P-26-4-PZ Parking Demand Study (8-12-26)
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
63232 characters
To:
Max Friedman
Banyan Residential
From:
Shelly Sorensen, PE, PTOE
Job Number: 25.5917
Project Number: P-25-101-PDR
RE:
Banyan Apartments
Parking Demand Study
Date: August 12, 2026
INTRODUCTION
Lōkahi, LLC (Lōkahi) has prepared a
Parking Demand Study for the
proposed Banyan Apartments
development, located on the
southeast corner of Virginia Street and
Rennick Drive in Apache Junction,
Arizona. See Figure 1 for the vicinity
map.
The proposed development consists of
a two and three-story apartment
complex with 146 dwelling units. The
proposed development is a low-
income housing tax credit (LIHTC)
development. See Attachment A and
Figure 2 for the site plan.
The objective of this Parking Demand Study is to analyze the parking demand needs specific to
the proposed development to avoid providing an overabundance of parking. Providing too
much parking can inefficiently allocate resources (both public and private) and contradict the
principles of fostering walkable communities. The study will also examine the impact of
alternative transportation options and vehicle ownership trends in the area on parking demand.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
08/12/26
2
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Banyan Apartments
development consists of a two and
three-story apartment complex with
146 dwelling units.
The 146 dwelling units will be
composed of the following unit
breakdown:
• 38 one-bedroom units
• 48 two-bedroom units
• 49 three-bedroom units
• 11 four-bedroom units
The proposed development will be a LIHTC development, renting only to households earning no
more than 60% of the Pinal County Area Median Income.
PROVIDED PARKING
The proposed development will provide 317 vehicle parking spaces, 309 of which will be first-
come, first-serve spaces and 8 of which will be reserved for handicapped users.
REQUIRED PARKING BY CODE
The required number of parking spaces by land use type is identified within Table 7-1: Number of
Parking Stalls Required of Article 1-7-3 of the City of Apache Junction’s City Code.
The required parking for the proposed breakdown of 146 dwelling units is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Required Vehicle Parking by Code
Figure 2 – Site Plan
3
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
The proposed Banyan Apartments development will provide 317 parking spaces, which is in
accordance with the 317 parking spaces required by the Code.
ITE PARKING DEMAND
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitled Parking Generation, 6th Edition
is utilized to estimate parking demand based on research and experiences of transportation
engineering and planning professionals.
The parking demand was evaluated using two ITE land use codes (LUC): ITE LUC 217 –
Multifamily Housing – 1 BR (Low-Rise) and ITE LUC 220 – Multifamily Housing – 2+ BR (Low-Rise).
AVERAGE PARKING DEMAND
The average weekday and Saturday ITE peak period of parking demand calculations for General
Urban/Suburban locations are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. ITE does not provide
Saturday data for LUC 217, so weekday rates were used for the Saturday parking demand
calculations.
Table 2 – ITE Parking Demand (Average Rate – Weekday)
Table 3 – ITE Parking Demand (Average Rate – Saturday)
4
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
Based on ITE Parking Generation, 6th Edition, the average weekday and Saturday peak parking
demand for the proposed Banyan Apartments development is 174 and 164 parking spaces,
respectively. The proposed development provides 317 parking spaces, representing a surplus of
143 (82.2%), 153 (93.3%), and parking spaces for the average weekday and Saturday parking
demand, respectively.
STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS
Apache Junction Study Area
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) provides the Arizona Demographics map
viewer, which graphically displays selected population and housing data for any block group
subset of the state of Arizona based on Census 2020 and the American Community Survey (ACS)
5-year 2018-2022.
The standard report from the Apache Junction study area was selected. See Figure 3 for the
Apache Junction study area boundaries and Attachment C for the Apache Junction
Demographics Report.
Based on the demographics of the Apache Junction study area, 85.5% of the population drives to
work alone and 14.5% of the population walks to work. Additionally, 5.9% of the population does
not have a vehicle.
Figure 3 – Apache Junction Study Area
5
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
If a relationship is considered between the Apache Junction study area demographics and the
resident demographics, it is assumed that some portion of the total residents of the proposed
Banyan Apartments do not own a vehicle and will utilize alternative modes of transportation for
travel, thus reducing the parking demand for household units.
LOWER-INCOME HOUSING CONSIDERATION
As previously mentioned, the proposed Banyan Apartments is a LIHTC development, renting
only to households earning no more than 60% of the Pinal County Area Median Income. The high
cost of automobile ownership and operation further stress such households, which often offset
such costs by sharing one vehicle for the household, seeking nearby employment opportunities
to allow for alternative means for one or more household unit members as well as use of transit
or bicycle options.
Beyond the anecdotal, there is real world research into the needs of lower income households
as to the parking requirements. According to a study entitled Residential Parking in Station Areas:
A Study of Metro Denver by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) of Denver, Colorado,
income-restricted properties have a lower parking utilization rate than market-rate properties.
The study states the following:
“In market-rate properties, 1.23 parking spaces per unit are provided, but only 0.74 parking
spaces per unit are used.
Income-restricted properties provide 0.72 parking spaces per unit, but residents use only 0.36
parking spaces per unit …
Market-rate properties provide … a 60 percent utilization rate…
Income-restricted properties provide … a 50 percent utilization rate”
While metro Denver does have more transit overall, this regional study provides confirmation
that lower income yields less car ownership.
The proposed Banyan Apartments development is proposing 317 parking spaces for 146 dwelling
units, which is a rate of 2.17 spaces per dwelling unit – higher than the rates of 1.23 for market-
rate properties and 0.72 for income-restricted properties. As mentioned above, the utilization
rates for market-rate and income-restricted properties are 60% and 50%, respectively.
Conservatively using a 60% utilization rate, the proposed Banyan Apartments development will
experience a parking demand of just 190 parking spaces.
See Attachment D for the RTD parking study.
6
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
Additionally, according to the National Equity Atlas, households living below 200% – or twice –
the poverty level are much more likely to lack access to a vehicle, with 19% of these individuals
owning zero vehicles. See Attachment E for the National Equity Atlas’ report on Car access.
In consideration of the RTD parking study and the National Equity Atlas’ report, Car access, the
income-restricted nature of the proposed Banyan Apartments is anticipated to foster a tenant
mix with less dependency on and access to personal vehicles. This is anticipated to lower the
parking demand for the development.
7
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
CONCLUSION
The proposed development consists of a two and three-story apartment complex with 146
dwelling units. The analysis presented in this Parking Demand Study demonstrates that the
proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the anticipated demand.
Provided Parking
• 317 unreserved parking spaces,
o Eight (8) of which are reserved for handicapped users.
Parking Requirement – Apache Junction
• Per Article 1-7-3 of the City of Apache Junction City Code, 317 parking spaces are required.
ITE Parking Generation, Average Parking Demand Analysis
• Weekday peak parking demand: 174 parking spaces (surplus of 82.2% or 143 spaces)
• Saturday peak parking demand: 164 parking spaces (surplus of 93.3% or 153 spaces)
The ITE Parking Generation results indicate that the parking supply of 317 parking spaces is
adequate for the proposed Banyan Apartments development, exceeding the weekday and
Saturday peak parking demands.
Demographic Trends
National studies indicate that income levels directly relate to car ownership, which affects
parking demand. Additionally, it is understood that parking utilization rates for market-rate and
low-income properties are 60% and 50%, respectively, indicating that the parking supply for the
proposed Banyan Apartments is adequate.
Demographic trends including lower vehicle ownership rates among low-income individuals
further support the adequacy of the parking supply. National and local data, including Apache
Junction demographics, indicate that 14.5% of residents in the area utilize alternative modes of
transportation and 5.9% do not own a vehicle. Additionally, the availability of nearby pedestrian
bicycle infrastructure, along with the proximity to commercial centers, is expected to reduce
vehicle dependency among residents.
Conclusion
By aligning parking supply with actual demand, the proposed development avoids over-parking,
which can lead to inefficient resource allocation and conflicts with the goal of creating
sustainable, walkable communities. This study confirms that the 317 proposed parking stalls is
appropriate and effective for the proposed development, ensuring that the development meets
residents' needs while supporting the broader objectives of sustainable urban design and
resource efficiency.
A
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT A - SITE PLAN
B
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT B – APACHE JUNCTION CITY
CODE
C
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT C – APACHE JUNCTION
DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT
The selected block group has a population of 782 with a minority*
population of 115 or 14.71%.
The selected block group has 523 total households.
About the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5 year Estimates
The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey that uses continuous, multi-year sampling to produce estimates for a variety of geographical areas, the
smallest being the Census Block Group. MAG uses the 5-year estimates because they provide increased statistical reliability for less populated areas and small population
groups. ACS is a sample, meaning that it is not a full census of the population. For the 5 year estimates, surveys are collected from a sample population over the 5 year
period. These surveys are then used to create estimates for the whole population. And, because it is an estimate of the whole population, there is a degree of uncertainty in
the results. This degree of uncertainty is reflected in the margins of error that are calculated and reported along with the results of the survey. The margins of error are
calculated at the 90 percent confidence level, meaning that users of the data can be 90 percent confident that the range reflected in the margin of error contains the true value.
The margins of error are not reported on this web site, but are available from the Census at http://factfinder.census.gov/or are available upon request from MAG. More
information on the methodology of the American Community Survey is available at http://www.census.gov/acs/.
* Minority population is defined as the population that is of any race other than non-hispanic white.
The selected block group Demographic Report
Age
Name
Total
Percent
Total
782
N/A
Under 5 years
0
0.0%
5 to 9 years
0
0.0%
10 to 14 years
5
0.6%
15 to 19 years
9
1.2%
20 to 24 years
0
0.0%
25 to 34 years
28
3.6%
35 to 44 years
14
1.8%
45 to 54 years
59
7.5%
55 to 59 years
23
2.9%
60 to 64 years
119
15.2%
65 to 74 years
223
28.5%
75 to 84 years
225
28.8%
85 years and over
77
9.8%
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Universe: Total Population
0
50
100
150
200
250
Population
85 years and over
75 to 84 years
65 to 74 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
45 to 54 years
35 to 44 years
25 to 34 years
20 to 24 years
15 to 19 years
10 to 14 years
5 to 9 years
Under 5 years
Age Group
Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 2
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
Race and Ethnicity
Name
Total
Percent
Total
782
N/A
Hispanic
0
0.0%
White, Non-Hispanic
667
85.3%
Black, Non-Hispanic
0
0.0%
Native American, Non-
Hispanic
0
0.0%
Asian, Non-Hispanic
103
13.2%
Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic
0
0.0%
Two or More, Non-Hispanic
12
1.5%
Other Race, Non-Hispanic
0
0.0%
0%
85.3%
13.2%
1.5%
Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Asian, Non-Hispanic
Two or More, Non-Hispanic
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Universe: Total Population
Race and Ethnicity
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 3
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Ability to Speak English
Name
Total
Percent
Speak Only English
668
85.4%
Speak Other Languages
114
14.6%
Speak English "very well"
98
N/A
Persons with Limited English
Proficiency (LEP)
16
N/A
Speak English "well"
16
N/A
Speak English "not well"
0
N/A
Speak English "not at all"
0
N/A
Veterans Status
Name
Total
Percent
Civilian Population 18 years
and over
768
N/A
Civilian veterans
117
15.2%
Male
96
N/A
Female
21
N/A
18 to 34 years
0
0.0%
35 to 54 years
31
26.5%
55 to 64 years
0
0.0%
65 to 74 years
23
19.7%
75 years and over
63
53.8%
Universe: Civilian Population 18 years and over
0%
26.5%
19.7%
53.8%
18 to 34 years
35 to 54 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
85.4%
14.6%
Speak Only English
Speak Other Languages
Ability to Speak English / Veterans Status by Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 4
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
3.6%
4.3%
30.9%
28.1%
6.5%
21%
5.6%
Less than 9th Grade
9th-12th, no diploma
High School Graduate or Equivalent
Some College
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Graduate or Professional Degree
Educational Attainment
Name
Total
Percent
Population 25 and over
768
100.0%
Less than 9th Grade
28
3.6%
9th-12th, no diploma
33
4.3%
High School Graduate or
Equivalent
237
30.9%
Some College
216
28.1%
Associates Degree
50
6.5%
Bachelors Degree
161
21.0%
Graduate or Professional
Degree
43
5.6%
Universe: Population Age 25 Years and Over
Educational Attainment
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 5
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of Households
$200,000 or more
$150,000 to $199,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$10,000 to $14,999
Less than $10,000
Income Groups
Household Income (In 2023 inflation-adjusted
dollars)
Name
Total
Percent
Total Households
523
N/A
Median Household Income
$ 47,938
N/A
Less than $10,000
48
9.2%
$10,000 to $14,999
21
4.0%
$15,000 to $24,999
108
20.7%
$25,000 to $34,999
38
7.3%
$35,000 to $49,999
63
12.0%
$50,000 to $74,999
80
15.3%
$75,000 to $99,999
111
21.2%
$100,000 to $149,999
44
8.4%
$150,000 to $199,999
0
0.0%
$200,000 or more
10
1.9%
Universe: Households
Households
Name
Total
Percent
Total Households
523
N/A
Average Household Size
2
N/A
Family Households
(Families)
203
38.8%
Married-couple family
197
N/A
Female Householder, no
spouse present
6
N/A
with own children under
18 years
0
N/A
Nonfamily Households
320
61.2%
Householder living alone
297
N/A
Universe: Households
Household Income and Households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 6
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months
Name
Total
Percent
Persons for whom poverty
status is determined
782
N/A
Persons with income below
poverty level
97
12.4%
Persons with income below
150% of poverty level
263
33.6%
Persons with income below
200% of poverty level
295
37.7%
Universe: Persons for whom poverty status is
determined
Persons with income
below 200% of poverty
level
Persons with income
below 150% of poverty
level
Persons with income
below poverty level
0
100
200
300
Population
Poverty Status for Families in the Past 12 Months
Name
Total
Percent
Total Families
203
N/A
Families with income below
poverty level
15
7.4%
Married-couple family
15
N/A
with related children
under 18 years
0
N/A
Female householder, no
spouse present
0
N/A
with related children
under 18 years
0
N/A
Male householder, no
spouse present
0
N/A
with related children
under 18 years
0
N/A
Universe: Families
Poverty Status
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 7
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Commuting to Work
Name
Total
Percent
Workers 16 years and over
159
N/A
Car or Truck - drive alone
136
85.5%
Car or Truck - carpool
0
0.0%
Public Transportation
0
0.0%
Bicycle
0
0.0%
Walked
23
14.5%
Other means (taxicab,
motorcycle, etc.)
0
0.0%
Worked at home
0
0.0%
Universe: Workers age 16 years and over
85.5%
0%
14.5%
Car or Truck - drive alone
Car or Truck - carpool
Walked
Modes of Transportation
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 8
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
17.6%
31.4%
47.2%
0%
3.8%
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations
Service occupations
Sales and office occupations
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations
Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations
Universe: Civilian employed population 16 years and
over
Occupation
Name
Total
Percent
Civilian employed population
16 years and over
159
N/A
Management, business,
science, and arts occupations
28
17.6%
Service occupations
50
31.4%
Sales and office occupations
75
47.2%
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance occupations
0
0.0%
Production, transportation,
and material moving
occupations
6
3.8%
Occupation
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 9
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
44%
18.4%
37.6%
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Vacant Units
Housing
Name
Total
Percent
Per Sq Mile
Housing Units
838
N/A
2.4
Occupied Housing Units
523
62.4%
1.5
Owner-Occupied
369
44.0%
1.0
Renter-Occupied
154
18.4%
0.4
Vacant Units
315
37.6%
0.9
Median Housing Value
$ 31,000
N/A
N/A
Median Rent
$
N/A
N/A
Universe: Housing Units
Housing
Name
Total
Percent
Total Housing Units
838
N/A
1, detached
133
15.9%
1, attached
31
3.7%
2 to 9
36
4.3%
10 or more
0
0.0%
Mobile Home
583
69.6%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
55
6.6%
Universe: Housing Units
Occupancy, Tenure, Value, and Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 10
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Vehicles Available
Name
Total
Percent
Total Occupied Housing Units
523
N/A
No vehicles available
31
5.9%
One vehicles available
334
63.9%
Two vehicles available
101
19.3%
3 or more vehicles available
57
10.9%
Universe: Occupied Housing Units
5.9%
63.9%
19.3%
10.9%
No vehicles available
One vehicles available
Two vehicles available
3 or more vehicles available
Vehicles Available
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 11
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
MAG provides the data within these pages as a public resource of general information for use "as is." MAG provides
this information with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be accurate, correct or complete and any
conclusions drawn from such information are the sole responsibility of the user. Further, MAG makes no warranty,
representation or guaranty as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the spatial or
database information provided herein. While every effort has been made to ensure the content, sequence, accuracy,
timeliness, or completeness of materials presented within these pages, MAG assumes no responsibility for errors or
omissions, and explicitly disclaims any representations and warranties, including, without limitation, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. MAG shall assume no liability for:
Any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided, regardless of how caused; or
1.
Any decision made or action taken or not taken by viewer in reliance upon any information or data furnished
hereunder.
2.
Availability of MAG Map Server is not guaranteed. Applications, servers, and network connections may be unavailable
at any time for maintenance or unscheduled outages. Outages may be of long duration. Users are cautioned to create
dependencies on these services for critical needs.
THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND/OR ANY OTHER TYPE WHETHER
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. In no event shall MAG become liable to users of these data, or any other party, for any
loss or direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, including, but not limited to, time, money or
goodwill, arising from the use or modification of the data.
To assist MAG in the maintenance and/or correction of the data, users should provide MAG with information
concerning errors or discrepancies found in using the data. Please use the e-mail contact address at the bottom of the
affected web page.
Please acknowledge the Maricopa Association of Governments as the source when Map Server data are used in the
preparation of reports, papers, publications, maps, or other products.
To provide comments or report problems please contact: Jason Howard, GIS Program Manager
Legal Disclaimer
Page: 12
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
D
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT D – RTD PARKING STUDY
December 2020
Residential Parking
in Station Areas:
A Study of Metro Denver
Revised January 2021
1
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to those who offered their thoughtful consultation on this research:
• Andy Taylor, Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Brad Calvert, Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Cassie Slade, Fox Tuttle Hernandez
• Chris Nevitt, City and County of Denver
• Geoffrey Chiapella, Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Isabelle Lockwood, AMLI Residential
• Jeff Tranguch, Regional Transportation District
• Jennie Rodgers, Enterprise Community Partners
• Jeremiah Simpson, Kimley-Horn
• Karl Barton, American Planning Association – Colorado Chapter
• Kasia Hart, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
• Laura Rossbert, Shopworks Architecture
• Laurie Huff, Regional Transportation District
• Michael Leccese, Urban Land Institute – Colorado Chapter
• Phoebe Fooks, Apex Design
• Scott Rathbun, Apartment Appraisers and Consultants
• Tim Fredregill, Milender White
• Travis Liska, North Central Texas Council of Governments
• Trey Warren, Front Range Land & Development
• Wes Marshall, University of Colorado at Denver
RTD Staff
The following RTD staff advanced this research.
• Charlie Stanfield, Transportation Planner
• Chessy Brady, AICP, Transit-Oriented Development Manager
• John Hersey, AICP, LEED AP ND, Senior Transit-Oriented Development Associate
and Project Lead
For further information, please contact TOD@RTD-Denver.com.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 6
Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Count & Confirmation ................................................................................................................ 6
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Findings........................................................................................................................................... 9
Resident Income ...................................................................................................................... 10
Bundled Parking ....................................................................................................................... 11
Neighborhood Transit Quality ................................................................................................. 12
Transit Pass Provision .............................................................................................................. 13
Proximity to Transit .................................................................................................................. 14
Core vs Suburbs ....................................................................................................................... 15
Transit-Oriented Development Typology ............................................................................... 15
Property Age ............................................................................................................................. 17
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3
Executive Summary
In late 2019 and early 2020, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) of Metro Denver,
Colorado, surveyed property managers, counted parking supply and demand, and
analyzed findings from 86 station-area developments. Per RTD’s analysis of peak parking
demand, market-rate properties provide 40 percent more parking than residents use, and
income-restricted properties provide 50 percent more parking than residents use.
Providing an excessive amount of parking at station-area properties across Metro Denver
affects residents’ welfare and the economic vitality of the region, which the State of
Colorado enabled RTD to promote.1 As parking increases development costs, developers
may pass on costs to residents in the forms of higher rent, fewer units, and reduced
services.2 In aggregate, increased costs for unnecessary parking contribute to a higher
cost of living across Metro Denver, which recently experienced the second greatest rate
of gentrification in the country.3 From the perspective of the transit agency, which
particularly benefits from the patronage of low-income passengers, fewer income-
restricted units near existing service threatens the agency’s fiscal solvency and
satisfaction of its mandate.
RTD intends this research to prompt discussion about more appropriate parking provision
for properties in transit-rich neighborhoods. RTD, municipalities, and development
partners who have a role in promoting the region’s economic welfare should prefer
station-area affordable housing in disposition guidelines, zoning regulations, and funding
requirements. In addition, developers should rely on findings like those presented here
to make the case to municipalities and financial partners to tailor expectations for parking
demand to a multimodal environment. RTD hopes that this research effort will help to
foster a more affordable, connected, and competitive Metro Denver region.
1 State of Colorado, “Colorado Revised Statutes §32-9-102(1)a”
2 A parking space in a structured parking facility costs approximately $25,000 in Metro Denver in 2020.
3 National Community Reinvestment Coalition, “Gentrification and Displacement 2020”
At market-rate properties, 40% of parking
spaces go unused at peak, while income-
restricted properties provide 50% more
parking than used.
4
Background
RTD provides fixed-route transit service for the eight-county Metro Denver region – one
of the nation’s largest service areas, covering 2,342 square miles and including more than
three million residents. In 2019, before COVID-19-related service adjustments, RTD
operated nearly 44 million miles of regular fixed-route service with a fleet of 66
commuter-rail and 201 light-rail trains, more than one thousand local- and regional-
service buses, and nearly 400 special-service vehicles. RTD provided more than 100
million trips in 2019.4
In 2004, residents within RTD’s service area approved a sales-tax increase to fund
FasTracks, the nation’s largest transit expansion at that time. Between 2015 and 2020,
RTD opened seven new rapid transit services, including the University of Colorado A Line
between Denver Union Station and Denver International Airport and the Flatiron Flyer
bus rapid transit service between Denver Union Station and Boulder. Since 2005, an
outsized amount of development has occurred near rapid-transit stations: 43 percent of
all multifamily development and 55 percent of all office development in Metro Denver has
occurred within a half-mile of RTD rapid-transit stations, which together account for only
0.6 percent of land area in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood and Boulder metropolitan
statistical areas.
4 Regional Transportation District, “Facts and Figures”
5
Despite impressive growth in Metro
Denver’s station-area development,
transit ridership has not followed.
Between 2015 and 2018, ridership
decreased from 103 million to 98
million, and recent RTD research
suggests that the type of development
more than simply total development
may play a role. In 2017 and 2018,
RTD surveyed 1,340 residents of 35
station-area apartments and found a
compelling relationship between low-
income
households
and
transit
service.5 6
In other words, co-locating income-restricted housing and high-frequency transit service
benefits both low-income households and the transit agency. Reducing parking supply at
station-area developments reduces development cost, helping residents to reduce
housing and transportation costs and RTD to increase ridership on its expansive transit
network.7
RTD strives to support development opportunities that increase ridership or enhance
transit investments across the District through station design and close coordination with
local jurisdictions and developers. RTD plays a proactive role in facilitating transit-
supportive development around transit stations, managing and conducting research to
support transit-oriented development, sharing information with both public and private
sector partners, and providing planning assistance to help local jurisdictions connect
constituents to transit service.
5 Travel Behaviour and Society, “Comparing the travel behavior of affordable and market-rate housing residents in
the transit-rich neighborhoods of Denver, CO”
6 TransitCenter, “Transit-Oriented Development is More Transit-Oriented When It’s Affordable Housing”
7 Center for Neighborhood Technology, “Housing and Transportation Affordability Index”
Co-locating income-restricted housing and
high-frequency transit service benefits both
low-income households and transit agencies.
RTD research shows:
•
61 percent of low-income households
have no car, while 93 percent of market-
rate households have at least one car.
•
63 percent of low-income households
ride the bus once a week or more, while
88 percent of market-rate households
ride the bus once a week or less.
•
57 percent of low-income households
ride the train once a week or more, while
73 percent of market-rate households
ride the train once a week or less.
6
Methodology
RTD’s research into station-area developments’ parking provision and utilization relied on
results of an electronic survey of property managers and counts of properties’ parking
facilities during peak demand.
Guidance
In summer 2019, RTD consulted several planning, parking, and development practitioners
to better understand similar research efforts, nuances, and pressing issues facing each
discipline. In particular, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in Greater Boston
and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in the Dallas-Fort Worth
Metroplex offered lessons learned from their similar work to understand and inform
station-area parking supply.
Survey
After speaking with these agencies, RTD drafted an electronic survey in Google Forms for
managers of residential properties to understand each property’s general characteristics,
parking programs, and transportation amenities.
RTD tracks station-area development in Metro Denver, logging development type, size,
and location among other features. RTD used that database to develop a universe of
properties for this study, prioritizing rental apartment buildings within a 10-minute walk
of a bus rapid transit or train station with at least 50 units that opened or were
substantially renovated within five years of transit service opening.8 That filter identified
120 properties, and RTD relied on contact information provided by transportation
management associations or property websites to contact managers of those properties
between fall 2019 and spring 2020 to explain the research and distribute the online
survey. Of 111 property managers who received the survey, RTD received 99 responses.
Count & Confirmation
Learning from MAPC and NCTCOG and taking advantage of a State-mandated stay-at-
home order in April 2020, RTD counted parking utilization at 104 properties in April 2020
on a Tuesday through Thursday between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., avoiding Friday through
8 RTD did not survey or count condominiums. A State construction defects law has limited condominium
development, thus mitigating the benefit of studying this product type, and surveying individual condo-unit
owners proved prohibitively challenging.
7
Monday because utilization is typically lower on those days. RTD again followed up with
property managers after these counts to clarify questions raised in the field and further
detail survey responses.
In the two weeks following Labor Day 2020, RTD verified April daytime counts with
nighttime counts of 19 properties (approximately 22 percent of the 86 analyzed
properties) on a Tuesday through Thursday between 9 p.m. and midnight to verify
consistency between the counting time periods. Utilization from the smaller nighttime
counts nearly matched that of the daytime counts: 63 percent utilization by day in April;
62 percent utilization by night in September.
Analysis
RTD both received a survey from and counted parking utilization at 94 properties, of
which 86 properties in 11 municipalities were more than 80 percent leased at the time of
the count (Figure 1). RTD analyzed these 86 properties’ parking provision and utilization
patterns related to resident income, property age, property transportation policies, and
location features.
8
Figure 1: Map of Properties Analyzed
9
Findings
Most significant, the analysis found that all 86 properties provide 42 percent more parking
on average than residents use at peak demand, and income-restricted properties provide
50 percent more parking than used – well above the 5 to 15 percent considered optimal
parking management.9 This over-supply comes at a substantial cost: approximately
$25,000 per parking space in a Metro Denver parking structure, which are typical of
station-area developments that make efficient use of high-value land.
While excessive parking at any station-area property would fail to complement the
neighborhood’s intrinsic multimodal alternatives and increase residents’ cost of living, the
cost of excessive parking often jeopardizes affordable housing. Thus, the unnecessary
cost of housing cars instead of families often limits or effectively prohibits affordable
housing in station areas and limits transit access for reliable transit users.
Excessive parking particularly affects the viability of low-income housing, whose
developers have few financial sources to afford inefficient costs. The City and County of
Denver estimates that the region lacks 100,000 homes, and the Colorado Housing and
Finance Authority reports that annual demand for competitive low-income housing tax
credit capital was over-subscribed by 219 percent in 2020. Not surprising, the National
Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) ranked Metro Denver as the second fastest
gentrifying region in the country between 2013 and 2017.
Table 1: Selection from NCRC’s “Gentrification and Displacement 2020”
City
Total
Tracts
Eligible
Tracts
Gentrifying
Tracts
Rate of
Gentrification
San Francisco-Oakland
975
131
41
31.3%
Denver
619
80
22
27.5%
Boston
1003
75
16
21.3%
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
1215
81
17
21.0%
New Orleans
392
64
13
20.3%
Austin
350
56
11
19.6%
New York City
4515
362
70
19.3%
Reproduced from “Gentrification and Displacement 2020”
Excess parking is particularly inappropriate in transit-rich neighborhoods. Not only does
it effectively prohibit affordable housing, but it unnecessarily increases development cost,
9 Urban Land Institute, “Shared Parking”
10
reduces project savings, and obstructs access to transit and, by extension, to economic
opportunity for a growing number of low-income households.
Resident Income
Table 2 details the number of parking spaces available and utilized on a per-unit basis at
all 86 properties analyzed, separated by their inclusion of market-rate, mixed-income,
and income-restricted units. Residents of income-restricted properties use less parking
than residents of market-rate residents, suggesting that municipalities and developers
should have different standards for parking demand at market-rate and income-restricted
properties in station areas.
Summarized in Figure 2, the 65 analyzed market-rate properties provide an average of
1.23 parking spaces per unit, but residents use at peak demand only 0.74 parking spaces
per unit– a 60 percent utilization rate. Sixteen income-restricted properties provide an
average of 0.72 spaces per unit, but residents use only 0.36 parking spaces per unit – a
50 percent utilization rate.
Table 2: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Property by Resident Income
Resident
Income
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
86
25,333
30,478
1.20
0.70
58%
Market Rate
65
19,850
24,462
1.23
0.74
60%
Mixed Income
5
985
845
0.86
0.49
57%
Income Restricted
16
1,587
1,135
0.72
0.36
50%
In market-rate properties, 1.23 parking
spaces per unit are provided, but only 0.74
parking spaces per unit are used.
Income-restricted properties provide 0.72
parking spaces per unit, but residents use
only 0.36 parking spaces per unit.
11
Figure 2: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Property by Resident Income
Bundled Parking
Nearly an even split of properties include (45) or do not include (41) a parking space in
a tenant’s lease, otherwise known as bundling or unbundling parking, respectively.
Although one may expect an additional parking fee at unbundled properties to result in
lower parking demand, prompting developers to reduce supply, properties with
unbundled parking provide more parking per unit and have higher utilization rates than
their bundled-parking counterparts. This unexpected finding for higher supply and
utilization at unbundled properties may be explained by resident income at these
properties; 38 of 41 unbundled properties are market-rate properties, thus
accommodating a higher-income tenant, who is more likely than a lower-income tenant
to own a vehicle. Developers of market-rate apartments with unbundled parking likely
anticipate a high demand for parking from higher-income tenants.
Table 3: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties with Bundled Parking
Bundled
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
45
9,851
11,580
1.18
0.66
56%
Market Rate
27
7,892
10,147
1.29
0.73
57%
Mixed Income
4
901
751
0.83
0.48
58%
Income Restricted
14
1,058
682
0.64
0.33
50%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
All Properties
Market Rate
Mixed Income
Income Restricted
Spaces per Unit
Utilization
Provision
50%
Util.
Rate
57%
Util.
Rate
60%
Util.
Rate
60%
Util.
Rate
12
Table 4: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties with Unbundled Parking
Unbundled
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
41
11,241
13,330
1.19
0.74
63%
Market Rate
38
10,947
13,042
1.19
0.75
63%
Mixed Income
1
84
94
1.12
0.56
50%
Income Restricted
2
210
194
0.92
0.45
49%
Neighborhood Transit Quality
The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s (CNT) All Transit (AT) compiles transit stop,
route, and frequency information in more than 300 regions, including Metro Denver. RTD
used properties’ AT scores to approximate their neighborhoods’ levels of transit service
and separated scores into quartiles of transit quality. (Tables 5 through 8)
One may expect quartiles to relate inversely to parking utilization – the better the transit
quality, the lower the need to own and park a vehicle – and that expectation holds true.
After accounting for single-property outliers, resident income continues to correlate with
parking utilization. Rates of parking supply and demand are higher at market-rate
properties and lower at income-restricted properties than average in each quartile, and
income-restricted properties exhibit the lowest per-unit utilization (0.31) across all
quartiles.
However, parking utilization across all properties in all quartiles is neither as distinct
among the quartiles nor as related to neighborhood transit quality as one may expect.
For example, the lowest per-unit utilization occurs in the second lowest quartile, not the
highest quartile. It is surprising that neighborhood transit quality does not play a more
significant role in parking provision or utilization. Municipalities and developers may better
consider neighborhood transit quality when determining parking provision, as the transit
agency may consider transit-supportive land uses in station areas when determining
provision of transit services to neighborhoods.
Table 5: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in Lowest Quartile
Lowest
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
21
6,429
7,067
1.10
0.66
60%
Market Rate
19
6,018
6,911
1.15
0.69
60%
Mixed Income
1
266
126
0.47
0.24
52%
Income Restricted
1
145
30
0.21
0.19
90%
13
Table 6: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in Low Quartile
Low
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
23
5,277
6,028
1.14
0.72
63%
Market Rate
15
4,283
5,351
1.25
0.80
64%
Mixed Income
2
194
199
1.03
0.53
52%
Income Restricted
6
800
478
0.60
0.31
52%
Table 7: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in High Quartile
High
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
22
6,129
8,015
1.31
0.73
56%
Market Rate
17
5,761
7,617
1.32
0.75
56%
Mixed Income
1
129
158
1.22
0.51
42%
Income Restricted
4
239
240
1.00
0.50
50%
Table 8: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in Highest Quartile
Highest
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
20
4,587
5,332
1.16
0.70
60%
Market Rate
14
3,788
4,583
1.21
0.73
60%
Mixed Income
1
396
362
0.91
0.62
68%
Income Restricted
5
403
387
0.96
0.44
46%
Transit Pass Provision
RTD’s Neighborhood EcoPass (NEco) Program allows managers with at least 40 units to
purchase monthly transit passes at significant discount and provide those passes to
tenants to encourage their transit use. Of the 86 properties analyzed, managers at only
eight properties provide Neighborhood EcoPasses, translating to slightly lower parking
provision and utilization (1.15 and 0.64 parking spaces per unit, respectively) compared
to the majority of properties (1.18 and 0.71 parking spaces per unit, respectively).
Although few station-area properties participate in the NEco Program, this finding
suggests nonetheless that RTD should encourage municipalities and developers to
consider reductions in parking provision on condition of participation in NEco and other
transportation-demand management programs.
14
Table 9: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties with Neighborhood EcoPasses
With
NEco
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
8
1,330
1,532
1.15
0.64
56%
Market Rate
4
1,011
1,273
1.26
0.72
57%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
4
319
259
0.81
0.42
51%
Table 10: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties without Neighborhood EcoPasses
Without
NEco
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
78
21,092
24,910
1.18
0.71
60%
Market Rate
61
18,839
23,189
1.23
0.74
60%
Mixed Income
5
985
845
0.86
0.49
57%
Income Restricted
12
1,268
876
0.69
0.35
50%
Proximity to Transit
The distance between property and station may play a small role in parking supply and
demand. Twenty-nine (29) properties lying less than 0.3 miles from a station provide
0.17 fewer parking spaces per unit and residents of those properties utilize 0.10 fewer
parking spaces per unit compared to 57 properties between 0.3 and 0.5 miles from a
station. In other words, for every 30 units, a property within a five-minute walk of a
station provides five fewer parking spaces and its residents use three fewer parking
spaces than a comparable station-area property farther away.
Table 11: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties less than 0.3 Miles from Station
<0.3 mi.
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
29
6,670
7,086
1.06
0.63
60%
Market Rate
19
5,380
6,334
1.18
0.71
61%
Mixed Income
4
589
483
0.82
0.40
48%
Income Restricted
6
701
269
0.38
0.23
59%
15
Table 12: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties between 0.3 and 0.5 Miles from Station
0.3 mi. - 0.5 mi.
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
57
15,752
19,356
1.23
0.73
59%
Market Rate
46
14,470
18,128
1.25
0.75
60%
Mixed Income
1
396
362
0.91
0.62
68%
Income Restricted
10
886
866
0.98
0.47
48%
Core vs Suburbs
Of the 86 properties analyzed, 45 are in Denver, where relatively sophisticated parking
requirements may influence properties’ provision of 0.04 fewer parking spaces per unit,
compared to their suburban counterparts.10
Table 13: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Located in Denver
Denver
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
45
10,217
11,801
1.16
0.68
59%
Market Rate
27
8,081
10,109
1.25
0.75
60%
Mixed Income
3
609
614
1.01
0.59
58%
Income Restricted
15
1,527
1,078
0.71
0.35
49%
Table 14: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties not Located in Denver
Non-Denver
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
41
12,205
14,641
1.20
0.72
60%
Market Rate
38
11,769
14,353
1.22
0.73
60%
Mixed Income
2
376
231
0.61
0.32
52%
Income Restricted
1
60
57
0.95
0.65
68%
Transit-Oriented Development Typology
In 2015, the City and County of Denver’s Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan
classified all 29 stations in the city into five typologies: Downtown, Urban Center, General
Urban, Urban, and Suburban. Of 45 analyzed properties in all five Denver typologies, the
five properties in the Downtown typology near Union Station – arguably the region’s most
transit-oriented and walkable environment – exhibit the lowest parking provision (0.96
10 Denver Zoning Code allows for alternative parking ratios (Art. 10.4.5.2) and parking reductions (Art. 10.4.5.3).
16
parking spaces per unit) among the five typologies but the highest parking utilization
(0.76 parking spaces per unit), despite all five requiring an additional for parking fee (i.e.,
unbundling). Four market-rate properties where residents use 0.77 parking spaces per
unit on average significantly influence the high utilization rate. Income-restricted
properties in the Urban and General Urban typologies exhibit the lowest rates of parking
supply (0.58 and 0.54 parking spaces per unit, respectively) and parking demand (0.28
and 0.29 parking spaces per unit, respectively).
Table 15: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Downtown Typology
Downtown
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
5
1,592
1,522
0.96
0.76
79%
Market Rate
4
1,485
1,396
0.94
0.77
82%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
1
107
126
1.18
0.59
50%
Table 16: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Urban Center Typology
Urban Center
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
15
3,862
4,844
1.25
0.74
59%
Market Rate
12
3,616
4,586
1.27
0.76
60%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
3
246
258
1.05
0.50
48%
Table 17: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Urban Typology
Urban
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
6
1,176
1,243
1.06
0.47
44%
Market Rate
2
537
874
1.63
0.70
43%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
4
639
369
0.58
0.28
48%
Table 18: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver General Urban Typology
General Urban
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
15
3,083
3,601
1.17
0.65
55%
Market Rate
7
2,055
2,761
1.34
0.74
55%
Mixed Income
3
609
614
1.01
0.59
58%
Income Restricted
5
419
226
0.54
0.29
53%
17
Table 19: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Suburban Typology
Suburban
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
4
504
591
1.17
0.73
62%
Market Rate
2
388
492
1.27
0.81
64%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
2
116
99
0.85
0.43
51%
Property Age
Property age does not clearly affect parking supply or demand. In terms of parking
provision, whereas the 22 properties built before 2010 and the 38 properties built after
2015 have higher per-unit supply (1.21 and 1.28 parking spaces per unit, respectively),
the 26 properties built between 2010 and 2015 offer only 1.01 parking spaces per unit,
which may reflect financing constraints during the Great Recession.
Table 20: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Built before 2010
Pre-2010
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
22
6,420
7,771
1.21
0.74
61%
Market Rate
16
5,398
7,175
1.33
0.81
61%
Mixed Income
2
662
488
0.74
0.47
64%
Income Restricted
4
423
189
0.45
0.22
49%
Table 21: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Built between 2010 and 2014
2010-2014
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
26
5,959
6,014
1.01
0.67
66%
Market Rate
19
5,367
5,593
1.04
0.70
67%
Mixed Income
1
110
105
0.95
0.51
53%
Income Restricted
6
482
316
0.66
0.37
56%
Table 22: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Built after 2015
2015-2019
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
38
8,713
11,125
1.28
0.70
55%
Market Rate
30
8,074
10,421
1.29
0.72
56%
Mixed Income
2
213
252
1.18
0.53
45%
Income Restricted
6
426
452
1.06
0.49
46%
18
Recommendations
Together, RTD’s ridership and parking research encourage changes to parking policy in
Metro Denver, and several planning and development partners have the opportunity to
drive that change for mutual benefit.
RTD
Understanding that low-income households utilize transit more and demand parking less
than higher income neighbors, RTD should amend its policy for joint development (i.e.,
redevelopment of agency property) to prefer income-restricted housing in order to
increase ridership, which market-rate housing is less likely to accomplish. Considering
income-restricted properties’ relatively low parking demand, RTD should negotiate with
developers to share parking between transit patrons and residents and encourage
municipalities to recognize lower parking demand at income-restricted housing, either by
right or through variances from unduly high minimum parking requirements.
While promoting affordable housing through redevelopment of RTD parking facilities may
be a laudable goal, RTD’s limited property holdings in station areas as well as competition
for maintaining or expanding parking for transit patrons minimize the potential impact of
that effort and so invites collaboration from municipalities.
Municipalities
Municipalities could expand the impact of co-locating income-restricted housing in station
areas by amending local zoning or issuing variances from parking requirements to
encourage affordable housing in station areas through context-sensitive parking
requirements. The City and County of Denver exemplifies several leading practices: the
zoning code allows reducing minimum parking requirements by 25 percent for all
properties within 0.25 miles of a station; the Dedicated Affordable Housing Fund and
other funding sources prioritize financial support to transit-rich neighborhoods; recently
published recommendations for transportation demand management complement
significant station-area investments; and the proposed Affordable Housing Zoning
Incentive would reduce parking requirements citywide (coincidentally consistent with
RTD’s expansive bus network in the region’s core).
19
Developers and Financial Partners
Developers and their financial partners should consider and expand on this research to
make data-driven, evidence-based decisions about development that will attract residents
who prefer a transit-oriented lifestyle and other amenities that reduced or deferred
project costs can support. Relevant for income-restricted housing that relies on low-
income housing tax credits, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority has shown
interest in considering revisions to its qualified allocation plan in order to increase funding
for non-parking transportation resources. The Colorado Chapter of the Urban Land
Institute also has expressed support to advance these findings among members.
Financial partners play a significant role in Denver’s transit-oriented affordable housing
landscape, with many of them, as well as the City and County of Denver, the Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority, and state agencies, investing in the Denver Region
Transit-Oriented Development Fund to provide low-interest loans to affordable-housing
developers in transit-rich neighborhoods. In addition, Mile High Connects provides a
forum for government, funders, and advocates to identify and secure broad community
benefits through station-area development.
20
Conclusion
An analysis of peak-hour parking demand at 86 leased-up apartment buildings across
Metro Denver found utilization ranging from 60 percent at market-rate properties to 50
percent at income-restricted properties.
Those low utilization rates represent substantial and unnecessary additional development
cost, which developers may pass on to residents through higher rents, fewer units, and
reduced services. In the second fastest-gentrifying region in the country, that cost
particularly burdens low-income households, who are more likely to use transit than
parking. Backed by these findings, planning and development partners should tailor
parking requirements to station-area developments’ unique mobility landscape in order
to achieve shared goals for enhanced public welfare and economic vitality.
Planning and development partners should
tailor parking requirements for station-area
development’s unique mobility landscape.
21
Appendix
RTD Residential Property Parking Survey
(Created and distributed with Google Forms)
The RTD Residential Property Parking Survey is designed to understand current parking
demand at residential properties near train and bus rapid transit stations to inform future
parking supply provided in transit-served areas. RTD will aggregate and anonymize your
response and others and publish findings on our website. Your participation is voluntary
and the survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please contact [Name] at
[Name]@RTD-Denver.com for further information. Thank you!
Property Information
1. How many units are there in the property? (E.g., 100 units)
2. How many of those total units are leased? (E.g., 85 units)
3. How many of those total units are income-restricted? (E.g., 40 units)
4. How many studio apartments are in the property?
5. How many one-bedroom apartments are in the property?
6. How many two-bedroom apartments are in the property?
7. How many three-bedroom apartments are in the property?
8. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate studio apartment?
9. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate one-bedroom apartment?
10. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate two-bedroom apartment?
11. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate three-bedroom apartment?
Parking Information
12. How many parking spaces are available at the property for passenger vehicles?
13. Is parking for passenger vehicles included (i.e., bundled) in a tenant’s lease? Mark
only one oval.
a. Yes Skip to question 14
b. No Skip to question 17
c. Other:
14. How many parking spaces are provided in the lease? (Please express in terms of
per unit, per bedroom, etc. E.g., 1 space per unit)
15. Can a tenant receive additional parking beyond what is guaranteed in its lease?
Mark only one oval.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other:
16. Can the tenant decline to use parking in order to reduce the lease payment? Mark
22
only one oval.
a. Yes Skip to question 18
b. No Skip to question 18
c. Other:
17. What is the monthly cost of reserving a parking space? (If applicable, please
specify different costs for covered or uncovered parking, for first, second, or third
spaces, etc. E.g., “$75 for first covered, $50 for first uncovered; $100 for each
additional covered or uncovered”)
18. Is there a waitlist for parking spaces? Mark only one oval.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other:
19. In addition to parking for tenants, does the property provide parking for any of
the following users? Check all that apply.
a. N/A - the property does not provide parking for any other user
b. Property management
c. Visitors
d. Car sharing
e. Nearby business employees
f. Nearby retail customers
g. Nearby residents
h. General public - hourly
i. General public - daily
j. Other:
20. Do you think tenants are parking off-site? Mark only one oval.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other:
21. If you do think tenants park off-site, where and why?
22. Does the property provide any of the following to tenants? Check all that apply.
a. RTD pass subsidy
b. RTD service info (e.g., schedules and maps)
c. Shuttle service
d. Carshare membership subsidy
e. Bikeshare membership subsidy
f. Bike parking - uncovered
g. Bike parking - covered
h. Bike parking - secured (e.g., in a locker or locked room)
i. Bike maintenance equipment
j. Other:
23. Do you hear from tenants any recurring comments or complaints about parking
or transportation in/around the property?
23
Contact Information
24. Property Name
25. Property Address - Street & City
26. Property Management Company
27. Property Manager Name
28. Property Manager Phone Number
29. Property Manager Email Address
Thank you!
30. Thanks for your help! RTD may follow up with questions. Please feel free to provide
additional comment below.
E
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT E – CAR ACCESS REPORT
(NATIONAL EQUITY ATLAS)