Los Angeles, San Francisco), registered vehicle (most common), or resident (Minneapolis). This can also be done using a pricing strategy, where the fee increases with each permit provided to each individual or household (Toronto). Hours of Operation The hours of program operation are typically based on the nature of surrounding nonresidential land uses. In areas where parking demand is primarily a function of local employment or proximity to transit stations, operation is focused on weekdays during daytime hours. In areas where shopping and entertainment uses are common, hours may cover evenings and weekends. Visitor Parking Most cities allow for short-term parking (two-hours) without a permit. Additionally, there is a variety of approaches for accommodating longer-stay visitors to RPP areas, as well as for residents who do not own a vehicle, but occasionally rent one or participate in car-sharing programs. Typically a limited number of modestly priced ($10-15) visitor permits is offered to each resident permit-holder annually. However, in an urban context such as Downtown Brooklyn where parking is scarce and expensive, visitor permits are not recommended due to the potential for fraud and abuse. In addition, should all residents (not just permit holders) be granted visitor permits, a large number of permits would need to be issued, likely creating a secondary market. The exception would be visitor permits that are charged for at market rate, i.e. comparable to off-street parking alternatives. However, multi-space meters provide a more customer-friendly alternative to meet visitor parking needs in this way, and would be easier to administer. Non-Residential Parking While the purpose of an RPP program is to restrict the use of on-street spaces by nonresident vehicles, some amount of on-street accommodation for these vehicles remains necessary, especially in urban districts with highly integrated uses. This can include

exempting a percentage of curbside spaces from RPP regulations. These spaces can be concentrated along commercial corridors, or near centers of employment, and would include existing parking meters. Two-hour time limits for non-permit holders would also provide options for shoppers and visitors. Another approach would be to introduce multiple-space meters around and near commercial areas, or throughout the program area. There are good examples of this approach in international contexts, such as London, England. In several US cities, meanwhile, such as Pasadena and Redwood City, CA, prices have been adjusted to ensure a ready supply of available parking for shoppers and visitors. Permits would exempt residents from meter-fees, while allowing area visitors to utilize spaces left idle during periods of low resident-demand. Conversely, the meters would ensure turnover of parking spaces, so residents could reclaim spaces as demand increases. In order to prioritize short-term users, meters could be coupled with time limits (e.g. three hours), or escalating charges as used in Manhattan loading zones, where the second and subsequent hours cost more than the first hour. Multi-space meters or pay-and-display machines can be designed to be unobtrusive on residential streets.
Considerations for Analysis of RPP Options

Pros Congestion Relief The permit parking options, particularly the wait list and market pricing alternatives, could reduce cruising by motorists searching for a parking space. There are three reasons to believe that this effect could occur: The waiting list and market pricing options could reduce the amount search traffic since local residents will know if they have viable on-street parking options or must change their patterns to use off-street parking. A portion of all-day on-street parkers are likely to be commuters who would have to pay in off-street garages or take transit instead. The windshield survey found that cost is the primary reason for parking on-street (71%). These parkers are anticipated to be sensitive to price, and a financial disincentive may encourage residents to sell any vehicles not regularly utilized , but only moved between valid on-street spaces. Direct Revenue Two of the permit parking options, particularly the market pricing alternative, offer the potential for significant revenue generation. A $360 annual fee could bring in an estimated $440,000 in revenue. A market-based fee of $200 per month (based on local garage rates) could bring in over $5 million in revenue after administrative costs.

While permit fees would be levied under the Traditional RPP option, these would be set at cost-recovery and the City would not benefit from a net revenue stream. The installment of multi-space meters installed at RPP regulated blocks presents another revenue potential linked to RPP implementation. Program permits allow for the placement of such meters along residential streets, by providing a mechanism for exempting residents from hourly charges. Where hourly rates begin at a modest $1 for the first hour and escalate by $1 for each additional hour of parking stay, non-resident parking along these blocks could bring in over $9,000,000 in annual revenue from streets within the RPP program. More aggressive escalation for long-term stays could bring in an additional $1,000,000 in revenue, along with higher turnover and greater availability. Figure 3-2 shows the planning-level estimate of revenue potential for each of the two options.
Figure 3-2
1. Waitlist Option Resident Permits Muni Meter Revenue
Revenue Projection
Revenue $882,0001 $9,604,000
3
Administration Costs $441,0002 $441,000

2
Net Revenue $441,000 $9,163,000 $9,604,000 $5,292,000 $9,365,000
Total 2. Market Pricing Option Resident Permits Muni Meter Revenue
$10,486,000 $5,880,0004 $9,953,0003
$882,000 $588,0005 $588,0005
Total $15,833,000 $1,176,000 $14,657,000 (1) Estimated at $30/month (annual roadway maintenance cost for one space) for 2,450 permits (70% of Study Area spaces) (2) Estimated at 50% of permit revenue. (3) Assuming $2-2.50 hourly rate, with meters in effect until 10PM, based on existing non-resident occupant share and demand from permit holders. (4) Estimated at $200/month (current off-street parking rates) for 2,450 permits. (5) Estimated at 10% of permit revenue. Indirect Revenue All three of the permit options would encourage residents to register their vehicles locally (in order to be eligible for the RPP program), bringing additional tax revenues to the City of New York. Currently, many residents appear to register their vehicles elsewhere, potentially to take advantage of lower insurance premiums or out-of-state tax rates. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the distribution of vehicle registrations recorded during the overnight count.
Figure 3-3: Vehicle Registration by Zip Codes

U V
3
Essex County

280
New York County
U V
21

95
V U
495

295
V U
495
908
son R
iver
U V
25
V U
444
Hud
U V
25
Hudson County
U V
9
Queens County
Nassau County

78

478

678
ve
Ne
wa
U V
81
Kings County
rk
Ri
U V
27
Upper Bay
Jamaica Bay

278
Richmond County
Lower Bay
V U
907
Vehicle Registration by Zip Code (total)

1-5 6 - 20
V U
700
V U
440
21 - 78
Atlantic Ocean
Zipcode Boundary
2.5
5 Miles
* Additional zipcodes with 1 to 5 registrations outside of map extent not shown

Figure 3-4
Where Parked Cars are Registered

Ext. Study Area*
Registrations Share
Where Overnight Vehicles are Registered All Study Area

Registrations Share Registrations Share
Brooklyn
Registrations Share
New York City

Registrations Share
New York State

Registrations Share
Out of State
Registrations Share
497 100% 154 31% 181 36% 210 * Extended Study Area - Incorporates the Study Area and the 6 adjacent Zip Codes.
42%
316
64%
387
78%
110
22%

Cons Equity Concerns Equity concerns would be raised with RPP options that incorporate higher permit fees. The study area, like nearly everywhere else, is characterized by vehicle ownership rates that increase along with household incomes. This raises concerns and challenges especially for a market-based approach to permit fees and demand management. As shown in Figure 3-5, the number of vehicles owned by households with incomes of at least $100,000 (4,012) is greater than the likely number of permits that could be made available in an RPP program (around 3,200). Implementation of an RPP program would result in vehicle owners who are either unwilling or unable to pay the permit fee losing the option of parking on-street. In any RPP option, the cost of on-street parking will increase from the free parking currently provided by the City.
Figure 3-5
Household Income Less than 15,000 15,000-24,999 25,000-49,999 50,000-74,999 75,000-99,999 100,000-149,999 150,000 or more All Induced Travel
Household Income and Vehicle Ownership

Vehicles 516 389 1255 1688 1074 1888 2124 8934 Share 5.78% 4.35% 14.05% 18.89% 12.02% 21.13% 23.77% 100.00% Households 3,014 1,651 5,402 4,552 2,325 3,084 3,004 23,032 Share 13.09% 7.17% 23.45% 19.76% 10.09% 13.39% 13.04% 100.00% Vehicles per Household 0.17 0.24 0.23 0.37 0.46 0.61 0.71 0.39
A drawback for any RPP program that successfully manages residential parking demand, is that this might encourage residents who park on-street to use their cars more, as they would be assured of a space when they return. Census and survey data support that such space assurance would induce more vehicular trips among residents currently parking offstreet, as 31% of all residential vehicles in Downtown Brooklyn are driven to work, while just 23% of residential vehicles parking on-street leave during the day Implementation Barriers Implementation of any RPP program will require the support of households within the proposed boundaries most typically in the form of a petition signed by at least 50% of households. This could be particularly challenging for Study Area neighborhoods, where two-thirds of households do not own cars. A traditional RPP approach would be especially

challenging in this regard, since it offers few benefits, and additional hardships, for those who do not own a car. Additionally, were RPP implementation to proceed, the New York City Department of Transportation would face additional challenges in establishing administrative, enforcement, and implementation procedures and responsibilities, since this would be the first program of its nature in the city. Legal feasibility for implementation of this program (with limited precedent for establishing market rate pricing structures) would need to be determined.
APPENDIX A
TURNOVER BY BLOCK ALL BLOCKS

Turnover by Block - All Blocks

Block # 1 2* 3* 4 5 6* 7 8 9* 10* 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22* 23 24* 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Name Columbia Heights Willow Street Willow Street Hicks Street Hoyt Street College Pl. Boerum Place Hoyt Street Bond Street Nevins Street Saint Felix Street South Elliott Place S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford Street Carlton Avenue Carlton Avenue Orange Street Cranberry Street Orange Street Pierrepont Street Pierrepont Street Pierrepont Street Montague Street Remsen Street Joralemon Street Joralemon Street State Street Pacific Street Pacific Street Dean Street Bergen Street Bergen Street Warren Street Wyckoff Street De Kalb Avenue Lafayette Avenue Lafayette Avenue Green Avenue Warren Street Cross Streets Montague to Pierrepont Clark to Pineapple Pineapple to Orange Love Lane to Clark Wyckoff to Warren Love Ln. to end Bergen to Dean Street Wyckoff St. to Bergen Dean to Pacific Dean to Pacific Lafayette to Fulton Fulton to Hanson Place Fulton to Lafayette Lafayette to Hanson Place/Greene Ave. Fulton to Greene Greene to Fulton Willow to Columbia Heights Hicks to Henry Willow to Hicks Hicks to Willow Clinton to Henry Clinton to Henry Willow to Hicks Hicks to Henry Hicks to Garden Place Garden Pl. to Henry Henry to Garden Pl. Court to Boerum Place Smith to Boerum Place Court to Boerum Place Boerum Place to Court Nevins to Bond Smith to Court Smith to Court Cumberland to Carlton Ave. Fort Greene to S. Elliott Cumberland to S. Oxford Cumberland to Carlton Nevins to Bond Side EAST EAST EAST EAST WEST EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST WEST EAST EAST EAST WEST NORTH NORTH NORTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH NORTH Neighborhood BKH BKH BKH BKH BMH BKH BMH BMH BMH BMH FG FG FG FG FG FG BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BKH BMH BMH BMH BMH BMH BMH BMH FG FG FG BMH FG Space Hours 21 0 0 238 56 0 42 49 0 0 42 126 77 112 84 91 70 105 56 56 105 0 126 0 63 70 49 112 84 77 70 175 245 203 60 42 56 77 189 Overall Occupancy 66.67% 99.58% 92.86% 100.00% 100.00% 76.19% 110.32% 68.83% 94.64% 61.90% 97.80% 120.00% 99.05% 100.00% 91.07% 114.29% 99.21% 93.65% 102.86% 106.12% 73.21% 134.52% 128.57% 121.43% 100.00% 75.10% 88.67% 93.33% 50.00% 101.79% 58.44% 95.77% Mean Stay (Hours) 3.50 1.00 5.39 5.78 3.71 4.20 5.44 4.57 5.56 2.52 2.04 2.17 5.69 6.00 3.85 4.67 4.25 3.43 1.40 5.00 2.20 4.54 6.00 4.33 3.15 4.71 5.21 5.31 5.65 3.76 4.50 4.31 1.75 4.07 1.88 6.24 Permits 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.33% 40.00% 0.00% 54.55% 11.86% 0.00% 0.00% 42.68% 0.00% 32.32% 0.00% 1.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.55% Shares of Occupied Space-Hours Non-Permits NYPD FDNY 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 81.67% 6.67% 0.00% 60.00% 11.43% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45.45% 0.00% 0.00% 88.14% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 57.32% 34.15% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 67.68% 0.00% 32.32% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98.29% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99.45% 0.00% 0.00% NYCDOT 92.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 8.57% 0.00% 54.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
* Seven blocks were observed to have no legal parking during the time of the survey. While a few cars were observed on some of these blocks, they were too few to calculate a meaningful occupancy rate for these blocks.
Page A-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
APPENDIX B
WINDSHIELD SURVEY FORM
Downtown Brooklyn On-Street Parking Windshield Survey The Downtown Brooklyn Council and the New York City Department of Transportation are conducting a survey of parkers to improve parking in this neighborhood. Would you please take a few minutes to complete this survey? When youre done, just drop the completed form in the mail using the attached pre-paid envelope. If you enter your contact information, we will automatically enter your name in a drawing to win a gift certificate to Juniors Restaurant. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact us at dfields@nelsonnygaard.com. 1. Approximately how much time did you spend looking for a parking space today? (check one) a. Found a space right away b. Within 5 minutes c. 5-10 minutes d. More than 10 minutes 2. How long did you park in this neighborhood today? (check one) a. Less than 1 hour b. 1 to 4 hours c. More than 4 hours 3. Which of the following best describes your reason for parking on the street rather than in a garage? (check one) a. Cost b. Distance to destination c. Quicker to get in and out on street d. Other Please describe:
4. When you drive to this neighborhood, do you (check one): a. Always park on the street, even if it takes a long time to find a space b. Look for a space on the street first, but then park in a garage c. I usually park in a garage, but found a street space today d. Other Please describe:
5. What is the primary reason you drove to this area today? (check one) a. Work or School b. Shopping c. Other Errands/ Appointments d. Residence e. Subway or Bus connection f. Other Please describe:
Continued on Other Side
Downtown Brooklyn On-Street Parking Windshield Survey 6. How close to your destination(s) were you able to park today? (check one) a. Directly in front or directly across the street b. Within 2 blocks c. 3 to 5 blocks d. More than 5 blocks 7. If parking on this street were restricted to residents only, would you (check one): a. Park off-street (i.e., in a parking garage) b. Park on another street, even if it took longer to find a space c. Switch to another mode of transportation for trips to the area (Bus/ Subway/ Carpool) d. N/A I am a resident e. Reduce/ eliminate your trips to the area f. Other Please describe:
8. Please give us any other comments or feedback regarding on-street parking in Downtown Brooklyn. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your participation in this survey. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential.
Please fill out the following if you would like to be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a gift certificate to Juniors Restaurant. Name: Daytime Phone Number: E-mail Address: Winners will be notified by October 31, 2005.
Block Code:
APPENDIX C
DATA COLLECTION PLAN

Data Collection Plan I. Introduction The Project Team and Project Advisory Committee agreed on a data collection strategy that contains five components: 1. A parking turnover study; 2. An overnight license plate survey; 3. Weekday daytime license plate surveys to occur in three different time periods; 4. A Saturday license plate survey to be conducted only in Fort Greene; 5. A windshield survey; and 6. Survey of vehicles with placards parked at meters in Brooklyn Heights A full listing of all applicable block faces located within the study area is shown in Table 1. These applicable block faces include all blocks faces within the three neighborhood that legally permit parking, minus block faces with meters and nonresidential land uses. This subset of block faces within the study area results in 262 block faces applicable to the study. These 262 block faces were the set from which block faces were randomly selected for inclusion in each survey exercise. Additional field observations may determine block faces which are inapplicable for study due to parking or vehicular movement restrictions; these block faces will not be included in the data collection effort. A summary of the number of block faces proposed for each survey are presented in Table 2. Each sample is statistically valid as each block face is randomly selected with equal probability of selection. Each category of survey has also been developed to provide a statistically significant representation of the overall study area and the three subarea neighborhoods within the study area. The assumptions used in developing the data collection plan: Parking turnover covers 15% of the area once an hour for seven hours; The windshield survey will require 20% of the survey resources; Vehicles parked at metered spaces with government placards in Brooklyn Heights during weekdays. The overnight survey assumes one study area with no stratification; The weekday surveys also assume one study area with no stratification; The overnight survey and the weekday surveys have the same amount of coverage; Since Fort Green includes a total of 64 applicable block faces, all 64 block faces are included in the Saturday survey in Fort Greene; To obtain the sample sizes for the license plate surveys the original staff hour capacity was reduced by the staff time required to complete the turnover study, windshield survey, Saturday Fort Greene survey, and placard survey. The remainder was divided into four equal parts. One part was assigned to each of four time periods required for the overnight survey and the three weekday surveys.
Page C-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Table 1: Applicable Block Faces within the Study Area Street 1st cross street 2nd cross street block face
North and South Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Willow St. Willow St. Willow St. Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Garden Pl. College Pl.
Montague St. Pierrepont St. Clark St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Cranberry St. Pierrepont St. Clark St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Cranberry St. State St. State St. Montague St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. Clark St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Middagh St. Veranda Pl. Veranda Pl. Congress St. Congress St. Amity St. Amity St. Pacific St. State St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Hunts Ln. Remsen St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. Middagh St. Middagh St. State St. Love Ln.
Pierrepont St. Clark St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Cranberry St. Middagh St. Clark St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Cranberry St. Middagh St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. Love Ln. Clark St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Cranberry St. Poplar St. Congress St Congress St Amity St. Amity St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Atlantic Ave. Joralemon St. Hunts Ln. Hunts Ln. Remsen St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. Clark St. Poplar St. Poplar St. Joralemon St. end
e e e e e e e e e e e e w e w e w w w w e w e w e w e w w w e w w e e e e e w e e

Street College Pl. Clinton St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Monroe Pl. Sidney Pl. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Adams St. Adams St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. Nevins St. Nevins St. Nevins St. Nevins St. Nevins St. St. Felix St. St. Felix St. St. Felix St. St. Felix St. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl.
1st cross street Love Ln. Atlantic Ave. Atlantic Ave. State St. State St. Schermerhorn St. Schermerhorn St. Pierrepont St. State St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. Tillary St. Tillary St. Warren St. Warren St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. State St. State St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. De Kalb Ave.
2nd cross street end State St. State St. Schermerhorn St. Schermerhorn St. Livingston St. Livingston St. Clark St. Joralemon St. Dean St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Sands St. Sands St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Schermerhorn St. Schermerhorn St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Dean St. Dean St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Fulton St. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. Lafayette Ave.
block face w e w e w e w e w e e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e e w e e w e w e

Street S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. Nevins St. East and West Poplar St. Poplar St. Poplar St. Middagh St. Middagh St. Middagh St.
1st cross street De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St.
2nd cross street Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. Atlantic Ave. Atlantic Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. Warren St. Warren St. Warren St. Warren St.
block face w e e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w w w w e w e w
Willow St. Hicks St. Cadman Plaza West Columbia Heights Willow St. Hicks St.
Hicks St. Henry St. Cadman Plaza East Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St.
s s n n n n

Street Middagh St. Middagh St. Middagh St. Cranberry St. Cranberry St. Cranberry St. Orange St. Orange St. Orange St. Pineapple St. Pineapple St. Pineapple St. Clark St. Clark St. Clark St. Clark St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Montague St. Montague St. Montague St. Montague St. Remsen St. Remsen St. Remsen St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Schermerhorn St. Schermerhorn St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St.
1st cross street Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Columbia Heights Willow St. Hicks St. Columbia Heights Willow St. Hicks St. Columbia Heights Willow St. Hicks St. Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Willow St. Hicks St. Columbia Heights Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Garden Pl. Clinton St. Clinton St. Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Henry St. Sidney Pl. Clinton St.
2nd cross street Henry St. Cadman Plaza West Cadman Plaza West Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St. Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St. Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St. Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Dead End Hicks St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Garden Pl. Henry St. Henry St. Court St. Court St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Henry St. Sidney Pl. Clinton St. Court St.
block face s n s n n n n n n s s s n s n n s n s n s n s n s n s n s s n s n s n s n s n s n n n n n

Street State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. State St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St.
1st cross street Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins Nevins 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. Court St. Court St. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins Nevins 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. Court St. Court St. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins Nevins Court St. Court St. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St.
2nd cross street Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. Flatbush Ave. Flatbush Ave. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. 4th Ave. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St.
block face n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n

Street Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Veranda Pl. Veranda Pl. Warren St. Warren St. Warren St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. St. Mark's Pl. St. Mark's Pl. St. Mark's Pl. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Warren St.
1st cross street Bond St. Nevins Nevins 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. Henry St. Henry St. Court St. Smith St. 3rd Ave. Court St. Court St. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Bond St.
2nd cross street Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. 4th Ave. Clinton St. Clinton St. Smith St. Hoyt St. 4th Ave. Smith St. Smith St. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Nevins St. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. 4th Ave. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. Nevins St.
block face s n s n s n s n n n n s n s n n s n n s s s s s s s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n

Table 2: Summary of Street Segments to be Surveyed Survey Block Faces Turnover Overnight License Plate Weekday License Plate Time 1 Weekday License Plate Time 2 Weekday License Plate Time 3 Saturday Windshield Brooklyn Heights Placards at Meters Total
39*7=273 52 262 262 262 64 60 27 1,000
II. Parking Turnover The parking turnover survey is to include 15% of the study area. The study area consists of 262 block faces. Fifteen percent of the 262 block faces is 39 block faces. Thirty-nine block faces were selected at random and with equal probability of selection to represent the study area for the parking turnover survey; each block face will be surveyed seven times to determine turnover throughout the weekday. Table 3 presents the block faces randomly selected for the parking turnover survey.
Table 3: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Parking Turnover Survey Street 1st cross street 2nd cross street block face
North and South Columbia Heights Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St. College Pl. Boerum Pl. Hoyt St. Bond St. Nevins St. St. Felix St. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. East and West Cranberry St. Orange St.
Montague St. Clark St. Pineapple St. Love Ln. Amity St. Love Ln. Bergen St. Wyckoff St. Dean St. Dean St. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Lafayette Ave.
Pierrepont St. Pineapple St. Orange St. Clark St. Pacific St. end Dean St. Bergen St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Fulton St. Fulton St. Greene Ave.
e e e w w e e e e e e w e e e w w
Hicks St. Willow St.
Henry St. Hicks St.
n n

Street Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Montague St. Remsen St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. State St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Dean St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Warren St. Wyckoff St. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Warren St.
1st cross street Willow St. Henry St. Henry St. Willow St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Garden Pl. Court St. Boerum Pl. Court St. Court St. Bond St. Court St. Court St. Cumberland St. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Bond St.
2nd cross street Hicks St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Hicks St. Dead End Garden Pl. Henry St. Henry St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. Boerum Pl. Boerum Pl. Nevins St. Smith St. Smith St. Carlton Ave. S. Elliott Pl. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Nevins St.
block face s n s n s n n n s n s n n n n s s n s n
III. Overnight License Plate Survey The overnight license plate survey will be used to determine what proportion of vehicles registered at addresses outside of the study area do in fact belong to residents. That proportion will serve as a factor in the parking analysis. Twenty percent of the total applicable block faces (52 block faces) were selected at random and with equal probability of selection to represent the study area for the overnight license plate survey. Table 4 presents the block faces randomly selected for the overnight license plate survey.
Table 4: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Overnight License Plate Survey Street 1st cross street North and South Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. 2nd cross street block face
Pineapple St. Orange St. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. Veranda Pl. Congress St. Joralemon St. Pierrepont St.
Orange St. Cranberry St. Love Ln. Clark St. Congress St Amity St. Hunts Ln. Love Ln.
e e e w e e e e

Street Garden Pl. Clinton St. Clinton St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. St. Felix St. St. Felix St. Ft. Greene Pl. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. East and West Poplar St. Middagh St. Middagh St. Middagh St. Orange St. Clark St. Clark St. Clark St. Pierrepont St. Joralemon St. State St. State St. State St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Dean St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Veranda Pl. Wyckoff St. St. Mark's Pl. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. 1st cross street State St. Atlantic Ave. Schermerhorn St. Bergen St. Bergen St. State St. Wyckoff St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. 2nd cross street Joralemon St. State St. Livingston St. Dean St. Dean St. Schermerhorn St. Bergen St. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. block face e w w e w e e w e e e e e w
Willow St. Willow St. Hicks St. Henry St. Hicks St. Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Hicks St. Willow St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Hoyt St. 3rd Ave. Boerum Pl. Smith St. 3rd Ave. Boerum Pl. Hoyt St. Hoyt St. Nevins Court St. 3rd Ave. Henry St. Smith St. Nevins St. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Oxford St.
Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Cadman Plaza West Henry St. Willow St. Willow St. Henry St. Hicks St. Garden Pl. Henry St. Bond St. Flatbush Ave. Smith St. Hoyt St. 4th Ave. Smith St. Bond St. Bond St. 3rd Ave. Boerum Pl. 4th Ave. Clinton St. Hoyt St. 3rd Ave. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. Cumberland St.
s n s n n n s n n s n n s n s n s n s s s n s s n n n s n

Street Lafayette Ave. 1st cross street Carlton Ave. 2nd cross street Adelphi St. block face n
IV. Weekday License Plate Surveys The weekday license plate surveys will be used as the basis of analysis for the study, informing the community of parking usage in Downtown Brooklyn. The weekday surveys will be conducted in three different time periods. All 262 block faces presented in Table 1 will be surveyed in all three weekday time periods. These surveys will include notation of vehicles parked with government placards during each time period. V. Saturday License Plate Survey in Fort Greene Fort Green includes a total of 64 applicable block faces. A license plate survey of all 64 block faces is included in the Saturday midday period survey in Fort Greene. This Saturday survey is intended to collect data regarding demand from Atlantic Center. Table 5 presents the block faces randomly selected for the Saturday license plate survey in Fort Greene.
Table 5: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Saturday License Plate Survey (Fort Greene Only) Street 1st cross street 2nd cross street block face
North and South St. Felix St. St. Felix St. St. Felix St. St. Felix St. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St.
De Kalb Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. De Kalb Ave.
Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Fulton St. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. Lafayette Ave.
e e w e e w e w e w e e w e w e w e w e w e

Street S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. East and West De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave.
1st cross street De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave.
2nd cross street Lafayette Ave. Hanson Pl. Hanson Pl. Atlantic Ave. Atlantic Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St.
block face w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w e w w w w
Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Ft. Greene Pl. Ft. Greene Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave.
S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Portland Ave. S. Portland Ave. S. Oxford St. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St.
s s s s s s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s n s

VI. Windshield Survey The windshield survey will be administered to 1,000 vehicles, on approximately 60 block faces. This assumes an average of 18 spaces per block face and allows four additional streets of data collection. In the event that the 60 block faces selected do not contain 1,000 vehicles, an extended set, including to additional block faces is provided. Table 6 presents the block faces randomly selected for the windshield survey.
Table 6: Randomly Selected Block Faces for Windshield Survey Street 1st cross street 2nd cross street block face
North and South Columbia Heights Hicks St. Hicks St. Hicks St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Clinton St. Clinton St. Boerum Pl. Adams St. Hoyt St. Bond St. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins St. S. Elliott Pl. S. Elliott Pl. S. Oxford St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Cumberland St. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave. Bond St. East and West Poplar St. Middagh St. Middagh St. Pineapple St. Pineapple St. Clark St.
Montague St. Pierrepont St. Orange St. Middagh St. Veranda Pl. Pacific St. Joralemon St. Montague St. Pierrepont St. Atlantic Ave. State St. Dean St. Tillary St. Wyckoff St. Bergen St. Dean St. State St. Dean St. De Kalb Ave. Hanson Pl. De Kalb Ave. De Kalb Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Wyckoff St.
Pierrepont St. Love Ln. Cranberry St. Poplar St. Congress St Atlantic Ave. Hunts Ln. Pierrepont St. Love Ln. State St. Schermerhorn St. Pacific St. Sands St. Bergen St. Dean St. Pacific St. Schermerhorn St. Pacific St. Lafayette Ave. S. Portland Ave. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave. Greene Ave. Fulton St. Fulton St. Warren St.
e e e w w w e e e e w e w e e e e w e w e w e w e w e
Cadman Plaza West Willow St. Hicks St. Columbia Heights Hicks St. Columbia Heights
Cadman Plaza East Hicks St. Henry St. Willow St. Henry St. Willow St.
n n s s s s

Street Clark St. Pierrepont St. Pierrepont St. Montague St. Remsen St. State St. State St. State St. State St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Pacific St. Dean St. Dean St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Bergen St. Warren St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Wyckoff St. Lafayette Ave. Lafayette Ave. Greene Ave.
1st cross street Hicks St. Columbia Heights Hicks St. Columbia Heights Hicks St. Hicks St. Sidney Pl. Smith St. Bond St. Boerum Pl. Bond St. Bond St. Nevins 3rd Ave. Court St. Bond St. Court St. Boerum Pl. Nevins Nevins 3rd Ave. Court St. Smith St. Bond St. S. Elliott Pl. Carlton Ave. Carlton Ave.
2nd cross street Henry St. Willow St. Henry St. Willow St. Henry St. Garden Pl. Clinton St. Hoyt St. Nevins St. Smith St. Nevins St. Nevins St. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. Boerum Pl. Nevins St. Boerum Pl. Smith St. 3rd Ave. 3rd Ave. 4th Ave. Smith St. Hoyt St. Nevins St. S. Portland Ave. Adelphi St. Adelphi St.
block face n s s n s n n s n s n s s n s n s s n s n s s s n s n
VII. Government Placards The number of vehicles parked at metered spaces with government placards will be counted in Brooklyn Heights during weekdays. All blocks within Brooklyn Heights with parking meters will be surveyed (a total of 27 block faces); a listing of these blocks is presented in Table 7. A previous study of parking along Atlantic Avenue will provide this data
from meters in Boerum Hill.
Table 7: Metered Blocks within Brooklyn Heights Street between 1 between 2 Clark St. Monroe Pl. Cadman Plaza West Cadman Plaza West Clark St. Pierrepont St. /Clinton St. Montague St Henry St Hicks St Montague St Clinton St Henry St. Henry St. Montague St Pierrepont St. Montague St Hicks St. Henry St.
block face south west north north east south

Street Montague St. Clinton St. Remsen St. Remsen St. Clinton St. Joralemon St. Joralemon St. Clinton St. Schermerhorn St. Schermerhorn St. Atlantic Ave. Atlantic Ave. Atlantic Ave. Henry St. Cadman Plaza West Henry St. Henry St. Henry St. Cadman Plaza West Henry St. Clark St.
between 1 Henry St. Montague St Clinton St. Henry St. Remsen St. Henry St. Sidney Pl. Joralemon St. Clinton St. Court St. Henry St. Clinton St. Court St. Middagh St. Tillary St. Cranberry St. Orange St. Pineapple St. Pineapple St. Clark St. Henry St.
between 2 Clinton St. Clinton St. Henry St. Clinton St. Joralemon St. Sidney Pl. Clinton St. Livingston St. Court St. Clinton St. Hicks St. Henry St. Clinton St. Cranberry St. Middagh St. Orange St. Pineapple St. Clark St. Clark St. Pineapple St. Monroe Pl
block face south west north south west south south west south north north north north west east west west west west east south

Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN COUNCIL

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Page i Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Page iii Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Page 2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Figure ES-1 Resident and Vehicle Densities in Downtown Brooklyn

Comparable Cities Review

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Figure ES-2 Population and Vehicle Densities in Comparable Cities

Page 4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Existing Conditions Analysis

Page 5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Policy Option Review

Page 6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Page 8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Chapter 1. Study Area Profile and Review of Comparables

Race and Income in the Study Area

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Study Area Population

Page 1-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Figure 1-3 Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Brooklyn Study Area

PIER REP ONT PL

BIA PL WIL LOW PL

LOV E LA PIER REP ONT ST MON TAG UE S T REM SEN ST HUN TS L A

GOLD ST AL BE ES Q FLE ET ST FLEET PL

V V V AV IIS A V CK RR AV V V M D DO MO GH AV EY A U C OU N NCE NO TO GT AU DO IING HA CH V M A MC ARR A AV Y W W A AV RY Y EY ER PE NC UN AU AV YA C CH RY ER PE

CON GRE SS S WA T RRE NS T BAL TIC ST

WA RRE NS T BAL TIC ST ST

Fort Greene Park

LIV ING STO NS T ER HO RN ST

AND AND AV PO S PORTL

IT S NE T SE ST AB RI Source: NNYDOT, New York City Planning Dept, and ESRI. G ST 2 PL

NT S T Study Area BlocksN ST C

Curb Blocks SUMM

P EP V V US NA NU TON ILT WA WA H M HAM GO

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Study Area Vehicular Densities

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Boerum Hill Vehicle Availability

Page 1-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Brooklyn Heights Vehicle Availability

Page 1-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Fort Greene Vehicle Availability

Study Area Vehicle Availability by Neighborhood

Previous Studies Review: Key Parking Conditions

Page 1-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study

Comparable Cities Review

Page 1-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Downtown Brooklyn Residential Permit Parking Study