Tag Archives: planning

Putting Places Worth Visiting in Parking Priorities

Traditional cities are typically found on and around transport routes–rivers, roads and railways. They occupy strategic locations for trade, security, crossings, and meeting points. Streets/roads define the city/urban form as both paths and edges. In the past few centuries, attempts to fix the city have focused on the restructuring of the road and transport systems. New transport technologies have been central to the rethinking and reshaping of the city; that has been the case in the past and will very likely be the case in the future.

Rethinking parking for the twenty-first century requires that we think beyond the professional silos we have created. There is a need to integrate parking with a range of evolving policy areas and new challenges and opportunities. The extent of change will vary by place, but a helicopter view highlights a number of notable trends. These include the rise of AI (note how this may also radically improve urban transit options and reduce costs), electric vehicles, and provision of charging stations with parking, the booming car-share/ride-share economy, a decline in dependence on the private car, a concern to minimize climate change impacts and improve environmental outcomes, and rethinking cheap/free and expansive park-and-ride in favor of transit-oriented development.

Learn why it’s so important to factor in destinations and places worth visiting when setting parking priorities, in the November issue of Parking & Mobility.


IPMI Webinar: Curbing COVID-19 at the Curb, presented by Matthew Darst, Conduent Transportation.

Curbing COVID-19 at the Curb

Matthew Darst, JD; Director of Curbside Management; Conduent Transportation

Register here for this webinar.

Or purchase the entire 2021 professional development series bundle.

How we think about traveling and commuting in the cities where we work and live has changed dramatically with the spread of COVID-19 . We drive less, eschew public transportation, and are less likely to use shared mobility devices.  This new definition of mobility has exacerbated declining municipal revenues. Cities and states face a unique challenge: stimulate local economies and generate revenue all while working to reopen responsibly to prevent new hot spots of infection and protect public health.

Curbside technologies offer unique solutions to help fund government programs while safeguarding the public. Curbside technologies can help monitor and mitigate viral spread, provide economic relief to constituents, and create a path for municipal revenue recovery. Cities have an opportunity to quickly pivot and utilize metered parking, permit parking, citation issuance and processing, and data science to achieve critical municipal goals.

Attendees will:

  • Identify curbside strategies for reducing the risk of contagion, providing relief to customers, and helping fund critical municipal goals.
  • Assess curbside data for its effectiveness as an early indicator of people congregating/flaunting social distancing guidelines, the need for enforcement, and the spread of COVID-19.
  • Detail best practices and measure the effectiveness of amnesty and relief programs for constituents and revenue recovery efforts.

Offers 1 CAPP Credit towards application or recertification.


Matthew Darst, JD; Director of Curbside Management; Conduent Transportation

Matt Darst, JD, oversees Conduent Transportation’s analytics team, helping cities use data to better manage curbside resources to promote social equity, improve pedestrian safety, and increase physical distancing during the pandemic. Prior to joining Conduent, he served in the public sector for 16 years.

Register here.

A Seat at the Table During COVID-19

A group of people planning at a meeting.By Marlene Cramer, CAPP

For years, parking and mobility professionals have advocated for a seat at the table. As director of transportation and parking at a university campus, one of my collateral roles is as planning sections chief in our campus Emergency Operation Center (EOC). During the past four months, COVID-19 planning has been complex, ongoing, and evolving. The planning section analyzes and collects data and information so the whole EOC team has up-to-date situational awareness. We rely on regional, state, and worldwide data and circumstances so the collective EOC team can make operational recommendations and decisions for the months and years ahead. There is constant orchestration of information with local public health agencies and a myriad of campus departments and community entities. Not an easy task! The demands of the pandemic and the dismal budget realities for most make our planning efforts even more complex and essential.

In my role as planning section chief, I get the opportunity to collaborate with a diverse group of professionals I never would have worked with in my parking role before COVID-19. As I see the groups and task forces work together and develop plans and objectives, I have a better and deeper understanding and appreciation of the complexity of campus operations.

I’ve always said that parking professionals manage emergencies every day. It’s pretty much in our nature no matter what role we have, and we are used to planning in a quickly changing, fluid environment. There is so much variability between all our agencies, but we do have one thing in common: We are all working to get through this historic time, hopefully with courage and a growth mindset. A seat at the table gives me a bird’s eye perspective of plans for the university to repopulate and move ahead to our new normal. This is a critical and insightful view to help ensure that the future of transportation and parking complements the future operations of the university. I am very grateful to have a seat at the planning table and look forward to the future, minus COVID-19. Take care and stay healthy.

Marlene Cramer, CAPP, is director, transportation and parking services at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.

Planning in Unusual Times

urban planning COVID-19 blogBy L. Dennis Burns, CAPP

I recently read an article by Sam Lubell about COVID-19’s effects on cities, in the Los Angeles Times.

In his article, Lubell outlines how “although pandemics have long been a tragic scourge on our cities, they’ve also forced architecture and city planning to evolve. The Bubonic Plague, which wiped out at least a third of Europe’s population in the 14th century, helped to inspire the radical urban improvements of the Renaissance. Cities cleared squalid and cramped living quarters, expanded their borders, developed early quarantine facilities, opened larger and less cluttered public spaces and deployed professionals with specialized expertise, from surveyors to architects.”

“In the 20th century, tuberculosis, typhoid, polio and Spanish flu breakouts prompted urban planning, slum clearance, tenement reform, waste management and, on a larger level, Modernism itself, with its airy spaces, single-use zoning (separating residential and industrial areas, for instance), cleaner surfaces (think glass and steel) and emphasis on sterility.”

Lubell concludes that, “It’s clear that the coronavirus will have — and is already having— a similarly profound effect on today’s built world. It’s shaking loose notions of what is “normal” in a field still employing many of the same techniques it did a century ago. And it’s pushing forward promising but still emerging practices, from prefabrication to telecommuting.”

I encourage you to read Lubell’s article in which he examines six methodologies related urban design and the built environment that are playing a prominent role in the age of COVID-19:

  • Modular construction.
  • Adaptive reuse.
  • Lightweight architecture.
  • The healthy building.
  • Telecommuting and small city living.
  • The town square, reconsidered.
  • Building beyond COVID.

According to Lubell, if history is a guide, the rise of these temporary methodologies likely will become permanent, at least in some form.


L. Dennis Burns, CAPP, is regional vice president and senior practice builder with Kimley-Horn.


The Parking & Mobility Industry Comes Together in a Time of Need

parking COVID-19 community collaborationBy Brett Wood, CAPP, PE

This blog is part of a special series on curb management and COVID-19. A joint effort of IPMI, Transportation for America, and ITE, this series strives to document the immediate curbside-related actions and responses to COVID-19, as well as create a knowledge base of strategies that communities can use to manage the curbside during future emergencies.

There is an enduring human spirit that persists in crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has put that spirit to the test, forging stronger bonds within and between our communities, our industries, our nation, and our humanity. Lately, I have been struck by how closely connected we all are.

I don’t need to tell you how strange, trying, and scary these weeks have been. But what you might not know is while everyone was figuring out how to work from home, keep their business afloat, or protect their loved ones, professionals across the parking and mobility industry were hard at work trying to support those activities.

Our communities are normally test beds for ongoing transportation innovation, but this pandemic has accelerated the need for creative use of our resources and emphasizes the importance of collaboration between colleagues. Although every community has unique features, hopefully practices that work well in one community rapidly multiply across the country. The past few weeks have seen that concept accelerate to hyper speed.

As communities enacted new policies to protect citizens by minimizing the spread of the coronavirus, their parking and mobility programs adapted curb management and parking policies to address emerging priorities. Rapid installation of temporary loading zones for restaurant curbside pickup and paid parking and enforcement policy changes to help homebound residents were needed to support business and residential communities. Supportive parking policies for healthcare and other essential workers were critical to ensuring safe, efficient, and quick access to parking as hospitals expanded triage areas into their parking lots.

Behind these changes was an amazing network of professionals connecting in rapid fashion to share ideas, discuss challenges, and offer support. A few resources that truly helped to connect folks included:

  • City groups functioning through International Parking and Mobility Institute (IPMI), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Transportation for America’s 2020 Smart Cities Collaborative came together in a grassroots fashion to help discuss, test, implement, monitor, and triage curbside changes. Through a variety of channels – emails, Slack, and good old phone calls – policies implemented on one side of the country quickly made to the other side.
  • The IPMI Forum, an online IPMI member resource, provided a place for professionals to ask questions, compare ideas, and discuss how to adapt policy. As bigger cities created their policies, they trickled down through this network.
  • Transportation for America’s Smart Cities Collaborative Slack channel provided a simple, effective forum for member cities to discuss and share responses and solutions to COVID-19.
    • Smart Cities Collaborative member Chris Iverson from the City of Bellevue, Wash., shared that, “Once restaurants were mandated to shift to delivery and pick-up operations only, we reached out to the Collaborative to see what curbside best practices other cities were implementing. It helped immensely that everyone in the Slack channel was already focused on curbside management practices, and the transition to crisis mode was made easier with the help of the Collaborative.”
  • The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) launched a Transportation Resource Center public tool for cities to share information and develop effective responses to this evolving global crisis. It provides actionable examples of how cities around the world are addressing critical tasks, such as:
    • Helping healthcare and other essential workers get safely where they’re needed while protecting transit operators and frontline staff.
    • Creating pick-up/delivery zones to ensure that residents can access food and essential goods.
    • Managing public space to encourage physical distancing.
    • Deploying effective public communications and signage.
  • The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is collecting a variety of transportation data to assist in understanding recent changes to travel of people and goods in response to COVID-19

Collectively, this network helped keep businesses running, supported stay-at-home orders, and facilitated the needs of healthcare systems. In a joint effort, IPMI, Transportation for America, ITE, and other partner organizations are documenting these actions and their impacts. They plan to provide summary blogs, articles, and peer reviewed white papers to help communities understand, plan, mitigate, and forge ahead through future emergencies.

If you have a good story, please share it with brett@woodsolutionsgroup.com.

Brett Wood, CAPP, PE, is president of Wood Solutions Group.

Free Online Shoptalk: Leadership on Their Terms to Ease Stress and Enable Focus

Free Online Shoptalk: Leadership on Their Terms to Ease Stress and Enable Focus

Download the Shoptalk here.

IPMI invites all industry professionals in parking, transportation, and mobility to discuss how the COVID-19 crisis has impacted your various mobility programs and options, including how we plan for municipal on street operations post COVID-19.

Now more than ever, empathy, self-awareness, and sensitivity are key aspects to leading teams and maintaining healthy relationships (just ask any celebrity busted on social media for complaining about cabin fever from their palatial home). Meeting employees where their heads are to communicate change, celebrate success, and break bad news are the leadership qualities that win the day in today’s environment.

If you’re leading others and, would like to go from good to better or haven’t really had to lean on these aspects of leadership until now, this online Shoptalk will be well worth your time. Join Colleen Niese and Vicki Pero from The Marlyn Group for a highly interactive session to discuss key strategies and take away easy-to-implement tactics to ensure your leadership from a distance will:


  • Make decisions that consider team members needs in a COVID-19 world.
  • Help manage stress for your team and you(!).
  • Support all in accomplishing the work at hand with as much focus as can be expected.


Niese headshotColleen M. Niese, SPHR understanding of what makes a business tick comes from her nearly 25 years of parking industry experience, and her insatiable curiosity about high-performing business.

With a background in leading an international shared services center to then consulting in strategic HR and customer service to now overseeing new business development, sales and client relations for Zephire, the people-first complete monthly parking solution, Colleen is well versed when it comes to a parking operator’s priorities in managing seamless monthly parking.  She possesses a unique skillset to listen to a client’s needs and connecting Zephire’s holistic solution to each individual’s expectation.  In her spare time, Colleen is a hopeless Cleveland Browns fan (there’s always next year!).

Free Online Shoptalk: Planning for Future Municipal On-Street Operations

Wednesday April 29, 2020- 2:00 PM EST

Free Online Shoptalk: Planning for Future Municipal On-Street Operations

Access Recording here

IPMI invites all industry professionals in parking, transportation, and mobility to discuss how the COVID-19 crisis has impacted your various mobility programs and options, including how we plan for municipal on street operations post COVID-19.

This online Shoptalk will address the critical questions on how we begin to plan for re-opening our cities and parking and mobility operations, with a focus first on on-street operations, staff and patron safety, and planning ahead ready for staggered and phased operations that incorporate both innovations and best practices.   Bring your questions or share them in advance with us.

We understand this is an extremely busy time and will record the online shoptalk and distribute to all members and colleagues.  If you have a question or would like to share something that has worked for your organization in advance, please email Fernandez@parking-mobility.org.

Free to all Industry Professionals



Scott Petri headshotScott Petri, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, is devoted to public service and committed to providing strong leadership and direction to the PPA. In 2018, he guided the authority through accreditation, resulting in the PPA being Accredited with Distinction by the International Parking & Mobility Institute (IPMI), the highest rating available by this trade association.

An accomplished and talented leader with years of experience in fast-paced legal and legislative environments, he has been a practicing attorney for more than 30 years, and served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, where he represented the 178th Legislative District from 2003 through 2017.

Scott has worked to reform the legislature by instituting new rules to make government more transparent and open. He helped re-write Pennsylvania’s House Rules incorporating new standards of conduct for members, as well as laws to protect children from abuse. The National Federation of Independent Business awarded him its Guardian of Small Business award in 2014; and in 2012 and 2016 he was named State Public Official of the Year by Pennsylvania Bio, the statewide trade association representing the life science industry, and Legislator of the Year by BIO, a national association

Future of Proofing Parking Buildings

By Fernando Sanchez

IN THE UNITED STATES, the entrenched relationship that vehicles have with everyday life P3 Proofinghas affected the development of cities—most notably parking buildings and other single-purpose forms of mobility structures. Imagining a world without extensive miles of packed highways, parking searches, and construction of single-purpose storage monoliths implies that a series of other changes has taken place, many of which have already started to affect new and near-future projects. Responses to prepare for that eventuality, and the impact it will have on the future of parking buildings and spaces, are currently being planned. Now, owners must sift through added layers of complexity.

The paths available to future-proof a parking building involve choosing how and when to incorporate various responses to a development. As adherence to newly en­acted codes and regulations, global and regional climate change goals, and construction practices continue to emerge, the supply of parking for projects becomes a complicated decision that affects overall cost and design.

Making sense of what solutions should be included in a development remains a multi-faceted discussion as cost, timeframes, and available design choices all weigh on a project. Guides and certification programs exist to determine prescribed levels of green and sus­tainable features, amenities, and conditions. The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program and, specifi­cally for parking facilities, Parksmart, are some of the most widely known guides and references used in the U.S. However, without clear means to evaluate features and concepts described in these guides, a myriad of project priorities, goals, and opportunities can be over­looked or not explored at all.

Target Value Delivery

Every worthy parking designer and/or builder will have a repertoire of explored, studied, and constructed solu­tions that can be implemented. Options range from eas­ily implemented program requirements to wholesale plans that convert from parking to other non-storage use. But solutions are not one-size-fits-all, and what is appropriate for a hospital campus may not make sense for a high-density mixed-used development.
Equally differentiating are cost implications. Some responses can easily be incorporated with minimal cost, but there are those that can increase project costs many-fold—sometimes beyond 50 percent of typical expenses for self-parking projects. More appropriate to cost evaluations are the non-design components, such as financing, ownership portfolios, and other similar issues.

A system that aids in response selection and pro­vides cost and schedule certainty helps organize a proj­ect to appropriately evaluate future-proofing options. The target value delivery method implements a series of tools and approaches to define the owner’s program requirements (OPR), which then is extrapolated to define the conditions of satisfaction (CoS) that guide a basis of design (BOD) document for the project. This system sets the framework for owners to achieve suc­cess with their projects.

Depending on the delivery method selected by the owner—traditional design-bid-build, design-build, or any of a series on the spectrum—the output helps guide owners to make appropriate selections for their project. Whether created with a designer or by a design-build team, the OPR establishes the initial over­arching direction and goals the project needs to achieve. Is it desired to reach LEED platinum levels, or will Parksmart certification be required? What is the desired interaction between the street and the build­ing? Does the project need to respond to future chang­es in five, 10, or 15 years? Whichever direction chosen, an owner’s first step is to define desired aspirations and goals specific to desired outcomes, not “what it looks like,” but rather “what it should accomplish.”

Now, with an understanding of how to evaluate available alternatives,
consider the following list and categorization of possible alternatives on a parking development:

Alternatives to define at the OPR stage:

1. Transportation-oriented Development.

• Connectivity to mass transit hubs.
• Last-mile traveled support systems.

2.Street/curb management.

3.Changes in use; parking is vehicle-oriented.

•Change to human-oriented uses.
•Change to other non-human–oriented use.

4.Sustainability goals.

5.Reduction of energy use.

6.Energy generation/storage onsite.

7.Improved mobility responses.

Definition of alternatives at the COS stage:


•Degree to build connectivity to the street.

2.Street management.

•Self-driving vehicles.
•Improvement of use of curb.

3.Change in use.

•Battery farms.
•Network nodes.
•Autonomous vehicle infrastructure.
•Automatic vehicle storage and retrieval systems.

4.Sustainability goals.

•Materials used in construction.
•Quantity of electric-vehicle (EV) charging stations.

5.Reduce energy use.

•Lighting systems.
•Construction methods and embodied energy.

6.Generate energy onsite.

•Photovoltaic arrays.

7.Mobility improvements.


Application of alternatives at the BOD stage:

1.Transportation—parking and EV station locations—participation in mapping apps.

2.Type of connectivity.

•Bus stop proximity.
•Dedicated lanes for various transportation modes.
•Allocation of space at development.
•Management programs for transportation—incentives, discount programs, emergency transportation.

3.Implications of feature to add in converting use.

•Higher ceilings.
•Sloped floors.
•Egress requirements.
•Fire life safety requirements.
•Mechanical lifts—user operated.
•Semi-automatic—puzzle systems that are user operated with some logic board.
•Full-automatic—full computer operated at input bays; City of West Hollywood, Calif., for example.

4.Materials used in construction.

•Carbon curing—capturing CO2 from industrial emitters into concrete mix—converts to CaCO3 (calcium carbonate—capturing CO2).
•Type of charging stations, such as ChargePoint vs. Tesla chargers.
•Code minimums (8 percent EV spaces in California) or higher voluntary tiers.

5.Reduction of energy use.

•Light fixture performance.
•Lighting strategies—daylight harvesting.

6.Power generation onsite.

•Extent of power generation—in kWH or surface area available.

7.Mobility improvements.

•Service requirements—areas to host shared-ride services.

Further into the project’s development, the owner’s next step is to define the CoS—a detailed description of how a design response will be measured to achieve the OPR. Perfect examples are the LEED and Parksmart point system certification levels. The CoS should tailor the point categories of each rating system and describe a means to determine any priorities in design respons­es. The categories created in the Parksmart guide serve well in evaluating a parking projects attainment of the OPR by categorizing the myriad design responses to future proofing: management, programs, technology and structure design, and innovation. Similarly, the CoS could indicate the expected LEED level to be achieved—silver, gold, platinum. For projects in California, de­scribing which higher voluntary tier requirements list­ed in CalGreen are important to satisfying the OPR.

The third and final step in determining how to future­proof a parking development is diving into the myriad responses with the design team and, whenever possible, the construction team, to develop the project’s BOD. The inclusion of the construction team is to analyze constructability and schedule effects. Typically, this evaluation takes place during early design phases. The BOD should identify the specific nature of each response or component and how it will achieve the levels set in the CoS. A properly developed BOD should align with the development of the project’s performance specifications. Specific considerations to include are the components and modifications important to each system in case replacements are required in the future. A naturally ventilated parking building will not include a mechanical ventilation system, but if the project is determined to need exhaust and supply fans in the future, the size and volume consideration should be clearly identified.

Choosing by Advantages
The crux in creating a BOD lies with determining which systems to include and to what degree they need to be defined to meet the CoS. It is quite easy to say that cost exceeds all other considerations, but in trans­forming into a more sustainable world, opportunity costs can be offset by other features that achieve OPR. With that in mind, the LEAN Institute and others have written extensively on ways that Choosing by Advan­tages (CBA)—a decision-making method to determine best decisions by weighting advantages of particular options for consideration and selection—can be imple­mented and the steps involved to achieve selection.

Applied to future-proofing a parking development (or any development for that matter), CBA provides a system to study various options based on valuing the importance of advantages between a particular set of options described in the CoS and determine the best choice. Familiar to many in the AEC (architecture, engineering, and construction) world is the use of the Tabular Method to record this evaluation, and many great summary explanations have been published de­tailing the step-by-step procedures.

Criteria to be evaluated will be particular to each system. For example, if the program requirements iden­tify future conversion for revenue gain, the CoS could identify a future conversion from a self-park system to a mechanical parking system. To determine which mechanical parking system to define in the BOD, CBA could compare the self-parking design to a parking-lift system, puzzle-lift system, and a full-automatic system. Factors to evaluate would identify the extent of changes required for conversion, structural system initial re­quirements, fire life safety system initial requirements, fire life safety future requirements, revenue potential, aesthetics, serviceability, and area-per-parking space, among other things. The attributes of each alternative would then be summarized, and the advantage of each would be determined from the least preferred attribute of each factor and ultimately charting the advantages of each alternative against the cost of each system to de­termine the best solution to incorporate. The last step uses cost to determine a comparison chart for selection.

CBA allows for a transparent and open evalua­tion of various systems to consider when deciding to ­future-proof a parking building.

To borrow from Nils Bohr, Nobel laureate, “Predic­tion is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” It may be a daunting task to future-proof a develop­ment based on the many alternatives and systems currently or possibly available in the offing. However, using the described system to evaluate, compare, and select from the various alternatives will help a project team select the most appropriate alternatives for a giv­en parking building project.

Read the article here.

FERNANDO J. SANCHEZ is an integrated design director with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. He can be reached at fsanchez@mccarthy.com.


Use Your Data!

By Brett Wood, CAPP

I can recall a moment about 10 years ago when we were collecting and analyzing data from a major U.S. city to help validate and construct a new pricing and management scheme. I was reviewing the time sheet of one of my co-workers who was entering and analyzing the data and his cell notes for the day were just the word “DATA,” written over and over about 1,000 times. I could feel his mental breakdown through the computer screen.

Data has become a critical cog in our decision-making relative to our parking and mobility programs’ performance. We are supposed to use it to apply policies, communicate change, and define success. But we are often so overwhelmed by the mountain of data we generate that it becomes crippling to achieve these principles. When we lose control of the data we are supposed to be managing, we risk losing the intended direction of our programs.

One of the key focus areas for managing and maintaining data is defining process and practice for capturing and analyzing data. This is best completed with the assistance of technology, dashboards, and the application of key performance indicators and benchmarks to measure change. I’m excited to bring some insights and information about these areas to the upcoming IPMI Leadership Summit in Pittsburgh, Pa. Hoping you can join me and 99 of the industry’s best and brightest to learn more about this and a variety of great topics!

Brett Wood, CAPP, is a parking consultant with Kimley-Horn. He will speak on this topic at IPMI’s 2019 Leadership Summit, Oct. 3-4 in Pittsburgh, Pa.

EV Charging: The Quiet Change

By Michael T. App, AIA

ADVANCEMENTS IN MOBILITY HAVE LED some city planners and architects to take the position that that there won’t be a need for parking garages in the future. They assume that everyone will be using ride-hailing services and won’t own personal vehicles. This position always generates a lot of conversation. However, the quiet change that is happening—and rarely gets the same amount of cover­age—is that several automakers are planning to halt production of the internal combustion engine and only release electric cars. This will require significantly more charging stations, and it has been said that the garage will be the gas station of the future.
The reality is that most people park at their office in the morning and never move their cars until leaving, rendering the charging station unproductive most of the day.

Accommodating Electric Vehicles

A parking planner needs to consider several things when designing a parking garage to accommodate electric cars with charging stations. First, who are the users of the garage? Garages that serve offices have users who park and stay all day. Garages that serve residential units have users who park for long periods of time as well. Patrons using garages that serve shop­ping districts or hospitals typically are only parked for a few hours. Parkers at an airport may be parked for extended periods. Each of these uses would need a specific and different charging solution.

Charge times for electric vehicles (EVs) vary depending on battery pack size and vehicle power acceptance rate, with most requiring approximately four hours on a Level 2 station for a full charge. This typically equates to approximately 33 miles per hour of charge. The average U.S. resident drives approxi­mately 13,500 miles per year, equating to 37 miles per day. Based on those statistics, it is possible that in one hour on a Level 2 charging station (a $20,000 piece of equipment) an EV can achieve enough power to make the average commute to the office and back home each day. With the standard charging time, a Level 2 charging station could provide a full charge for two cars per day. Based on this mileage, an electric car would only need to achieve a full charge once every three days. This would allow six cars to be charged by a single Level 2 charging station. However, the reality is that most people park at their office in the morning and never move their cars until leaving, rendering the charging station unproductive most of the day.

In contrast, residential style Level 1 charging sta­tions (a standard household outlet) could be provided. The charging time would be significantly longer, pro­viding only six miles for every hour of charge, but there could be considerably more stations. Assuming that every car would charge every day for eight to 10 hours, each would have adequate power for daily commuting.

Garage Considerations
A parking garage owner has some considerations as well. The first question might be to ask, “Why are electric-charging stations being installed?” It may be that the owner is trying to satisfy Parksmart require­ments. Or the owner may be trying to entice EV own­ers to park in the garage.

A second question an owner might ask is, “How much charge needs to be provided?” Many owners are now realizing that they do not need to provide a full charge, and some are questioning the need to provide any charge at all. An owner would also need to deter­mine if a fee for the power that is used by the electric car is worth trying to collect. In many cases, some owners of garages with charging stations have found the effort and cost to charge for the cost of the elec­tricity used is more trouble than it is worth, so they just provide the power for free.

Recognizing that most charging can be done on a residential-style charging station, parking planners must navigate through the design process with their clients to determine if it is necessary or desired to provide charging stations in public parking garages that serve hospitals, airports, office complexes, and shopping areas and what type of charging station to install. Parking planners working with those develop­ing residential properties and the associated parking facility should recommend that a standard electrical outlet be provided for each parking stall, or provisions for the addition of 100 percent charging coverage, in preparation for a time when more of us are driving electric vehicles.

Read the article here.

MICHAEL T. APP, AIA, is director of architecture with Timothy Haahs and Associates and a member of IPMI’s Planning, Design, & Construction Committee. He can be reached at mapp@timhaahs.com.