7 - Recommendation on Sunsetting of the Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Commuter Permits
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: October 28, 2002
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council to
extend the date upon which the City Manager may issue non-resident commuter permits in
Neighborhood Permit Parkin zones from December 31, 2002.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works/Transportation
Michael J. Gardner-Sweeney, Public Works/Transportation Planning & Operations
Molly Winter, Director of the Downtown and University Hill Management Division
Kate Patterson, Downtown and University Hill Management Division/ Parking Services
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Board recommendation to City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: In 2001 commuter permit revenue was $46,800 approx. 19% of the
total program revenues.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is extend the Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) program Commuter
Permits beyond the December 31, 2002 sunset.
BACKGROUND
The Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) program was adopted by the City Council in May
1997 as an improved version of the RPP program. The NPP was designed to improve the
balance between preserving neighborhood character and providing public access to community
facilities. The new program provided for greater flexibility and new features not available
under the old RPP program, including:
The availability of commuter permits within permit parking zones;
The ability to tailor the time and duration of restrictions to meet the needs of the
neighborhood; and
The one time only per day short-term parking component.
The NPP ordinance stipulates that up to four commuter permits may be issued per block face
within an NPP zone to nonresidents up to December 31, 2002. After this date, these permits
will no longer be available within NPP zones, unless re-authorized by city council.
1
Protection for neighborhoods included in the NPP ordinance:
The NPP ordinance provides a level of protection for the neighborhoods to insure that
Commuter permits are issued only on block faces where the average daily percentage of
unoccupied parking spaces ("white space") exceeds 25 percent (15% in Goss/Grove). The
maximum number of commuter permits issued on any one block-face within an NPP zone is
four. This provides a level of protection for the neighborhood by ensuring that commuter
permits will not impact blocks that experience occupancy of 75 % or more. Staff is able to
respond to residents and commuters concerns about over-crowding by conducting white space
studies on individual blocks upon request. If a block with commuter permits is found to be
over occupied the permit(s) are not renewed the following quarter.
ATTACHMENT A: NPP Ordinance
ANALYSIS
To determine the impact of the Commuter permits sunsetting, staff looked at the utilization of
these permits (there are currently 163 Commuter permits issued), the overall parking utilization
in the NPP neighborhood (white space levels) and the current status of other parking option in the
downtown (status of CAGID lot and structure waitlists). At this time the Commuter Permits are
the only long term parking option Parking Services has to offer the public.
In addition to limiting the options available to the public, the loss of the Commuter Permits would
impact the NPP program financially, by reducing the total permit revenues by an estimated 70%.
If the permit revenue is expected to cover the administrative costs of the program the resident
permits fee may need to be increased.
Utilization of the Commuter Permits:
The following information is provided to demonstrate both the utilization of the Commuter
Permits and the measured impacts of all parking use in the NPP zones.
The utilization of the commuter permits has remained consistent since they began in 1998.
1998 of the 260 permits available, 148 permits sold 57%***
1999 of the 482 permits available, 175 permits sold 36%
2000 of the 545 permits available, 212 permits sold 39%
2001 of the 554 permits available, 195 permits sold 35%
1998 number includes only the downtown districts, Whittier, Mapleton and High/Sunset.
The majority of unsold permits are in the Columbine zone (260) and the outer blocks of the
University Hill, Whittier and High/Sunset zones.
2
Utilization (White Space) Study:
In October of 2001 a utilization study (white space) was conducted in all six of the NPP zones.
The overall average "white space" (open space) by zone is as follows:
Columbine 83 % white space (same as in 1998), 17 % occupied
Whittier 55 % white space (up from 43 % in 1997), 45 % occupied
High/Sunset 79 % white space (up from 34 % in 1996), 21 % occupied
Goss/Grove 17% white space (down from 34% in 2000)*, 83% occupied
University Hill 52% white space (down from 62% in 1998), 48% occupied
Mapleton 46 % white space (down from 61 % in 1998), 54 % occupied
* The white space guideline in Goss/Grove is 15
As a result of this White Space study some commuter spaces were removed, relocated or
refunded. In addition, commuter spaces were added on those blocks with more than 25 %
(15% for Goss/Grove) white space. The following are the changes made by zone:
Zone Commuter Permits Removed, Relocated, or Added
Offered Refunded
Columbine 260 0 0
Whittier 172 18 26
Sunset 43 0 18
Goss/Grove 39 26 6
University Hill 133 12 46
Mapleton 75 15 31
Total 722 71 127
ATTACHMENT B: Utilization Study
Parking Demand in CAGID:
The utilization of CAGID permits has remained at 100% even as the parking supply has
increased.
1998 1999 2000 2001
CAGID Structure Permits 815 1119 1334 1380
Waitlist 312 1321 1247 1126
CAGID Surface lots 471 424 397 405
Waitlist 701 755 1764 1016
3
Program Administrative Revenue and Expenditures:
NPP program fee structure
Resident Permits - $12 annually.
Visitor Pass - 2 Free with the purchase of a resident permit.
Guest Permits - Free, available upon resident request.
Commuter permits - $60.00 per quarter.
Business Permits - $75 annually.
The resident permit rate has not changed since the creation of the RPP program. Revenue
from the sale of resident permits in 2001 was $21,540 while the administrative costs of the
NPP program were $49,497.
The price of a commuter permit is $60.00 per quarter. In 2001, Parking Services issued
approximately 195 commuter permits and collected $46,808 in permit fees.
If the Commuter permits were to sunset, staff would recommend the NPP resident permit be
increased to cover the administrative costs of the program (estimate $36/yr).
If the Commuter Permit were to be continued, staff would recommend the price of these
permits be increased to $75 make them relative to the CAGID surface lot permits ($128/qtr)
and an average CU permit ($92/qtr). An NPP Commuter Permit is comparable to a surface lot
permit in that it is uncovered parking. It is not comparable in that a commuter permit holder
competes for parking with residents, visitors, guest and short -term parking and that on street
parking is not maintained (stripped, plowed, resurfaces etc.) as a surface lot would be.
Note: Enforcement expenses and ticket revenues are separate from program expenses and
revenues.
ATTACHMENT C: NPP Revenues and Expenditures 2001
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
In order to determine if the Commuter Permits should be continued staff pursued a number of
community inputs, including a mail back survey of all residents served by the NPP program,
individual interviews with original NPP proponents, and community meetings with the affected NPP
residents.
NPP User Survey:
The purpose of this survey was to ascertain resident's satisfaction with the NPP program and
assess the impact that Commuter Permit had on the neighborhoods. The results of the 2000 NPP
User Survey suggest that the majority of respondents felt that conditions in their neighborhood as
a result of the NPP program had either stayed the same or improved.
4
There was very little disparity among residents in all neighborhoods combined between the
distance they expected to park and the distances they actually parked from their home. Most
respondents felt that ease of parking both for self and visitors had increased or stayed the same
since the inception of the NPP program. Among the NPP zones, University Hill had the largest
proportion of respondents who felt there had been an improvement in ease of parking both for
self and visitors; 75% of residents in this zone said ease of parking had increased.
Residents, their guests and short-term parkers dominate utilization of on street parking in the
NPP zones. Long-term parking in the NPP zones is available through the commuter permits.
ATTACHMENT D: NPP 2000 User Survey Summary
Stakeholder Interviews:
Public Involvement Facilitator Molly Tayer interviewed a selection of early NPP petitioners
and activists to establish groundwork for the community discussion. Five NPP residents who
were involved in the formation of the 1997 ordinance were interviewed, two former staff
members who worked on the implementation process and one City Council member, who also
worked on the NPP.
The interviews provided two strongly acknowledged "common themes." First, the residents in
the NPP zones do not want anything to threaten their parking district programs. They are all
very pleased with the general daily access on their blocks.
Second, most of the zone residents were unable to report if there were commuter permits on
their block face. All reported that they were not experiencing any adverse effects as a result of
the any commuter permits on their blocks.
Three of the individuals interviewed (of 8 interviewed) offered that they remembered that the
commuter permits were offered to allow CAGID and the City to perform long range planning
to address commuter parking needs, and wondered if the City had "held up their end of the
bargain" in the five-year period.
NPP Public Meeting Comments:
Staff met with residents of Goss/Grove, University Hill, Mapleton and Whittier/Sunset NPP
Zones. The following is a summary of the comments received regarding the operation of the
commuter permits.
5
Goss/Grove Residents (June, 2002):
• Commuter permits should continue because the needs at BHS continue.
• Why is parking allowed on the bumps?
• We have a problem with blocked alleys and sidewalks.
• There is no enforcement before lam and after 6 PM.
• Why are there NPAT signs on 18" and Walnut at the pocket park?
• Motorcycles drive through the pocket park.
• No complaints about the NPP.
University Hill Residents (October, 2002):
• Number of concerns for the white space count for their district. Individuals offered that
there should be higher standard, larger parking space allocation due to number of SUV's,
more than a "snap-shot" to determine white space, and more customization of the white-
space on a block by block basis to assure that blocks with nonconforming uses (sororities
and multi-family structures) should be excluded from commuter permit use.
• Commuter permits should be priced commensurately with CU parking, or other surface
lots;
• Commuter permits should be premium priced by proximity to Hill and CU to encourage
more distribution to outlying blocks;
• PCO's should track repeat offenders who "buy space" via parking tickets;
• Staff should review the visitor permit status. Concern that residents are "losing them" and
selling these to students/friends. In review, do not unfairly penalize the residents who value
and use these permits properly.
• Concern that there is not enough enforcement for level of parking experience in zone.
• Four participants indicated that the commuter permits should go away. Sited that it would
improve quality of life on blocks.
• Rest of participants (approximately 14 people) indicated that there are probably political
benefits to supporting the continuation of the commuter permits, with provisions, in that
the neighborhood would be making a contribution to help the problem.
Teton Hill Residents (October, 2002):
Very small attendance. Three people from inside of the zone; one person from the outer-
western edge of the zone.
• Residents offered that they could not identify any problems from the permits.
• Concern that the historic district is preserved and the level of parking experienced on the
streets is a form of blight.
• Participants felt that the 3-hour parking zone creates a good amount of turn over in white
space.
• Residents on northern edge of zone have parking pressures from the small businesses
located nearby on Broadway; not necessarily downtown mall.
• Interest in future parking to be developed downtown. Feel the downtown should create
more parking if they are able.
6
• Participants feel good that there are options such as eco-pass in addition to the commuter
permits.
• Questions about the use of revenues from parking tickets. Residents wondered why the
PCO's could not up the enforcement to raise revenues.
Whittier and High/Sunset Residents (October, 2002):
• The provision was set at 5 years to give the city/CAGID time to do planning work for long-
term parking needs. They haven't done it. There is no way to assure they do if the commuter
permits continue. Let the commuter permits go.
• New whites space study standards
- If white space study could be done with more frequency.
- Study should be done before new permits are released each quarter.
- PCO's could have a check off chart to count cars on rounds for certain blocks -
simplify the process.
- Should target the blocks that are close in to the mall: problem blocks, the "transition
zone" where there is lots of pressure due to the people seeking free 3-hour parking
close in.
- You should do a study anytime new development comes on-line. Each new
development in east Pearl brings new employees and new clients. These impacts
need to be measured.
• Other enforcement standards
- Should explore doing other enforcement in zone after 5PM
- Proactive consideration of employee parking for restaurants, of which we have
several new since 1997
- Can there be a cost-benefit analysis for nighttime enforcement? Couldn't that revenue
be used to justify performing the enforcement in the zone?
• Concern for how the zone was created
- Was never petitioned for the zone. Not democratic process.
• Concern for the administration of the Visitor permits
- The visitor permit is an administrative nightmare
- What about a special hanger for long-term caregivers?
- What about a neighborhood repository for "party permits" for impromptu weekend
gatherings?
- Other way to handle the cost to a new resident coming mid-year?
• Another sunset in Five years
- Hope to see more proactive effort to educate new employees
- Hope to see direction toward effective park-and-ride facilities at new transit center at
30 & Pearl.
- Signage and other tools to educate users during festivals and weekends... "Garages
7
are free" banners.
Small flier delivered to windshield with parking ticket with information on other
options for parking.
• Comment Forms from Whittier _
Would recommend that staff renew the commuter permits with provisions because - there are a
lot of workers who need places to park. But we need more attention to the transition areas. With
provision: remove commuters from close in blocks (Spruce) because it is very difficult to find a
place to park on these blocks.
The Columbine and Fairview NPP zones were not scheduled for an individual meeting due to
the fact that there are no commuter permits issued in these zones at this time. All NPP
residents were notified of this process and the opportunities for public comment.
General Program Feed Back:
Residents from all districts expressed concern that the NPP program be continued and shared
"then and now" stories to express the positive benefits the program provides. People are
happy to be able to find parking on their blocks when they come home and appreciate having
space for visitors and home service providers.
Many participants indicated that they would support added cost for their residential permits to
help provide operating revenue for the program. All districts are concerned about the standard
of parking enforcement and would like to assure the zones are receiving adequate enforcement.
University Hill neighbors said that there are still days when the NPP does not function, as it
should in their zone, due to the parking pressures of the commuting students. Participants in
this meeting asked that elected officials be appraised that the parking pressures in their
neighborhood are severe. They suggest that staff evaluate the potential abuse of the Visitor
permits provided program participants and increase enforcement when able.
Participants also questioned the "white space study" methodology and asked if there could be a
higher standard or frequency of measurement.
The general theme from individuals who would support the sunset of the ordinance is the
obligation of the City to address long-term commuter parking needs. Participants from the
1996-1997 workshops that created the NPP offered that the five-year sunset was established to
allow the business parking district time to address the long-term commuter parking needs.
These long-engaged citizens indicated in current meetings that they would support the
continuation of the commuter permits, with provisions, but would like to hear from the city
leaders that there will be added and continued effort to address the commuter parking issue.
8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Commuter permits be continued for the following reasons.
• There is a public demand for the Commuter permits.
• The majority of residents served by the NPP program do not have any issues with the
Commuter permits.
• Problems that do arise with the Commuter permits can be address by the existing ordinance
which limits the number of Commuter Permits to 4 per block face and insures that blocks with
less than 25% white space (15% Goss/Grove) are not further impacted by Commuter permit.
In addition, staff recommends the Commuter permit fee be increased to $75 per quarter and be
raised 5% every two-years in conjunction with the CAGID permits.
If the Board were interested in adding additional provisions to the continuation of the Commuter
permits staff would recommend they consider the following:
Possible Provisions:
1.) A new sunset date of December 31, 2006.
2.) A new criteria for assessing white space levels.
The NPP ordinance states that "if the manager determines that the average daily percentage
of unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces, on block faces where commuter permits have
been allocated, drops below twenty-five percent for four consecutive hours between the
hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. of any given week day, then the manger shall reduce
the number of commuter permits by a number estimated to maintain an average daily
percentage of unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces of twenty-five percent."
Currently a white space study consist of a collection of data at several different times on
one day which provides a "snap shot" of what the parking is on an average day. This
method is used for determining if a block meets the minimum requirement to be
added/included in an NPP zone and establishing if commuter permits should be available.
Some residents expressed concerns that this method of collecting data on one day does not
accurately represent the parking conditions on and average day. Another resident believed
that a white space study should be conducted every quarter, prior to renewing any
Commuter permits.
The staff recommendation would be to maintain the current ordinance language as it allows
the flexibility to consider other methods of data collection to address residents concerns.
9
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED
The Board is asked to discuss and comment on the recommendation to:
1.) Continue the Commuter permit program
2.) The increase fee for the Commuter permit
3.) And any provisions that should be included in the ordinance.
NEXT STEPS
The manager shall provide the city council with the manager's proposal to the board, the board's
recommendation and related comments, the manager's final plan, and the reason for any difference
between the recommendation and the final plan. The first reading of this item is scheduled for
November 12, 2002.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: NPP Ordinance
ATTACHMENT B: Utilization Study
ATTACHMENT C: NPP Revenues and Expenditures 2001
ATTACHMENT D: NPP 2000 User Survey Summary
10
ATTACHMENT A
TITLE 2 GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 2 General Administration 1
Ordinance NO. 5869
2-2-15 Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones.
(a)Restricting parking on streets in certain areas zoned for residential uses primarily to persons residing within such
areas will reduce hazardous traffic conditions, promote traffic safely, and preservc•the safety of children and other
pedestrians in those areas; protect those areas from polluted air, excessive noise, trash, and refuse; protect residents
of those areas from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their residences; preserve the character of those areas
as residential; promote efficiency in the maintenance of those streets in a clean and safe condition; preserve the
value of the property in those areas; and protect the peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the
inhabitants of the city. The city council also finds that, in some cases, residential streets serve an important parking
function for non-residents in the public and commercial life of the city. Some accommodation for parking by others
may be appropriate in these cases.
(b)Upon receipt of a request by twenty-five adult residents of a neighborhood proposing a neighborhood permit
parking zone, the city manager will conduct studies to determine if a neighborhood permit parking permit zone
should be established in that neighborhood, and what its boundaries should be. The manager may, if the manager
concludes it is in the public interest to do so, initiate this process without any request. The manager may consider,
without limitation, the extent to which parking spaces are occupied during working or other hours, the extent to
which parked vehicles are registered to persons not apparently residing within the neighborhood, the impact that
businesses and facilities located within or without the neighborhood have upon neighborhood parking within the
neighborhood, such other factors as the manager deems relevant to determine whether parking by non-residents of
the neighborhood substantially impacts the ability of residents of the proposed parking permit zone to park their
vehicles on the streets of the proposed zone with reasonable convenience, and the extent to which a neighborhood
permit parking zone would significantly reduce this impact. The manager shall also determine the need for
reasonable public access to parking in the area, and the manner and extent that it should be provided, along with
the hours and days on which parking restrictions should apply. No such parking restrictions shall apply on Sundays
or holidays.
(c)If the manager determines that establishing a neighborhood permit parking zone is in the public interest, or that
altering a residential parking zone in existence on January 1, 1997, or created thereafter, is in the public interest,
the manager shall prepare a proposal for the zone, specifying the boundaries, the hours and days on which parking
restrictions will apply, and the provisions, if any, for non-resident permit parking. The manager may hold such
public meetings as deemed advisable to assist the manager in formulating such proposal. The manager shall present
this proposal for the zone to the Transportation Advisory Board. The board, after including in its normal public
notice these features of the manager's plan, shall hold a public hearing on the manager's proposal, and shall
recommend to the manager that the zone be established, that it be established with certain modifications which are
within the manager's authority under this code and any adopted regulations, or that it not be established. The
manager shall, within thirty days of the board's recommendation, provide the city council with the manager's
proposal to the board, the board's recommendation and related comments, the manager's final plan, and the reason
for any difference between the recommendation and the final plan. If the city council does not call up the manager's
final plan within thirty days, the manager may establish the zone. If the city council calls up the manager's final
plan, it shall hold a public hearing on the plan and, by motion, direct the manager not to establish the zone, or to
S:\CMO\DU HMDPS\PARKING\NPI+\PROGRAM\ADMINIST\DOCU M ENT\ORDINANC. W PD
establish the zone with any modifications which are within the manager's authority, or to establish the zone in
accordance with the manager's final plan. The manager shall establish the zone approved by regulation, but if the
zone is established after a city council call-up, the manager shall not call for public comment in the notice of
proposed regulation.
(d)Upon establishment of a zone, the manager shall, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the purpose,
install the necessary traffic control devices within the zone and issue neighborhood parking zone permits pursuant
to Chapter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
(e)The manager may by regulation prescribe additional standards, not inconsistent with those set out in this section,
which must be met before the manager designates a neighborhood permit parking zone, or adds or deletes territory
from an established zone. The manager may issue regulations governing the issuance and use of neighborhood
parking permits not inconsistent with Chapter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
(f)The city manager shall monitor the program on a regular basis and annually provide the city council with a report
on the neighborhood permit parking program generally, including its relationship to parking supply and demand
in adjacent areas of the city and the status of zone block faces under Subsection 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981. The details
of the monitoring effort shall be contained in administrative regulations promulgated by the city manager pursuant
to Chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981.
Ordinance Nos, 4966 (1986); 5869 (1997).
4-20-49 Neighborhood Parking Permit Fee.
(a)A zone resident applying for a neighborhood parking permit shall pay $12.00 for each permit or renewal thereof.
(b)A business applying for a neighborhood parking permit for employees shall pay $75.00 for each permit or
renewal thereof.
(c)An individual who does not reside within the zone applying for a neighborhood parking permit, if permitted in
the zone, shall pay $45.00 in 1997 and 1998, 552.50 in 1999, and $60.00 in the year 2000 for each quarterly permit
or renewal thereof.
TITLE 4 LICENSES AND PERMITS
Chapter 23 Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits
S: \CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADM INIST\DOCUMENT\ORDINANC. W PD
Adopted by Ordinance No. 4966. Amended by Ordinance No. 5869.
4-23-1 Legislative Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to set the standards for issuance and administration of neighborhood parking zone
permits.
4-23-2 Permit Issuance.
(a)Upon designation of a neighborhood permit parking zone pursuant to Section 2-2-15, "Neighborhood Permit
Parking Zones," B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall issue parking permits for vehicles owned by or in the custody
of and regularly used by residents of such zone, by persons employed by a business located within such zone, and,
if provided in the zone, by individual non-residents upon receipt of a completed application therefor and payment
of the fees prescribed in Section 4-20-49, "Neighborhood Parking Permit Fee," B.R.C. 1981. The city manager may
issue non-resident commuter permits up to December 31, 2002, after which date this permit will no longer be
available within neighborhood permit parking zones, unless re-authorized by the city council before that time.
(b)A vehicle displaying a valid permit issued pursuant to this section may be parked in the zone specified in the
permit without regard to the time limits prescribed for the zone.
(c)No more than two resident permits shall be in effect at any time for any person. No person shall be deemed a
resident of more than one zone, and no more than one permit may be issued for any one vehicle even if persons
residing in different zones share ownership or use.
(d)Resident permits issued under this section shall be specific for a single vehicle, shall not be transferred, and shall
be displayed thereon only as the manager by regulation may prescribe. The permittee shall remove the permit from
the vehicle if the vehicle is sold, leased, or no longer in the custody of the permittee.
(e) "Business," for the purpose of this chapter, includes non-residential institutions, but does not include home
occupations. Three business employee permits may be in effect at any time for any business without regard to
number of employees or off-street parking. In the alternative, upon application by the manager of the business, the
city manager may issue employee permits to a business according to the following formula: half of the number of
full-time equivalent employees minus the number of off-street parking spaces under the control of the business at
that location equals the maximum number of employee pen-nits for the business. Full-time equivalent employees
of the business are calculated based upon one such employee for every full forty hours worked at that location by
employees of the business within the periods of time in a week during which the neighborhood permit parking
restrictions are in effect. On its application, the employer shall designate the employee vehicles, not to exceed the
number allowed, for which each permit is valid. A business permit is valid only for the vehicles listed thereon, and
shall be displayed on the vehicle for which the permit is being used only as the manager by regulation may
prescribe.
(f)The manager shall by regulation declare when the permit year shall begin for each neighborhood parking permit
zone. Permits issued based on new applications submitted during the last month of a permit year shall also be valid
for the succeeding permit year. Otherwise there shall be no pro-ration of the fee.
(g)ln considering applications for resident permits, the manager may require proof that the applicant has a legal right
to possession of the premises claimed as a residence. If the manager has probable cause to believe that the
S:\CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\N PP\PROGRAM W DMINIST\DOCUMENT,;ORDINANC. WPD
occupancy limitations of Section 9-3.2-8, "Occupancy of Units," B.R.C. 1981, are being violated, no further permits
shall be issued under this section for the residence in question until the occupancy thereof is brought into
compliance.
(h)If the permit or the portion of the vehicle to which a resident permit has been affixed is damaged such that it must
be replaced, the permittee, upon application therefor, shall be issued a replacement at a prorated cost. The manager
may require display of the damaged permit before a new permit is issued.
(i)No person shall use or display any permit issued under this section in violation of any provision of this code.
O)The maximum number of non-resident permits issued on any given block face within a zone shall be four. In
addition, if the manager determines that the average daily percentage of unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces,
on block faces where commuter permits have been allocated, drops below twenty-five percent for four consecutive
hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of any given weekday, then the manager shall reduce the
number of commuter permits by a number estimated to maintain an average daily percentage of unoccupied
neighborhood parking spaces of twenty-five percent.
4-23-3 Guest Permits.
Residents issued a permit pursuant to this chapter may obtain two two-week permits per year for use by house guests
of the permittee. The permit shall be indelibly marked in the space provided thereon with the date of its first use.
The permit shall thereafter be valid only for the succeeding thirteen consecutive days. The manager may by
regulation define the circumstances under which additional guest permits may be issued in cases of reasonable need
consistent with residential use of the dwelling.
4-23-4 Temporary Permits.
Upon application to the manager, any person licensed or registered as a contractor in the city may obtain at no cost
a reasonable number of temporary permits for the vehicles of the contractor and the contractor's employees for the
period of time that the contractor is engaged in work within a neighborhood permit parking zone for which a permit
has been issued under the provisions of Title 10, "Structures," B.R.C. 1981.
Ordinance No. 5271 (1990).
4-23-5 Revocation.
The manager, after notice and a hearing as set forth in Section 4-1-10, "Revocation of Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, may
revoke any permit issued pursuant to this chapter for any of the grounds set forth therein or on the ground that it has
been misused. Revocation shall bar the permittee from holding any permit under this chapter for a period of one year
thereafter.
Ordinance No. 4966 (1986),
7-6-15 Overtime Parking, Signs.
(a)When a traffic control sign is in place giving notice thereof, no vehicle shall remain parked for longer than the
time designated thereon on any day except Sundays and holidays.
S:\CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINIST\DOCUM ENT\ORDINANC. W PD
(b)When a traffic control sign is in place giving notice thereof, within a neighborhood permit parking zone
established pursuant to Section 2-2-15, "Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones," B.R.C. 1981, no vehicle shall remain
parked for longer than the time specified on the sign unless a valid permit for that zone, issued pursuant to Chapter
4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits," B.R.C. 1981, is continuously displayed in the proper position on such
vehicle. In addition:
(1)If the sign limits parking within the zone to no more than a specified length of time within the zone
during any specified period of time, then no vehicle shall be parked anywhere within the zone in violation
of that restriction without a proper permit properly displayed.
(2)lf the sign prohibits parking within the zone, then no vehicle shall be parked within the zone without a
proper permit properly displayed.
Ordinance Nos. 4966 (1986); 5720 (1995); 5869 (1997).
Si ,CMO\DUHM DPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINISTDOCUMENl10RDINANC. W PD
January 25, 2002
Kate Patterson
City of Boulder Parking Services
1500 Pearl Street, Suite 301
Boulder, Colorado 80201
Re: Citywide NPP Update Study DRAFT; TP-01147
Dear Mrs. Patterson:
TransPlan/SEH Inc. has completed the data collection and analysis for the citywide Neighborhood
Permit Parking (NPP) program update study. This document provides a sunnmary of the data
collection and the conclusions of our analysis.
Similar to previous studies performed for the City of Boulder's NPP program, TransPlan collected
parking utilization studies in each of the six NPP zones. The data was collected on typical weekdays
during October 2001. A"snapshot"of[lip current parkingutilizationforeachblockfaceinthestudy
areas was taken during morning and afternoon study periods by counting the number of resident,
visitor, commuter, and other vehicles parked in the marked permit zones. These vehicles were
differentiated by the type of decal (resident permits) or hang tag (visitor and commuter tags) or lack
of either of these. The morning studies were conducted generally between 10:00 and 11:00 AM to
capture times when commuters and non-permitted vehicles would most likely be parked (after the
morning dish-hour and prior to typical lunch times). Similarly, the afternoon studies were performed
when it was likely commuters/non-permitted vehicles would be parked after lunch and prior to the
evening rush-hour (1:30-3:00 PM).
The data collected was then compared :o the measured capacity of each block face (number of
parking spaces available) to determine the utilization and "white space", or unused parking space.
The average white space for the morning and afternoon studies was then calculated for each block
face, in addition to the overall NPP zone white space. These results were then compared to the
previous results for each NPP zone to determine how the program has affected the white space since
the last utilization studies were performed. The net change in percentage points (plus or minus) is
shown in the far right column for each NPP zone for each block; face and for the neighborhood
overall. Decreases in the white space since the last studies are highlighted in the table.
The results of the data collection and analysis for each zone are illustrated in the fottowing tables:
Table 1. Columbine NPP Zone UtiHzation'ov Block Face
Table 2. Whittier NPP Zone Utilization by Biocic Face
1375 Wainut Street.Suite 211. Boulder. Colorado. 80302-5263 Teleohone:303.4423f,41 F^~rm«o•vaaz29q+vo
Nlrs- Kate Patterson January 2~, 2002
Citywice NPP Update Study - DRAFT
Pale 3
The white space reductions occurred on block faces in several areas in the zones. with no
discetnabie concentration. This trend is likely a result of lower enforcement since the
program was initially introduced into the neighborhood.
L;nivei- ity Hill NPP: The data in Table 1 shows that the overall neighborhood white space
percentage decreased from 62% in April 199810ctober 2000 to 52% in October 2001.
Total # of block faces in the study area. 59*
Block faces with increased white space since previous study: 15 (303 o)
Block faces with decreased white space since previous study: 33 ('660%)
Block faces unchanged since previous stuc~)c 2 ON)
Block face #155 was added after the October 2000 study and is not included in this total.
Of the block faces that are shown with a decreased white space, the most significant
reductions were in the areas closest to the university, suggesting increased use ofthe area by
CU students and/or less enforcement of the NPP zone.
iapleton NPP: The data in Table 1 shows that the overall neighborhood white space percentage
decreased from 61% in April 1998 to -16% in October 2001.
Total # of blockfaces in the study area. 37
Block faces with increased white space since previous study: 8 (22%)
Block faces ivith decreased white space since previous study. 28 (76%)
Block faces unchanged since previous sturl» 1 (31%)
Of the block faces that are shown with a decreased white space, the most significtult
reductions were along the _Mapleton Ave. and Nlaxwell Ave. block faces. This :s likely do
to increase parking activity or downtown, and the relative surplus of white space on these
blocks in relation to the blocks closer to downtown (which were already close to or at
capacity).
If you have any questions regarding the data collection, analysis, or findings, please give me a call.
Sincerely.
TransP lani S EH Inc..
Steven Tuttte. P.E.
Project Enaineer
I
I I' 01147 2001 APP Update Study 125/02
Culwnbine NPP Pmki11J Uliliznliull by BWA Face
T 1bld 1
945-10.054. _ 1:vd I,JS PM Sunuoal%•
'Ad "
vx 'a ex V. rr m. io. . Vet " V v. r.v "very vv cos
T"rar
VII-1- 1 t. VOI.I.V
ILO .-I wNO r c wM
a "W ssa' WVa 'ern . . ck Y"v< 'WM1
I..., VIIIIII,
k I `I^ _ _ i. r! Y'. ia. I"r or l"1 Oexuva.evl ~ SPye IJ 5'vAl_ r~ r=I
100 20 1 6 0 2 3 31% 0°a O 4 6] ISyu 05% 10D 20 0 0 0 3 3 096 0 " O,L IW51. 15
' BS°b O5 . 6i;' Ocx
I a0 0 D 0 0 0 0", Olc 0 b 0 4 IIM1:. l01 20 n 0 0 n o 0/ I n% 0 4 0t'" a%
100% tool. 100% 0%
Ir_ 0 z n 0 0 2 nl. 0.,, 0. a 339 fin. t02 G I 0 0 0 1 0/ a o,6 06 I]I
032 7511. n36
Inl 11 u n 0 u 0 n. 0. D b L% 0% l00"x IOT 11 I U 0 o I o.L 090: 0r: 9 JI
% 45 91 M1 Aq.
100, 0 I 0 0 1_ 2 01.I% Dt, 10% 25%. 1 75% IOG 0 1 0 0 0 1 50". 0. Oc 0V 13 ' 8o%
al 6n. _
~ 0 1OD 0 1 1 0 I 3 33% 1 33% O 6 31% 38% Go% 109 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 0% 33 L)IiI 67L L
30 33%
63 6 "3 c
I10 n 0 0 N 0 ` 0 I 0'l [ fiiI. 0 6 100i'u I10 0 0 0 0 1 1 ON. 09. l i BB„ 9
6V6
111 10 1 0 0 1 2 50 at 0: 50 20 . 01 y'" I11 10 0 0 0 1 L 2 0.4 U 0°/ 100% ]0%
tlU°u 00 SL I6
09:
Il' 10 0 0 O 0 0 O q 0. 0 0 u 100% 112 10 0 0 0 0 0 ] 6 1 0 0, 0' 0 100%
IGU% t0ph
113 9 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0. 100;' 113 D 0 - 0 0
114 0% D 0 0 0 O 0 0. ` IOO a IOO
It 0 0 0 1 I OY' I.M~ 9% 1 01% 114 II 0 I 0 1 l 0°L 0 L% IOO.e 9 191Y 91 9l' 0°G
I's I OV 7 100
0 I It 1 1 0. 50T. . 09 50 106 0"Y. IIS II 1 U 0 U 1 2 50° U It 5lrv IUS 02%
B% ~ 82 0°'
o 0 n 1 O' OIL 0 la0' uv O6 n6 r u D 0 I 1 O6 0 0 W°4 14fiG. 6i 666 M
n! lu D 0 0 3 6 (`V "0 ' 0' 10O 3t . ]n II] l0 0 0 0 3 d u,t 0 0, wwb 3O'
lD . 70% ]u e 0-b
Ile u 0 1 0 0 I 0% loo 00 tf ,2 fin. ne 9 G 0 0 0 0 O4 a'L G^, 06 0' wuN 9q
_ too„
n9 11 0 0 0 o 0 0% Oq 14 "n' 0. IOO' u0 fi 0 0 0 0 to 0% 0" , DI O2 0% 100%
tO0 100% o".
I10 0 O a o D U' n GL o o. lOIL ' 110 10 D 0 0 D 0 0,6 0% 0, uS 0% 100:
LOU% 100/ 1&
11 10 0 I 0 I 0 1 1: lno 0' 0' 106 90' 1Z1 l0 O O 0 D 0 a4 GILL 0. um 0%
100,% 95 tOD'%.
1Z] t, 1 0 0 0 01 100.. 0y Db a> n% Bnq• 1122 11 13 _01 o 0 It
1 100 0% 00 R6 n% tlTioY 100% 100% 0
M. ul.
124 5 I 0 0 2 3 33% lly UL 61 B0r% 40' 124 5 1 0 0- 2 3 339 D'. 0%. 616. 6G% I'0q.
402 40911 0% 1. 09~
12} b I D U 0 1 100 % q .,It 0' 17% e3 125 G 0 It 0 I 9 3 09c 0. 06 e006 50%
Sob 61' Spc R'&
116 4 0 0 0 0 0 U 1 06 0' Ob 100' 126 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 096 p% 00 1 100%
67 IOfy
12I s ( 0 l a to u 0 O; o.. o' 16 doll. Ill p 0 O 0 O a Di 0% 0^6 u'M D
10'1,6 luD 100"5 oL
q;' 0'" i. uo% n3.. 120 10 4 1 0 Illl_3 0 37It. 17
I'61 Ib 3 0 l fi 50%
I2 0o 50% pU,' 0,4 50 Su>'. uY.
9 16 1 U 0 I 2 WILL U; 0 . SO% 13 6 B896 129 16
1 0 0 1 1 2 SO°L 0% U% 0w 13% 00 . 00 1 00%
11 I
11 130 ' 12 1 0 0 1 2 51 0 50 I/ 6 Lot 6 13D I2 0 0 0 9 3 0.2 0 UI
1 I% 21% p 19 1 15%" 9°A
IJI IJ f G 0 3 3 0 0; 0". luf 2' c 11.6 1 l1 13 0 0 u 4 4 O:6 0 0°. 134'"
31 fi" J'iu
I3G 0 1 0 0 0 1 100' 03' 0. Oh 9. 0fim tit, 0 1 ~ O 0 I O 1 IODY 0' 15/. 59 OY
U: q BB. B0l 00..
19 f 0 0 It 0 2 2 1_ 01 U 6 11 2 1, 133 0 0 0 _0 2 2 _ 1 o .;0 1 _ 0. IC[ % -'1%
7 _ I5 . 0,6
1341 q 0 0! 0 0 0 0 C; 0. 0 0' IOOc 134 5 0 0 0 It 0 OL 0 01 0.1
I 1 lOq. 0
'u
Ila 1 0 p 0 p 0 L% 0;" 0. 0 0 1 Iu0'. M I 0 0 G 0 0 0 O q 0. 1,% % 110'
U04 . 100 l0D 1 U,.
I
3] 37 1 2 0 9 3 1 U 1 5 00 ' 0'.2 0% 2 5 I'S 1t 3 U U 1 4 60; 0 0, 2U16 JO
fi0b
1 1 1 0 2 6 Ic II° 0, .f3 0'b i01. 19I 12 0 I 0 0 4 511 0 6 " OM1,
13 6] . 5PA bI /u
IJtl v 0 = 0 0 u 0 0Y' 0.' 0". 1 U 0' _ IUU o to
_ 9 _ 0 I_ 0 0 n I 0 Il% 0°'- 0: 0°_ 100: iOfRy 10OA 0°4
109 10 0 c 0 0 0 0 0. 0°A 0. 1 U 0' IOUyA 100 10 0 0 0 0 0 0°6 0 0'1 0 6 f
ID0,4 10W! 1p0.b 0°6
H3 10 0 1 1 U 0 1 0% 100 1.6 90. 140 10 0 j 1 0 1 0 1 0". 100' 010 0c 10% 006 906,
141 10 1 1 0 l 1 3 3J 3d. U 6 33 30 70 l41 10 3 90h 0%.
0 !1 u J IOp' 0 0°i 0'.
n 30 1 70Y 70% fid% Ug .0% ISO 10 4 a It 209,0 50% 50 LL . 70%
w' 10 I
...1~ 0 0 1 s ° 1 uY 0 200?:. P U 6 Bfl ' 0. 59
D D _ D o 2 z It. 0
o; -
3 lz o 52
144 0 t It 0 100% 13% 819. D 1, " J 1- 0 BU
0 D I 100/ m% o% O" 13% fi13.b aa%
a6%
u5 J it u 0 It 2 2 0. D 0q IW% 22% 19; 155 I06 0".
uo 146 1 I 0 It II 0 U 0 0 1 I 0,. 0 r n. m. 105 6.% ] 9D. 59"
1J] 1a o 0 u o 0 0 Ov, 06 D:. D. 0" I47 m 0 0 0 0 0 d% 0" 0% 100% luu 10o
I, m6
1401 10 I I 0 G 1 0 IJ' _ 02 0. 00 BOo 2(1 19 10 1 _0 0 5 fi I'1 0 _ 0% 63m 60% 40%
316 40.6
1491 I It 0 : 6 6 0 06 06 101 8fi. H%6 199 I 0 1 0 0 5 5 0°A 0 09" 03% I 9%
21 '9'W 1
1 0 It
0 1 0 1 2 0 50, 11% 50: 2 c 8% 15n 9 0 1 0 1 2 06 5.% 090 60°
- 22% ?d;6 78% IB% 0°..
I51 10 0 0 0 2 2 0 l,6 0 fi 100' 20.. 00.'. 151 10 0 0 G 0 D 0% C 0% 0%" 0
110i. Et11pq"
la' I 0 0 0 0 9 0° 0.c CH l00 43" 57' 152 I 0 0 0 1 8 3 06 0. 1 0q 1006 43F.
IA. 51 5I 57% y 06
133 1 0 2 0: 0 3 5 40' C"L 0"" OD' 6J. 380 153 0 2 0 It 1 3 5 404 06 1 C% OL"/ 13%
11% 30q
IwJ 7 0 0 O I 1 0% 0% 0 N.
IOIY 1' 6 tl0 6 154 7 0 G 0 0 1 !1 0% - OY 1 0Y (W6 G) 100! "9.fq 1004E "
155 0 1 o 0 1 0 2 0 SO Oib 6 od 5'h 75. 155 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 OY. (196 0% 0.. (6
1 IUOR. 60 6 IUU°b
0
1.16 155 9 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0,., 0 0 G r, 60 156 4 I I 0 0 2 50% 50% 0% D"6 51%
50.. 60". SUn 0%.
0 1 mG 0 2 0 0 1J lum 1 8 0 1 n l 9 1 2 100"' LOS, 0%^ o o 25% oT q 75. 6;. 75, 16
6_ 0 G n .1 U 0 ou ls_ E 0 O 0 0 0 fW C% D% 05. lA. % m l00% IO 12Uk mob ov.
0 D 01" DL OtLp u "0% too% ISO 9 0 0 I o --0 D 0% 1%
05• 0^6 U' l0O% took "tDOY6 066
16o ID 1 o O 1 z 5D ' D6 0' sut eo 1 31 I60 1O 1 0 0 % CIO U% 1 0 0 I 2
0 0% 511% 33% 6I6 1d3 8 I "0 I~. 0 C%k 0~ 0^ 10%. G 33I.: 6390-11% IS p 0 0 1 I 1 Ok 0Y 0
IuUW 7% 93. fil 15 0 0 0 1 &16 93h 9yy 0...
I6^ 9 D 0 1 0 0 0 D 0". ( D" 1% 0°i 1)u%6 162 9 D 0 0 0 0 O% 01% 0% n 05 " 0
100% ICO IWY U%'
IG3 I fi 1 IOM fiI 6]/
IL4 IL 0 0 j 0 1 1 0 0,6 0. 1C0 05' 92% 164 12 0 0 0 ITS 631, Boy, 036 5%
IJS 10 0 0 0 6 0 0. 1 C%. 0%. 11°% ui. loom 165 10 0 ~ 0 a I 0 0 0°2 0. ~ U' m)4 IU0%
100" 0 6
IG] t1 0 O p 1, C 0,% 0" 0% 0 0% looS. 166 12 0 100 167 11 0 0 0 0 0 0,.. 0"~ n 0. ^2
Oi60 D0% ID03. O%
_183 It 2 It 0 0 0 2 1W°5 0Ok OY. 18% 1 81111 103 11 2 0 0 ~ 1 3 100% 0% ~ 0% 50%. 27% 1
73% 771% 1J% 49%
Total 617 ll 11 0 5fl 10G 35%% 1 10YA U%'. 55,6 17%e "83% TDt01 617 35 I 6 0 fit 103 33%6 1 6% 0% 58%.
17%. 1 fi3%2 6392 B3% o;o
2W I-wlrmlAne xlb
T1101147 2001 NPP Nptl6ln Sh,d, 125102
Sunset NPP Parking Utilization by Block Face
Table 3
30 3 11 Pni
9'30 11 15 M S
wCO e~~ Y Y N° GM1a g°
v.n w[ i
v. M^ Ye
• W ,n
I
WM1 e"
wIYZ T.Y i Y., .rt.l iz l .F i
=Y SP •~P SP z n <e io .Y Tn .Y
is °~Ia9 O..p"naV, sY=== p°.e 54a.e I .1 _
Ma a l 5 0 0 - 1 12 42% 9% 58 150°6 0., 100 - 6 2 0 0 6 -1]° 0 0;5 I it 6 - 15 25 13%
r✓3
Ill G I 0 0 2 0 50 0 Ok 0 % 20 b 606 101 1 10 I I 1 0 ' l 3 5061 50% (Y' ) 6 30
]0 6 ) r✓a Va
02 G 0 0 0 I 1 V 0; 0 u 1f0- 1) ^ Bl : 102 li 5 0 0 0 1 05 W^ 0Y OOY
1 1783%
6l 1la nla
IOl 5 2 0 l1 0 2 Ill 0, n I_ 0"r {U6 fi0/ IOJ 5 I U r 0 1 2 h0` 0 09 50,6 d0
CG' bU la ra
104 I6 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0. 50% 0/ IIA 6Y ° 104 Itl 1 _ 0 1 1 3 50 oc _ 50 8 So Yg 1]
33%
6h 'a /e
106 a 3 0 0 3 0 w:6 e° 0, 50°" 75% 21 ° 118 6 2 0 0 2 0 39' 0% 0^ 93b 0°
l00 " Oi 1 le 'a
IP 19 0 U 1 0 1 0 0° 0% IUU a 7"6 93% 10> H 0 0 0 U 0 U9 0 1 100 6 OB Na is
109 15 3 0 0 3 > 0, 0' J3°b 409" BO' 106 15 3 0 0 1 9 100 0% vl 33l. 27 73
° P Na 1la
103 t] 0 n 0 0 0 0 09 0 5 09 0. 100 6 109 17 0 0 6 1 1 0°' 0,, lY' 0 5 664
]4 ° 07/a /a
110 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0/ 1110.4 110 11 0 0 0 0 0 0°rv 0% tY 0% 0% 1011;4 100
Va nla
% 111 ¢ 2 0 0 I 9 b".. 25% ]5 " Ill ~ 12 1 U 0 1 1 ~ 2 33' 0% 0°5 33% l)Y 89,4 ]9
~ la co
n1 2 15 0 0 0 o 0 " 0° ( 0.6 03. 0% 10094 112 15 1 j 0 1i 0 0 I 0% oL 1 09 c%
M 03% W ' nla Na
113 ` / 1 1 0 0 0 0°A W 96 09=
235. )1% rya 7 1 I 0 1 p 60° 5'l% 09. 50% 13", 57% 6J Ja Wa
IH 6 0 0 0 0 0 Oi6 U" (6 0°. 0°. IW": 119 6 0 r 0 r 0 2 2 tP 6% 0°o G°6 25%
71% 86%
Va Ne
Tulal 1141 ] 2 r.;l td ( 34 509a 656 396 dl"6 L2A ]69a Tuldl 2159 13 2 1 Ifi 32 30°. 6% 39° 9)".L
,21°/, )9Y )9^6, 3d°'o 45-
%
s¢WV rwl oenonnm rut llrc a -Ilvld al b llh lace nw10e19 only wa ~o~l amawhie mace waY CJCU1a1N UOYSSwOVI
2001 M1unset>Ia
7P 0t 147 2001 NPP Upd31e Slody 1125102
Mapleton NPP Parking Utilization by Block Face
Table 6
10 1 OOAM 145245 PM g Y
I ~ v.n I p
v
I I I I I I III
.u m xrv s...l I _
~ .In +a i °s I -1-1 i° v m _ r. .v .r sN a..m ~ 1. I i ~ »v. nnl ul"
IM F J 0 5 l 11 I6 706 5h 9. 100 1 2 0 5 11 16 "9 1 U%
6 25 y
101 0 1 1 0 6 II Itl' 01, 73% 110% 101 10 2 1 6 16% 9Y 0° 55-1, i 59L
IU 10 4
102 6 0 0 , 6 / 0' " ly 14 o% Utl' 19 6 In2 6 0 0 1 7 6 U' 0 14 100' 1004 lk
b 2 p
103 e 0 0 1 2 0 g% 76 111% 103 6 z 0 0 l v ] 100 0' 0 2
ml m 3 1 5 16 304 104 10" so_ 1on„ 0% ig4 10 J .3 0 2 6 30 30 U 20," 60' ~1 20%i
l0 0% 1
In6 l0 , 1 1 6 12 Ir L e' 6- 6 ¢0% 0°° 109 10 2 1 0 - 6 9 17% 1 6. u' s0Y 90/
10,~s'- 0 L 9,
m6 20 . 1 1 3 11 45e 16 ° 27s 4 ° 1W 20 s 1 u 0 4 Iz 45s e7u N ] ° 60 406
4J 0" ST.
IOR 21 3 0 o ] la 11% o' o,b I 71% 463. 52% n 21 3 6 1 5 9 301 1 "1 I1". Loh 4357%:,
5 o]°"
l0u I3 4 I~ 0 n 0 4 100°! 0' 0' o. 31% 6s°' f68 16 4 0 0 0 4 I6n 0. 0°' 1 0%
31% 646 60', 69,4 0v"
If19 IG J 2 1 o G 50 J'] 7" j 0 6% .,u 109 10 3 2 1 2 1 4U 1° 17% 33°{i 1
U b 0 4
III 15 6 0 0 o 0 1% 0` I 0 l 0" 100. 111 j 16 0 0 0 0 0 0° 09 U9' 0>° 0 100°L
100 81% 10°.:.
112 fi 0 0 4 153" p 0 L 25: 6 b 92. 112 6 3 0 0 1 4 153 0M I 256 61' 33'" 39 50.
114 T I 0 I 3 5 20" 0f oO PI, 9.° 113 7 1 1 0 1 3 2o% 1 0. ba 2f. 449 Sl,. 19
1 29%
14%
114 12 0 1 4 G 0o I] 1]. h/ 504 o% 110 ~ 12 0 ( 1 1 2 L 1 0 0° 1/y ' 33% 63% 67' 31%
42% 78%
IIS H I 0 1 4 fi 17% I67% 43. 7% IIL 14 1 2_ _ I 5 1731% Vh 03`h GJ% 3 v 46 T.
Il6 17 rv 0 1 0 3 h]3. 0 3f . 0/ I6 a 62% I16 17 3 0 0 0 3 100 0 . 0°5 0% 10
82','. K% 94 '
II9 I5 2 0 1 4 50 b 0° 5 . 25 6 V. 79% 117 15 1 1 0 1 1 3 219L 034 25° 21% 10034
7]Y 3 L
119 12 0 0 4 5 20°0 - 0° 0 60 0 42% 580 119 12 2 0 0 3 5 lo i1 U% I ,6 60% 423
56k 5891. 67%
120 10 ° 1 0 7 IJ 3 6 6° 0 SV 130% 0 120 10 5 2 0 4 Il 365 15. a 31" 1104
OA, 0' 10?' 1
192 7 4 0 o 2 6 67" 0'b M% 33 056 11- 122 _7 1 0 0 _ 1 5 671, U' _1]'. 71% 9%
M I 0I _ 21% 16 123 43 2 1 5 9 It . 22 I1A 56 w7. 36i% In 5 124 I 13 3 1 0 5 5 li B3%
0 U;1.u 69 62% 35%. 62%
I 13 6 1 i U 1 6 15. 13 0" 13 62. 9 3
124 5 l6 1 0 I 0 2 50. Il 0" I 13. 66 I25 IL 1 0 0 2 9U 0. 5I% 0. 13% 66] 66Y
8 l.. fi9'6
126 10 I 1 f ( v L 21 I 20 20 . 4 31% 69% 126 I6 1 I 0 3 20 20 21% 0ti Ib
01.. 753 ~ .4%
12] If 3 4 0 I_ U 7 43 510' 4456: 127 _ 2 3 1 _ 1 8 29 4J 0° 14° 38% c1% so'/,
gJ 1p
120 10 3 0 1 l 0 75 0° 2 0 25/ 75. 128 1fi 2 0 1 n 3 5o% 0% _ 210h lg% 61/
70 7.6 1/.
130 II 6 0 1 _ 3 0 0' 33 o! 27+ ]3" 130 11 0 0 1 0 1 0'4 0 J3 On 9 01.
6/ 1015.
13I y 0' 'I I 2 4 25 2. S k 44 . 569E 131 9 0 0 1 0 1 1 09 pq 25 1 U o 1I 60/,
/L 6, 18%
132 3 0 0 1 1 2 J I P 39,p 67 iw% 0. 11-1 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 P 0 33' 33% b/' 33"
1]u ]3A
10'1 1 3 II 6 1 P 3 (I't -L 0' 19 67 W0% 103 0 0 U _ 2 0 2 0° 0 570. 6] 31 L
17 0': 17%
134 20 3 2 0 6 13 3% + IL 11% 4 hS 35% 134 3 2 0 2 7 23% 1 0 15%. 35 fiS'.
L0 G ] ,4
ti5 t'3 7 j I 1 41- 11 11,11 33 /36 21 135 19 7 1 2 1 11 47713 7:. 56 4`.. 3 68a
r ~
13n 1 ] 1 1 1 0 I 6 . I 0". U. 71.° 2v
a l96 7 1 2 1 0 4 20. 4prv 21% Oh 57. 11% 30 57.
a
137 ] 1 J 39.5 67 0, 0 93% 7: 137 7 I 1 0 0 2 33 111% 0' 0 6 2 !I% W / 8 A
tae 14 9 0 0 9 6 50% 0' 0. 50" 43. 7% 39 14 3 0 0 5 6 50 0
Wk _ 67 43:. 60 6J
i
140 ' 12 4 1 2 U 4 1 10 461, I 2p 1 ' 40 89 4 M7 140 I L' 2 5 0 1 5 20 59% 0" 10 a
57,.'3% L
1411 13 L 1 2 8 13 L. 62','. 1(IO,d 0,6 1411 13 2 3 2 11 16 15. 23ti 1 15% 65'6 136 N.
u.o 629.
Talnll 052 tlJ 31 22 IL0 211 3P" 12°. b"e W% 57% 43% Tola11 452 7i 40 20 05 220 00% 1fi% 6% 37%
513:. 11 49Y 4b'% 61°A,
2.1-01x01-rJn~ A,
ATTACHEMENTC: 2001 NPP Revenues and Expenditures
NPP Source of Funds NPP Use of Funds
Parking Tickets $109,545 Administration $49,497
Residential Permits $21,540 Enforcement $121,771
Commuter Permits $46,800 Signs/Parking Studies $6,470
Total Revenue $177,885 Total Expenses $177,739
NPP Source of Funds NPP Use of Funds
Signs/Parking
Studies
40.
i
Commuter Admin
Permits 35%
26%
Parking
Residential Tickets
Permits 62% Enforcement
12% 68%
~-{aC'n vin E till
Neighborhood Parking Permit Program
2000 Survey Report
Prepared for
Downtown and University Hill Management Division
and Parking Services
by
Audit and Evaluation Division
Diane (Dee) Baron, Research Analyst
Douglas R. Parker, Research Assistant
April 2001
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Conclusions i
Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
Survey Results ...............................................................................................................................2
1. Effect of the NPP program on the Neighborhood ......................................................2
a Traffic and Safe .............................2
b) Access and Illegal Parking ......................................................................................5
c) Pollution and Noise .................................................................................................7
d) Neighborhood and Community ............................................................................9
e) Other Impacts of the NPP .....................................................................................11
II. Ease of Parking ..............................................................................................................12
III. Parking Permit and Visitor Passes ..............................................................................16
V. Demographics ................................................................................................................18
Appendix A - Methodology ................................................................................................20
Appendix B - Survey Instrument ........................................................................................21
Executive Summary and Conclusions
The Neighborhood Parking Permit Program (NPP) Survey was sent to all residents in the six NPP
zones. Results from the six zones were compiled and presented in the aggregate as well as
separately for each zone. The purpose of the survey was to inquire about neighborhood residents'
satisfaction with the program and assess the impact that the parking permit program has had on
the neighborhoods.
♦ The first section of the survey asked respondents to rate 12 conditions which might have been
affected by the NPP program. For each question, respondents could indicate whether
conditions had "improved," were "about the same" or were "worse." These conditions fell into
four categories: traffic and safety; access and illegal parking; pollution and noise; and
neighborhood and community.
• Responses to these questions were analyzed in relation to respondents' demographic
characteristics (i.e., type of living unit, length of residency in unit, own or rent, age and
student status). For most of the questions in this section, statistically significant differences
were found between those who owned versus rented, those who lived in single family
housing versus multi-family housing, older versus younger respondents and students
versus non-students. Respondents who lived in single-family dwellings, owned their
homes, were not students, had lived in their units for 10 or more years or were older were
more likely to say that conditions in their neighborhood had improved (or stayed the same),
while renters, dwellers in multi-family units, students or those between the ages of 18 and
24 were less likely to feel this way.
♦ Five items were included under traffic and safehj: a) Traffic volume on your street; b) Traffic
noise on your street; c) Safety of children & pedestrians on your street: d) Vandalism on your
street: e) Speed or traffic on your street. Among all NPP zone respondents combined, the
largest proportion (between 40% and 58%) felt that these conditions had remained "about the
same." Of those who thought conditions had gotten better or worse, a larger proportion
(between 13% and 26%) felt that conditions have improved, compared to those who thought
conditions had gotten worse (between 7% and 11% of respondents). Between 17% and 40% of
respondents said they did not know or did not respond to the question about traffic/safety
conditions in their neighborhood, particularly in relation to children/pedestrians and
vandalism.
• Differences among the six NPP zones were not statistically significant for these five survey
questions.
♦ Respondents in the six NPP neighborhood generally think that illegal parking and access to their
residence has either stayed the same or improved. About one-quarter of respondents said they
didn't know about illegal parking on their street, only 9 % felt illegal parking had gotten worse
and about two-thirds (65%) of respondents thought illegal parking has either stayed the same
or improved. An even higher proportion of respondents (74%) thin]< that access to their
residence has either stayed the same or improved. Only 12% believe access has worsened.
• Respondents from the University Hill neighborhood were more likely than residents of
other areas to feel that illegal parking on their street has improved since the NPP began; 52%
of Uni-Hill residents felt this way. Whittier and High-Sunset were the zones that gave the
second highest improvement rating (44 % to 46 to illegal parking on their street.
• A larger proportion of Uni-Hill residents (56 than respondents from other NPP zones felt
NPP Survey Executive Summary - April 2001 Page i
that access to their residence has improved since the NPP started. Almost half of the
respondents from the Whittier (47%) and Mapleton (43%) areas also felt this way.
Respondents from the Goss-Grove area gave higher proportion of "worse" ratings (20%) to
access than did respondents from other NPP zones.
4 About half of NPP survey respondents (between 42% and 52%) felt that noise and pollution in
their neighborhood has remained about the same since the NPP began. About 20% of
respondents felt that noise and trash on their street had improved and about the same
proportion said they didn't know about these two features; only 9%-10% felt these conditions
had gotten worse. As might be expected a large proportion of residents (40 did not know
whether air pollution conditions have changed since the NPP began.
• Respondents in the Uni-Hill NPP zone gave significantly more "improved" responses to the
question of trash on the street than did respondents in other neighborhoods. Regarding
noise from people and air pollution, differences among the six NPP zones were not
statistically significant.
+ Over the six NPP areas, 40% of residents feel the desirabilihj of their neighborhood has improved
since the start of the NPP and only 10% feel neighborhood desirability has gotten worse.
Almost one-third of all respondents said the sense of communihj was better, 41 % said it was about
the same and only 8% said it was worse than before the NPP program began.
• Residents of Mapleton, Uri-Hill and Whittier NPP zones were more likely than respondents
in Columbine, High-Sunset and Goss-Grove to feel that the desirability of their neighborhood
had improved. Almost half of these respondents felt this way.
• Uni-Hill respondents were most likely to feel that the sense of neighborhood connnunihj had
improved since the beginning of the NPP (41%) compared to respondents in other NPP
zones; 35% of Whittier respondents also felt this way.
+ NPP area residents were asked if they had noticed any other possible other impacts of the NPP
program in their neighborhood. About 40% 246 - survey respondents answered this
question. About 24% of those who responded to the question (10% of all respondents) had
positive comments to make about the NPP. The remainder of the comments were either
generally negative or referred to a specific problem that respondents had encountered.
+ In order to evaluate perceptions about the ease of parking in their neighborhood, residents were
first asked about their expectations regarding how close to their residence they should be able
to park, and how close to their home they were able to park on an average day. While most
residents (69%) expect that they should be able to park within two car-lengths of their residence,
almost as many (63%) say that on average they are able to park that close.
• Respondents who lived in single-family homes, owned their residences, had lived in their
residence for over 10 years, were over 65 years old or were not students were more likely
to say that they should be able and that they were able to park "immediately in front of my
residence" These responses are appropriate, assuming that single family homes (where
older, more established residents live) have a garage or driveway where residents can park.
NPP Survey Executive Summary -April 2001 Page ii
• Respondents who lived in multi-family units or rented their units or were students or were
between the ages of 18 and 24 or had lived in their residence for less than 10 years were
more likely to say that they should be able to and were able to park "within two car-lengths"
or "on the same block" as their residence.
• The smallest NPP zones with the highest proportion of single family homes - Columbine
and High-Sunset - have the highest proportion of respondents who both expect to be able
to park immediately in front of their residence and are usually able to park there.
Respondents in the Goss-Grove and Whittier neighborhoods were more likely to expect to
park two car-lengths away or on the same block, although a slightly higher proportion of
Whittier respondents said they were usually able to park in front of their homes than
expected to do so. In the Mapleton and Goss-Grove zones, a higher proportion of
respondents than in other zones felt they should be able to park one or more blocks away from
their residence. These two neighborhoods had the highest proportion of residents who said
they "usually park" one or more blocks away from their residence.
+ Residents feelings about the ease of parking in their neighborhood were generally positive.
Respondents in all the NPP zones said that the ease of parking for visitors was slightly more
difficult than finding a parking space for oneself. In all neighborhoods combined, almost half
(48%) say the ease of parking has increased for themselves, about one-quarter (27%) think it has
stayed the same and only 10% feel that ease of parking has decreased. Respondents felt that the
ease of parking for visitors had also increased. Forty-six percent of all respondents say that
visitor parking has increased "somewhat" or "a great deal." About 14% of residents felt that the
ease of visitor parking had decreased.
• In all neighborhoods combined, respondents who lived in single-family homes, owned their
residences, had lived in their residence longer, were older or were not students were more
likely to say that the ease of finding a parking space for themselves and for their visitors had
increased "somewhat" or "a great deal." Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were
more likely to say that the ease of finding parking for themselves and their visitors had
decreased "somewhat" or "a great deal."
• Among NPP neighborhoods, the greatest improvement in finding a parking space, for self
and visitors, was in the Uri-Hill zone. About 75% of these respondents felt that the ease of
parking had increased since the implementation of the NPP program. A majority (62%) of
Whittier respondents also felt that ease of parking had increased for both themselves and
their visitors. Although 60% of Goss-Grove respondents felt that ease of parking had
increased, respondents in this NPP zone also had the highest proportion of people who said
that ease of finding parking had decreased (20% to 25%). In the Mapleton NPP zone about
half of respondents felt that ease of parking had increased, but 17% to 21 % also felt that ease
of parking had decreased in their neighborhood.
+ Survey respondents were asked whether they have a Neighborhood Parking Permit and almost
70% of all respondents said they did.
• Respondents who lived in multi-family housing of one to four units were most likely to have
permits (79%), however, only 50% of respondents living in multi-family housing of 5 or
more units had permits. Those over 65 years of age (55%) and those between 18 and 24
(64%) were also less likely to have a neighborhood parking permit than were respondents
in the middle age ranges.
• Among the NPP zones, the higher density, downtown areas - Goss-Grove, Mapleton, Uni-
NPP Survey Executive Summary - April 2001 Page iii
Hill and Whittier - had larger proportions of permits than Columbine or High-Sunset.
♦ Residents in all 6 NPP areas combined did not make great use of visitor passes. Almost 30°0 of
respondents said they don't have or never use a visitor pass, another 32% said they only use
their visitor pass 4 to 5 times per year. Only 6% of all respondents said they use a visitor pass
every day.
• A larger proportion of respondents living in multi-family units either didn't have a pass or
rarely used it compared to respondents who lived in single-family detached housing or in
rooms in single family homes.
• Visitor passes were most frequently used by Uni-Hill, Whittier and Mapleton neighborhood
respondents.
Conclusions
In general, the majority of respondents to the Neighborhood Parking Permit survey from all 6 NPP
zones combined felt that conditions in their neighborhood as a result of the NPP program had either
stayed the same or improved.
There was very little disparity among residents in all neighborhoods combined between the
distance they expected to park and the distances they actually parked from their home. Owners
of single family homes (who presumably have garages) were more likely to expect to park and did
park immediately in front of their residences while renters or those in multi-family units were more
likely to expect to park and did park within two car-lengths or on the same block as their residence.
Most respondents felt that ease of parking both for self and visitors has increased or stayed the
same since the inception of the NPP program. About half of the respondents from all NPP zones
combined felt that the ease of finding a parking space for oneself or for a visitor has increased.
Another quarter of the respondents said that the ease of finding a parking space had stayed about
the same. Among the NPP zones, Uni-Hill had the largest proportion respondents who felt there
had been an improvement in ease of parking both for self and visitors, 75% of residents in this zone
said ease of parking had increased.
Overall, almost 70% of respondents have Neighborhood Parking permits for their neighborhood.
Whittier NPP had the highest proportion of permits (81 and Columbine had the lowest (44%).
The greatest use of visitor passes occurred in the Uni-Hill neighborhood, where almost 30% of
respondents said they used their visitor pass one to two times a week or more. In the Mapleton and
Whittier zones, about 20% used visitor passes as often.
NPP Survey Executive Summary - April 2001 Page v
Introduction
In late 2000, the Audit and Evaluation Division was asked by the Downtown and University Hill
Management Division to conduct a survey of residents in each of the six neighborhoods that
participate in the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program (NPP). The NPP was developed in an
effort to manage parking demand and balance the needs of all who park on the streets. The
purpose of the survey was to inquire about neighborhood residents' satisfaction with the program
and assess the impact that the parking permit program has had on the neighborhoods.
In mid-February, 2001, surveys were mailed to all households within the six NPP areas: Whittier,
Uni-Hill, Columbine, Mapleton, Goss/Grove and High/Sunset. In late February, a reminder post
card was sent to these residents. A copy of the survey instrument and accompanying letter can be
found in Appendix C. Of the 1962 surveys sent, 92 were returned as undeliverable and 613
completed surveys were received; a response rate of 33% for all NPP zones combined.
The table below shows the response rates for each NPP zone and the proportion of responses from
each zone that make up the total. The highest neighborhood response rate was from High/Sunset
where 51 % of residents completed a survey, however, this NPP zone had the lowest total residents
of all neighborhoods. The NPP zone with the highest number of residents, Goss/Grove, had the
lowest response rate, 21 Differences in response rates may be a reflection of the proportion of
owner-occupied versus rental units in each area. Property owners are generally more likely to
respond to surveys than renters. (For more details on survey methodology, see Appendix B, page
23.)
Proportion by Zone and Response Rates
NPP Zone Surveys Surveys Completed Response Zone Percent of
Mailed Returned Surveys Rate Total
Undeliverable Received
Columbine 269 5 111 42% 18%
Goss-Grove 456 16 94 21% 15%
High-Sunset 79 10 35 51% 6%
Mapleton 346 31 103 33% 17%
University Hill 384 0 136 35% 22%
Whittier 428 30 137 34% 22%
Total All NPP
Zones 1962 92 616 33% 100%
In general, survey respondents, even in these higher density residential areas, were more likely to
be home owners living in single family detached housing. In all areas combined, 681/o of
respondents owned their home and 71 % lived in single family units. (For more information about
respondents, see Demographics section, page X.)
The report that follows describes the survey results for all the six neighborhoods combined and for
each NPP zone. Each question was examined in relation to the demographic characteristics of
respondents, including their age, student status, type of unit they lived in, whether they owned or
rented their residence and the length of time they had lived there. Where there were statistically
significant differences among demographic groups, they are mentioned in the text.
NPP Samey Results -April 2001 Pagel
Survey Results
I. Effect of the NPP program on the Neighborhood
A series of 12 questions was asked of residents to ascertain the positive or negative impacts of the
NPP program on the neighborhood. These questions were grouped into four categories: a) traffic
and safety; b) access and parking; c) pollution and noise; and d) neighborhood and community.
For each question, respondents could indicate whether conditions had "improved," were "about
the same" or were "worse."'
1) Traffic and Safety
Over the six NPP areas, the largest proportion of respondents (about half) think that traffic and safety
conditions in their neighborhoods have remained about the same since the beginning of the NPP
program. Of those who thought conditions had gotten better or worse, a larger proportion (between
13% and 26%) felt that conditions have improved, compared to those who thought conditions had
gotten worse (between 7% and 11 % of respondents). Between 17% and 40% of respondents said
they did not know or did not respond to the question about traffic/safety conditions in their
neighborhood, particularly in relation to children/pedestrians and vandalism.
Respondents who owned their homes were somewhat more likely than renters to think that traffic
volume on their street had improved and residents who lived in single family detached units and
owned their homes were more likely than renters and people living in other types of housing to think
that traffic noise on their street had improved.'
Table 1 - Traffic and Safety
How has the NPP affected the About Don't
following conditions in your Improved the Worse Know/No Total
neighborhood? Same Response (n=615)
Traffic volume on your street 26% 47% 11% 16% 100%
Traffic noise on your street 23% 50% 10% 17% 100%
Safety of children & pedestrians on
your street 23% 45% 7% 25% 100%
Vandalism on your street 13% 40% 7% 40% 100%
Speed or traffic on your street 13% 58% 8% 20% 100%
Ratings of the traffic and safety questions are shown for each NPP zone in the five figures on the
following two pages. Differences among neighborhoods were not statistically significant on any
of these questions.
For this set of questions, "don't know" and "no response" are included in the total because, for all zones
combined, these responses constituted more than 10% of all respondents. However, the "don't knows"
and "no responses" are not included in the totals of the individual NPP zones.
z Differences between subgroups were statistically significant (p<.05).
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 2
Traffic Volume on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
26 31 as 2e 2s
e
"JI
12 I t e Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
About the same Worse DK/No Reap
FE
Traffic Noise on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
too 18 18 2a a2 3e 60
Bp
90 63 82 7 ..I
70 i so .e I as
u BO I
ao
30 4 11 19
20 -,2
1 _
10 i3 i~ir?~ - :1T 'nt [ts~~ e
Columbine Goes-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittler
- Improved About the some Worse DK/No Reep
Safety of Children and Pedestrians on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
too
zo it 2e 20 ze 25
e0
a0 .63 sa 3s _ a9 38
J0 2s
so -
50
ao
m 2O ail 2 ~ t t I ! I ~ ~i~f~?R.
30 2 ¢r
o V rvj°t`ip X20 ry~ 27
10
0 - -
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Unniir-Hill Whittier
■ Improved About the ..me Worse ise*,u DK/No Reap
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 3
Vandalism on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
100 11 fx 14 10 19
90
10,
[ ! -ax
80
To
i I Ir
°0 60
p 50 13 „..„x f6:I x 1,~
`0 40 I rli~.
m gp !i _3 r irnlo;q a.n~ i aaaz~ { [ `i
20 rl'q tIs ti 9s s [9 3 'y a t ias s`
a I, ~
10
o fi{ -
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
■ Improved About the ..me Worse DK/No Rasp
Speed of Traffic on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
too fz n u u fe
so
00 B6 0G fix 77 0B
L Bo - ex
ro I
o so
60 1
60
m ep 1 a~ ` - fa I r
. 20 :.I f{ i,''.
x
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton U.,-Hill Whittier
■ Improved L About the same _ Ware. OKINo Reap
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 4
b) Access and Illegal Parking
Respondents in th(> six NPP neighborhood generally think that illegal parking and access to their
residence has either staved the same or improved. Table 2 shows that while about one-quarter of
respondents said they didn't know about illegal parking on their street, only 9% felt illegal parking
had gotten worse and about two-thirds (65%) of respondents thought illegal parking has either
staved the same or improved. An even higher proportion of respondents (74%) think that access
to their residence has either stayed the same or improved. Only 12% believe access has worsened.
Non-students and respondents who own their homes were somewhat more likely to say that illegal
parking on their street had improved compared to students and renters. As the length of time
respondents had lived in their present residence increased, the likelihood that they would say that
illegal parking had improved increased.
More positive responses to the improvement of access to their residence was expressed by:
0 respondents who lived in single family dwellings or in rooms in single family dwellings
compared to those who lived in multifamily homes;
0 respondents who have lived in their residences for 11 or more years (compared to those who
have lived in the current residents for 10 years or less);
0 property owners rather than renters;
0 non-students
0 respondents over the age of 55 compared to those between 18 and 54 years old.
Table 2 - Access and illegal Parking
How has the NPP affected the About Don't
following conditions in your Improved the Worse Know/No Total
neighborhood? Same Response (n=616)
Illegal parking on your street 42% 23% 9% 26% 100%
Access to your residence 40% 34% 12% 14% 100%
Ratings of the access to one's residence and illegal parking on the street are shown for each NPP
zone in the figures on the following page.
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 5
As the NPP zone comparison in Figure 6 shows, respondents from the University Hill
neighborhood were more likely than residents of other areas to feel that illegal parking on their street
has improved since the NPP began, 52% of Uni-Hill residents felt this way. Whittier and High-
Sunset were the zones that gave the second highest improvement rating (44% to 46%) to illegal
parking on their street .3
Illegal Parking on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
100 38 6 3) 62 <N ]
go
_ so
>o
27 22-
K rj0 - 20 - 22
ao 6
30 :5 a _tn 3
`u 20 It t I 2 i ~ t4 I J
F nd` t=i„I I3
d 10
Mali. e iI; e 24 fi2a
0
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittler
■ Improvetl W About the Same Worse DK/NO Reap
A larger proportion of Uni-Hill residents (56%) than respondents from other NPP zones felt that
access to their residence has improved since the NPP started. Almost half of the respondents from the
Whittier (47%) and Mapleton (43%) areas also felt this way. Respondents from the Goss-Grove area
gave higher proportion of "worse" ratings (20%) to access than did respondents from other NPP
zones.
Access to Your Residence -
Ratings by NPP Zone
100 22 qB 34 43 56 4>
0
60
6 61
'O
t 3B
60
w
~ 50 ,i L.: 2e 32 .
40 LEI -1 I .~~I 21
30 r tai +4 I
20 e e 22 tp
e
to E 12E
a `
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
. Improvetl L About the some Worse DK/No Reep
3
NPP Survey Results - April of Page 6
c) Pollution and Noise
Again, about half of NPP survey respondents felt that noise and pollution in their neighborhood
has remained about the same since the NPP began. About 20% of respondents felt that noise and
trash on their street had improved and about the same proportion said they didn't know about
these two features; only 9%-10% felt these conditions had gotten worse. As might be expected a
large proportion of residents (40%) did not know whether air pollution conditions have changed
since the NPP began.
Respondents who own their homes were somewhat more likely than renters to say that noise from
people on their street had improved. Those between the ages of 18 and 24 were more likely than older
respondents to say that noise from people had gotten worse.
Improvement ratings of trash on the street were somewhat higher among property owners
(compared to renters) and those who lived in single family detached units (compared to other
housing types). Again, those between the ages of 18 and 24 were more likely than older
respondents to rate trash as having gotten worse since the NPP began. There were no statistically
significant differences among demographic groups in ratings of air pollution.
Table 3 - Pollution and Noise
How has the NPP affected the About Don't
following conditions in your Improved the Worse Know/No Total
neighborhood? Same Response (n=616)
Noise from people on your street 21% 52% 9% 19% 100%
Trash on your street 21% 48% 10% 20% 100%
Air pollution on your street 135. 42% 5% 40% 100%
Ratings of noise, trash and air pollution on the street are shown for each NPP zone in the figures
on the following page.
NPP Survey Results -April 2001 Page 7
Noise from People on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
100 16 20 1S 2B 21
90 se
.fO. BO 65 - 66 -
61 8
70 r 4a
$ 60
50
16 40
30 B n T e
20 .y.. B yg 11 1..i~j",`.
t o~
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
■ Improvetl About the same Worse OK/NO Rasp
Respondents in the Uni-Hill NPP zone gave significantly more "improved" responses to the
Trash on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
100 ST
16 35 t0
90
15 60 43 ~eeb ' _I
.I 4T 48
a 60 I- 99
u 50
C
40 r-I -
23
a by I e e
o ~t r.-3s j t2
20 r f
m.. 'Se~tu
,24 t., 18 _ .4 `221e-i~!i '2i I~~I tb I v. ~.3]
"
0 -
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton U{{nni~i-Hill Whittier
■ Improvetl , About the same IWorse R9 DK/No Rasp
question of trash on the street than did respondents in other neighborhoods.
Air Pollution on Your Street
Ratings by NPP Zone
ioo
90 o 4s 0 41 _ 1e 43
53 :.94
eo o II 1 ° i
3B
70
60
so
"r t B 8 _ 6 1
- 6 40
30 EFm
a
Pli
0
as 4a i1 3x`I~ti_ s21
n 20 Y~ .,34 66
in, 0
o h i,r
PP.S741Z1e>-gd4tth6,,Aprild9®3-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier Page
■ Improved About tbo same Worse 0 DK/No Rasp
d) Neighborhood and Community
Over the six NPP areas, 40% of residents feel the desirability of their neighborhood has improved
since the start of the NPP and only 10% feel neighborhood desirability has gotten worse, Almost
one-third of all respondents said the sense of community was better, 41 % said it was about the same
and only 8 % said it was worse than before the NPP program began.
Among respondents in all zones, homeowners were more likely to think that the desirability of living
in the neighborhood had improved. Respondents in the age group 18 to 24 years old were more likely
to feel that neighborhood desirability was worse. Those who owned their home were also more
likely than renters to feel that the sense of community in the neighborhood had improved as a result of
the NPP, Students and 18 to 24 year old were less likely to feel this way.
Table 4 - Neighborhood and Community
How has the NPP affected the About Don't
following conditions in your FIMProved the Worse Know/No Total
neighborhood? Same Response (n=616)
Desirability of living in the 40
37% 10% 13% 100%
neighborhood
Sense of neighborhood community 30% 41% 8% 21% 100%
Ratings of neighborhood desirability and sense of community are shown for each NPP zone in the
figures that follow.
Residents of Mapleton, Unf-Hill and Whittier NPP zones were more likely than others to feel that
the desirabilifij of their neighborhood had improved (almost half of these respondents felt this way).
Desirability of Living in the Neighborhood
Ratings by NPP Zone
'OD - 22 32 - so ar ae 49
90
ao
52
70
L n 60 n¢
50 3
X. 4
32 33 3f
40 `
c 30 f f = -
m11 14 14 20
12 9
B 6~
10
. 12 trs 13 ':P - all.i .:xs t
0 t 011'1
Columbine Goss-Grave High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
improved D About the same -i worse DK/NO Rasp
NPP Survey Results -April 2001 Page 9
Uni-Hill respondents were most likely to feel that the sense of neighborhood community had
improved since the begnuung of the NPP (41 35% of Whittier NPP zones respondents also felt
this way.
Sense of Neighborhood Community
Ratings by NPP Zone
too z> •i as
90
80
]O 37, i 1 44
a eo I
ie
40
80 € B> !
40
u 8O B
20
a t'.•Uv i aY S 'f'~17 "t t1A+' ..Fa
tO
h
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-HIII Whittier
. Improved AboUt the same Wo~ae ❑K/NO Reep
NPP Suroey Resldts - April 2001 Page 10
e) Other Impacts of the NPP
NPP area residents were asked if they had noticed any other possible other impacts of the NPP
program in their neighborhood. Respondents could give any answer they wanted in their own
words. About 40%- 246 - survey respondents answered this question. These comments were then
grouped into the categories displayed in Table 5 .
Almost one-quarter of those who responded to the question (10% of all respondents) had positive
comments to make about the NPP. However, almost as many residents (21% of those who
responded) had general negative comments. Some residents felt that the NPP was not needed,
about 9% of the comments made expressed this sentiment (4% of all respondents). Table 5 shows
that some also had specific complaints on such issues as enforcement, student parking, traffic, etc...
(Verbatim comments made by respondents in each NPP zone are aggregated in the report for that
zone).
Table 5 - Other Impacts of the NPP
Are there any other impacts of the Percent of those Percent of All
Neighborhood Parking Program that you making a Respondents
have noticed in your neighborhood? comment (n=616)
(n=246)
Generally positive comments 24% 10%
Generally negative comments 20% 8%
Do not need the NPP/NPP is useless 8% 3%
Enforcement issues 7% 3%
Traffic issues 7% 3%
Permit problems 6% 3%
Student parking complaints 5% 2%
Non-area residents with permits 3% 1%
Signage pollution 3% 1%
Evening/ weekend parking problems 2% 1%
Abuse of visitor permits 2% 1%
Downtown employee parking issues 1% 1%
Parking Space issues 1% <1%
Don't know, didn't live here before NPP 7% 3%
No comments - 59%
Total 100%
NPP Swvey Reszdts -Apri12001 Page 11
II. Ease of Parking
In order to evaluate perceptions about the ease of parking in their neighborhood, residents were
first asked about their expectations regarding how close to their residence they should be able to
park, and how close to their home they were able to park on an average day. Table 6 demonstrates
that while most residents (69%) expect that they should be able to park within two car-lengths of
their residence, almost as many (63%) say that on average they are able to park that close. In fact,
there is very little disparity among residents in all neighborhoods combined between the distance
they expect to park and the distance they actually park from their home.
Table 6 -Parking Near Residence
About how near to your On average, about how far
residence do you feel you from your residence are
should usually be able to you able to park your
park your vehicle? vehicle?
Percent of Respondents (n=616)
Immediately in front of my residence 38% 39%
Within two car-lengths of my residence 31% 24%
On the same block as my residence 22% 22%
One block from my residence 3% 4%
More than one block from my residence 1 % 4%
Don't know/No response 5% 7%
Total 100% 100%
Responses to the two questions about residents' ability to park near their residence were found to
have statistically significant differences in all the demographic characteristics asked on the survey.
Respondents who lived in single-family homes, owned their residences, had lived in their residence
for over 10 years, were over 65 years old or were not students were more likely to say that they
should be able and that they were able to park "immediately in front of my residence" These responses
are appropriate, assuming that single family homes (where older, more established residents live)
have a garage and/or driveway where residents can park.
Respondents who lived in multi-family units or rented their units or were students or were between
the ages of 18 and 24 or had lived in their residence for less than 10 years were more likely to say
that they should be able to and were able to park "within two car-lengths" or "on the same block" as
their residence.
Responses to the two "ability to park" questions are shown for each NPP zone in the figures on the
following page.
NPP Suivey Results -April 2001 Page 12
Figures 13 and 14 showy that the smallest NPP zones with the highest proportion of single family
homes - Columbine and High-Sunset - have the highest proportion of respondents who both expect
to be able to park immediately in front of their residence and are usually able to park there.
Respondents in the Goss-Grove and Whittier neighborhoods were more likely to expect to park two
car-lengths away or on the same block, although a slightly higher proportion of Whittier
respondents said they were usually able to park in front of their homes than expected to do so.
In the Mapleton and Goss-Grove zones, a higher proportion of respondents than in other zones felt
they should be able to park one or more blocks aeoay from their residence. These two neighborhoods
had the highest proportion of residents who said they "usually park" one or more blocks away from
their residence .
How Near to Residence Should You Be Able to Park
Ratings by NPP Zone
100
g0 lh"]~5 ~26 66 43 _J X31 25
BO ]5 -
70 72
50 _ 51
a 50 61
K
40
u 3U 34
2D 23
i to
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
E Immediately in front 2 car len gthsfsama black ■ One block away or more
How Near to Residence Are You Usually Able to Park
Ratings by NPP Zone
100
I -76 23 X96 32 36 -I 33 7
90
80
70 63
60 6D 60 -69
5 50 . -
4
40 I I II
30
u 20 i~23 '16a
10 I
4 6 4
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
Immediately in front 2 car lengths/same block ■ One block away or more
NPP Survey Results -April 2001 Page 13
Residents feelings about the ease of parking in their neighborhood were generally positive.
Respondents in all the NPP zones said that the ease of parking for visitors was slightly more
difficult than finding a parking space for oneself. In all neighborhoods combined, almost half (48%)
say the ease of parking has increased for themselves, about one-quarter (27%) think it has stayed
the same and only 10% feel that ease of parking has decreased, as shown in Table 7. Respondents
felt that the ease of parking for visitors had also increased. Forty-six percent of all respondents say
that visitor parking has increased "somewhat" or "a great deal." About 14% of residents felt that the
ease of visitor parking had decreased.
As with the questions about the ability to park in proximity to residences, responses to the
questions about ease of finding a parking space were found to have statistically significant
differences in all the demographic characteristics asked on the survey. In all neighborhoods
combined, respondents who lived in single-family homes, owned their residences, had lived in
their residence longer, were older or were not students were more likely to say that the ease of
finding a parking space for themselves and for their visitors had increased "somewhat" or "a great
deal." Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were more likely to say that the ease of finding
parking for themselves and their visitors had decreased "somewhat" or "a great deal."
Table 7 -Ease of Parking for Self and Visitors
Since the implementation of the Neighborhood Parking
Permit (NPP) program in your neighborhood, has the ease of
finding a parking space for:
Yourself Your visitors
Percent of Respondents (n=616)
Increased a great deal 270/. 24%
Increased somewhat 21% 23%
Stayed about the same 25% 23%
Decreased somewhat 6% 7%
Decreased a great deal 4% 7%
DK/ didn't live here or no response 17% 16%
Total 100% 100%
Differences between responses to these two question in the various NPP zones were also
statistically significant. These responses are displayed in figures on the following page.
NPP Suroey Results - April 2001 Page 14
Among NPP neighborhoods, the greatest improvement in finding a parking space, for self and
visitors, was in the Uni-Hill zone (shown in Figures 15 and 16). About 75% of these respondents
felt that the ease of parking had increased since the implementation of the NPP program. A
majority (62%) of Whittier respondents also felt that ease of parking had increased for both
themselves and their visitors. Although 60% of Goss-Grove respondents felt that ease of parking
had increased, respondents in this NPP zone also had the highest proportion of people who said
that ease of finding parking had decreased (20% to 25%). In the Mapleton NPP zone about half of
respondents felt that ease of parking had increased, but 17% to 21% also felt that ease of parking
had decreased in their neighborhood.
Ease of Finding a Parking Space for Self
Ratings by NPP Zone
1 DO 95 80 ',1 32 ( 58 ~ -7-6 ~62
BD
9 70
a 80 i ii 58 55
C 60
`0 40 20 25il
3 D 28
ro 20 30 17
6 ,D L. 7_._ 13 17 7
O
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
Increasetl Stayed the same Decreased
Ease of Finding a Parking Space for Visitors
Ratings by NPP Zone
100 -
ae - k ae ~a4 a~ v4
~~6z
0
8
70
:6 k[F
u 60
GO 27 3]
36
30 22
20 35 L~. 15
21
9
t
6
10 t6
0
Columbine Goss-Grove High-Sunset Mapleton Uni-Hill Whittier
Increased Stayed the same ■ Decraa6ed
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 15
III. Parking Permit and Visitor Passes
Survey respondents were asked whether they have a Neighborhood Parking Permit and almost 70%
of all respondents said they did. Respondents who lived in multi-family housing of one to four
units were most likely to have permits (79%), however, only 50% of respondents living in multi-
family housing of 5 or more units had permits. Those over 65 years of age (55%) and those between
18 and 24 (64%) were also less likely to have a neighborhood parking permit than were respondents
in the middle age ranges.
Table 8 - Parking Permits
Do you or a member of your immediate family Percent of Respondents
hold a Neighborhood Parking Permit for your (n=604)
neighborhood?
Yes 69%
No 29%
Not Sure 2%
Total 100%
Among the NPP zones, the higher density, downtown areas - Goss-Grove, Mapleton, Uni-Hill and
Whittier had larger proportions of permits than Columbine or High-Sunset.
NPP Sunvey Residts - April 2001 Page 16
Residents in all 6 NPP areas combined did not make great use of visitor passes. Almost 30% of
respondents said they don't have or never use a visitor pass, another 32% said they only use their
visitor pass 4 to 5 times per year. Only 6% of all respondents said they use a visitor pass every day.
A larger proportion of respondents living in multi-family units either didn't have a pass or rarely
used it compared to respondents who lived in single-family detached housing or in rooms in single
family homes.
Table 9 - Use of Visitor Passes
About how often are your visitor passes Percent of Respondents
used? (n=596)
Every day 6%
1 to 2 rimes a week 15%
4 to 5 times a month 18%
4 to 5 times a year 32%
Never/ don't have a visitor pass 29%
Total 100%
Visitor passes were most frequently used by Uni-Hill, Whittier and Mapleton neighborhood
respondents.
NPP Survey Results -April 2001 Page 17
V. Demographics
Table 10 - Type of Residence
Percent of
Respondents
(n=598)
Single family detached unit 71%
Room or portion of a single family detached unit 7%
Apartment in a building of 4 or fewer units 13%
Apartment in a building of 5 or more units 9%
Total 100%
Table 11- Rent vs. Own
Percent of Respondents
(n=603)
Rent 32%
Own 68%
Total 100%
Table 12 - Length of Residency
About how long have you lived at Percent of Respondents
your present residence? (n=602)
About one year or less 17%
Two to five years 29%
Six to ten years 14%
Ten to nineteen years 14%
Twenty or more years 25%
Total 100%
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 18
Table 13 - Number of Vehicles in the Household
Percent of Respondents
(n=597)
None 1 %
1 32%
2 44%
3 15%
4 5%
5 or more 3%
Total 100%
Average Number of Vehicles per Household = 2.01
Table 14 - Student Status
Percent of Respondents
(n=600)
Yes 12%
No 88%
Total 100%
Table 15 - Age
Percent of Respondents
(n=601)
18 to 24 8%
25 to 34 20%
35 to 44 17%
45 to 54 24%
55 to 64 15%
65 or older 16%
Total 100%
NPP Sunoey Results - April 2001 Page 19
Appendix A - Methodology
Survey Administration
Boundaries for each of the six Neighborhood Parking Permit zones were obtained from the
DUHMD & Parking Services Division. A mailing list of all addresses within each of the six zones
was developed by the Audit and Evaluation Division. Surveys were mailed to these households
in mid-February. About one week after the first mailing, a reminder post card was sent to all
households.
Of the approximately 1,960 surveys mailed, 616 completed surveys were received, vielding an
overall response rate of 33%. The table below shows the response rates for each NPP zone and the
proportion of responses from each zone that make up the total. The highest neighborhood response
rate was from High/Sunset where 51 % of residents completed a survey, however, this NPP zone
had the lowest total residents of all neighborhoods. The NPP zone with the highest number of
residents, Goss/Grove, had the lowest response rate, 21%. Differences in response rates maybe a
reflection of the proportion of owner-occupied versus rental units in each area. Property owners
are generally more likely to respond to surveys than renters.
Proportion by Zone and Response Rates
NPP Zone Surveys Surveys Completed Response Zone Percent
Mailed Returned Surveys Rate of Total
Undeliverable Received
Columbine 269 5 111 42% 18%
Goss-Grove 456 16 94 21% 15%
High-Sunset 79 10 35 51% 6%
Mapleton 346 31 103 33% 17%
University Hill 384 0 136 35% 22%
Whittier 428 30 137 34% 22%
Total All NPP 1962 92 616 33% 100%
Zones
Data Analysis
The surveys were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package. Frequencies are displayed in the
figures of the report. Chi-square comparisons were used to test differences between subgroups
within the data. Where differences between demographic subgroups were statistically significant,
they are presented in the text.
NPP Survey Results - April 2001 Page 20