From ULI's blog: "The ULI panel focused on getting people to the station and adding retail. This included adding a security kiosk, improved lighting, more visible crosswalks and sidewalks. But a key proposal may rankle those who support TODs purely to get people out of cars: The ULI TAP urges not less but more parking particularly, a new parking structure connecting to the boarding platform. 'Adding parking is not 'good' from a typical green perspective, but it will increase ridership," said [Jonathan Watts, principal with Cunningham Group Architecture. "
Comments
Don't be mislead by sensationalist Planetizen headline
The title on this page and selected excerpt may get more people to read the article, but when they do they'd find that the ULI TAP study identified additional parking as a recommendation for only one of six stations they looked at. There is no blanket recommendation to add parking to all TODs, as the title on this page implies. In fact, the article notes:
>"ULI San Francisco Executive Director Kate White noted that Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) previously had a 100 percent parking replacement policy: New development around transit stations was required to replace every parking space it removed.
>“You’re talking about hundreds of spaces. It can kill a development deal,” said White. “At the same time, a lot of people drive to BART stations and they need parking. We recommended changing the policy and fixing the problem with transit feeder systems.”
The recommendation to add parking applied to a single LA stations with a host of challenges and low ridership.
Seems to me that ULI has put out a good piece of work that doesn't need misleading, sensationalist headlines here on Planetizen.