Parking Study

What is the purpose of the Parking Study?

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

What areas of the city does the Parking Study include?

The Parking Study includes 7 areas of the city listed below. Scroll down to read about the study areas and review materials.

What's the status of the Parking Study?

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

Brookland Park Boulevard / Six Points

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

Carytown

On January 15, 2019, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review and DESMAN hosted a meeting at the 2810 Community Space to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards canbe downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions. 
General Findings (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. Off-street public and private parking is underutilized. 
  2. The locations of the off-street public parking, as well as poor signage directing people to the facilities, depress utilization 
  3. Illegal parking too close to intersections and curb cuts creates dangerous “sightline” issues. 
  4. There are a limited number of ADA spaces (23) on-street.
  5. Unrestricted on-street parking spaces are the primary source of parking for employees of area businesses.
Most Common Concerns (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. If Residential Permit Parking is implemented, there is concern that area employees will have nowhere to park.
  2.  Merchants are of the opinion that strict enforcement of time limits and other regulations, or implementation of paid parking, may depress customer turnout. 
  3. A lack of short-term parking areas for delivery vehicles and rideshare pickup/drop-off on Cary Street creates significant traffic backups. 
  4.  Any parking revenue that is generated in Carytown should be used in Carytown. 
  5. Other modes of transportation should be considered when determining how best to get people to and through Carytown. 
  6. A lack of enforcement creates dangerous traffic conditions at intersections. 
  7. Access to the public parking garages and circulation in the area is negatively impacted by the prevalence of one-way streets.
‘Long List’ of Potential Initiatives 
Download the initiatives options table here (see summary below).
1. Standardize marking of parking and no parking areas on-street (see On-Street Parking Regulations boards)
Pros: Reduces unsafe practices. Makes the area more welcoming to outside visitors. Regulations are already in place.
Cons: Significant cost . May displace some existing parkers. Will still require enforcement.
2. Install pedestrian amenities to promote walking (e.g. bumpouts, Belgian bumps, etc.).
Pros: Will make it easier to cross major roadways. Potential traffic calming effects. 
Cons: Cost and time intensive to implement. Could reduce parking/traffic capacity.
3. Evaluate potential delivery & TNC pickup/drop-off areas on or just off Cary Street. 
Pros: Reduce traffic backups from double parking. Could reduce customer/visitor parking demand. Limit these activities to certain blocks.
Cons: Reduced number of spaces available for public parking. Will require enforcement if implemented. Could create conflict between businesses for use of delivery areas.
4. Evaluate time limit assignments. 
Pros: Proper time limits can improve turnover and boost activity. Can be adjusted to reflect current conditions. Opportunity to get community agreement before enacting. 
Cons: Merchants may be opposed to shorter time limits. May create initial confusion with long-time residents/visitors. Will still require enforcement.
5. Adopt on-street ADA policies for commercial districts. 
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces. 
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.
6. Promote shared parking agreements between between parties to create 'public' parking (see Shared Parking board
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Creates resources, pedestrian traffic. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs. 
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. May require significant physical improvements. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties.
7. Create on-street Parking Permit Program (see On-Street Parking Permit board)
Pros: Creates a mechanism for employee & resident parking. Relatively low cost. 
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods.
8. Create a parking benefit district (see Parking Benefit District board
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood. 
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.
9. Introducing 'in lieu' payments option to the Zoning Ordinance (see 'In Lieu' board
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint. 
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.
10. Institute "Fee for Use" Pilot for on-street parking (see Parking Meter Pilot board
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation. 
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
Download Materials
Recommendations Meeting Materials (January 2018)
  1. Presentation 
  2. Initiative Options Table 
  3. Meeting Boards 
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 

Downtown

On January 17, 2019, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review and DESMAN hosted a meeting at the Main Library to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards canbe downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions. 
General Findings (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. Consistent pockets of high demand on weekends and weekdays in Jackson Ward. Intensity of demand in Shockoe Bottom suggests the area is reaching a crisis point. 
  2. Need for parking wayfinding and more pronounced signage for public accessible offstreet parking lots. 
  3. There is no standardization or clear visual indication of where curbside parking is allowed and prohibited in non-metered areas (i.e., Jackson Ward, Monroe Ward, Shockoe Bottom). 
  4. Many off-street parking lots have an unsightly appearance and don’t confirm to any basic design and layout standards. 
  5. Uniform meter pricing throughout CBD has no correlation to variances in parking demand intensity. 
  6. There at 10 significant emerging development projects expected to further intensive the prevailing demand for parking. 
  7. Valet parking has been privately instituted during evening hours in the West Broad Street restaurant area. 
Most Common Concerns (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. There is poor or no identification of ‘no parking’ areas near intersections and curb cuts in the Jackson and Monroe Wards and Shockoe Slip and Bottom areas. 
  2. Enforcement of existing parking regulations is minimal or non-existent on purely residential streets – most of the enforcement occurs only at time-limited parking spaces along commercial streets. 
  3. Most believe parking enforcement is too lax – evening enforcement needed in entertainment and restaurant areas. 
  4. Current on-street parking rules and rates are not achieving desired level of turnover – rates should vary with level of demand rather than be uniform across district. 
  5. Solution needs to consider and balance the concerns of residents, business owners, employees, and visitors/patrons. 
  6. Strategies are needed to deal with the impacts of special events, especially along the riverfront. 
  7. Better wayfinding and parking regulation signage is needed. 
‘Long List’ of Potential Initiatives 
Download the initiatives options table here (see summary below).
1. Standardize marking of parking and no parking areas on-street (see On-Street Parking Regulations boards)
Pros: Reduces unsafe practices. Makes the area more welcoming to outside visitors. Regulations are already in place.
Cons: Significant cost . May displace some existing parkers. Will still require enforcement.
2. Evaluate on-street time limit assignments. 
Pros: Current assignments can be confusing, lack predictability. Can be adjusted to reflect emerging development. Opportunity to get community agreement before enacting. 
Cons: Current time limits are 'tuned' to adjacent businesses. May create initial confusion with long-time residents. Will still require enforcement.
3. Adopt on-street ADA policies for commercial districts. 
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces. 
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.
4. Expand/create on-street Parking Permit Program (see On-Street Parking Permit board)
Pros: Creates a mechanism for employee & resident parking. Relatively low cost. 
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods.
5. Promote shared parking agreements between between parties to expand 'public' parking supply (see Shared Parking board) 
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Will provide increased level of customer service.
Cons: May require amendment to local code. May require significant physical improvements. City may have to service as promoter and facilitator.
6. Set on-street parking space rates and time-limits according to land uses and prevailing demand.
Pros: Will drive greater space turnover. Force better distribution of short- and long-term parking. Generate additional system operating revenue.
Cons: Will require extensive signage changes. May necessitate heighten level of enforcement. Adoption will likely be opposed by various constituent groups.
7. Extend hours of enforcement in highly active evening entertainment and dining areas. 
Pros: Will insure compliance with parking regulations. Establish more order and space turnover where needed. Generate additional system operating revenue.
Cons: May required City union contract work rules revisions. Will likely displace entertainment and dining employees. Will require extensive signage changes.
8. Adopt signage and design standards for privately operated pay parking lots. (see Signage Board)
Pros: Will improve streetscape and generally appearance of lots. Will reinforce the existence of public parking lots. Provide needed customer-oriented parking information.
Cons: Adoption will likely be opposed by operators. Required passage of new regulations and inspection policies. Challenge to devise and phase-in implementation of standards.
9. Set parking requirements for major new developments.
Pros: New developments have ample parking accommodations. Will minimize demand on existing parking supply.
Cons: Parking requirements may be subject to negotiations. Public financial subsidizes may be requested or warranted.
10. Evaluate strategic public parking asset development. 
Pros: Creates a catalyst to support growth/redevelopment. Gives new visitors to the area a clear place to go. Could serve a land-banking function.
Cons: Not the highest, best use of land. May require eminent domain process to assemble plots. Diverts funds that could be used for other projects.
11. Institute "Fee for Use" Pilot for on-street parking 
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation. 
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
12. Introducing 'in lieu' payments option to the Zoning Ordinance (see 'In Lieu' board) 
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint. 
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.
Download Materials
Recommendations Meeting Materials (January 2018)
  1. Presentation 
  2. Initiative Options Table 
  3. Meeting Boards 
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 

Libbie/Grove/Patterson

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

Manchester

On January 16, 2019, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review and DESMAN hosted a meeting at Plant Zero to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards and be downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions.
General Findings (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. There is no standardization or clear visual indication of where curbside parking is allowed and prohibited. 
  2.  Aside from 2 small parking lots near each end of Floodwall Park (44 total spaces), the only truly public supply in the area is on-street. The majority is unrestricted parking in residential neighborhoods, with time-limited parking in a few commercial corridors. 
  3. Typically, only a few particular blocks are highly occupied, with ample on-street parking available within one or two blocks. 
  4.  There are 7 proposed developments planned for the area totaling almost 94,000 square feet of commercial space and 434 residential units, with a planned net increase in the supply of parking of just over 100 spaces to support the new land uses. 
  5.  There is also significant new construction and rehabilitation of single-family residential units throughout the area. 
  6.  The prevalence of existing surface parking may present opportunities for sharing among different user groups.  
Most Common Concerns (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. There is poor or no identification of ‘no parking’ areas near intersections, curb cuts, etc. 
  2. Enforcement of existing parking regulations is minimal or non-existent on purely residential streets – most of the enforcement occurs in time-limited parking spaces along commercial streets. 
  3. The potential impact of zoning changes and development along the Hull Street corridor needs to be considered. 
  4. Strategies are needed to deal with the impacts of special events, especially along the riverfront. 
  5. The impact of continued redevelopment in the area will be significant and must factor into any proposed solutions. 
  6. Solutions need to consider and balance the concerns of residents, business owners, employees, and visitors/patrons.  
‘Long List’ of Potential Initiatives 
Download the initiatives options table here (see summary below)
1. Uniform marking of ‘no parking’ and parking areas (see On-Street Regulations board)
Pros: Reduces unsafe practices. Makes the area more welcoming to outside visitors. Regulations are already in place.
Cons: Significant cost. May displace some existing parkers. Will still require enforcement.
2. Evaluate time limit assignments
Pros: Current assignments can be confusing, lack predictability. Can be adjusted to reflect emerging development. Opportunity to get community agreement before enacting.
Cons: Current time limits are 'tuned' to adjacent businesses. May create initial confusion with long-time residents. Will still require enforcement.
3. Adopt on-street ADA policies for commercial districts
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces.
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.
4. Create on-street Parking Permit Program 
Pros: Creates a mechanism for employee & resident parking. Relatively low cost.
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods.
5. Create a parking benefit district (see Parking Benefit District board)
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood.
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.
6. Promote shared parking agreements between parties to create 'public' parking (see Shared Parking boards)
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs,
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties
7. Introducing 'in lieu' payment option to Zoning Ordinance  (see 'In Lieu' board)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.
8. Evaluate strategic public parking asset development (see Potential Sites board)
Pros: Creates a catalyst to support growth/redevelopment. Gives new visitors to the area a clear place to go. Could serve a land-banking function.
Cons:Not the highest, best use of land. May require eminent domain process to assemble plots. Diverts funds that could be used for other projects.
9. Institute "Fee for Use" Pilot for on-street parking (see Parking Meter Pilot board)
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation. 
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
Download Materials
Recommendations Meeting Materials (December 2018)
  1. Presentation 
  2. Initiatives Options Table 
  3. Meeting Boards 
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 

Scott's Addition - Parking and Circulation

On January 16, 2019, the Dept. of Planning and Development Review, the Dept. of Public Works, DESMAN, and VHB hosted a meeting at Studio Two Three to present a long list of potential recommendations for review and discussion with the community related to parking and circulation. The presentation materials are summarized below and the presentation and meeting boards and be downloaded below. Also below you can find the materials from the June 2018 meeting where DESMAN presented existing conditions.
General Findings 
Parking - (What DESMAN Saw)
  1. Heavy on-street overall utilization at mid-day (88%) on weekdays and over parking on various blocks in the mornings and weekends, according to land uses. 
  2. Comparatively low utilization of off-street parking (36-49% overall) with only about 20% of all facilities operating at or near effective capacity. 
  3.  On weekends, on-street utilization climbed though the days (55% in the morning, 71% in the afternoon) to peak at 120% of effective capacity (1,599 cars vs. 1,336 spaces.) [Potential displacement of 263 vehicles if properly marked and enforced.] 
  4.  On the same weekday there were between 2,245 and 2,393 off-street spaces open. 
  5.  Many vehicles parked in places where parking should not be allowed (i.e. abandoned curb cuts, fire hydrants, into intersections, etc.) 
  6.  No on-street handicapped parking spaces. [2% off-street standard would require ~ 31 spaces.] 
Circulation - (What VHB Saw)
  1. The one-way streets limit traffic circulation through Scott’s Addition, leads to driver confusion, and contributes to congestion at certain “hot spots” during peak periods. 
  2. Throughout the neighborhood, there are missing or degrading sidewalks. 
  3. There is also a lack of crosswalks and pedestrian infrastructure, including pedestrian heads or pedestrian median refuge islands at major intersections. 
  4. The missing bicycle accommodations throughout Scott’s Addition and connecting to/from Scott’s Addition creates a less-inviting environment for bicyclists. 
  5. The neighborhood also experiences excessive vehicle speeds, which may be induced by wide travel lanes and lacking street elements that would influence lower driving speeds. 
  6. At most intersections there are blind spots and inadequate sight distances, partially caused by cars parking too close to the intersections. 
  7. At Roseneath Road and Broad Street the existing intersection geometry is difficult for large trucks to navigate right-turns onto Broad Street and many of the trucks collide with the existing utility pole that is right at the edge of the roadway in the sidewalk. 
  8. There are underutilized segments or potential segments that could increase flow of traffic and access points to adjacent neighborhoods. 
Most Common Concerns 
Parking - (What DESMAN Heard) 
  1. Concerns regarding om-street parking practices and enforcement. 
  2.  Zoning does not seem to be requiring enough parking to support new uses as they are introduced. 
  3.  Curbside turnover and availability is a major concern for businesses in the area. 
  4.  Lack of designated parking for area employees and/or residents if curbside parking is restricted. 
  5.  Desire to see infrastructure improvements to support walking and biking through the area. 
  6.  Short-term desire for structured parking through a Public/Private Partnership. 
  7.  General acknowledgement that long-term growth will need to less car-centric, more focused on live-work or alternative transportation modes. 
Circulation - (What VHB Heard) 
  1. Missing/degrading sidewalks and other pedestrian accommodations throughout Scott’s Addition. 
  2. Missing bicycle facilities within Scott’s Addition and no bicycle connection to/from Scott’s Addition. 
  3. One-way streets causing confusion for drivers and limiting access throughout Scott’s Addition. The one-way streets also result in forced turns and inefficient paths for vehicles, such as those entering Scott’s Addition from Leigh Street east of Boulevard. 
  4. Speeding throughout Scott’s Addition. 
Parking - ‘Long List’ of Potential Parking Initiatives 
Download the parking initiatives options table here (see summary below)
1. Uniform marking of ‘no parking’ and parking areas (see On-Street Regulations board)
Pros: Reduces unsafe practices. Makes the area more welcoming to outside visitors. Regulations are already in place.
Cons: Significant cost. May displace some existing parkers. Will still require enforcement.
2. Enforce existing regulations
Pros: Improves turnover/availability. Creates incentives for alternatives (parking/transportation).
Cons: Will displace other users, who will need alternatives. Perceived as antagonistic to area businesses.
3. Introduce 'in lieu' payment option to Zoning Ordinance  (see 'In Lieu' board)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.
4. Promote shared parking agreements between parties to create employee parking (see Shared Parking board)
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs,
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties
5. Seek out structured parking opportunities associated with parcel redevelopment (see Potential Structure Parking board)
Pros: Would out more parking to the general supply. Could address some existing/future parking issues. Could replace capacity lost to curbside realignment.
Cons: Requires cooperative effort with multiple land owners. Disruptive during development period. No current funding/subsidy source identified.
6. Create on-street Parking Permit Program 
Pros: Could improve curbside availability. Could compel better use of off-street alternatives.
Cons: Could negatively impact some residences & businesses. May be perceived as punitive measure.
7. Institute "Fee for Use" Pilot for on-street parking 
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation. 
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.
8. Install pedestrian amenities to promote walking (e.g. bump outs, Belgian bumps, etc.)
Pros: Will make it easier to cross major roadways. Potential traffic calming effects.
Cons: Cost and time intensive to implement. Could reduce parking/traffic capacity.
9. Create a parking benefit district (see Parking Benefit District board)
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood.
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.
Circulation - ‘Long List’ of Potential Circulation Initiatives 
1. Narrower travel lanes and convert several existing one-way streets to two-way. (Excluding Sheppard Street) (see Narrow Lanes slides)
Pros: Increases circulation throughout Scott’s Addition. Reduces hot spots of congestion at peak times of travel. Acts as a traffic calming feature.
Cons: Cost to convert and add signage and necessary traffic signals on Boulevard. 
2. Improve pedestrian conditions and infrastructure throughout the neighborhood. (see Pedestrian Improvement slides)
Pros: Increases safety for pedestrians crossing streets. Marked pedestrian crossings increases visibility of pedestrians crossing the street. Pedestrian median refuge island reduces those pedestrians’ exposure to vehicles during a two-stage crossing.
Cons: Diverts funds that could be used for other projects. May result in a loss of on-street parking spots.
3. Implement curb extensions at intersections. (see Curb Extensions slide)
Pros:  Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians and exposure to vehicles. Increases the sight distance at intersections. Adds to the traffic calming infrastructure throughout Scott’s Addition.
Cons: : Diverts funds that could be used for other projects. Results in loss of space currently used as parking spaces.
4. Increase bicycle infrastructure throughout Scott’s Addition. (see Bicycle Improvements slides)
Pros:  Provides access for bicycles within the neighborhood. Narrows the travel lanes, causing drivers to be more cautious and reduce travel speed. Adds to the bicycle network throughout Richmond. Infrastructure, such as bicycle corrals, will increase the amount of dedicated bicycle parking, reducing illegal bike parking, and potentially convert vehicle trips to bicycle trips to locations within Scott’s Addition.
Cons: On the streets with a bicycle lane in each direction, the bicycle lane will reduce vehicular parking on one side of the street.
5. Construct underutilized segments and potential new access points to increase circulation into and throughout Scott’s Addition. These include a direct connection from I-195 to Belleville, extending Norfolk Street through to Hamilton Street, and completing all segments of Patton Avenue. (see Street Connections slides)
Pros:  Adds more access points and completes grid street network in neighborhood.
Cons: Diverts funds that could be used for other projects. May increase through traffic.
6. Relocate the utility pole at Roseneath Road and Broad Street, further back from the curb line. (see Utility Pole slide)
Pros:  Allows easier truck access onto Broad Street.
Cons: Diverts funds that could be used for other projects.
7. Add wayfinding throughout Scott’s Addition.
Pros: Increases efficiency in finding destinations throughout Scott’s Addition.
Cons: Diverts funds that could be used for other projects.
8. Consolidate driveway access on select streets. (see Driveway Consolidation slide)
Pros: Decreases curb cuts, which can increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on the street and foster healthier alternative travel modes. May increase on-street parking supply that would be lost to other proposed improvement measures.
Cons: Diverts funds that could be used for other projects.
Download Materials
Existing Conditions Meeting Materials (June 2018) 

The Fan

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

Other Parking Study Materials

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