USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Parking and transit policy study

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Parking and transit policy study executive summary
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 16 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Office of Public Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Automobile parking -- Government policy -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Automobile parking -- Government policy -- United States   ( lcsh )
Transportation and state -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Public Transportation ; by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"June 1993."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029155163
oclc - 750017867
usfldc doi - C01-00155
usfldc handle - c1.155
System ID:
SFS0032263:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029155163
005 20110906153928.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110906s1993 flua o s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00155
035
(OCoLC)750017867
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
n-us---
090
HE336.P37 (ONLINE)
0 245
Parking and transit policy study
h [electronic resource] :
b executive summary /
prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Public Transportation ; by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1993]
300
1 online resource (ii, 16 p.) :
ill.
500
"June 1993."
5 FTS
588
Description based on print version.
650
Automobile parking
x Government policy
z Florida.
Automobile parking
Government policy
United States.
Transportation and state
Florida.
Transportation
Florida
Planning.
1 710
Florida.
Office of Public Transportation.
2
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
i Print version:
t Parking and transit policy study.
d [Tampa, Fla.] : Center for Urban Transportation Research, [1993]
w (OCoLC)262686857
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.155
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001966191;
FTS



PAGE 1

PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Executive Summary

PAGE 2

PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Executive Summary Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation Office of Public Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research CoUege of Engineering University of South Florida CUTR June 1993

PAGE 3

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-26 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0450 (904) 488-7774 Project Manager: George Brown Center for Urban Transportation Research Univer sity of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENG 118 Tampa, Florida 33620 (813) 974-3120 Director: Project Director: Project Manager: Project Staff: Gary L. Brosch F. Ron Jones Patrick J. Griffith Lori L. Burns Lawa C. Lachance Steven E Maas Rebecca Rahimi

PAGE 4

Co'J rt'J 1 s L f F' .. tst o tgures ... .... .... . . .... ........ ................. n Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Parking and Transit Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Is There Coordination of Parking and Transit Policies? . . . . . . . . . 8 Employer-Paid Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Tax Treatment of Parking and Transit Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . 10 Impacts of Parking Constraints on Economic Development . . . . . . . . 12 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Parking Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Transit Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

PAGE 5

Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Fi g ure 6a Figure 6b L1s 1 m FI(,URLs Persons per Square Mile Within City Limits . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Perce n t of Metropolitan Area Employment in CBD ..... ... ......... 4 Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Average Monthly Unsubs i dized Parking Rates ....... .............. 6 1990 Transit Trips per Capita ................ ............. 7 Federal Tax Policy on Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Federal Tax Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II .lttiK' Jl)(}:; II

PAGE 6

PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY EXECL JIVE INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Parking and Transit Policy Study is: "To investigate the relationship between local parking policies and local transit policies and identify approaches for coordinating policies to increase transit use and increase the cost effectiveness of public investments in parking and transit." Seven tasks were developed to accomplish this purpose. The efforts performed in these tasks are doc umented in three technical m emoranda and sununariz.ed in this executive summary. The first technical memorandum contains a review of literature on parking management measures. An overview of parking and transit poli cies and programs in four Florida cities--Miami, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, and Ft. Myers-is also presented. The second technical memorandum evaluates parking and transit policy coordination in other states, and in the four Florida cities. The third technical memorandum identifies complementary transit and parking policies and recommends a strategy for implementation by the appropriate levels of government. PROBLEM STATEMENT When loca l governments coordinate parking policies and transit policies, they can better balance the need to maintain adequa te access to ce ntral business districts with the need to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, and increase use o f more effici en t travel modes. However, other factors mav either com plica te the coordination process diminish the impacts of these coordination efforts The process ma y be complicated, for ex ample, b y the re luctance of many local governments to enact s trict parkin g regulations beca use of their sensitivity t o suburban development pressure. Employer-paid parking is an example of a factor that diminis hes the impact of a local government's coord i nation efforts. Research has shown that emplo yerpaid parking sign ificantly affects solo driving. Current federal tax policy regard ing parking and transit benefits received by employ ees can also diminish the impacts of a loc a l government's coordination efforts. These tax policies create an incentive for solo driving by allowing employers to provide parking for most Americans as a tax-free benefit. (If the value of parking received exceeds $155 per month, the employee pays tax on the amount above $155.) The ov erall travel market conditions in F lorida are not favorable for transit. T hese conditions complicate the coordination process because transit cannot, in many areas, effic iently operate at a le v el of servic e th at would be competitive with a private automobile. The market conditions are measured using such factors as population and employment density, parking supply and parking costs. These factors are illustr ated for several Florida cities and cities outside the state. .lunl..! \993 !'ago:.. I

PAGE 7

Figure I shows persons per square mile, which is a measure of population density. This factor positi vely affects transit ridership. In other words, densely populated areas are favorable for transit service. Figure 2 shows the percent of metropolitan area employment in the CBD. This ratio measures the concentration of employment within the CBD and indicates the relative strength of the CBD as a regional attractor of work trips. A higher CBD employment concentration is a condition that favors transit use. Both population density and CBD employment concentration are proxy measures of the degJee of urban sprawl in an area Figure 3 shows downtown parking spaces per employee, a measure of downtown parking supply. A large supply of parking is a factor that favors automobile use, depending upon the demand for and price of parking. Figure 4 shows another parking measure, average unsubsidized monthly parking rates. These rares are an overall CBD average for off street parking. The rates should be viewed with caution. This information is not generally available or published In any city; in many cases, local officials provided estimates for this study. Further, the rates do not represent what is actually paid by parkers, since most employers subsidize employee parking costs. Viewed in a broader context, however, these rates reasonably show the relative cost differences among the cities, because employer subsidization of parking is common in all areas of the U.S. Parking rates have a relationship with transit usage; if parking rates go up, there is a tendency for automobile commuters to shift to other modes or to alter commuting habits (e.g., switch to carpooling). These figures indicate that the travel market factors in Florida are not as favorable for transit as they are in some other urban areas. Population and employment patterns are dispersed, and parking is plentiful and relative ly inexpensive. The population densities of nine of the sixteen Florida cities in the graph are below the middle values in the three city size groups. Similarly, more than half of the Florida cities are below the middle values for the percent of metropolitan area employment in the CBD, indicating that employment is geographically dispersed in Florida's metropolitan areas. Six of the nine Florida cities with parking data available were above the middle value of downtown parking spaces per downtown employee, and all (eleven) of the cities with parking cost data were below the middle of the three city size groups for average monthly uosubsidized parking rates. As a result of these conditions, transit is at mor e of a competiti ve disadvantage than the automobile in Florida's cities than many other cities. This is reflected in Figure 5 which shows transit trips per capita.

PAGE 8

P\Rl-.:1'\C i ''f> [R ''"'' P OLl<-' S 1 1 DT l.\I..'<.:Utl\1..' FIGURE 1. Persons per Square Mile Within City Limits. Large C i t i es Me dium Cities Small Ci t ies .. .. .. ............... ... ...................................................................... ..... ............... .. .... .................. ... J F lori da C i t ies I ....... I 11; .. !!111 Other C i t ies Rail Cities Nor>-Rail Cities ......... ...... ... : ... : .. ...... .......... ............................................................. ... ...... ............. ................. ...... ................ ................ 1 14 fiiAM'iiii .................................................................................. ................................................................. 1 F lorida Cit i es I ........ I ,.,........ ................................... ...... ........... ....... ...................................... ... ................. .... ..... I [!]] Othef Cities 1 Atlan t a 2 Ba lti mor e 3 Baton R ou ge 4 Boston 5 Bradenton 6 Bu rl i ngton VT 7. Ch i cago 8 C l eveland 9 Dall as 10 Daytona Beach 1 t D en ver 1 2 -Des Moi nes 13 Detr oit 14 Eugene, OR 15 Evansvill e I N 16 Ft. Lauderdale 17 Ft. Myers 18 Gainesville t9 Hartford C T 20 Houston 2 t Hu n t sville A L 22 Jacksonville 23 Knoxville, TN 24 Lakeland 25 Madison, W I 26 Melbourne 27 Miami 28 Milwau kee 2 9 New Hav e n CT 30 New Orleans 3 1 Oma h a 32 Orlando 33 Pensacola 34 Philadelphia 35-Pho enix 36 Pi ttsburgh 37-Portland, OR 38 R eno. NV 39 R i chmo nd, VA 40 San A n ton i o 4 1 San Diego 4 2 Sa n francisco 43 San Jose 44 Sarasota 45 Savannah 46 Seattle 4 7 -St. Lo u is 48 St Petersburg 49 Tallahassee 50 Tampa 51 Washi n gton D C 52 W. Palm Beach

PAGE 9

FIGURE 2 Percent of Metropolitan Area Employment in CBD. Medium .............. i Aorida Cities n -------------------------------------------1 ; 1----i G) Other Citiee .. 3S'll+ -------... .... ..................... ll Rorida Cities 30%-1'11.. .......... .... .... ....... . .................... I''J ...... ....... ...... .. ........................................................ ... ... ...... .. .. I m Other cnies 25% $1. 30.Cl 3631 t Atl a nta 2-B alti m ore 3 -B ato n Roug e 4 B aston 5 Bradenton 6-Bur l i ngton, VT 7 -Chicago 8-CIIM!Iand 9. Dallas 10 DllytoM S..Ch I I Denver 12. Des Moin es 13Oeuoi t t 4 Euge n e, O R 1 SEvan sv ill e, I N 16-Ft. Lauderdale 17 Ft Myers 18 Gainesville 19 Hartford, C T 20 Houston 21 H,_,t sville, Al 22 J.elwonville 23 Knoxville. TN 24 Lakeland 25 Madiso n, WI 26 Melbourne 27 Mlllml 28 M ilwau kee 29 N e w Haven, CT 30 New O rleans 3\ Omaha 32 Orlando 33 Pen.-cola 34 Philadelph i a 35 -F'hoenix 36 Pittsburgh 37 Penland OR 38 Reno. NV 39. Richmond, VA 4 0 San Antonio 41 San Otego 42San F ranci sco 43 -San Jose 44 Saraaota 4S Savannah 46Seante 47St Laus 48 St. Petersburg U-Tallahaa-50 Tampa 5 1 WaSIIingtoo DC 52. w. Palm Beech NOTE : Beca use dat a are n ot a v ailabl e. cit i es 3, 5. 6. 1 4, 18, 29. 3 9 and 49 a re not shown.

PAGE 10

FIGURE 3. Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee. Large Cit i es Medi u m C i t ies Smail Cities .. ,-----.. ..... Flo rida Rai l Cities 4 1 I 8 3151 1 2 & 1 A t l anta 2 Bal t i more 3 Ba t on R o uge 4 Boston 5 Bradenton 6 Burlington V T 7 -Chicago 8 Cleve land 9-Dallas 10Daytona Beach 1 1 Denver 12 O es Moi nes 13 Detroit ... ---------0 O t her C i t i es 1025231724211512 Nor>-Rail Cities ---.---.. --------------------------------... .... .... . . -...... . ... 1 4 Eugene. OR 15 Evans vi ll e IN 16 Ft. Lauderdale 17A. Myers 18 -Gainesville 1 9 Hartford, CT 20 Houst on 2 1 Huntsville A L 22Jacksonville 23 Knoxville, TN 24 Lakeland 25 Madison, WJ 26-Melbourne 27-Miami 28 Milwaukee 29 New Haven. CT 30 New O r lean s 31 Omaha 32Orlando 33 P ensacola 34 -P hil adelp hia 35-Phoen i x 36 Pinsb u rgh 37 Portland. OR 38 Reno NV 39 R ichmond. VA F l orida C iti es D Other C i t ies 4 0 San Antoni o 41 San D i ego 4 2 -San Francisco 4 3 San Jose 44 Sarasota 45 Savan n ah 46 seanle 4 7 St. Lovis 48 St. Petersburg 49 Tallahassee 50-Tampa 51 Was h ington, DC 52 W. Palm Beach NOTE: Because data are not avai l able, citi es 3 5 6 14 18, 26 29 31, 33, 3 4 35, 38. 39. 44 45, 48 end 49 are not shown.

PAGE 11

J>\rH..:I\:(, \'\.D I f { \\:sr r Pot rc Y D\ I\..:Ci l l\1...' Summ,l n FIGURE 4. Average Monthly Unsubsidized Parking Rates. $350-;------------------------------, Large Cities Medium Cit ies Small Ctti es ------------.......... ----.----------04----4 4-------------------4 ---------- F lorida Ctties D Ot h e r Cities ........... 4 _____ -----------------------------.-------$ 100 lnnrr.---------4 ----$50 I 42451 u 1&2 12'4 )8 s 1710 Rail Cittes Non Rail Cities -------------------........ -------------- Florida Ctt i es D Other Ctties --------.. -----.-----......... ------------------........ --------------------------------------------------42. 3651 4 1 10 1 Atlan ta 14 Eugene OR 27 Miami 40 San Antonio 2 B al t imore 15 Evansv ille, I N 28 M i lwa ukee 41 San D iego 3 B aton Ro ug e 16 A. Lauderdale 29 New Haven CT 42 San Franc isc o 4 Bost on 17 Ft. Myers 30 New Orl ea ns 43 San Jose 5 Bradenton 18 Galneavllle 31-0maha 44 Sarasota 6 B urli ng t on, VT 1 9 Hartford CT 32 Orlando 4 5 Savannah 7. Chicago 20Ho u ston 33 Penseco/a 46Seattle 8 C level and 2 1 Hu ntsville A L 34 -Philadelphia 4 7 St. Louis 9 Dellas 22 Jacl
PAGE 12

FIGURE 5. 1990 Tranait Tri.,. pc:r CapitA. Large Med ium Cities Sma ll Cit i es 100 1 --............. , ,_, ................ --................................................................... ........... ........... ...... -................. .............. .. .................. ( ....................... ....... ................................................... ....................... ....................... ............... Rorida C i ties 1 ............ llHF!I Other C ities I 'I""""" ""' ........................ ................... ................................... .... ..... ...... j ............ ...................... ... .................... . . .......... . . ............ ... . .... ......... .................. .. Rail Cities Non-Rail ......... ..... .............................. ............................................................................. ..................... . j F lorida ClUes 1 .......... 1 I00IJ 01her C i ties ................ ... ......... .. .. .. .. .................. .......................... .................. ......... ........ .. .. .............. ............ ............................................ 1 At lanta 2 Balti more 3 Baton Rouge 4 Boston 5 Bradenton 6 VT 7 Ch icago B Cleveland 9 Ca lla s 10 -Daytona Beach t 1 Denver 1 2 Oes Moi nes 1 3 Detroit 1 4 -Eugene OR 15 -EvansviDe. IN 16-Ft. lauderdale 17 Ft Myers 18Gainesville 19-Hertford, CT 20 Housto n 2 1 Hun t sville AL 22Jacksonville 23 Knoxville TN 24 Lakeland 25 -Madison. WI 26Melbourne 27 Miam i 28 M i lwaukee 29 New Haven. CT 30 New Orleans 31 Omah a 32Orlando 33 Pensacola 3 4 Phi l adelphia 35 Ph oenix 36 Pinsburgh 37 Portland. OR 38 Reno, NV 39 Ric hmond. VA 40 San Antonio 4 1 San Diego 42. San Francisco 43 SanJose 44 Sarasota 45 Savannah 46. Seat tle 4 7 St. Lo u i s 48-St. Petersburg 49Tallahassee 50 Tampa 51 Washingt on. OC 52W Palm Beach

PAGE 13

,,IHt-..:'' \\.ll IR\\.'11 ('.....,.,I)) I ,,:ul!l\ ... 'UillilLli \ PARKING AN D T RANSI T POLIC Y I SSUES A number of issues involvi ng relation ship between parking polici e s and transit policies were addressed in this study. Perhap s the most basic issue is whether or not there is coordination. Other issues addressed include employer-paid parking federal tax policy, the role of local governments in parking develo pment, and how economic devel opment affects park ing and transit pol ic ies. Is There Coo r dinatio n of Parking a nd T1'21lsit P o licies? Coordination is a process that includes establishing "opportunities" to coordinate policies and then, "carrying-out" or "im plementing those opportunities. These coordination opportunities are created by either formal or informal mechani sm s that bring together th ose group s responsible for developin g and implementing transit and parking policies. Numerous formal mechanisms exist through federal and state legislat ion (e.g., the 1962 Federal Aid Act that mandated a continuing cooperative, and comp re h ensive planning process in urbani zed areas ; the Clean Air Act of 1992; the State Comprehensive Plan, and the State Growth Management Act). Local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances al s o contain mechanisms, which, i n effect, create opportun ities for coordina tion Informal mechanism s are those established by the actual worlcing relationship s and interactions betwe en organizati ons (e.g ., the city planning department, the develop ment co mmuni ty, and the transit agency) and the person s within these organizations The type of relation sh ip tha t one organization h as with another (e.g., strong, supportive, weak or is formed b y the goals, attitudes percepttons and biases of that organization and its employ ees. Another aspec t of this informal mechani sm invo l ves lo cal planni ng and transit agencies working together to edu cate those elected officials who establish parking and transit policies on the need to coordinate these policies These informal mechanisms generally set the tone of the coord ination process. In Orlando, for example the City Planning Departm ent, Lynx, the Downtown Orlando Transportation Management Association the Downtown Development Authority and the Parking Bureau have established particular l y strong workin g relatio nship s and l.ines of communication. Any problem with coordination or, at least, the perception of a problem in Florida t en ds to result during implementation. This aspect involves how effective l y tran .sit "sells itselr' (or how well other offic ia ls repre sent the interests of transit) during coordination opportunities. The ability of transit to "sell itself" may largely depend on its negotiating strength relative to other modes. In other words, how valuable i s tran sit as a transportation alternative in CBD acce ss? The formal mechanisms and good working arrangements among local government agencies would seemingly ensure a st rong relationship between parking policies and trans it policies. I n Florida's cities however, the relationshi p often disappears or is severely weakened when local land use issues are considered. I n other words, any problem with coordination or, at l east, the percep tion of a prob lem in Florida tends to result dur ing implementation of coordination opportunities Viewed from Jun ... 1,., s I.

PAGE 14

r b e perspectiv e of re lative negotia ting stre n g th s inc e transit serves a s m all p r o portion of downtown p e rson trips ( with the excepti o n o f Miami ), transit a g encies typically do not h a v e a s i gniflunt vo ice in developin g C BD la n d u s e and a ccess polici es, i n
PAGE 15

\:'>.:D IH \'\'-1 1 Pnt !( 't S l D'l I free gasoline. In a 1990 study involving employer-paid parking in L os Angeles, it was estimated that the average daily parking subsidy for the 50,000 solo drivers in downtown Los Angeles was $3.87 (or 10.8 cents per mile), while other passenger car variable costs (e.g., gas and oil) totaled only 8.4 cents per mile. The benefit of employer paid parking is so great that the federal gasoline tax would have to be raised from 14 cents to $2.29 per gallon (a sixteen-fold increase!) to offset the parking subsidy of an average Los Angeles worktrip The extent of employer-paid parking in the U.S. is significant. Statistics from the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey indicate that approximately 90 percent of those who drive to work park for free, due to emp loyer-paid or -provid ed parking. The national experience involving employer-paid parking is similar to the Flo rida experience. Surveys in Orlando, Ft. Myers, and Miami indicate that 81 percent, 71 percent, and 50 percent, respectively, of those who drive to work in the CBDs park for free. (The national average is higher because it includes parking in suburban employment locations, where more of the parking is provided free than in CBDs.) For those who do pay, the unsubsidized parking rates in Florida's cities are among the lowest of similar size U.S cities. Several approaches could be used to offset or eliminate employer-paid parking. For example employees could be assessed a parking tax or surcharge at their parking facility, or employees could also be taxed on the value of parking received (employees are now taxed on the value of parking that exceeds $155 per month but no employees within F lorida live in areas where parking costs are that high). Strategies designed to increase what the employee pays for parking, however, will be highly controversial given the degree to which free parking has now come to be expected by most employees. One alternative that has received much attention recently is a parking cash-out or travel allowance option. In a parking cash out program, employers that provide employee parking must also provide employees with an option to receive a direct cash payment equivalent to the value of parking less appropriate payroll taxes or a direct transit or rideshare subsidy. The employee would use the cash to pay carpool or vanpool expenses or public transit fares Tax Treatment of Parking and Transit Subsidies The federal government's tax treatment of parking and transit subsidies creates a financial incentive to commute by automobile Presently the U S. Internal Revenue Code has direct tax implications for employer-provided parking and transit subsidies, as s h own in Figure 6a. First, employer-paid parking is a tax deductible business expense for the employer. Second, it is a tax -exempt benefit for employees provided the value of parking does not exceed $155 per month. If the value of parking exceeds the cap, employees are taxed only on the increment above the $15 5 per month limit Practically speaking, however very few employees are subject to paying any tax (probably none in Florida) because parking costs in most citie s are below the cap. The tax code that established this cap also provides a tax exemption of employer-paid mass transit and rideshare benefits up to $60 per month. The tax-exempt status of employer-paid parking is a major reason that free and inexpensive parking is so prevalent in many Ju n e 199:.\ Pal!C I 0

PAGE 16

F I GURE 6a. Federal Tax Policy on Parking. I FIGURE 6b. Federal Tax Option s. I Option Result I Employer P ays Employer lledos Olrporate k Oov't elimin.ates Tax ... Fedenl Tax es lne:reasc for Tans B ecause P arking i s a Dedu ctibility of Parking Emp1oyers D u e t o EliminAtion for Pa r Icing Deducuole Business Espense ( Espen= of P-a.rking Deductions v I I Parking at the I W o rkplace I I Optio n Resul t If I Employee Pays Federal Gov t Reduces or Eliminates Employee Receives Parking T1xes on That P ortion of Federa l Taxes on Parking Space os a Fringe Benef it Parking C
PAGE 17

p \RKI:\.G \ '\() \:'\.S I I I'
PAGE 18

scarce, supply controls may seriously threaten economic development. This "threshold value" is not easily defined, but it may be possible to identify characteristics that typify cities that have achieved this value. These characteristics may include the presence and quantities of certain types of development, such as govenunent offices, court houses, intercity transportation facilities, museums, performing arts centers, sportS facilities, universities, retail districts, restaurants, parks, and convention centers. Whether any of Florida's c1tJes have achieved this threshold value of development activity is uncertain While Miami clearly is more developed than other Florida cities and is the only rail city in the state, several officials in Miami expressed concern over the intense competition from subwban l oca t io n s for development activi ty. Repr esentatives of the developme n t community in M iami and in other Florida cities also spoke of the intense development compcllllon between downtowns and suburban locations. In all of Florida's cities, with the possible exception of Miami where the viewpoints were varied, these representatives expressed their perceptions that transit cannot presently provide an equivalent level of service as the private automobile and that transit cannot always be depended on for long-term access needs because service is volatile and impermanent (i.e., funding is uncertain and routes and schedules can change). As a result, they view that strict regulatory parking controls (e.g., strict pricing and supply measures) would certainly have negative consequences on downtown development activity. RECOMMENDAT ION S This section of the report presents the recommended complementary parking and transit policies. The recommendations involve pricing, taxes zoning, land use, and TOM. The recommendations also include specific actions to be performed by the various levels of government--local, state, and federal. Parking P o li cies Pricing D iffe rential Pricing FOOT should recommend that local governments adopt prici n g strategies that provide incen t ives for carpools and vanpools and di sco urage longt erm par k ing in the c entral core of CBDs. Parking Taxes Reduce Cap o n Ta. x -Exempt P arking S u bsidy F O O T sho u ld as s i s t in an y nati onal efforts to re duce the $ 1 55 per month cap on emplo y e r subs i d i ze d parking. Zo ning Require Parking M a x imu m s a nd F l e xib l e Minimums f o r N ew D evelopments FOOT should coordinate with Department of Community Affairs {DCA) in an effort to encourage those Florida cities with parking minimwns only to adopt parking maximums and flexible parking minimums. Flexibility would be based on developer support of transit and ridesharing programs Since parking I ) .... I; I l(ltl" ,1 _1..: .lll\!.: ?1\

PAGE 19

\'.iD IR\'\.S! I Pol i ( 'r Sr: D'r I requirements depend largely on local conditions, FOO T should pro v ide technica l support m defining appropriate maximums for cities that request assistance. Land Use Discounge Local Government Development of CBD Parking For the Primary Purpose of Revenue Generation Although revenue from municipal parking facilities may be an important revenue source for cities, it is difficult to balance the goals of revenue maximization with goals of reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and supporting public transit. Transit Policies Taxes Promote Federal Tax-Exemption of Tnvel Allowances FOOT should coordinate with the Governor's Office, the state's transit agencies, and other groups and join existing efforts to secure changes in the Internal Revenue Code that would make cash travel allowances tax-exempt Zoning Require Preferential Parking Treatments for Shared-Ride Vehicles FOOT should coordinate with DCA in an effort to encourage Florida cities to revise parking requirements of commercial/office developments to include minimum percentages of designated carpoollvanpool spaces. Land Usc Develop and Promote Joint-Use Park-n-Ride Facilities FOOT should seek opportunities to place or participate with the private sector in developing park-n-ride facilities in suburban sites that contain uses that normally generate before-work, mid day, and after-work trips. Examples of uses include child day care, pharmacies, grocery stores, banks, and other retail. Encounge Tnnsit Authorities to seek Greater Involvement in the Local Land Use Planning Process Coordination between land use and public transit can occur during development of comprehensive plan policies, zoning ordinances, the review of building/site plans, and in siting public facilities and institutions (especially those that are patronized by the transit dependent) in areas served by transit. Yet, participation does not guarantee that public transit's interests are considered; transit officials must be active lobbyists in this process. High-level transit officials who are knowledgeable in land use should represent the transit authority in the land use planning process. Tnnsportation Demand Management Implement Employer Travel Allowance Demonstntion ProjectFOOT should develop and/or seek federal funding for this project

PAGE 20

involving selected major employ ers in several Florida c ities Local TMAs could identify candidate employers for the project and could assist the employer s in implementing the program. FDOT s h ould monitor the results of the program Adopt Loca l Trip Reduction Ordinances With Travel Allowance Feature Flexibility in working with the private s ector is important. Public ordin ances requiring one st r ategy are not politically feasible. Therefore, FOOT should recomme nd that local governments adopt trip reduction ordi nances that may have travel allo wances as one menu option. Multi -Modal Trans p o rtation Pass Program A multi-modal transportat ion pass would enable commuters to int e rchangeab l y utilize parking, transit, and vanpooling. The pass would entitle a person to use any mode t o and from work at its monthl y discounted rate. I n this way, a person who normally purchase s month ly parking can use transit on random days Withou t incurring additi onal costs for this second mode This eli minates the need for com muters to drive every day in order to make the initi .al monthly inve stment in parking cost effective Commuters cou ld use a debit type card (i.e., a card with magnetically encoded user info nnation ) and purchase in advance or be billed monthly, for parking, transit, o r vanpool costs. Alternatively, the pass program could work in conjunction with the travel allowance program. Emp loyees would b e give n a debit card and a monthly tran spo rtation allowance. Employees who so lo comm ute and park everyday would use the allotment and be required to "pay out" some o f the expenses at the end of the month Those employees who use transit or rideshare several times a month break even, and those using alternative modes m ore frequently would receive cash back a t the end of the month A demonstration project on this concept is curren tly underway in southern Californi a The project is expecte d to be completed in April 1994 Since this is a new concept, the FDOT should evaluat e i t s possible implementation and consider developing a demonstration program in a city that owns a signifi cant amount of downtown parking suc h as Miami or Orlando Support Strengthening Commuter Msistance Program s and, Where Approp riate Formati on of a TMA i n Those Urbanized Areas C urrently Without One The f lorida TMAs have been largely succes sful in, at lea st, the initial ed ucation of commuters and employers of altema t ive comm ute o pt ions. Their abiliry t o cause mode shifting bas been made difficu lt b y a combinatio n o f factors, including free and high ly-subsidized parking and an oversupply of parking in CBDs due to lower than e xpected

PAGE 21

development (which is related to the recession and continued suburban development) The FDO T should cont inue supporting loca l efforts to develop commuter assistance programs and the formation of TMAs in urbanized areas currently without one. CONCLUSION The recommended policies contained in this report are included because they are most suited for Florida's urban areas. These policies do not include drastic parking management measures because such measures would most certainly jeopardize development opportunities in these areas, which would further encourage dispersed, suburban development. Perhaps the most important recommendations involve countering the effects of employer-paid parking through a transportation allowance program. Properly implemented, this program could significantly shift solo drivers to ridesharing and decrease commuting with relatively little effort.