USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Parking and transit policy study

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Parking and transit policy study
Portion of title:
Issues and recommendations
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 47 leaves) : ill., maps. ;
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 )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 38-40).
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 - 029155145
oclc - 750045324
usfldc doi - C01-00229
usfldc handle - c1.229
System ID:
SFS0032321:00001


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 2200373Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029155145
005 20110906173459.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110906s1993 fluab ob s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00229
035
(OCoLC)750045324
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
n-us---
090
HE336.P37 (ONLINE)
0 245
Parking and transit policy study.
n Technical memorandum no. 3,
p Issues and recommendations
h [electronic resource] /
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.
3 246
Issues and recommendations
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1993]
300
1 online resource (iv, 47 leaves) :
ill., maps.
500
"June 1993."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 38-40).
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. Technical memorandum no. 3, Issues and recommendations.
d [Tampa, Fla.] : Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, [1993]
w (OCoLC)262681791
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.229
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001966190;
FTS



PAGE 1

. PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Technical Memorandum No. 3 Issues and Recommendations

PAGE 2

PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Technical Memorandum No 3 Issues and Recommendations 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 June 1993

PAGE 3

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-26 Tallahassee, F l orida 32399-0450 (904) 488-7774 Project Manager: George B rown Center for U rba n Transportation Researcb U niversity of South Florida 4202 E Fowler Avenue, ENG 118 Tampa Florida 33620 (813) 9 7 4-3 120 Director: Project Director: Project Manager: Project Staff: ii Gary L. Brosch F. Ron Jones Patrick J Griffith Lori L Bums Laura C. Lachance Ste v en E. Maas Rebecca Rahimi

PAGE 4

PREFACE This is the third of three technical memoranda regarding parking and transit policies to be produced by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Florida Department ofTransportation These memoranda comprise the Parking and Transit Policy Study, which is an investigation of the relationship between local parking and transit policies. This memorandum identifies methods for coordinating policies in order to increase transit use and the cost effectiveness of public investments in parking and transit. Technical Memorandum No. I provided an overview of urban transit and parking policies, programs, and available data for urban areas in Florida with transit systems that are eligible for F ederal Transit Administration Section 9 subsidies Technical Memorandum No. 2 evaluated parking and transit coordination efforts in other state s as well as the impacts of current parking and transit policies in Florida. Technical Memorandum No. 3 identifies complementary transit and parking policies and recommends a strategy for implementation by the appropriate levels of government. iii

PAGE 5

CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 List of Figures ....... o o o o o 0 0 0 v L ist of Tables ....... 0 0 0 v Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Parking and Tr.msit Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Is There Coordination Between Local Transit and Local Parking Policies? . . . . 2 Employer-Pa i d Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tax Treatme n t of Parking and Transit Subsidies ................ 0 14 Parking Location and Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Role of Local Governments in Parking Development . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Impacts of Parking Constraints on Economic Development . . . . . . . . . 20 Incentives for Ridesharing .. ............................. 0 22 Complementary Tran si t and Parki n g Pol i c i es ....... o Parking Policie s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transit Policies ...... . ................... o Recommendations ......... o Parking Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transit Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List o f Refere n ces List o f Contact Persons iv 22 23 27 30 31 32 38 41

PAGE 6

L IST OF FIGU RE S F i gure I Average Monthly U ns ubsidi zed Parking Rates . . . . . . . . . II Figure 2a Federal Tax Policy on Parki n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 2b Federal Tax Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Figure 3 Commuter Parking P o l icy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 4 DoWntown Parking Spaces per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . 18 LIS T OF T ABL E S Table I How Empl oyer Parking S ubsidies Affect Commu te r Mode Choi c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 T ab l e 2 Mode Choice E ffect of a Cash Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Table 3 Action Plan ... . . . ........... . ..... .... ...... . 3537 : v

PAGE 7

INTRODUCTION PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Technical Memorandum No. 3 This is the third and final technical memorandwn produced for the Parking and Transit Policy Study. It docwnents the last three tasks of a seven-task study. The purpose of the 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 i n parking and transit." This report includes a discussion of major parking and transit policy coordination issues ident ifi ed during research conducted for the study. A broad range of complementary parking and transit policies is also presented. The pros, cons, and special considerations of these policies are also discussed. From these broad policies, a smaller se t of recommended policies and an action plan for their implementation is then presented Most of the discussion focuses on parking and transit policies i n central business districts (CBDs). The approacnes de velo ped in this study, however, may be app lied to other regi onal activity centers, such as the Westshore business district in Tampa, which are characteristically similar to CBDs. Nwnerous officials from cities within Florida and in other states were contacted during this study. These persons provided valuable input in areas where little quantifiable data was avai lab le. A list of these contacts is provided in the appendix. PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY ISSUES Several issues involving parking and its relationship to transit are relevant to the development of coordinated parking and transit policies. Perhaps the most basic issue involves the question of whether or not there is coordina tion or, in other words, what is the relationship between local parking policies and local transit polic i es? Opinions expressed by local officials I

PAGE 8

vary and illustrate that coordination is a complex process. Another issue involves the impact of employer-paid parking on mode choice. Research has shown that employer-paid parking greatly contributes to solo driving and that over 96 percent of those persons who drive to work in the U.S. park for free. The federal government's tax treatment of parking subsidies is another issue because these tax policies currently provide incentives for automobile commuting. Loca l planning decisions involving parking location and supply is another issue discussed in this section. It is important for transit officials to be active participants in these decisions. Another issue is the role of local government in CBD parking development. Local governments develop parking for many reasons--to ensure adequate access to downtown, to encourage economic development, and to provide a source of additional revenue for the city. If developed solely tor revenue generation, however, the city faces a difficult challenge of balancing its revenue maximization goal with goals of reducing traffic congestion and pollution and supporting public transportation. The impact of parking constraints on economic development is another issue addressed in this section. The development process is complex and influenced by many factors, including parking. It is important to evaluate how various parking management stra teg ies may affect the development process. The last issue discussed is ridesbaring. While the purpose of this study is to develop complementary parking and transit policies in order to increase transit usage, policies that increase ridesharing at the expense of single occupant driving is viewed as serving a common goal. Is The!e Coordinatjon Between Local Transit and weal Parking Policies? After considerable review of data and after extensive interviews with local o fficials, the answer to this question is not straightforward The opinions of loca l officia ls on the degree of coordination of these policies vary among the four cities selected for this study. Within eac h city opinions vary depending on who is answering the question and how they define coordination. Certain groups of officials have consistent and predictable opinions about the degree of policy coordination. One group, parking officials in the three cities that have separate parking agencies (i.e., Miami, Orlando, and Ft. Lauderdale), believe there is some coordination. They cite the development of park-n-ride, fringe parking, and/or shuttle bus services connecting parking facilities to the CBD as evidence of coordination. Another group, city planners, also feel that 2

PAGE 9

there is some policy coordination but that coordination opportunities are limited because Florida development patterns make it di ffi cul t for transit to play a greater role in CBD access. A third group, representatives of the developme lit eoltliliitiiit)o, also feel that there is coordination, but, because the automobile is the predominant mode of choice, parking is extremely importan t for downtown access. This group would prefer that transit play a greater role because parking can add significantly to the cost of a development. The last group, transit officials, generally feel that they have limited opportunities to influence parking policies. During interviews with local officials, phrases such as "the role of tra11sit" and "opportu11ities for involvement' were often used by officials when discussing the relationship between parking and transit policies. These phrases illu>irate that coordination is a process invo l ving both ''creating" opportunities for coordination and "carrying-out" or "implementing" those opportunities. Viewed as a process, the issue of coordination is better addressed by the following questions: Do opportunities for coordinating transit and parking policies exist? And, if they do exist, how well are they implemented? Opportunities for coordination are created by either formal or informal mechanisms that bring together those groups responsible for developing and implementing transit and parking policies. Formal mechanisms that create these opportunities can be found in federal and state legislation, and state and local plans. Examples of relevant legislation and plans include: Federal The 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act mandated that all urbanized areas over 50 ,000 in population establish a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) planning process in order to be eligible to receive U.S. Department of Transportation Planning and Construction Funds. The 1974 Federal Aid Highway Act mandated the creation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for all areas required to have a 3C planning process. Clean Air Act of 1990 requires serious nonattainment and severe nonattainment areas to adopt transportation control measures; severe nonattainment areas must also require employer-ba sed trip reduction programs (applicable to employers with 100 or more employees). Florida has only three non-attainment areas, the worst of which is classified as moderate. These areas are !lQ! required to adopt transportation control measilres. 3

PAGE 10

State Florida Statute 339.175 closeiy parallels federal requirements concerning MPOs, but conta ins more specific language concerning MPO creation, composition, role and responsibility. State Comprehensive Plan contains goals and poli cies that guide Florida's long-range physical, social, and economic growth. Growth Management Aet -requires developments of regional impact to develop traffic mitigation plans, which often include TDM initiatives. Local
PAGE 11

Orlando Municipal Code establishes parking maximums for non-residential dev elopments. Establishes flexible parking minimums for developers who make specified contributions into the city's Parking Program Trust Fun d, which is used to construct off-site parking facilities and fund transit serv ices to these fac. ilities. City of Ft. Lauderdale Comprehensive Pian contains several transit-related policies, including the development of programs to enhance employee usage of commuter rail service, preferential treatment of high-occupancy vehicles, and expansion of ridesharing efforts. Ft. Lauderdale Code establishes the core of the CBD as a parking-exempt z one, that is, there are no parking requirements for new buildings and developments. City of Ft. Myers Comprehensive Plan contains a policy stating that roadways exceeding the level of service standards shall receive priority for mass transit routes and "soft" improvements such as ridesharing. While the formal mechanisms created by these acts and plans are imPortant, the informal mechanisms--those established by the actual working relationships and interactions between organizations (e.g ., the city planning department, the development community, and the transit agency) and the persons within these organizations-are equally, if not more, important. The type of relationship that one organization has with another (e .g ., strong, supportive, w eak, or adversarial) is formed by the goals, attitudes, perceptions, and biases of that organization, and by the persons within that organization. Further, a good or bad working relationship between organizations hinges on how well two individuals in key positions like each other. Another aspect of this informal mechanism involves local planning and transit agencies working together to educate those elected officials who establish these policies on the need to coordinate parking and transit policies. When these agencies work in a concerted effort, the level of education is enhanced and the relationship between transit policies and parking policies i mproves These informal mechanisms generally set the tone of the coordination process. In Orlando, for example, the City Planning Department, Lynx, the Downtown Orlando T ransportation Management Association, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Parking Bureau have est ablished particularly strong working relationships and lines of communication. 5

PAGE 12

While good working relationships are essential for coordination, the outcome of the coordination process (i .e., whether a policy coordination event results in a policy or action that is supportive of transit) may depend on other factors. This is the other aspect of the coordination process--that is the actual "carrying-out" or implementation of coordination activities. 'This aspect involves how effectively transit "sells itselr' (or how well other officials represent the interests of transit) during coordination opportunities. The formal mechanisms and good working arrangements among local government agencies would seemingly ensure a strong relationship between parking and transit policies In Florida's cities, however, the relationship often disappears or is severely weakened when local land use issues are considered. In other words any problem with coordination or, at least, the perception of a problem in Florida tends to result during imp lementa tion of coordination opportunities. Viewed from the perspective of relative negotiating strength, since transit serves a small proportion of downtown person trips (with the exception of Miami), transit agencies typically do not have a significant voice in developing CBD land use and access policles, including parking policies. Even in Miami, transit officials have little influence in parking issues other than those involving park-n-ride and Metrorail and Metromover parking Transit's relatively weak negotiating strength is largely the result of several interrelated factors: (I) the fiscal constraints of transit agencies, (2) Florida's prevailing development patterns, (3) the influence of employer-paid parking on mode choice, and ( 4) an over supply of parking in downtown areas. Public transit in Florida recovers on average 30 percent of its operating expenses through the farebox. The major market for CBD-destined trips consists of professionals who typically commute by automobile from low-density suburban locations, which are difficult to serve efficiently with fixed-route service. Because of i ts reliance on public subsidies, transit officia ls are not in a position to invest resources in these areas. Employer-paid parking i s a factor that reinforces dl.spersed development patterns because employees have little incentive to live in transit accessible areas. The 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey indicates that 90 percent of those persons who drive to work park for free because of employer-paid or provided parking. These subsidies are a significant factor affecting solo commuting. In addition, local officials in each of the four Florida cities studied indicated that there was an ample supply, if not an over supply, of parking in the down town. Since supply and price are interrelated, overall 6

PAGE 13

parking prices are generally low for those persons who do pay all or part of their parking costs. Because of these factors when local officiais are confronted "1th an issue involving land use and access, transit is not viewed as a signifiCant transportation alternative. The relationship between negotiating strength and mode share is somewhat subjective and paradox ical Because of its subjectivity, the relationship is difficult (if not impossible) to quantify. The relationship between negotiating strength and mode share is paradoxically similar to a person seeking employment, but unable to fmd a job because of no experience--in order to obtain a job, the person needs experience, but cannot gain it without first having a job. In the absence of other policy considerations, such as those created by severe air quality or traffic congestion problems a transit agency will typically have little nego tiating strength in policy deliberations involving park ing if the CBD mode share for transit is small. It is important to point out, however, that a mobility-related crisis may easily affect this basic relationship. In Bellevue, Washington, for example, city planners recognized that because of limited space in the downtown and projected development, infrastructure enhancements alone would not provide sufficient capacity to meet future travel demand. Bellevue faced many of the same challenges that Florida s cities face today-low density development patterns, development competition from suburban cities, and low transit mode share. As a result, beginning in 1983 the city required developers of all new buildings to submit transportation demand management plans. In addition, a program of transit services inc luding regular, express, and park-n-ride services that converge at a transit center in the downtown was also developed. Further, a transport a tio n management association was formed in 1986. Bellevue's efforts have been successful in reducing solo driving, and the city is generally recognized as being among the most innovative and aggressive in implementing transit and ridesharing policies. The impetus behind Bellevue's efforts was largely due to the city s response to a crisis situation involving traffic congestion and development. The city \vas successful in its efforts, in part, because of its ability to get officials to recognize the crisis and to build consensus for the program. Florida's cities are generally following the same path that Bellevue too k a decade ago, but several factors may complicate the process. First, Florida is one of the most automobile dep endent states in the country (if measured by licensed drivers as a percent of total population or registered automobiles per capita). Strong policies to reduce solo driving are likely to encounter significant res istance among the general population. Second many of Florida's cities face fierce competition from suburban locations for development activity, which will cause loc al officials to be reluctant to imp lemen t tight parking controls in downtown areas Third, the 7

PAGE 14

slowdown m development activity in many cities has tempol"llfily diffused the growth management concerns of the mid-1980s; many of the controls established in legislation simply have not been tested. Therefore, in the abSence of an tinder lying major external crisis that creates a c l ear public mandate for change (e.g., extreme severe air quality problem or a severe gasoline shortage), Florida's cities are not likely to adopt an aggressive approach to coordinating parking and transit policies. Given these conditions, what can Florida's cities do to improve the relationship between parking and transit policies? Until public sentiment or other external conditions change, Florida needs a gradual approach that consists of innovative market-driven (rather than regulatory) policies. Developing additional coordination opportunities through formal mechanisms, snch as developing highly structured intergovernmental coordination agreements, are not needed. Many policies are in place that would aid in reducing solo driving and increase use of transit and ridesharing. The state is already addressing dispersed development patterns through its growth management legislation. As the pace of development activity increases, the provisions of this legislation should begin to, at least, limit urban sprawl. Further, many of Florida's cities have implemented park-n-ride and ridesharing programs to better serve low-density suburban areas. Strategies to reduce the extent of employer-paid parking hold great potential for affecting significant modal changes from the automobile to transit and ridesharing Employer-Paid Parking In most areas of the country, solo driving is the principal mode of access for work and other trips. The 1990 Census indicates that 73 percent of the nation's workforce drives alone to work. Several factors are responsible for the high level of solo driving in the U S., i ncluding free or inexpensive parking at the workplace, an abundant supply of parking at many destinations, dispersed work sites created by suburban office development, high automobile ownership levels, and other factors. Research on parking cost and commuting habits concludes that of these factors, employer-paid parking is one of the most important influencing solo driving. Table I shows results of several case studies compiled by Shoup and Willson relating how parking subsidies affect commuter mode choice. As shown in the table, solo driver shares decreased between 18 and 81 percent when employer-paid parking was ended. The decrease in the number of automobile trips taken to work ranged from 15 to 38 percent. Calculations based on these decreases provide parking price elasticities of demand for automobile commuting ranging from 0.08 to -0.23, indicating that if the price that employees currently pay for parking increases I 00 percent (i.e., tb.e price doubles), an 8 to 23 percent decrease in automobile commutiM would result.

PAGE 15

TABLE I. How Employer Parking Subsidies Affect Com m uter Mod e Choice. Solo Driver Mode S hare Autos Driven per 100 Employees Employer Driver Decre0$e Employer Driver Decrease Price Case Study Pays for Pays for in Sol<> Pays J<>r Paysf<>r in Auto Elasticity Parking Parking Share Parking Parking '!rips of Demand M i d Wilshire, Los Angeles (before/after) 42% 8% % 4 8 30 % 0.23 Warner Center, Los Angeles (before/ a fter) 90% 46% -49% 92 64 % -0 18 Century City, Los Ange l es (wi t h/with o ut) 92% 75% -18% 94 80 JS% -0 08 C i vic Center, Los Ange l es (wi t h/withou t ) 72% 40% -4 4 % 78 50 36% -0.22 Downtown Ottawa Canada (before/after) 35% 28% -20'/o 39 32 -18% 0 .10 Average of case studies 66% 39% -40% 70 51 % -0. 16 So urce: Shoup, Donald and Rkha:rd Willson. "Emplo}'etPii
PAGE 16

of parking is less than $155 per month; if the vahie exceeds $155 per month, employees are taxed on the increme n tal value exceeding $ 1 55.) Employees also have come to expect parking as an employer-provided benefit. In fact, parking has been nego ti ated into labor contracts between unions and management in some companies. T he level of employer-paid parking in F lor ida is similar to the national 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 inc l udes parking in suburban emp loyme nt 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 cities of similar size (see Figure 1). There are several strategies to reduce the extent or the effect of employer-paid parking. One possible strategy would simply involve measures to increase the employees' out-of-pocket cost for parking. For example employees could be assessed a parking tax or surcharge at their parking facility, or employees could be taxed on the value of parking received (emp loyees are now taxed on the value of parking that exceeds $155 per month, but no employees within Florida live in areas where parking c osts are that high). This type of strategy, how ever, would be highly controversial given the degree to which free parking has now come to be expected by most employees. The strategy would also have to be carefully cra fte d so that the employer does not simply absorb the added cost. 10

PAGE 17

FIGURE 1. Average Monthly Unsubsidized Parking Rates. Large Cities Medium Cities 1 2 7 Rail Ctties Non-Rail Cities Small Ci ti es F lorida Cit ies IIIli Ot her Cities $30Hif---------------------------------------------_ _ ______________________ ___ ___ ___________________ _... ........ Aorida Cijies IDJ Other Cities 1 Atlanta 14 Eugene ; OR 27-Mlaml 40 San A ntonio 2 Baltimore 15 Evansville IN 28Milwaukee 41. San D ieg o 3 Baton Rouge 16Ft. Lauderdale 29 New Haven. CT 42 San F ran cisco 4-Boston 17 FLMyers 30 New Orleans 43-SanJose 5 Bradenton 18 Gainesville 31 -Omaha 44 Sarasota 6 Burlington. VT 1 9 Hartford, CT 32-0rlando 4 5 Savannah 7-Chicago 20-Houston 33 Pensacola 46Seattle 8 Cleveland 2 1 Huntsville, AL 34 Philadelph i a 47-St. Louis 9Dallas 22 Jacksonville 35-Phoenix 48 St. Petersburg 10 Daytona Beach 23 -Knoxville, TN 36 Pittsburgh 49 Tallahassee 1 1 -Denver 24 Lakeland 37 Port land. OR 50-Tampa 12 Des Mo i nes 25 Madison. WI 38Reno, NV 51 Washington, DC 13 Detroit 26 Melbourne 39 Richmond, VA 52 W. Palm Beach NOTE: Because data are not available, cities 3, 13, 1 4, 20, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 44, and 49 are not shown. 11

PAGE 18

Another approach to counter employer-paid parking involves increasing the overall cost of automobile commuting by, for example, raising the federal gasoline tax or through congestion pricing. This approach, however, may meet tough political resistance because any increases in federal gasoline taxes or other costs of driving would have to be quite large to offset the benefit of free parking For example, the federal gasoline tax would have to be raised to approximately sixteen times its current l evel just to offset the value of the parking benefit (using the Los Angeles survey data). Further, the tax is not limited to those who commute by solo driving. Congestion pricing may be a better solution, but there is limited experience with this concept In addition, a number of social equity issues arise. One strategy 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. The employee could use the cash to pay carpool or vanpool expenses or public transit fares, or to pay for parking. Shoup has evaluated this concept extensively, primarily in work performed for the City of Los Angeles. Shoup cites several advantages of offering a cash alternative to employees: Employees would not Jose the existing parking subsidy. The cash alternative provides employees with an option over the take-it-or-leave-it parking subsidy. Lower paid-workers gain the most in after tax cash because they are in the lower tax brackets, and the cash they do receive would be larger in proportion to a lower income. Employers would pay little or no additional cost For those employees who are presently offered free parking and choose to rideshare or use transit, an empleyer would still be required to offer the cash option. In this case the employers' cost would increase. Shoup has argued that the "added expense of subsidizing current ridesharers who are offered free parking bu t have not taken it should be considered the inevitable and wholly justified cost of moving to a commute subsidy policy that does not discriminate against ridesharers." He believes further that few employers would support current tax policies that encourage solo driving or take a public position against offering employees a choice of a ridesharing or transit subsidy in lieu of a parking subsidy. The cash out option will increase federal tax revenue. Offering cash to employees establishes the fact that there is a cost for the parking formerly provided by the employer. 12

PAGE 19

Shoup believes that the taxability of a cash payment in lieu of a parking subsidy reduces, but does not eliminate, the effectiveness of this alternative as an incentive t o use transit or rideshare. Based on a survey of 5,000 employees and their employers in downtown Los Angeles, S houp developed a model to predict travel mode shares for three scenarios: (1) for office workers who receive free parking from their employers, (2) for the same employees when the employer offer s the (taxable) cash option, and (3) for employees who are required to pay the full market price of parking. The model results are shown in Table 2. For the cash option, the model predicted that solo driving mode s h are wou ld decrease from 70 percent to 56 percent, while the carpool and transit mode shares would increase from 15 percent each to 19 percent and 25 percent, respectively. When no free parking is provided, the model predicts greater shifts to transit TABLE 2. Mode Choice Effec t of a Cas h Optio n Solo Driver 70% 56% 49% Carpool 15% 19% 20% Transit 15% 25% 31% Cars per 100 Employees 75 62 56 An important issue with the cash out option is determining the value of parking. The amount of the parking benefit, in most cases, would simply be the employers' cost of parking (i.e. w h at the employer would save if the parking space were not provided). If the market value of parking in the area exceeds the cost of spaces provided by the employer, the cash-o u t value still would be the cost that the employer pays. A potential problem could arise if the employers' costs exceed the market value of parking that is in close proximity to the employment site In this situation, employees could use the cash to purchase the cheaper parking and pocket the difference; any incentive to'use the cash for transit or ridesharing costs would be lost Jn this situation, the parking benefit could be set at the market price of parking rather than employer cosl There will also be some cases where an employer has parking l ease costs tied or "bundled" 13

PAGE 20

with the office space leases costs in a long-term lease, and the building owner is unwilling to separa te parking costs. If employers are not able to sub-lease these spaces to employees of other companies, employers would not be able to offer its employees the cash-out option. Tax Tl'eatment 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 related to parking and transit subsidies for both employers and employees, as shown in Figure 2a. First, employer paid parking is a tax deductible business expense for the employer. Second, it is a tax-exempt benefit for employees for the value of parking does not exceed $155 per month. When the value of parking exceeds the cap, employees are taxed only on the increment above the $155 per month limit. Practically speaking, however, very few employees are subject to paying any tax (probably none in Florida) because parking costs in most cities are below the cap. The tax code that established this cap also provides a tax exemption for employer-paid mass transit and rideshare benefits, but the tax exempt limit (up to $60 per month) is far below the limit for parking benefits. The tax-exempt status of employer-paid or -subsidized parking is a major reason that free and inexpensive parking is so prevalent in many U.S. cities. From the employer standpoint, it is less expensive to pay an employee's parking costs than to compensate those costs with a salary increase. Providing compensation of parking costs in the form of a pay raise increases the employee's base salary, which increases the liability of the employer for social security, workers' compensation, and pension contributions. The employee would also incur higher taxes and other deductions. For example, the following illustrates the employer cost differences of providing an employee with a $1,000 net benefit through either a salary increase or a paid parking space. SALARY INCREASE: Employee Take Home Pay Federal Tax @ 28% Social Security @ 7.65% Pension @ 5.0% Gross Salary Employ e r Contributions Social Security @ 7.65% 14 $1,000 470 128 84 $1,682 $ 128

PAGE 21

v. FIGURE 2a. Pedctal. Ta: Policy on Pukinr. Employer Redu001 Corpole Busiaao ExpeMO Pamng at the Workp!Ko l!mploJoe Paya Jledonl ......,.. RJeMMPaddua ... Toea Oil n.t PodioG of Space IS I PriGae -fit Pod:iac Cosl Wllicb l!lceeck $1S5 per Moath FIGURE 2b. Pcdenl Ta: ()pcioat. Option Result Oov't diminat. Tu Fedora! Tuea Increase Cor _:_.., Dodllc:ribilily of Parl:ing Due to FJimimatioa !' llq>oo of PorDog Declo- Option Result Oov'l Rcdxa or Bljmj..._ Pedonl Toea oa Paddua ., ....lo :' die Tu-l!rempt Oop fila.-fix Ollhztiag r..c:r-Olsh Received Oov'tlb:leodsT ax by Employee; Provi
PAGE 22

Workman's Comp./Unemployment Ins. @ 3 .0% Pension/Life Ins. @ 5.0% Total Cost to Employer PAID PARKING SPACE Employee Benefit @ $83/month Total Cost To Employer 50 84 $1,944 $1,000 $1,000 Revising the tax code to eliminate or reduce the deductibility of parking costs by the employer and reducing the $155 per month tax-exempt cap for employees are two alternatives for lessening the tax code's incentives for solo driving (Figure 2b) Extending the tax-exemption to the cash-out travel allowance should also improve the effectiveness of this alternative because solo drivers would receive a greater cash incentive. Proponents of the cash-out program stress that the actual receipt of cash by the employee reinforces that parking has a cost and would motivate more commuters to shift from solo driving than an employer's direct payment of rideshaie or transit costs. While any efforts to change the U.S. Internal Revenue Code will be controversial, concerns over air quality, congestion, and urban sprawl have emphasized the need to address contradictory federal policies. In fact, legislation in the fall of 1992 raised the tax exemption of employer-provided mass transit from $21 per month to the present level of $60 per month and established the$155 per month tax-exempt parking cap. While not eliminating the tax advantages of solo-driving and parking, this legislation signals a change in policy direction that is favorable to transit and ridesharing. Parking Location and Supply The location and supply of parking is an important local land-use consideration. As shown in Figure 3, parking that serves the downtown can be placed in three locations: (I) in the CBD core, (2) in fringe areas of the CBD and (3) in remote park-n-ride locations outside of the city. 16

PAGE 23

A number of factors determine the appropriate mix of parking supplied in these l ocations includi ng the CBD type (i.e., extensively transit-oriented, intermediate transit use, or predominantly automobile oriented), employment density population density, and CBD land-use characteristics. FIGURE 3. Commuter Parking Policy Optiom ... . . ................. . . .... Outlying Parking lf--------+1'" CBD a t Transit Station : Destination . . . . .. .. ....... .......... . 0 . ... ........... .. "' i Oupooi/Vanpool i-l Parking in l l Outlying Parking ; CBD Core : : . . .... ........................ :... : Home ) ............... .. ..... . ... .. I Parkmgoo l CBD Periphery I 0 . Based on criteria developed by Weant and Levinson, Florida's cities are pred o minantly automobile orien.ted (i.e., the peak-person accumulation by transit in the CBD is less than 35 percent). In general, the greater the dependency upon the automobile for access to downtown the greater the supply of downtown parking This fact is reflected in the supply of downtown parking in Florida's cities compared to cities in other states. As shown in Figure 4, most o f Florida's cities have higher ratios of downtown parking spaces per employee than other U.S. cities. Polic ies affecting the location and supply of parking in a way that enhances nansit utilization would involve constraining or reducing the supply of down t own spaces available to commuters, or moving down town spaces to fringe and remote park-n-ride locations. Florida's cities are active in this latter area; eleven of the Sixteen Florida cities with a Section 9 transit operator have CBD fringe parking (i.e. parking specifically located on the periphery of th e CBD in order to reduce downtown congestion and parking needs), and seven cities have park-n-ride facilities served by public transit. For the mosf part, however, the effect of fringe parking on 17

PAGE 24

FIGURE 4 Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee. Large Citi es Med ium C i t ies Rai l 1 Auanta 14 Eugene, OR 2 Baltimore 15 Evansville, IN 3 Baton Rouge 16 -F L Lauderdale 4 Boston 17Ft. Myers 5 Bradenton 18 Gainesville 6 Burlington, VT 19 Hartford CT 7-Chicago 20 Houston 8 C l eve land 21 Huntsville AL 9 Dallas 22 Jacksonville 10Daytona Beach 23. Knoxville TN 11 Denve r 24 Lakeland 12 Des Moi nes 25 Madison, W I 13 Det r oo 26 Melbourne Non-Rail Cities 27 Miami 28 Milwaukee 29 New Haven CT 30 New Orleans 31 Omaha 32-0rtando 33 Pensaco la 34 Philadel phia 35-Phoeni x 36 Pittsburgh 37 Port l and, OR 38Reno, NV 39 Richmond, VA Small C i t i es Rorida Cn ies 1!l!lll Othe r C i ties F lorida Cities 11i1i11 Other Cnies 40 San Anto n i o 41 San Diego 42. San Francisco 43-SanJose 44 Sarasota 45 Savannah 46. Seatt l e 47. St. Louis 48 SL Petersbu rg 49Tallahassee so-Tampa 51 Washington DC 52 -w. Palm Beach NOTE: Because data are no t avai l able, cities 3 5 6 1 4 1 8, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, and 49 a re not shown. 18

PAGE 25

transit utilization in F lorida is extremely limited. With the exception of Orlando, which operates the "FreeBee" shuttle service from fringe parking facilities to the downtown, persons who park in fringe facilities walk to their destinations. Of course, fringe parking can be effective in reducing downtown congestion. The principal means of controlling the supply of parking is through zoning. Weant and Levinson list several factors that should be considered in setting parking requirements: floor space/employee ratios, car occupancy rates transit service availability and interaction among downtown land uses While most cities will generally specify a minimum number of spaces per unit of new development, this practice has been criticized because it often results in an excess supply of parking. Some developers interviewed for this study stated that lenders may also specify parking requirements for developments in areas where they believe automobile access is essential. They stated, ho wever, that this is not common practice, noting that lenders realize that parking is an added cost to development, which above a certain point, reduces the financial feasibility of the project. In order to better control the growth in parking supply, many cities have adopted maximum parking limits or coupled parking maximums with no minimums. Other cities offer developers flexible parking minimums in exchange for actions to support ridesharing programs or transit Of the four Florida cities examined in this study, Miami and Orlando set minimum and maximum parking requirements, and Orlando further offers developers the opportunity to reduce minimum parking requirements by up to twenty percent in exchange for payments into a parking program trust fund. Parking locat ion and supply decisions require careful analysis oflocal conditions In order for parking to be supportive of transit, opportunities must exist for transit concerns to be incorporated into the local planning process These opportunities occur during development of local comprehensive plans, transportation plans, community plans, zoning codes, and development 19

PAGE 26

site plans. Oftentimes, however, while the mechanism exists to incorpol'llte transit concerns into local plans, these concerns are not always expressed or are not seriously considered. It is important for local transit agencies to fully exploit opportunities for involvement in these areas. Role of lAical Governments in ParkinK Development Should local governments develop parking facilities or should development be left to market forces? Local governments decide to develop parking for a variety of reasons. A primary reason is to establish better control over the location and supply of downtown parking so that a certain degree of access to the downtown is maintained. Local governments also view their involvement as necessary in order to create a downtown environment that can compete for development activity. Som e l ocal governments dev e lop and manage parking facilities in CBDs primarily to supplement municipal revenue. A goal of revenue maximization, however, is one that is difficult to balance witb goals of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution, and supporting transit usage. Impacts of Parking Constl'llints on Economic Development The development decision is complex and influenced by a multitude of factors ranging from ease of land assembly to favorable financial arrangements. In this context, the prov i sion of parking does not appear to play a central role in development decisions, but can play a s i gnificant supporting role. In an article by Meyer and McShane, risk and expected return on investment were identified as the key factors affecting the private development decision process and the ultimate location of a project From a developer's standpoint, three ingredients must be present for the success of a new project: (1) econom i c feasibility, (2) proper location, and (3) the proper timing of the project development T wo of these ingredients, economic feasibility and location, are affected by municipal parking policies. 20

PAGE 27

Meyer and McShane identified four general types of municipal parking controls that can affect economic development. These controls and more specific parking measures are listed below: Control of aggregate parking supply -"freeze" on allowed spaces -building permit maximums Control of parking access -preferential parking for carpoolers -preferential access for shoppers Control of spatial location -"fringe" parkinglpark-n-ride lots -zoning require ments Control of parking price -areawide parking tax -ratestructure favoring short-term users When implemented in isolation these parking measures can have a dramatic effect on the development of new projects and the type of projects an area attracts. For example, a "freeze" on the aggregate supply of parking within a business distric t could shift long term parkers into short -term spaces, thereby having a crippling effect upon retail establishments. To avoid this situation, preferential space allocation for short -term parkers should be considered in conjunction with a parking "freeze" This example illustrates the need for comprehensive policies that compensate for corollary effects that may occur with the implementation of an isolated parking policy. Meyer and McShane further indicated that the effect of parking policies on economic development varies from city to city. Locations that have achieved an undefined "threshold value" of activity density are likely to be attractive for certain kinds of development regardless of whether or not additional parking can be provided to support them. These arc likely to be areas where reasonable alternative access modes have been developed in advance or have good prospects of being implemented within a reasonable timeframe. In urban areas where threshold activity density is not found and alternative access opportunities are scarce, supply controls may seriously threaten economic development. 21

PAGE 28

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 government 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 cities have achieved this threshold value of development activity is uncertain. However, Miami is clearly more developed than other Florida cities and is the only heavy rail city in the state, On the other hand, officials in Miami expressed concern over competition with suburban areas for development activity. Conversations with representatives of the development community in Florida revealed that developers are very sensitive to parking controls, They indicate that transit cannot effectively provide an equivalent level of quality and convenient service as the automobile, and transit service is too volatile and impermanent (e .g. (funding is uncertain, and bus routes and schedules can change). In this type of environment, these representatives also indicate that strict regulatory controls involving pricing and supply would certainly have negative consequences on development activity. l!lntives for Ridesbaring Policies that increase ridesharing at the expense of single occupant vehicle conunuting are viewed as achieving a conunon purpose as increasing transit usage. Transit and r ide sharing generally serve specific markets, but sometimes serve overlapping markets. Ridesharing is very effective for long distance commutes. Transit, on the other hand, is suited for short and long distance commutes to high density areas, such as CBDs or highly developed regional activity centers. COMPLEMENTARY TRANSIT AND PARKING POUCIES This section of the report presents a broad range of complementary transit and parking policies. This list is compiled for the sole reason of presenting the multitude of different policies and discussing their respective pros, cons, and special considerations. These policies are not the recommendations of this study. The study recommendations are presented in the last section of this report. The policies listed below are grouped into broad groups: parking policies and transi t policies. These groups are further divided into categories such as pricing, parking taxes, zoning, 22

PAGE 29

land use, and transportation demand management. Twenty policies are presented, most of which were previously discussed in Technical Memoranda J and 2. It is important to note that in the field of parking management there are many possible Strategies and strategy variant; the strategies presented in this section are those considered to be the most applicable in F lo rida. PARKING POLICIES Pricing Pricing is, perhaps, the most direct and inunediate way to affect parking demand among those persons who park and pay for parking Viewed as a consumer good a basic economic principle dictates that if the price of parking is increased, demand will decrease. Pricing as a parking management strategy can be accomplished in several ways, such as through general rate increases, surcharges, and differential pricing (e.g., rates that favor carpools/vanpools and short term parkers). Price increases that earmark the additional revenue to transit and rideshare options are most desirable. Each of these pricing-related policies is discussed below. Parking Rate Increases -A parking rate increase simply involves raising the price of parking in lots, garages, and on-street Pros: For governments that own parking facilities rate increases will generate additional revenue. Cons: Raising prices or taxes on parking is controversial. Pricing strategies are difficult to implement in cities where the private sector owns a significant amount of the total supply of parking. If applied in a limited area, price increases may shift demand to other, unintended areas; for example, price increases that discourage long-term commuter parking may shift this demand to neighborhoods or shopping districts. Thus, this strategy requires strong enforcement to ensure success. Parking price increases may also discourage economic development, especially if the price structure is perceived to discourage person trips. Special Considerations: Unless the vehicle operator or owner pays the increase, a parking price increase will have no effect on demand. Peak Period Surcharge This strategy is intended to discourage long-term commuter parking by applying a surcharge to those vehicles that arrive at parking facilities during morning peak hours. 23

PAGE 30

Pros: A surcharge will raise additional revenue for government-owned facilities. Cons: A surcharge can have similar disadvantages as parking rate increases. Spec/a! Considerations: Similar to a price increase, surcharges will have no effect on demand unless the vehicle operator or owner pays the increase. Differential Pricing Programs Parking rate structures can be developed to encourage or discourage certain types of parkers (e.g., carpoolslvanpools, and short-term vs. long term), or to restrict parking in certain locations. Pros: This strategy can result in a more efficient use of a eity's parking facilities if the pricing structure results in greater ridesharing and/or turnover. Cons: Differential pricing can have similar disadvantages as p8rking rate increases. Special Considerations: Similar to price increases, differential pricing will have no effect on demand unless the vehicle operator or owner pays for parking. Parking Taxes This area covers a broad range of tax strategies. It covers taxes on parking, which can be levied on businesses or persons engaged in the parking business, or taxes applied directly to the users. In addition, this area covers the federal government's tax treatment of parking benefits. Local Tax on Parking Facilities Under this strategy, a local tax could be applied to persons or businesses engaged in the parking business or directly to the user. Pros: Parking taxes applied to both publicly and privately owned facilities will generate additional revenue for local governments. Cons: Taxes are controversial and generally difficult to enact due to public opposition. Parking taxes may shift economic development to areas not covered by the tax. Special Considerations: Similar to a general price increase, a parking tax will not affect demand if it is absorbed by employers. 24

PAGE 31

Income Tax on the Market Value of Parking Benefits Received This strategy would treat employer-provided or -subsidized parking as a taxable fringe benefit. Employees are presently taxed on the amount of parking benefit that exceeds $155 per month but because parking costs in most cities are below this amount few persons are required to pay any tax. Pros: Confines tax to recipients of parking benefits. Raises federal revenue. Cons: Since parking is a commonly accepted employee fringe benefit this tax would be extremely unpopular with employers and employees and wonld probably encounter significant political resistance. Administration would be difficult because the market value of parking may not be easy to measure, is subject to change, and can vary greatly by location. The tax may discourage development in CBDs where parking costs are more expensive. Special Considerations: Requires revision in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Reduction of Cap on Tax-Exempt Parking Subsidy This policy would reduce the $155 per month tax-exempt cap on employer-subs i dized parking Pros: This reduction would put the tax-exempt status of parking on a more even playing field with transit (which has a cap of $60 per month). Cons: This reduction would encounter significant political resistance and may discourage development in CBDs where parking costs exceed the cap. Special Considerations: Requires revision in the U S Internal Revenue Code. Elimination of Income Tax Deductibility for Employers -The cost of parking that employers provide to employees is currently treated as a tax deductible business expense (i.e., it lowers employers taxable income and tax liability). Pros: Eliminating this deduction would reduce employers' fmancial incentive to provide parking as a fringe benefit. It would also raise federal revenue. Cons: This strategy would also encounter significant political resistance and may discourage development in CBDs where parking costs are more expensive. 25

PAGE 32

Special Considerations: Requires revision in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Zo ni ng Zoning ordinances affect the supp l y and location of parking. Types of ordinances include parking maximums, flexible requirements based on developer action to support public transit and ridesharing a parking freeze, and preferential parking for carpoo l s and vanpools. Parki n g Maximums This measure establishes a maximum number of on-site parking spaces for new developments in order to control the supp l y of downtown parking Pros: Parking maximums can control parking supply in growing areas Cons: Maximums could discourage new development if the area is highly automobile-dependent and if transportation alternatives are not, or are perceived not to be, available. Special Considerations: Requires a comprehensive analysis of parking demand Requires adequate transportation alternatives. F l exible Parki n g Requiremen t s This measure allows reductions in parking requirements for new developments if the project is easily accessi ble by transit or if the developer Wldertakes actions to promote transit and ridesharing Pros: Provides deve l opers \vith an option mther than a requirement. Cons: Enforcement of developer obligations is difficult. Special Considerations: The success of flexible requirements will depend on the availability of alternative travel modes. Reliable transit must be available, and the possibility of carpools must be apparent. Parking Freeze This policy sets a ceiling on the aggregate supply of parking spaces within a specific area. Pros: Prohibits net increase in parking spaces, which allows land area to be used for other establishments. 26

PAGE 33

Cons: A "freeze" may discourage new development in the affected area. Further, if parking is already limited, a "freeze" may push long-term parkers into short-term spaces, which limits access to retail uses. Special Considerations: This type of policy works best in high-density areas where downtown congestion and parking are major issues. TRANSIT PoUCIES Pricing Link Parking Rates with Transit Fare Increases This strategy involves raising parking rates when transit fares are increased. Zoning Pros: Maintains basic price relationship between parking and transit (i.e., it avoids creating incentives to drive when transit fares increase). Cons: This policy would be controversial because it provides no incentive for transit agencies to operate cost effectively. Special Considerations: Unless the vehicle operator or owner pays the increase, the parking price increase will have no effect on demand. Preferential Parking for Carpools/V anpools This parking measure reserves the most attractive and the most easily accessible parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles. Pros: If this measure induces commuters to rideshare, parking demand, automobile congestion, and total vehicle miles traveled would decrease. Cons: The enforcement of preferential parking may increase administrative costs for previously unattended lots. Special Considerations: Preferential parking programs are more effective when implemented in an area with a parking shortage near the employment center, and when the spaces available offer a clear advantage over those available to solo drivers. Effective enforcement of the measure is essential for it to be successful. 27

PAGE 34

Land Use This area involves strategies to remove paiidng spaces from the downtown in order to make land available for other uses and to reduce traffic congestion downtown. Pat'k-and-Ride Facilities These facilities are located on the periphery of the city and are served by local public transportation. They are usually located near densely traveled corrido r s leading into the CBD. Pros: This type of facility helps to reduce CBD auto congestion and long-term parking. It offers the services of public transportatio n to those living in low density areas, thereby increasing transit ridership. The cost of providing parking decreases because land is cheaper in outlying areas than in the CBD. Cons: A park-and-ride facility is an added cost to transit. Unfortunately, the most successful sites are immediately adjacent to freeways where land costs are highest in suburban locations. Special Considerations: Park and-ride facilities are most successful when the service area experiences considerable highway congestion during peak periods, when the service area has a high demand for CBD travel, when downtown parking rates are high, and when the supply of downtown parking is limited. JointUse Park-and-Ride Facilities This strategy involves locating park-and-ride facil i ties in mixed-use developments that contain services commuters would normally use during the day, such as child day care, shopping, and banking. Pros: Reduces solo driving by eliminating some of the need to make personal before-work, mid-day, and after-work trips. Helps to reduce CBD auto congestion and the need for long-term parking. The cost of the facility is shared with other establishments within the facility. Cons: If businesses within the joint-use facility fail, the facility will be less attractive for commuters. Special Considerations: The transit agency must closely evaluate the above stated risk. 28

PAGE 35

Transportation Demand Mana11ement (TDM) TDM includes a myriad of complementary transit and parking measures with the common goal of reducing solo driving. Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) TMAs are fonned in urbanized areas or concentrated developments by public and private entities to promote TDM initiatives among participating employers. These initiatives include organizing carpools and vanpools, and assisting employers in establishing flextime or telecommuting programs. Pros: TMAs are effective in promoting and developing commute alternatives and incentive programs including many parking treatments. Cons: The membership fees are an added cost to employers. Special Considerations: To be successful, TMAs need strong support from local governments and businesses. Transportation AUowanu (Cash-Out Option) This approach requires that employers who offer free or subsidized parking must also offer the option to receive, in lieu of parking, the employer's cost of the parking, either as a taxable cash commute allowance or as a mass transit or ridesharing subsidy. Pros: Studies have estimated that a cash-out program could significantly reduce single occupant automobile commute trips. A transportation allowance provides employees with a cash alternative to subsidized parking Because employees receive the allowance as a taxable cash payment, additional federal revenue would be raised. Cons: Employers' administrative costs may increase. Special Considerations: If building owners are not willing to separate parking lease costs from office lease costs, employers would have to sub-lease spaces to employees of other companies. 29

PAGE 36

Multi-Modal Transportation Pass -A multi-modal transportation pass would enable commuters to interchangeably utilize parking, transit and vanpooling. The pass would entitle a person to use any mode to and from work at its monthly discounted rate. In this way, a person who normally purchases monthly parking can use transit on random days without incurring additional costs for this second mode This eliminates the need for commuters to drive every day in order to make the initial monthly investment in parking cost effective. Commuters could use a debit-type card (i.e., a card with magnetically encoded user information) and purchase in advance, or be billed monthly, for parking, transit, or vanpool costs. Alternatively, the pass program could work in conjunction with the travel allowance program. Employees would be given a debit card and a monthly transportation allowance. Employees who solo commute and park every day would use the allotment and be required to "pay out" some of 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 more frequently would receive cash back at the end of the month. A demonstration project on this concept is currently underway in southern California. The project is expected to be completed in April I 994. Pros: Promotes the use of alternative transportation modes. The pass is a benefit that appeals to small businesses. Cons: Start-up could be complicated. Special Considerations: A central billing and processing facility would need to be established. Outlets to buy passes, tickets, and tokens would also need to be established. Coordination between local transit and local parking agencies is required. RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report presents the recommended complementary parking and transit policies and an action plan. The recommendations involve pricing, parking taxes, zoning, land use, and TDM. The action plan identifies what actions are necessary by the various levels of government --local, state, and federal. These actions are described within the recommended policies belo w and are also shown in Table 3 at the end of the section 30

PAGE 37

As discussed in the issues section of this report the coordination difficulties experienced by transit are not so much from the lack of coordination opportunities, but r ather from the relatively weak negotiating strength of transit. Because of Florida's development patterns, the financial constraints of transit, and employer-paid parking transit cannot effectively compete with the automobile. As a result, the automobile is often favored in the formulation of downtown parking policies. The recommended policies contained in this section 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 all owance program. Properly implemented, this program could significantly shift solo drivers to ridesharing and transit with relatively little effort. The FOOT should, accordingly, place high priority on implementing this recommendation. PARKING POLICIES Pricing Differential Pricing FOOT should recommend that local governments consider pricing strategies that provide incentiv e s for carpools and vanpools, and discourage commuters who drive alone from parking in the central core of CBOs. Parking Taxes Reduce Cap on Tax-Exempt Parking Subsidy FOOT should assist in any national efforts to reduce the $155 per month cap on employer-subsidized parking. Zoning Require Flexible Parking for New Developments FOOT should coordinate with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in an effort to encourage those Florida cities with only parking minimums to adopt flexible parking maximums. Flexibility would be based on developer support of transit and ridesharing programs. 31

PAGE 38

Land Use Discourage Local Government Development of CBD Parking For the Primary Purpose of Revenue Generation Although revenue from municipal parking facilities may be an important revenue soiu:ce 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 The FDOT should incorporate this recommendation in the training progratn described under Transit -Land Use Policies. TRANSIT POLICIES Taxes Promote Federal Tax-Exemption of Travel Allowances FOOT should coordinate with the Governor's Office, the state's transit agencies, and other groups and joi n existing efforts to secure changes in the Internal Revenue Code that would make cash travel allowances tax-exempt. Require Preferential Parking 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 carpool/vanpool gpaces. Land Use 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. Encourage Transit 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 32

PAGE 39

building/site plans, and in siting i:;uoiic fiicilities and institutions (especially those that are patronized by tbe transit dependent) in aress 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 autbority in the land use p lanning process. Develop Guide and Training Program on the Relationship Between Land Use and Public Transportation The FOOT should develop a guide and training program, to be conducted by MPOs for their board members, on public transportation and land use. A similar guide and training program was developed by the Snohomish County Transportation Authority (Washington) in 1989. The purpose of the guide was to offer "suggestions that local jurisdictions, developers community groups and land owners working with their local transit operators can use to locate and design activities and facilities and change trip-making behaviors so that options to autos can become realistic". The Snohomish County effort could serve as a model for Florida's program. Transportation Dem,and Management Implement Employer Travel Allowance Demonstration Project FOOT should develop, seek federal funding for, and manage a project involving selected major employers in several Florida cities. Local TMAs could identify candidate employers for the project and could assist the employers in implementing the program. FOOT should monitor the results of the program. Adopt Local Trip Reduction Ordinances With Travel Allowance Feature-Public ordinances requiring one strategy are not always politically feas i ble Flexibility in working witb the private sector is important. Therefore, FOOT should promote the use of a travel allowance program as one option witbin locally adopted trip reduction ordinances Multi-Modal Transportation Pass Program Since this is a new concept, tbe FOOT should evaluate its possible implementation and consider developing a demonstration program in a city that owns a significant amount of downtown parking, such as Miami or Orlando. 33

PAGE 40

Support Strengthening Commuter Assistance Programs and, Where Appropriate, Formation of a TMA in Th0$e Urbanized Areas Currently Without One The Florida TMAs have been largely successful in, at least, the initial education of commuters and employers of alternative commute options. The ability of these TMAs to cause mode shifting has been made difficult by a combination of factors, such as free and employer paid parking, and an oversupply of parking in CBDs due to lower than expected development (which is related t o the recession and continued suburban development). The FDOT should continue supporting local efforts to develop commuter assistance programs and the formation of TMAs in urbanized areas currently without one. 34

PAGE 41

.. Table 3. Adi o n P l an. Differential Pricing I Aorida cities should adopt FOOT should recommend that I No action required. pricing strategies that provide local governments adopt pricing incentives for carpools and strategies that provide vanpools, and discourage longincentives for carpools and term par king in the central cor e vanpools, and discourage longofCBDs term parki ng in the centra l core of CBDs. Promote Federal Tax-Exemption of I Local governments should FOOT should coordinate with Revise the Internal Revenue Travel Allowances assist the state in their efforts the Govemo(s Office, the Code to exempt travel to change the Internal Revenue state s transn agencies, APTA allowances from federal taxes. Code. and other gro ups to secure chang es in the lntemal Revenue Code that would make cash travel a llowances .... tax-exempt "' Reduce Cap on Tax-Exempt Local governments should FOOT should assist in any I Reduce the $155 per month Parking Subsidy assist In national efforts national efforts. tax-exempt cap on employer-subsidized Require Flexible Parking F l orida cities should revise FOOT should coordinate with No actioo required. Minimums and Maximum Parking parldng requirements for DCA in an effort to encourage Requirements for New commerciaVoffice those Ao rlda cities with parking Developmen ls developments to reflect minimums only to adopt flexible maximums and flexible parking minimums a n d minimums. maximums. FOOT should a l so provi d e techni cal support i n defin i ng appropriate minimums a n d maximums for cities that ass is lance

PAGE 42

Table 3. (continued). Require Preferential Parl
PAGE 43

Tabl e 3. ( continued). Implement Travel Allowance ash-Out) Program Implement Employer Local TMAs should identify FOOT should develop, seek I No action required. Travel Allowance candidate empl oyers for the federal funding for and Demonstration Project project and assist the manage this project involving employers In Implementing the selected major emp l oyers In program. severa l Flori d a cities. F urther, FOOT should monijor t h e results of the - Adopt local Trip Red uction Local governments should Based on favorable results from I No action required. Ordinances with Travel adopt trip reduction ordinances the demonstration the Allowance Feature and consider incl udi n g a travel FOOT should embark on a allowance feature. campaign to educate loca l officials of the benefits of a ..., u I I trave l allowance program a n d .... assist the m in developing trip reduction o rdinances with thi s feature. Offer MuHi-Modal Transportation I local transit agencies, parlQng FOOT shou l d evaluate its FTA s h ould prov i de a Passes authorities, and loca l posslble Implementation and demonstration g r ant for this governments s h ould consider conslder developing a program. i m p lementi n g this type of pass demonstration prog ram in a based on the resui1s of FDOrs major city such as Miami or evaluat ion Orlando that owns a significant amount of downtown S u pport Formation of a TMA in Local governments with i n FOOT should encourage the No action requ ired. Those Urbanized Areas Currently urbanized areas should s u pport fonna t ion of TMAs in those Without One the formation of TMAs. urbaniz e d a reas current l y without one.

PAGE 44

LIST OF REFERENCES Anonymous "Parking Policy Reform, A White Paper, Draft." (August 1990). Cambridge Systematics. Transportation Control Measures Informational Document. Cambridge, MA: U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources (1991) Center for Urban Transportation Research. Commute Alternatives Systems Handbook. Tallahassee, Fl.: Florida Department of Transportation. (1992). Chicago Plan Commission Downtown Parking Policies. (January 1989). DiRenzo, J., B. Citna and E. Barber. Parking Management Tactics: Vol.3, Reference Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation (1981): 9. Downtown Orlando Transportation Management Association. "Commuting in Downtown Orlando, Survey Results (1991 ) Ellis, Raymond H., John F. DiRenzo and Edward J. Barber. "New Directions in Central Business District Parking Policies Transportation Research Record 845 (1982): 40-51. "Employer-Provided Parking Cap: A Boost to Mass Transportation?" Urban Outlook. 14.10 (May 1992): 7 Higgins, Thomas. "Parking Management and Traffic Mitigation i n Six Cities: Implications for Local Policy." Transportation Research Board, 68th Annual Meeting. Washington, D .C (January 1989). K.T. Analytics, Inc "Dade County Parking/Transi t Ridership Study." Frederic k, Md.: K.T. Analytics, Inc (January 1 987). Herbert S "Zoning for Parking G l obal Perspective." rrE Journal 54 (1984) "Whither Parking in the City Center?" Transportation Research Record 957 (1984): 77-79. Lopez-Aqueres, Waldo, and Catherine Wasikowski. "Relationship Between Employer-Paid Parking and Average Vehicle Ridership Among Emp loyers Affected by Regulation X:V." Transportation Research Board 70th Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C. (January 1991). Mehranian, Maria, et al. "Parking Cost and Mode Choices Among Downtown Workers: A Case Study Transportation Research Record 1130 (1987): 1-5 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "Commuter Parking Cost Study." Washington, D.C. (1991). 38

PAGE 45

Meyer, Michael D., A.M. ASCE, and Mary McShane. "Parking Policy and Downtown Economic Development." The Journal of Urban Planning and Development 109 (1983). Miami Planning, Building & Zoning Department. "Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000: Goals, Objectives, and Policies." (February 1991) Mierzejewski, Edward A., and William L. Ball. ''New Findings on Factors Related to Transit Use." TIE Journal (February 1990): 34-39. Miller, Craig, Doug Coomer, and Rick Jameson. "Role and Function of Trans i t in Growth Management: Current Issues in F lorida. Transportation Research Record 1237 (1989): 64-76. Orlando Planning and Development Department. "Growth Management Plan, Downtown Element." (1991). Pickrell, Don H. "Federal Tax Policy and Employer-Subsidized Parking." Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. Washington, D.C : U.S. Department of Transportation (1990). Pratt, Richard H. "Employer Parking Pricing and Incentive Programs That Change Modal Split: A White Paper." Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Transportation (1990). Public Parking System. "Downtown Parking Analysis for the City of Ft. Myers, Florida." Chattanooga, Tenn (October 1988). Public Technology, Inc The Coordination of Parking with Public Transportation and Ride-sharing: An Urban Consortium Information Bulletin. Washington, D.C. (June 1982). Ramp Consulting Services, Inc. "Annual Report, Municipal Parking System, Fort Lauderdale, Florida." (December 1990). Shoup, Donald C., and Richard W. Willson. "Employer-Paid Parking : The Influence of Parking Prices on Travel Demand." Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation (1990). Surber, Monica, Donald Shoup, and Matrin Wachs "Effects of Ending Employer-Paid Parking for Solo Drivers." Transportation Research Record 951 (1984): 67-70. U .S. Department of Transportation. Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation (I 990) Ulberg, Cy. "Parking Tax Discussion Paper: White Paper." Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation (1990). 39

PAGE 46

Urban Mobility Corp. "Tax Treatment of Employer Parking and Transportation Subsidies." Private Sector Brieft. Washington, D C.: Federal Transit Administration (1991): 1-2 Weant, Robert A., and Levinson, Herbert S. Parking. Washington, D.C.: The Eno Foundation (1990): 10. Williams, Jon. "Free and Paid Parking in the Washington Region." Transportation Research Board Paper 920562, 71st Annual Meeting, Washington, D C (January 1992): 8. Willson, Richard W. "Parking Subsidies and the Drive-Alone Commuter: New Evidence and Implications." Transportation Research Record 1181 (1988): 5056. 40

PAGE 47

LIST O F C O NTACT PERSONS Alba n y, NY Capital District Regional Planning 214 Canal Square Schenectady, NY 12305 (518)393-1715 Leonard Fox Albany Parlcing Authority Port Albany, NY 12202 ( 518)434-8886 B altimore, MD Gerald Neily Department o f Planning City of Baltimore 417 East Fayette Street, 8th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 ( 4 1 0)396-5924 Eleanor Krell Regional Council of Development 60 I N. Howard Street Baltimore, MD 2120 I ( 41 0)333-4881 Ba ton. R ou ge, LA Jeff Fluhr Planning Department 227 Florida Street Baton Rouge, LA 70801 (504)389-5520 B oston, MA Joseph 0. Beggan Director Department of Policy and Planning Boston Transportation Department One City Hall Plaza, Room 721 Boston, MA 02201 ( 6!7)725-4680 Boston Redevelopment Agency One City Hall Square Boston, MA 0 2201-1007 (617)722-4300 41 Bradenton Ruth Seewer Planning Department City of Bradenton Caller Service 250 1 5 Braclcnton, FL 34206-5015 (813)748-0800 x205 BurUngto n Mark Eldridge Planning and Zoning Departme nt City of Burlington 13 5 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 (802)865-7188 C hi cago Fred Detters Planning and Development Department City of Chicago 121 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312)744-2945 Jim Mulqueey Chicago Transit Authority P.O. Box 3555 Chicago, IL 60654 (312)664-7200 D a ll as John Bnmk Assistant Director of Transportation Department of T ran sportation, Dallas 1500 Marilla Str ee t Room SC South Dallas, TX 7520 I (214)670-5081 Dawrence White Data Analyst n Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority 60 I Pacific A venue Dallas, TX 75202 (214)748-6338

PAGE 48

Daytona Russell Hooper Public Works Director City of Daytona Beach P.O. Box 2451 Daytona Beach, FL 32115-2451 (904)258-3171 Denver Bill Bulthal Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 (303)628-9000 Des Moines Jim Thompson Traffic and Transportation Department City of Des Moines 602 First Street Des Moines, lA 50309-1881 (515)283-4973 Ft. Lauderdale Tom McCormick Parking Systems Manager City of Ft. Lauderdale 145 East Lasolas Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (305)764-2412 Chris Reo Planning Department City of Ft. Lauderdale 100 N Andrews Avenue 7th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (305)761-5865 (desk) (305)761-5258 (receptionist) Kathy L. Hain Corporate and Community Liaison Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority 305 South Andrews Avenue Suite 299 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (305)728-8512 42 Ayub Zaid Short Range T ransportation Projects Office of Planning Broward County 115 S. Andrews Avenue ,Room 329 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3330 I (305)357-6664 John Wachtel Assistant Trolley Manager Downtown Development Authority 200 S Andrews Avenue, Suire II Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (305)463-6574 Ft. Myers Maureen Lund Planner Planning Department City of Ft. Myers P.O Drawer 2217 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 (813)332-6785 W. Avera Wynne Planner Planning Department City of Ft. Myers P.O Drawer 2217 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 (813)332-6787 Don Paight Director Downtown Redevelopment Agency City of Ft. Myers 2310 Edwards Drive Fort Myers, FL 33901 (813)334-6626 Harriet Moskat Assistant Director Downtown Redevelopment Agency City of Ft. Myers 2310 Edwards Drive Fort Myers, FL 33901 (813)334-6626

PAGE 49

Chris Lefferts Lee County Transit I 0715 East Airport Road Fort Myers, FL 33907 (813)936-6091 Gainesville Brian Kanely Traffic Engineering City of Gainesville P.O. Box 490, MS28 Gainesville, FL 32602 (904)334-2130 Hartford Jim Mayer Transportation Engineering City of Hartford 525 Main Street Hartford, CT 061 03 (203)722-6215 Kathy Butler Downtown Council 250 Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 (203)728-3089 Houston Carrie Hackett Metro. Transit Authority of Harris County P.O. Box 61429 Houston, TX 77208 (713)739-4000 Huntsville, AL Planning Department City of Huntsville P.O Box 308 Huntsville, AL 35804 (205)532-7353 Transportation Department City of Huntsville I 00 Church Street Huntsville, AI 35801 (205)532-7682 43 Jacksonville Jerry Allen Public Parking Bureau 231 East Forsythe Street Room 450 Jacksonville, FL 32202 (904)630-1124 Knoxville Carol Swagger Transportation Coordinator Knoxville Planning Commission Suite 403 City County Building 400 Main Street Knoxville, TN 37902 (615)521-2500 David White Knoxville Transit 1135 Magnolia Avenue Knoxville, TN 37917 (615)637-3000 Lakeland Lorenzo Thomas Community Development Department City Hall 228 S. Massachusetts Avenue Lakeland, FL 33801 {813)499-6011 Madison Duane H'mz Parking Manager City of Madison 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Suite 100 P.O. Box 2986 Madison, WI 53701-2986 (608)266-4761 Madison Metropolitan Transit System 1101 East Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53703 ( 608)266-4904

PAGE 50

Melbourne Planning & Zoning Department City of Melbourn e 900 E. Strawbridg e Ave. Melbourne, FL 3290 I ( 407)727-2900 Miami Dan Rosemond Director of On-Street Operations Department of On-Street Parking City of Miami 190 N.E. 3rd Street Miami, FL 33132 (305)373-6789 Mary Beth Busitil Department of Off-Street Parking City of Miami 190 N.E. 3rd Street Miami, FL 33132 (305)373-6789 Terry McKinley Chief, Performance Audit Metro-Dade Transit Agency Metro-Dade Center Ill N.W. 1st Street, Suite 910 Miami, FL 33128-1999 (305)375-5359 Mario Garcia Chief Transit System Metro-Dade Transit Agency Metro-Dade Center 111 N .W. 1st Street, Suite 910 Miami, FL 33128-1999 (305)637-3756 Frank F. Baron, Ill Principal Planner Metropolitan Planning Organization Metropolitan Dade County Metro-Dade Center Ill NW I st Street, Suite 910 Miami, FL 33128 (305)375-4507 44 Adam Lukin Urban Design Coordinator Downtown Development Authority 1818 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131 (305)579-6675 Katia Hirsh Downtown Development Authority 1818 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131 (305)579-6675 Clark Turner City Planning Department 275 N. W. Second St. Miami, FL 33128 (305)579-6086 Sergio Rodriguez Director City Planning Department 275 N. W. Second St. Miami, FL 33128 (305)579-6086 Minneapolis Susan Widmer Parking and Skyway Engineer Department of Public Works City of Minneapolis 203 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415-1390 (612)673-2597 Metropolitan Transit Commission 560 6th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 (612)349-7400 Montgomery County Barbara Barker Planning Specialist Ill Division of Parking 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 903 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301)565-7670

PAGE 51

Jenny Leary Silver Spring TMA (Montgomery County) 860 I Georgia A venue Suite 703 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (30 I )565-5870 New Orleans Charles Kirkland Senior City Planner 1300 Perdido Street Room Nine West City Hall New Orleans, LA. 70112 (504)565-7000 V a! erie Robinson Regional Transit Authority I 0 I Dauphine @ Canal New Orleans, LA 70112 (504)569-2679 Orlando Scott Collier Parking Supervisor Parking Bureau City of Orlando 53 W. Central Boulevard Orlando, FL 3280 I (407)246-2154 Samuel G. Vennero Bureau Chief Parking Bureau City of Orlando 53 W. Central Boulevard Orlando, FL 3280 I (407)246-2154 Robert Jones City Planner Planning and Development Department City of Orlando 400 S. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 (407)246-2175 45 Nan Moore Downtown Orlando TMA I 00 S. Orange A venue, 7th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 (407)839-1630 Daisy Staniszkis Assistant Director Downtown Development Board 100 S. Orange Ave., 9th Floor Orlando, FL, 32801 (407)246-2555 Clerk's Office(407)246-2251 Pbiladelpbia John Hack Planning Department City of Philadelphia 1515 Market Street 17th Floor Philadelphia, P A 19102 (215)686-7071 Phoenix Fred Osgood Planning Department City of Phoenix 125 East Washington Phoenix, AZ 85004 ( 602)262-7131 Pittsburgh Jeffrey T. Leber Parking Authority City of Pittsburgh 232 Boulevard of the Allies Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1616 ( 412)456-2770 Portland Sean Furguson Tri-County Metro. Transportation District 4012 S .E. 17th Avenue. Portland, OR 97202 (503)238-4915 Raleigh, NC

PAGE 52

Ken Maness Planning Department City of Raleigh 222 W. Hargett St. Raleigh, NC 27602 (919)890-3125 St. Petersburg Michael Dove Assistant Planning Director City of St. Petersburg P.O. Box 2842 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 (813)893-7879 San Francisco Jerry Robbins Department of Parking and Traffic City and County of San Francisco 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 880 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-9818 Bay Area Rapid Transit 800 Madison Street Oakland, CA 94604 (510)464-6000 Sarasota Dan Martis Superintendent of Parking Management 1312 Second Street Sarasota, FL 34236 (813)954-4182 (desk) Zoning Department City of Sarasota P.O. Box 1058 Sarasota, F L 34230 (813)954-4127 Planning & Development Department City of Sarasota P.O. Box 105A Sarasota, FL 34230 (813)954-4195 46 Savannah Eddie Tyler Parking Services City of Savannah P.O. Box 2101 Savannah, GA 31498 (912)651-6467 Seattle Brian Kemper Manager of Traffic Control Programs Traffic Engineering Department City of Seattle 600 Fourth Avenue Room 708 Seattle, WA 98104-1879 (206)684-5096 TaUabassee Jihad El Eid Traffic Engineering City of Tal lahassee City Hall 2nd Floor 300 South Adams Street TaUahassee, FL 32301 (904)599-8261 Dave Bright Senior Transportation Planner Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Dept. City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahass ee, F L 3230 I (904)599-8600 Tony Biblo Land Use Planner Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Dept. City Hall 300 South Adams Street TaUahassee, FL 32301 (904)599-8600

PAGE 53

Tampa Gene Bressler Parking Manager Parking Division Department of Public Works 107 N. Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 (813)223-8177 Richard Keeley Off Street Supervisor Parking Division Department of Public Works I 07 N. Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 (813)223 -8177 David Houseman Transportation Division City of Tampa 306 E. Jackson, 4E Tampa, FL 33602 (813)223-8048 Washington, D.C Larry Levin Washington Metro Area Transit Authority 600 Fifth Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)962-1251 Metro Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002-4201 (202)962-3256 West Palm Beach Frank Del Monaco Parking Systems Director P.O. Box 1469 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 ( 407)659-8060 47