USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Countywide parking policy study

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Countywide parking policy study literature and regulations review : executive summary
Physical Description:
iii, 15 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Metropolitan Planning Organization (Miami-Dade County, Fla.)
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parking -- Florida -- Miami Metropolitan Area   ( lcsh )
Urban Transportation -- Florida -- Miami Metropolitan Area   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"Prepared for the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Miami urbanized area".
General Note:
"December 1994".

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029924221
oclc - 222021111
usfldc doi - C01-00248
usfldc handle - c1.248
System ID:
SFS0032337:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

COUNTYWIDE PARKING POLICY STUDY Executive Summary

PAGE 2

COUNTYWIDE PARKING POLICY STIJDY LITERATURE AND REGULATIONS REVIEW Prepared for the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Miami Urbanized Area . by the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida iCUTR December 1994

PAGE 3

Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-3120 Director: Project Manager: Project Director: Gary L. Brosch John Bradley F. Ron Jones

PAGE 4

CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Literature Review Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . 0 6 Review of Parking Management Technique Experience . . 0 8 Regulations Review 0 II Summary .......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 iii

PAGE 5

INTRODUCTION This work is intended as a small data collection and analysis study for future use with a much larger countywide Parking Policy Study to be commissioned by the Metropolitan Plaruting Organization (Unified Planning Work Program 9S, Element 3.02). The purpose of this review study was not to recommend specific parking policies, that is the intent of the larger (and more locally concentrated) comprehensive study. The goal of this study is to present the Metropolitan Planning Organization with infonnation to be used in conjunction with the de v elopment of the tasks associated with the larger policy study, which will be to conduct a compreheps ive study of parking and recommend a parking policy complementary to development of the adopted Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Development Master Plan. Therefore, this Literature and R e gulations Review did not recommend specific p arking policies One half of this small study involved a literature review in two areas: first, nationally published generalized studies of the effects of various municipal parking policies that have been implemented in other parts of the country; and second, published studies regarding parking or parking-related policies in Florida, including Miami and Dade County. Over 100 books, studies. publications, and articles were reviewed for this study and some 27 items were inc l uded in the Final Report (primarily in abstract fonn) as Appendix A : Literature Abstracts.. These abstracts w ere referenced under the seven general questions that this study was assigned to address. An extensive bibliography was also included with the study report. The other half was a review of parking regulations that have been promulgated by the of Florida, Dade County, and the municipalities within Dade County. These statutes, regulations, and rules have been collected, reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated with respect to development requirements, provision and pricing options of governmental agencies, and din:ct and indirect effects they may have on the transportation system. The 1993 Florida Siatuteo were searched for parking-related individual statutes and these were presen t ed in the Final Repon J.S Appendix B-1: Abstracts of State Parking-RelaJed Statutes; as were the Dade County (Appendix B-2: Datk County Off-Street Parking Zoning Ordinances) and the relevant ordinances from the 27 municipalities in the county (Appendix B-3: Municipal Off-Street Parkin!l lontn!l Ordinances). These statutes and ordinances were discussed along with four previous policy studies that had been conducted involving Dade County or Miami. Additionally. a o;ct <>f municipal parking regulation matrices were developed so that a cross jurisdictional analym
PAGE 6

more readily be perfonned by the follow-on comprehensive countywide parking policy study. A number of spontaneous interviews were conducted with various parking and transportation officials across the country during the production of this study. Municipal infonnation, memos, and policy data were obtained from Portland, Oregon; Pleasanton and San Francisco, California; Bellevue and Seattle, Washington; and Montgomery County, Maryland. While these sources are not directly quoted in the body of this study, their was greatly appreciated. LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY Parking is an important and integral element in overall local and regional transportation policy development. Parking issues arise in planning urban development and redevelopment, economic growth, traffic congestion mitigation, air quality attainment, and other public policy areas. Parking bas both longand short-term impacts in these areas. Parking is fiSCally important to many municipalities and metropolitan areas and may be perceived as of economic and marketing importance for developers. The supply of parking spaces can be an expensive proposition for governmental bodies, developers and employers; paradoxically, parldng spaces are often supplied "free" to parking users. Issues regarding parking supply provision, the economics of the parking . user market, and equity questions surrounding employer-subsidized employee parking orbit around a central question: How much parking is enough to satisfy commwers, visitors. shoppers. developers, and public policy objectives and under what terms and conditions should various parking policy strategies be applied? This study investigateS the literarure regarding seven aspects of parldng policy and its effects: I. Parking's role in inducing and sustaining uavel related to both pattern and volume, especially with respect to encouraging single-occupant vehic l e (SOV) uavel; 2. Parking's use as a governmental control for land use and zoning; 3. Parking's purpose in local government revenue generation; 2

PAGE 7

4. Parking's role and function in economic growth and development attractiveness from both public and private sector perspectives; t;, .. ...... 5. Parking's roles in institutional issues such as development financing and joint development; 6. Parking's plae in the Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) era of transportation plarming, programming, and funding and; 7. How parking management strategies col'ld be considered as a real option to alleviate traffic congestion. The literature's conclusions about the seven issue questions posed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization are summarized as follows: 1. Parking's role In Inducing and sustaining travel related to botb pattern and volume, especially wltb respeet to encouraging single-occupant vehicle (SOV) traveL Parking policy can have profound effects upon single-occupancy vehicle use as a commute mode, and parking pricing policies are the most effective tool in reducing SOV use by commuters. Negative parking policy (quantity restrictions, price increases, parking taxes, etc.) are not efficient, however, if positive commuter mode choice alternatives are not concurrently offered. Parking policy reform must be offered in a "win-win" situational context. Until instruments of parking policy are put into place, it will not be possible to make precise determinations as to actual impats on the parking user marketplace. An important part of parking policy refonn is the monitoring of effects and adjustments for unintended consequences. 2. Parking's use as a governmental control for land use and zoning. Parking policy can be a tool towards government control of land use and planning programs; however, it is only one tool in the planning toolbox. Past mistakes in the use of zoning regulations to affect parking user deinand behavior may make parking refonn a "difficult sell" 3

PAGE 8

to political officials, l enders, developers. emp loyers. and commuters. An areawide parking po licy education program that in cludes 5lale, county, and municipal officials; developers lenders. and employers; public and private sector employees ; and other affected parties bas the potential to produce the most equitable policy. The development of a consistent and areawide approach to parkin g issues may result in the most efficient use of land zoned for parking 3. Parkmg's pa..,_ Ia local IOVemmeat reveaae paentioa. Parking can be an invaluable revenue generation resource; however, some degree of public sector control of the parking market is an obvious prerequisite to such generation Metered on and off str eet public parking, a parking tax, vigorous enforcement of parking statutes and ordinances, and areawide regulatory authority are potential assets for developing such market control. While political judgements will determine how much control is possible, a clear presentation of the benefits of parking policy reform can make the political decision-malcing process J ess controversial economically For example, by mandatina that parlting-generated net revenue ( after capital costs, implementation and enfon:ement expenses ) be directed towards transit. the cit izen is offered a free market choice: to pay for parking and subsidize transit. or use transit and reap the rewards from others' parking payments. Florida, the pun:ha.se of parking is considered 3S a taxable transaction subjec t to the (currently) six percent state sales tax. The rem. ittances from parking sales tax collection could be legislatively earmarked for a particular use, such as transit subsi dies. 4. Parkm1 s roM aad filaetioa ill ecoaomlc crowtll aad developmeat attnetiveaess fro both publle atod printe Metor penpectives. The role of parking in economic growth and development attractiveness has been one wrapped in myth and a basic lack of communication among the acton involved, resulting in a perpetuaton of these myths. Today's economic circumstances have pr esented the public sector "'uh ltl opportunity to chanie the private sector's perceptions regarding parking's role in development attractiveness. Lenders and developers now demand more precise estimNes of the actual rcn..m on their investments, and the primary focus of the public sector's re-educati on process must "'-' this one simple fact: there is no such thing as frcc parking. When employers recognize that th<: 4

PAGE 9

actual cost to them for supplying free parlcing to their employees can be the same as supplying company-paid health care, employers are mw:l! more inclined to in public: sector parking policy reform Again, public sector education of the private sector is the key to parking policy cooperation. Therefore, an area for further investigation would be the "marketing" of parking policy reform to the various actors in Dade County. Many metropolitan areas have already faced th e situations that Metro-Dade faces now. Some have not come to grips with par!dng problems. However, those that have seem to have continued to grow and develop through coordinated publiclprivate cooperation. 5. Parking's roles i n institutiona l issues s ucb as development financing and joint development. Areawide parking policy reform, the education of private sector actors, and intergovernmental cooperation can be used as a focal point for positive approaches to the institutional issues circulating around development financing and economic growth. Other metropolitan areas that have been the core instigators of progressive and comprehensive parking management programs and development policies have not suffered in the least from parking policy reforms. On the contrary, positive quality of life and civic responsibility issues have tended to overcome negative first impressions of parking policy reform strategies. .Of particular inte rest in Dade County should be the f'unu-e possibilities in public/private joint developments in present and furure transit corridors. Parking policy reform offers opportunities to create interest in sw:h developments by making them more attractive to the private sector . 6. Parkiog's pla ee lo tbeiSTEA era oftraosportatloa p laon iog, programm ioc, aad fu!ldl.Dg. Although the available parking policy literarure makes no reference to the !ntermodal Surfac e Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (!STEA), there would appear to be opportunities to obtain federal funding for pilot programs under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program -in particular peak-period pricing By placing parlcing policy reform under the Meuo Dade MPO and using ISTEA funding, start-up TMAs may al$0 be made more attractive to both the public and private sectors. The role of ISTEA in parking policy reform efforts and s trategy implementation seems relatively undeveloped and deserves deeper investigation. 5

PAGE 10

7. How parking management strategies could be considered as a real optiOD to aUeviate traffic congestion. Parking management is not the only answer to traffic congestion mitigation. However, parking management strategies are some of the more significant tools in the traffic congestion mitigation too l box. Parking management strategies include : peak-period pricing transportation demand management (TDM) ptograms, and the paridn11 tax. The availability of all of these strateg ies creates the opportunity to adapt incremental changes geared to specific geographic areas. The larger follow-on poli cy study should provide sufficient recognition of the importance of each strategy as i t may be applied in Dade County. It is imponant to filter the recommendations that are produced by the l arger srudy through the l ens of this literature and regulatory review IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Many parki n g policy strategies were addressed in the reviewed literature. Included below is a brief outline of the relative effectiveness of these strategies in selected jurisdictions. Success or failure of a particular policy instrument varies with both location and time. Yet, even a f a i lure may lead t o a more successful follow-on policy in a particular jurisdiction. Additionally. no specific policy instrwnent will find success" in every jurisdiction upon every anempted implementation. Economic instruments s u ch as employer cash-out, in-lieu-of fees, parking ta.,es. peak period pric i ng. or impact fees are the most politically difficult to implement. Any and all of these government induced public parking policy economic instruments (whether incentives or dis-incentives) face various fonns of political hurdles. Address i ng and overcoming such hurdles reqwres, from the outset, a recognition that such political hurdles exist; followed by an holisttc approach to public paridng policy development, implementation and enforcement issues. Sound policy analysis and political pre-positioning during the policy deve l opment stage, an effect.-e marketing plan during implementation and enforcement, and accurate identification of by responsible accommodation for) unintended consequences are possibly the only absol u tes of parking policy-making. Recent li terature r eviewed and i nterviews conducted for this ind i cate that the use of singular parking policies as stand-alone strategies is giving way to mon: integrated approaches, recognizing that parking policy (including economic incentives and J s incentives) represent but one aspect of transportation planning. However, integrated approacho!s 6

PAGE 11

require study in three areas: asset inventory and assessment, identification of beneficial policy opportunities, and recognition of tae J?Qlicy's political vulnerabilities. As more regional planning coordination takes place in growing metropolitan areas, area-wide parking policy development becomes politically more difficult on one band (as more actors and issues are identified), and somewhat easier (as policy decision-making becomes less "local") on the other.' Economic instruments, including employer cash-out programs, parking taxes, and in-lieu-of fees, can be important modifiers of parking user behavior. The political question is: they be .implemented? Strategic area-wide parking policies that are based on sound research and analysis (and on a well-developed political foundation) are policies that may lead to an integration of parking policy with general transportation and development planning. Identification of all the relevant issues and actors (and their hierarchial roles and individual agenda) is important to the success of parking policy reform. The strategies and their reported results outlined below were often referenced in the literature that was reviewed for this study and it must be noted that a number of jurisdictions implemented more than one strategy. Many of these metropolitan areas were under specific or general mandates to "do something" regarding air qualitY attainment or traffic congestion. Some; however, also saw these strategies as ways to improve the local quality of life, and approached the search for effective policy instruments with a positive civic atti11Jde. From the literature, it would appear that those areas that developed the broadest and deepest degrees of puliliclprivate cooperation seemed to have the most "success". 7

PAGE 12

REVIEW OF EARKING MANA{ZEMEr!,l TECHNIQUE Tetbaique/Locatioa Reported Results Parking Cap Boston,MA Not Reviewed Portland, OR Increase Under Study by City Parking Tax {Implemented) Los Angeles, CA Significant revenue generation has been San Francisco, CA reported from most locations (see TRl-Toronto, Ontario, CON MET Parking Tax SUT11ey Update, in Chicago, II Appendix A of the Final Re.,Ort). Newark, NJ However, no current literature reported on Baltimore, MD the effects of this policy in these New York City, NY jurisdictions. Philadelphia, PA .. Pittsburgh, P A .. Washington, DC .. Parkinc Tax (Proposed) San Francisco Bay Area, CA Postponed Montgomery County, MD Rejected Portland, OR Under Study Pleasanton, CA Under Consideration State of Washington Failed Employer Parkiag Cub-Out Pleasanton, CA Under Considera tion 8

PAGE 13

REVIEW QF TECHNIOI!E (continued fr o m page 8) Techllique/Loeatiou Reported Results P arkiug Quautity Reductious for New Dcv e lopmeut s S c bauni bur g, IL No t R e ported Aust i n, TX B o uld er CO Chester County, P A Na p ierv ille IL .. Po rt Arthur, IL " Skokie; IL " Se a ttle W A Failed Anne Arundel County, MD Not Reported O akland CA -Broome County, NY E. I;lrunswi c k NJ " Transportatio n D e m and Mauage me n t Progl'llllls Seattle W A Success Portland, OR Succ ess Pleasan ton, C A Success Sacramento, CA Failed B e ll evue, W A Success Los Angeles, CA Failed Peak P eriod Prleiug M ad i son, WI Successful, b u t .. 9

PAGE 14

REVIEW OI MANA!:ZEMElil: EXPEBIENCE (continued from page 9 ) Reported Raults lafrulructure lmpacl Fee Orlando, FL Failed "Paymeal ia-Lieu-or Programs Orl ando FL Failed Mill Valley CA Not Reported Burbank, CA .. .. L ake Forrest, lL .. .. 10

PAGE 15

REGULATIONS REVIEW State Statutes The State of Florida Statutes directly quantify only the supply of handicapped parking (to meet the federal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act) and directly enable the enforcement of on-street parking violations. The state assigns primary regulatory power over off street parking supply provision to the counties (or the applicable metropolitan planning organization) and, to a lesser extent. to the municipalities. Of greater potentil\1 importance, however, the state statutes require the i mplementation of the state sales tax on pay-for parking transactions. Metropolitan planning organizations may anempt to arrange for the legislature to "earmark" that the revenues so generated be directed to transportation. County and Municipal Parking-Related Zoning The twenty-seven municipalities in metropolitan Dade County are representative of any such area. Each refleets the values of its respective population through its ordinances and regulations. These values are often visible in zoning ordinances that specify parking supply provision conditions for new development. Many of the municipal ordinances address set-back$ landscaping and screening, construction materials, aild other aesthetic or mechanical facets of parking supp ly provision. These ordinances are not included in the scope of this study. Rather, the overall parking policy-reflective ordinances that Specify parking atall size, provisions for compact car parking spaces, mixed-use development parking supply totalization methodology, regulatory flexibility, and categorizations of land uses were the study's focal points. These five areas are shown in matrix format in the Parking Policy Comparison Matrix, presented in both this Executive Summary (page 14) and as Matrix C-4 in Appendix C of the Final Report Representative land use categorizations, although not i ncluded in this Summary, are presented as Matrix C-6 C-9 C-ll, and C-JJ in Appendix C of the Final Report. For this study a simplified matrix construction was chosen because it was virtually impossible to adequately show the variations in categorizations and vocabularies that are in use across jurisdictions. This area of cross-jurisdictional parking policy is ripe for reform. The Parking Policy Comparison Matrix was developed to show the similarities and differences in general 11

PAGE 16

parking policies across jurisdictions. The remaining four land-use matrices were developed using artificial categories within land-use sectors. The four sectors are: residential, commercial, industrial and public. These land-use sector categories are representative as opposed to specific. That is, the land-use sectors and their artificial categories do not necessarily match with any published categorizations of land-use types, and no such specificity is implied. For the purposes of this study, the details of variations in required parking supply are less important than pointing out that there are inconsistencies and systematic policy differences. These inconsistencies and differences are to be expected in a fragmented jurisdiction such as metropolitan Dade County. However, the similarities across jurisdictions offer opportunities to create common policies. These general parking policy areas include: I. STALL SIZE Physical parking space size. There are some differences across jurisdictions (range: 8.5ft x 18ft to I Oft x 25ft), and it may be better to leave these physical differences as they are for now Nevertheless, the various municipalities may wish to add language to their ordinances that offer some size commonality in the future. The "one-size-fits-all" parking stall dimensions of 8.5ft x 18ft, as suggested by Smith and Hekimian (1985) and as used by the County and seven of the municipalities, may be a starting point for diScussion regarding cross jurisdictional dimensional consistency 2. COMPACT, TOO? Does a municipal parking ordinance include required or optional provision of compact car stall sizes for certain percentages of parking supply provided? Only four municipalities directly allow a mix of smaller compact car parking spaces The use of compact stalls requires a presumption on the part of zoning administrators that the acrual user fleet mix can be accurately estimated. It may be more useful for jurisdictiom to adopt the "one-sizefits-all" dimensions. 3. MIXED USE ADDITIVE? Does the ordinance address mixed-use parking supply? A "NO MENTION" in the table simply means the subject is not addressed at all in the jurisdiction's ordinance. While a "YES" indicates that mixed-use site parking provision must be additive. That is, the parking provision requirements for multiple uses must be a cumulative figurederived by adding 12

PAGE 17

together each use's discreet parking requirements to reach the total required at the mixed-use site. !l means that wording in the ordinance allows some alternative method in determining total parking provision requirements for mixed-use sites. This is a deftnite area for progress, as alternatives in provision requirements for mixed-use sites can be a win-win situation for both municipalities and developers. The County and twelve municipalities mandate ("YES") additive mixed-use parking supply provision. Mixed-use sites that use an alternative provision quantity calculation method would be a beneficial cross-jurisdictional policy. It would be economically beneficial to developers and lenders on one hand, and assist in zoning land-use eontrol on the other. Whether elaborate calculations (e.g.: Miami Beach, North Miami Beach) are necessary is queslionable and should be open to debate. 4. FLEXIBLE PROVISIONS? Aie there some sect ions of the ordinance that allow for flexibility in the determination of parking space quantities required for land uses or for relief in supply mandates? A "NO MENTION" means that the ordinance makes no comment whatsoever. A "NO" indicates that there is no allowance for flexibility, while a "YES" indicates that there .ls some section of the ordinance that allows for diScretion by planning agencies or relief from mandates. The County and fourteen municipalities had some ordinance provision lhat could be interpreted as "flexible". Again, this is an area where a countywide policy of flexibility may be cooperatively produced by simply adding wording to all of the municipal ordinance codes that allows for situational determination of parking supply quantities based on land-use, densities, local conditions, transit proximity, etc. 5. CATEGORIES USED How many separate categorizations of land-use types were used in the ordinance that determined the quantity required for each land use? The quantitative range (0. 83) was extraordinary. This cross-jurisdictional complication was not helped by the extent of the categorizational vocabulary and additional codified land-use breakdowns that involve zoning districts, specific geographic locations, and even lot size. This represents an area ripe for streaml ining, as no matter how many categories are delineated, planners cannot recognize every individual type ctf land-use. 13

PAGE 18

METROPOUTAN DADE COUNTY PARKING POUCY COMPARISON MATRIX CITY STALL SIZE COMPACT,TOO? MIXED USES ADDITIVE? FLEXIBLE PROVISIONS? CATEGORIES USED SAL HARBOUR 9or10x19 NO YES NO 7 BAY HARBOR ISLANDS 9x20 NO NO MENTION NO 7 BISCAYNE PARK 8.5 X 18 NO NO MENTION YES 5 CORAL GABLES 8 5 X 18 NO YES NO 33 ELPORTAL 160 sq.ft.min. NO NO YES 11 FLORIDA CITY USE DADE CODE GOLDEN BEACH NOTSPEC'D NOTSPEC'D NO MENTION NO MENTION 1 HIALEAH 9x19 7.5 X 16 NO MENTION NO 10 HIALEAH GARDENS NOTSPEC'D NOTSPEC'D YES NO 1 4 HOMESTEAD 10x20 NO YES NO 18 INDIAN CREEK V ILLAGE NOTSPEC'D NOTSPEC'D NO MENTION NO MENTION 0 ISLANDIA NOCOOE 0 KEY BISCAYNE USE DADE CODE MEDLEY USE DADE CODE MIAMI NOTSPEC'D NOTSPEC'D NO YES 7 M IAMI BEACH e.5 X 1e NO NO. YES 59 M IAMI SHORES 10x 25 max NO NO MENTION NO MENTION 5 MIAMI SPRINGS 9x 19 NO YES YES 11 NORTH BAY VILLAGE 10x20 ex 16 NO YES 23 NORTH MIAMI 9x 18 NO YES YES 83 NORTH MIAMI BEACH 9x 18 NO NO YES 40 CPA-LOCKA 10x20 ex 17 YES YES 15 SOUTH MIAMI 9x 18 NO NO YES 16 SURFSIDE 9x20 ex 16 YES YES 14 SWEElWATER e 5 X 1e NO NO MENTION NO MENTION 10 VIRGINIA GARDENS NOTSPEC'D NOTSPEC'D NO MENTION NO MENTION 10 WEST MIAMI 10x20 NO YES NO MENTION 6 DADE COUNTY 8.5 X 18 NO YES YES 43

PAGE 19

The PARKING POLICY COMPARISON MATRIX shows some of the typical impacts of jurisdictional fragmentation on parking policies across a large metropolitan area. However, it also can be used as a starting point for a program to bring mwticipal and county policies into harmony. Deeper insight into the differences (and similarities) between jurisdictions is available by comparing the abstracted Dade County and mwticipal ordinances included in the Final Report as Appendix B-2 and Appendix B-3, respectively. SUMMARY Localized parking palicy reform by itself may simply chase parking users around the county, never acrually helping alleviate areawide congestion or air quality problems. However, areawide parking policy reform combined with intelligent overall transportation policy implementation can be a primary method of efficiently addressing. the traffic congestion and air quality dilemmas Efforts directed at traffic congestion mitigation willlilcely be less successful if parking policy is excluded than they otherwise could be if areawide parking policy strategies are implemented. While the literature reviewed for this study did not address Dade County's problems, it did represent what other metropolitan areas have done in their anempts to address similar issues. The state statutes leave parking policy up to local jurisdictions or metropolitan planning organizations. The county and municipal ordinances represenr a collection of "rules of thumb", "copy-cat" regulations, guesswork, conjecture, and complication. Nevertheless, there remains the opportunity for the developmentof an areawide parking policy that may be effectively coordinated with other public policy strategies to address the areawide goals of transportation improvement, air quality enhancement, and economic development. 15


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200289Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029924221
005 20110909145735.0
008 080410s1994 flu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00248
035
(OCoLC)222021111
040
FHM
c FHM
d FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE356.5.M53
b C68 1994
0 245
Countywide parking policy study :
literature and regulations review : executive summary /
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa] :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1994].
300
iii, 15 p. ;
28 cm.
500
"Prepared for the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Miami urbanized area".
5 FTS
"December 1994".
FTS
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Parking
z Florida
Miami Metropolitan Area.
Urban Transportation
Florida
Miami Metropolitan Area.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (Miami-Dade County, Fla.)
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.248
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001444438;
FTS