USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Parking and transit policy study


Material Information

Parking and transit policy study
Portion of title:
Evaluation of parking and transit policies
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 50 leaves) : ill., maps. ;
Florida -- Office of Public Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:


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


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-50).
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:
"May 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 - 029155130
oclc - 750025011
usfldc doi - C01-00230
usfldc handle - c1.230
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Technical Memorandum No. 2 Evaluation of Parking and Transit Policies


PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Technical Memorandum No. 2 Evaluation of Parking and Transit Policies 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 May 1993


PREFACE This is the second 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 lhe Parking and Transit Policy Study which Is an investigation of the relationship between local parking and transit policies. It will also identifY methods for coordinating policies in order to increase transit use and the cost effectiveness of public investments in parking and transit Technical Memorandum No. 1 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 Federal Transit Administration Section 9 subsidies Technical Memorandum No. 2 evaluates parking and transit coordination efforts in other states, as well as the impacts of current parking and transit policies in Florida. Technical Memorandum No. 3 will identifY complementary transit and parking policies and will recommend a strategy for implementation by the appropriate levels of government. II


CONTENTS Preface 0 0 11 Lists of Figures and Tables ....................................... iv Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Comparison of Travel Market and Mode Choice Factors in Florida and National Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Review of National Parking Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Baltimore, Marylanc:J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Bellevue, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Boston, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Burlington, Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Chicago, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . 29 Dallas, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Denver, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Des Moines, Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Hartford, Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Houston, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Knoxville, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Madison, Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 M I Mi t 34 1nneapo 1s, nneso a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montgomery County, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 New Orleans, Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Portland, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 San Francisco, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Seattle, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Review of Parking Experiences in the Selected Florida Cities . . . . . . 40 Transit Cost versus Parking Cost ..................... ....... 40 Transit On Board Surveys/Other Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Parking and the Travel Demand Modeling Process . . . . . . . . 42 Parking and Transit Policy Coordination Efforts in the Four Florida Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Candidate Policies and Coordination Activities . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Ill


Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 F i gure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figur e 13 Figure 1 4 F i gure 15 Table I Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 LIST OF' PIG11RES Selected U.S. Cities ... .......................... ... .. 3 Factors Affecting Mode Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1990 Urban Area Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 1990 Unlinked Transit Trips ....... . . . . . . . . . . ll CBD Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . CBDParking Suppl y ...... ......... : .... : .. : : ... t3: .. : Persons per Square Mile Within City Limits . . : . : . . . 14 Perce nt of Metropolitan Area Employment in CBD . . . . . 15 Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee . . . . . . . . . 16 .. Average Monthly Unsubs idized Parking Rates . . . . . . . 17 1990 Transit Trips per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Transit Tri p s per Capita Versus Persons per Square Mile Within City Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Transit Trips per Capi ta Versus Percent of Metropolitan Area Employment in CBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Transit Trips per Capita Versus Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Trans it Trips per Capita Versus Average Monthly Unsubsidized Parking Rates .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. 22 LIST OF TABLES Urban Area Demographic, Parking, and Transit Statistics ....... 4-5 Regression Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Parking Management Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26 Tran s it Pass and Parking Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iv


INTRODUCTION PARKING AND TRANSIT POLICY STUDY Technical Memorandum No. 2 The purpose of the Parking and Transit Policy Study i s : "To investigale 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 to be documented in three technical memoranda and summarized in an executive summary This report is the second o f the three technical memoranda. The first technical memorandum contains a review of literature on parking management measures. An overview of parking and transit policies and programs in four F lorida Miami, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, and Ft. Myers--is also presented. These cities were selected from the eighteen (18) areas in Florida that in 1992 had a public transit operator eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 9 funding. T his report presents result s of a comprehensive evaluation of parking management programs and parking/transit coordination efforts in the four Florida cities and in other states. The purpose of this review is threefold: to identifY the types of efforts undertaken in these areas; to evaluate the impacts of these efforts; and to use the information gathered to develop actions that could suppor t complementary transit and parking policies in Florida. (This purpose will be addressed in the third technical memorandum). Th e type s of quantifiable data envisioned for use lR evaluating impacts of various programs and polices, such as changes in transit ridership resulting from changes in parking prices, is very limited and, in most cases, nonexistent. As a result, the evaluation of impacts is based on information obtained through interviews with l ocal officials. I


The third technical memorandwn will analyze major parking and policy issues and outline a range of actions to support transit and parking policies. That report will present recommendations for implementing polities t5y appropriate levels of government. PROBLEM S TATEMENT Local governments that do not coordinate parking and transit policies can unintentionally reduce the competitiveness of transit as a travel mode because certain parking policies may provide incentives for automobile use. Public transit and the private automobile (and parking facilities used for their storage), while competing travel modes, are both essential components of a city's transportation infrastructure. Of the two modes, however, public transit can be significantly more efficient-it can move more people at a lower unit cost per trip and with less damage to the environment. Yet in terms of personal choice, the private automobile is by far the preferred mode of travel. Recognizing the automobile's importance and the preference for it as a travel mode, local governments try to establish parking policies that ensure an adequate supply of well-placed parking. These policies are developed without considering public transit as an alternative means of providing access or how these policies may affect public transit ridership. As a result, parking policies provide incentives for automobile use (e.g parking that is close to the trip terminus, or parking that is inexpensive), which makes it difficult for public transit systems to maintain current travel market share and even more difficult to compete for new riders. The private sector can also contribute to public transit's reduced competitiveness. tending institutions have required developers to provide a minirnwn nwnber of parking spaces in proposed developments. Lenders perceive that the ability of a developer to attract tenants is greatly improved by the availability of on-site parking. Transit is sel dom viewed as an alternative or significant supplement to the access provided by the automobile. Because public transit is a more efficient transportation mode, it is clear that efforts in Florida should be undertaken to ensure its viability and increase its share of the travel market. Coordinating parking and transit policies is one important step in meeting these goals and is the focus of this study. 2


COMPARISON OF TRAVEL MARKET AND MODE CHOICE FACTORS IN FLORIDA AND NATIONAL CITIES Parking strategies can be an effective means of reducing automobile ttips and increasing ttansit and ridesbaring usage. However, strategies that are successful in one city may not be successful in another. The success or failure of parking strategies largely depend on characteristics of a city's ttavel market; that is, cbaniCteristics that play iln important role in detennining mode cboice. Examples of these cbaracteristics incl ude population and CBD employment density, level of transit service convenience and comfort of transit, and CBD parking supply and price. lbis section of the report presents results of an analysis of factors that may account for differences in ttavel markets and mode cboices among different mettopolitan areas. Tbe analysis involves a review of demographic, economic, and mode-related data from the 52 selected U.S. cities. As shown in Figure I, these cities include the 16 cities in Florida that have public transit operators and 36 cities in other states with a Section 9 public transit operator. The selected 52 cities are listed in Table I, along with population, employment, parking, and transit data. FIGURE I. Selected U.S Cities The 36 cities outside the state were selected based on popu lation size and data availability. The cities are grouped into three population groups: large cities (i.e., cities with an urban area 3


Detroit 4,665,236 3,697,529 1.027 974 2,355,000 1 10 000 55,000 83,653,204 Eugene.OR 282.912 189,192 112,669 147,31!0 n/a n /a 5,917 ,267 65,500 15,600 1 575 728 398,978 Miami' .. M ilwau kee 1 607,183 868,400 New Haven 804,219 45 1,48 8 410 900 13 065 9,304,742 Now. OrleanS' 1 : 238 ;8!6: Omaha 6 1 8,282 544,292 335 795 331. 200 65, 000 n /a 6 744 583 Orlando 1 072 ;741t. 887 ; 126 ' 4


Table 1. (Continued). Sl Louis St. Petersburg 8 5 1 ,659 238,629 9 ,149 ,617 Tallahassee 233,598 12 4,773 3,414 ,179 W. Palm Beaeh 863.618 So u rces: U.S. Bureau of the Census State and MetropoNten Data Book 1991. U.S Government Printing Office: Washington, o.c. (1991) U .S. De partme n t o f Transportation, Fede ra l Tran.sit Administration. Tmi)Sit PtoliMs: AqefiCies in Urbanized Mas 200,000 PopultJNon Fot the 1990 SttetiOn 1 6 R&porr Ye#r u.s. Govemment Printing OffiCe: Washington, o c : (1991 ). U.S of Federal Trans.l t Admlnls.tratl o n 'Jl'ansit Profiles: Agencies in Urbanized Ares with a PopulatiOn of Less Than 200 000 For tfle 1990 section 1 5 Report Yeur. U.S. Government Printi n g Offloe: Washington, O.C. (1991) Telephone surveys and interviews with downtown deve.SOpment authorities chambers of commerce, city parking div isions, and trans it auth orities Notes: Shaded areas in dica t e eilles included In the comprehensWe review of pafking and transit polidet. County populations used instead of metropolitan area populations for Sl Petersburg and Tampa. Oefilltlons: 5


population exceeding 1.8 million persons), mediwn cities (i.e., cities with an urban area population between 500,000 and 1.8 million persons), and small cities (i.e cities with an urban area population less that 500,000 persons). The basic criteria used for selecting the 36 cities was to include more non-Florida cities than Florida cities in each of the three population groups. This would help prevent the Florida data from dominating and skewing the comparison. The cities are also separated into rail cities and non-rail cities because travel markets of rail cities and non-rail cities can be significantly different. Of the 36 non-Florida cities, 17 cities were also selected for a comprehensive review of parking and transit coordination efforts (three additional cities are included in the review but are not included in this analysis because datl for the three cities were not available ; lhe results of the comprehensive review are presented in the next section of this report). Figure 2 shows the factors that affect mode choice. These factors can be grouped into two areas, consumer characteristics and modal characteristics. Consumer characteristics are FIGURE 2. Facton Affecting Mode Choice. I Economic Condklono I I Consumer Charectet1stlcs .p..,..,...,_,, Employment If M ode Choi c e Govomment Policy Oevelopment Pattoma Economic Condlllono Private Sector lntOIOSII I I ModalAnrlb

affect both consumer and modal characteristics. For example, population density does not directly affect a person's decision to use transit, but population density does affect transit's level of service, which is a factor that potential riders consider in their mode decisions. Both the supp ly -side and demand-side mode choice factors form the unique travel market of an area. Some areas have travel markets that are more favorable for transit than others (i.e., travel market conditions are such that transit can capture a higher share of total trips than less favorable travel markets). Several factors that directly or indirectly affect mode choice were analyzed for the 52 cities. These factors include urban area population, CBD employment, CBD parking supply, population density, percent of metropolitan area employment in the CBD, downtown parking spaces per employee, and average unsubsidized monthly parking rates. These factors, as well as unlinked transit trips and transit trips per capita, are shown in Figures 3 through II. Figures 3 to 6 show population, employment, transit trips, parking supply respectively, for the 52 cities. Figure 7 shows persons per square mile, which is a measure of population density. This factor positively affects transit ridership. In other words, densely populated areas are favorable for transit service. Figure s 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 degree of urban sprawl in an area. Downtown parking spaces per employee, shown in Figure 9, is 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 10 shows another parking measure, average unsubsidized monthly parking rates. These rates are an overall CBD average for off-street parking. The rates should be viewed with (aution. This information is not generally available or well known in any city; in many (SSCS, local officials provided a "best guess" estimate. 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 subsidizatio n of parking is common in all areas of the U.S. Parking rates have a positive relationship with transit usage; if parking rates go up, there is a tendency for automobile conunuters to shift to other modes or to alter commuting habits (e.g., switch to carpooling). Figure II shows transit trips per capita for the cities. 7


These figures indica te that the travel market factors in Florida are not as fa'l(orable for transit as they are in some other states. Population and employment patterns are dispersed, and parking is plentiful and relatively inexpeiisive. i:He population densities of ten of the sixteen Florida cities are below the median values in the three city size groups. Similarly more than half of the Florida cities are below the median 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 median value of downtown parking spaces per downtown employee, and all (eleven) of the cities with parking rate data were below the median of the three city size groups for average' monthly WlSubsidized parking rates. The last figure in this series shows transit trips per capita. The majority of the F lorida cities fall below the median for this measure in both the city size groupings and the rail city/non-rail city groupings. Research conducted for this study verifies the relationship of these travel market characteristics on transit usage. Figures 12, 13, 14, and 1 5 plot transit trips per capita with population density, CBD employment concentration, parking supp ly, and parking rates, respectively. The figures graphically illustrate a basic linear relationship between transit trips per capita and each travel market characteristic. It is also clear in each figure that nearly all of the . Florida cities are concentrated in the most unfavorable sectors of the graph. Four multi-variate regression runs were made using transit trips per capita as the dependent variable and combinations of population density, employment concentration, parking sqpply, and parking rates as independent variables. The city's status as a rail or non-rail city was used as an independent "dummy" variable in each regression run. The results of the regression runs arc shown in Table 2. With 33 cities in the analysis (data were not available for all 52 cities), the regression runs achieved an R-square of between .708 and .723, indicating that the various combinaticl\S of independent variables were very good predictors of transit trips per capita. T -values that exceed 2.0 generally indicate that the independent variable is important in ex pla ini ng the relationship. In the regression runs, population dens ity and rail vs. non-rail status were important variables. The t-values for employment concentration were not as high. Parking supply and rates were less important in explaining the relationship than the variables related to population and employment densities and rail status, but when removed from the regression equation the R-square decreased. This analysis illustrates the effects of certain market conditions on transit usage and suggests that the market conditions in Florida are not favorable for transit. Perhaps the biggest 8


factor affecting transit market co n ditions in the sta t e are dispersed developmen t patterns These pattern s have created an environm e nt in which mo s t F l orid i an s ne ed an automobi l e for n early every type' of trip. Implementation o f the state's growth managem e n t legislati o n is a major s t ep toward improving tbis situation. Addressing the problems associated with local parking policies that provide incentives for automobile use 'is an 'important st e p that is supportive of the state's growth management initiatives. Tabl e 2. Regress ion Ana ly s is R esults TRANTRIP P O P DEN E M PCON PRKSUP PRKRATE RAI L 55.420 1 1 0.0168 2 4.4885 0.713 3 5 5997 0.0728 20. 8 468 0.716 (0.9095) ( 2.513 1 ) 0.0044 38. 7176 23.6607 0 708 (4.2052) (1.0769) 1990 Unlinked Transit Trips per Capi ta. Populatio n D en s i ty: 1 990 Persons per Squ are Mile within t h e City. E m ployment Concentrati on : Percent of Met r o Area Employme n t with in the CBD. Parki n g Sup p ly: Downtown Parking Spaces per Emp l oyee Parking Ra t e : Average U n subsid i zed Mont h l y Parking Rat e. Rail vs. Non -Rail: Dummy Variabl e for Ra il Cities. N ote: T values i n parenthese s 9 33 33 33 3 3


FIGURE 3. 1990 Urban Area Population. Large Cities Medium C i t ies Small Ctlies 17 38 45 1 4 1 5 21'9 24 18 Rail Ci ties No n -flail Ctlies 7 344151 4 4 1 1 21 2 36 8 433730 1320354746504'8 9 111626<14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 A tl anta 2 Baltimore 3 Bato n Rouge 4 B oston 5 Bradenton 6 VT 7 Chicago 8 Cleveland 9 Dallas 10Daytona Beach 11 Denver 1 2 Des Moines 13 Oet r otl 14 Eugene, OR 15 Evensville, IN 16-Ft. Lauderdale 17 -Ft. Myers 18-Gainesville 19 Hertford, CT 20 Ho u ston 2 1 H untsville A L 22-Jacksonville 23 Knoxville, TN 24 -Lakeland 25 Madison W I 26Melbourne 10 27-Miami 28 Milwaukee 29 New Haven, CT 30 New Or le ans 31 Omaha 32 -Orlando 33 Pensacola 34. Philadelphia 35 Phoenix 36 Pitt sburgh 3 7 Portl and, OR 38 Reno, NV 39 R i c h mond, VA 40 San Anton i o 4 1 San Diego 42 San F r ancisco 43 San Jose 44 Sarasota 45 Savannah 46 Sea1!1e 4 7 St. Lo uis 48 St. Petersburg 49 Tallahassee 50Tampa 51 Washi ngto n DC 52-W Palm Beach


Large Cities Rail C ttie s 600 1 Atlanta 2 -Baltimore 3 -Baton Rou ge 4 B oston 5 Bradenton 6-B u rlington VT 7C h icago 8 C l eveland 9 Dall as 10Daytona Beach 1 1 D enver 12-Des Mo i nes 13-Detroit FIGURE 4. 1990 Unlinko:d Transit Trips. Med i um Cities Table 1 Non-Rail Cities (See Table 1 fotdMo.J)Oint$.) 14 -Eugene. OR 15Eva n sville. I N 18Ft. Lauderdale 17 Ft. Myers 18Gainesville 19-Hartfo rd. CT 2 0 H ousto n 2 1 H u n tsvi ll e AL 22 Jacksonville 2 3 K noxville TN 24Lakeland 25 Madiso n. W I 26Melbourne 11 27-Miami 28 -Milwa u kee 29New Haven. CT 30 -New Orleans 3 1 Omaha 32 -Or lando 33-Pensacola 34 Ph iladelphia 35-Pho enix 36 Pittsburgh 37 Port l and. O R 38 Reno NV 39-R i chmond. VA Small CHies 4910185217 IS 6 33 24 S t'S21 40 Sa n Anto n i o 41 San Dieg o 42 -San Fran cisco 43-Sa n Jose 44 Sarasota 45 Savannah 46. Seattle 47 -St. Lou i s 48St. Petersburg 49Tallahassee 50Tampa 51 Wash i ngton. DC 52 -W. Palm Beach


L arge C i t ies Rail Ctties 1 -Atl anta 2 Baltimor e 3 -Baton Rouge 4 -B oston 5-Bradenton 6 -B u r lington. VT 7-Chicago 8 Cleveland g-Dallas 10 -Daytona Beach 11 -Denver t 2 -Des M oines t 3 Detroit FIGURE 5. CBD Employmut. Mediu m C ities Tablo 1 (See Table 1 for data t 4 Euge<1e, OR 1 5 -Evansville, IN 16-Ft. lauderdal e 17 Ft. Myers 18 Gainasville t 9 -Hartf or d, CT 20Houst on 2 t -Hu ntsville, A L 22 -Jacksonville 23 K noxville. T N 24 L ake land 25-Madison, W I 26 Me l bourne Non-Rail C ities .7.7 Miami 28 Milwaukee 29-New Haven, C T 30 New Orleans 31 -Omaha 32 Orlando 33 Pensacola 34-Philadel phia 3 5 -Phoeni x 36 Pittsburgh 37-Portland, OR 38 Re<1o NV 39-R i c h mond, VA Small C ities 40 San Anton i o 41-San Die g o 42 San F r ancisco 4 3 San Jose 44 -Sarasota 45 -Savannah 46Seattle 4 7 St. L ouis 48 St. Petersburg 49Tallahassee 50-Tampa 5 1 -Washington, OC 52 -W. Pal m Beach NOTE: Because data are n ot avail a bl e c ities 3, 5 6, 14, 18 26, 29, 39,and 49 a r e n o t shown. 12


FIGURE 6. CBD Parking Supply. Large Cities Medium Ctlies Small Cities (S.O Toblt1 ford ... poirna) Rail Cities Non-Rail C i ties (S.O 1 tord8tapoln tt.) 1 -Atlanta 14E09ene, OR 27-Miami 40San Antoni o 2 -Baltimor e 1 5 Evansville, I N 28Milwa u kee 41 -San Di ego 3-Bato n R ouge 16-Ft. La uderdale 29-New Haven, CT 42San Franc i sco 4-Bost on 17 Ft. Myers 30New Orlean s 43 -San J ose 5-Bradenton 18Gainesville 31 -Omaha 44Sarasota 6 Bur li n gton, VT 19HDrtford, CT 32Orlando 45-Savannah 7-Chi cago 20Houston 33 Pensaco la 46Seattle 8Cleveland 21 -Huntsville, A L 34Philadelphia 47St. Lo uis 9 Dallas 22 Jacksonville 35 Phoen i x 48 St. Petersburg 10Osytona Beach 23 -Knoxville, TN 36-Pittsburgh 48Tallahassee 1 t -Denver 24-Lakeland 37Portl and OR 50 -Tampa 12 Des Moi nes 25-Madison WI 38-Reno, NV 51 -Washin gto n DC 13-Detr o i t 26-Malbouma 39-R i c h mond, VA 52-W. Palm Beach NOTE: Because data are no t avail able, c i ties 3, 14, 18 26, 31, 33 34, 35. 38, 39, 44, 45, 48 and 49 are not shown.


FIGURE 7. Persona per Square Mile Within City Limits. C i ties Mediumcm es Small Ci ties Rai l Cities Non-Rail t6+ """ " ""''"""''" '""' """ ""' """'"""' ' ' "'"" ""'" '""'"""""" ''"" ""'" 1 4 1 -Atlanta 14 Eug ene OR 27-Miami 40 w San Anto nio 2 Baltimore 15Evansville, I N 28 M i lwaukee 41 -San Diego 3 Ba ton Rouge 16-Ft. Laud erdale 29-New H aven, C T 42-San F ranqisco 4 Boston 17-Ft. Myers 30 New Orleans 43 -San Jose 5 Bradenton 18 Gainesville 31 -Omaha 44 Sarasota 6 B urlingt on, VT 1 9 -Hartford, CT 32Orlando 45 -Savan nah 7-C h icago 20-Houston 33 Pensacola 46Seattle 8 C l eveland 2 1 H u n tsville, AL 34 Phi l adelphia 4 7 St. L ouis 9 Dallas 22 Jacksonville 35-Phoenix 48St. Petersburg 10Daytona Beach 23 Knol<'Jille, TN 36 Pittsburgh 49 Tallahassee 1 1 -Denver 24 Lakeland 37 -Portlan d OR 50Tampa 1 2 Des Mo i nes 25 -Madison, WI 38Reno NV 5 1 Washington. DC 13-Det roit 26-Melbourne 39 R ichmond VA 52-W. Palm Beach 14


FIGURE 8. Percent of Metropolitan Area Employment in CBD. 50%.---------------------------------------------------__, 1 A11anta 2 Baltimore 3-Bato n Rouge 4 Boston 5-Bradenton 6Burli ngton, VT 7C h icago 8 Cleveland 9-Dallas 10Daytona Beach 11 -Denver 12-Des Moines 13-Detroi t 14 Eugene OR 1 5 E vansville I N 16-Ft. Lauderdale 17 FL Myers 18 Gainesville 1 9 Hartfo rd, CT 20-Houston 21 Huntsville, A L 22 -Jacksonville 23Knoxville, TN 24 Lakeland 25 Madison, WI 28-Melbourne Non-Ra il Cities 27-Miami 28 M i lwa ukee 29 -New Haven, CT 30 N ew Orleans 3 1 -Omaha 32 Orlando 33 Pensacola 3 4 Philadelphia 35-Phoenix 36 -Pittsburgh 37 -Port land, OR 38-Reno, NV 39 R ich mond, VA 40-San Antonio 41 -San Diego 42 -San Francisco 4 3 San Jose 44 Serasota 45Savannah 46Seattle 4 7 St. L ouis 48 SL Petersburg 49Tallahassee 50-Tampa 5 t Washinglon DC 52 W. Palm Beach NOTE: Beca u se data a r e not availa bl e. cities 3. 5, 6, 14, t 8, 2 9, 39, and 4 9 are not shown. 15


FIGURE 9. Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee. 1.6.---------------------------Large Cities Medium C i ties R ai l C ities 1.4 +t Atlanta 2 Balti m ore 3 Bato n Rouge 4 -Bosto n 5Bradenton 6 Burlington, VT 7 Chi cago a Cleveland 9D al las 10Dayto n a Beach 11 D enver t2-Des Moines 13 De t r o i t 14 Eugelle O R 1 5 Evansville, IN 16-FL Lauderdale 17-Ft. Myers 18Gainesville t 9 Hartford CT 20Houston 2 1 H u ntsv i lle, AL 22 Jacksonville 2 3 Knoxville, TN 24 Lake land 25 Madis on, WI 26-Melbourne Non-Rail C i ties 27-M iami 28 Milwaukee 29 New Haven, CT 30 New O rle a n s 31-0m ah a 32 Orlando 33 Pensacola 34 Phila de l phi a 3 5 -Phoeni x 36. Pittsbu rgh 37 Portla nd OR 38. Reno, NV 39 Richmo nd, VA Small C i ties 40 San Ant onio 41 -San Diego 42 San Fra ncisco 4 3 -San Jose 44 -Sarasota 4 5 Savannah 46. Seattle 4 7 St. Louis 48SL Petersburg 49Tallahassee 50Tampa 51 Washi ngton DC 52 W Palm Beach NOTE: Because data a re n ot available cities 3, 5, 6 1 4, 18, 26. 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, and 49 are not shown. 16


FIGURE 10. Averase Monthly Unsubsidlzed Puking Ratea. Large Cities Medium Cities Small Ctties Rail Ci ties Non-Rail Ctties 1 Atlanta 14. Eugene. OR 27-Miami 40 San Antonio 2 Baltimore 15 Evansville IN 28 Milwaukee 4 1 San Diego 3 Bato n Rouge 16-Ft. Lauderdale 29-New Haven. CT 42 -San Fran cisco 4 Boston 17 -Ft. Myere 30 New Orleans 43 San Jose 5-Bradenton 18Gainesville 31 -Omaha 44-Sarasota 6 Burlington, V T 19 Hartford. C T 32 -Orlando 45Savannah 7-C hicag o 20Houston 33Pensacola 46 Seattle 8Cleveland 2 1 -Huntsvi lle, AL 34 Philadelphia 47St. Lo uis 9Dallas 22 Jacksonville 35 Phoenix 48 -St. Petersburg 10Daytona Beach 23Knoxville, TN 36-Pittsbu rgh 49 Tallahassee 11 Denver 24Lakeland 37 Portland, OR 50Tampa 12-Des Moines 25. Madison W I 38-Reno, NV 51-Washin gton, DC 13. D etroit 26Melbourne 39-Richmond, VA 52 W Palm Beech NOTE: Because data are not available, c i t ies 3 13, 14, 20. 26. 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, and 49 a re not shown. 17


FIGURE 11. 1990 Tranait Trips per Capita. La r ge C iti es Medium C ities S m al l Ci ties Rai l C i t i es Non -Rai l Cfti es 1 -Atlanta 1 4 Euge n e. OR 27-Miami 40 Sa n Anto nio 2 B al t i more 1 5 Evansvill e, IN 28-Milwa u k ee 4 1 Sa n Di eg o 3 Bato n R oug e 1 6 Ft. La u derdale 29 New H ave n. CT 4 2 San F r a n c i soo 4Bo ston 17-Ft. Myers 30 New O r l eans 43 Sa n Joo e 5 Bradenton 18c.,..lnesvllle 3 1 -Omah a 44 Sarasota E Bu rl i ngton, VT 1 9 H art ford. CT 32-Orl ando 45S a va nnah 7 C h icag o 20-H ou ston 33 Pen118cola 46 Seattle 8 C l eve l a n d 21 H u n t svill e A L 34-Ph ila delphia 4 7 -St. Lo uis 9 D a ll as 22-Jacksonville 35-Ph oenix 48St Petersburg 10Daytona Beach 2 3 Kn oxville T N 3 6 Pitts bu rgh 49. Tallah a ssee 1 1 D e nve r 24 Lakeland 37-P o rt l and. OR 50 Tampa 12 -Des M oines 25 M ad i son, W I 38Reno, NV 5 1 -WaShi ngton DC 13-D etroi t 26 Me l bourne 3 9 R i c h mond, V A 52-W Pa l m Beach 18


FIGURE 12. Transit Trips per Capita Versus Penoila per Square Mile W"rthio City Limits. e .......... + ................. f .............. + ............... + ....... ........ + ........... ... + ................ ............... + .. ............ + ................ f ..... ........... l 0 1 4i ............... ; ................. .. ................ ; .......... ...... + ................ .................. + ................ .................. ............ .... .................. ................. ... .............. j <: ............... +........ + ................ j .............. -+ ............... t ............. j ................ j ............................ ........ Ait ... j ................................. l ........... .... + ....... ... ........ ........... i ......... .... + .. ............... .................. f ..... .... ........ ................. .. c ...... .... .... ...... j I!! 1 8. ... j ... 30 4 0 50 so 70 80 1 990 Transi t Trips per Capna ( 4 Flo rid a C i li'*l Olher C ilies J & .5 4 + .. .. --,.r ....... ; ... ....... ; ........ ; ......... ; ........ ....... + ........ ; ......... l

0 OJ () w .. c: "' i 1i> :::; -0 -0 OJ () c: c: ., FIGURE 1.3. Tranolt Tripo per Capira VersDB Perceot of Metropolitan Area EmploymeDt in CBD. 30 40 50 70 80 1990 T ransit Trips per Capita -( .l A orida Cities Other Cities J 1 -At l anta 2 Baltimore 3 Baton Rouge 4Boston 5 Bradenton 6 -Burl ington V T 7C h icago 8 -C leveland 90 100 110 27-Miami 28Milwaukee 29 New Haven, CT 30 New Orteans 31 Omaha 32 Orlando 9 Dallas 10 Daytona Beach 11-Denver 33 Pensacola 34-Phi la delphia 35-P hoeni x 36 -Pinsburgh "2-UJ m c: .. a 0 J -0 c: 2l 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 12 14 1 6 1990 Tlansit T rips per Capita 18 20 12 Des Moines 13 Detroit 1 4 Eugene, OR 15 -Evansville, I N 16 Ft. Lauderdale 17 Ft. Myers 18Gainesville 19 Hartford. CT 20 Houston 2 I -Huntsville, AL 22Jacksonville 23 -Knoxville, TN 24 Lakeland 25Madison, WI 26 Melbourne 37 Portland, OR 38-Reno, NV 39Richmond, VA 40. San Anto nio 41 -San Diego 42 San Francisco 43-San Jose 44 Sarasota 45 -Savannah 46-Seattle 47 -St. Loui s 48 -St. Petersburg 49Tallahassee SOTampa 51 Washington DC 52-W. Palm Beach NOTE: Because data are n ot avsl labl e cities 3 5, 6. 14, 18, 26, :29. 39, and 49 are not shown. 20 120


FIGURE 14. Transit Trips per Capita VenU8 Downtown Parking Space per Employee. Q) 1.6 ! : : I j ! IiI! I I I l I l I 1 4 .... ......... j .).! L 4 -l ........... !............ L .............. J. ....... .... .i .!. --' i I : ; i i j i I ' WE : I i ; t : : : 1 l I ! l l : I I I )1\ 1 2 --!-"" '""'"'!!' --'j-t 0. . . . l "'52 i l ! i 1 i i i l $ 1.0 . .... p . .......... ................. ............. "l' ..... ........ . ........... .... . ........ . . ............. ... .......... ............ ...... l""' ""''" 'i' ' " '""' Q l : ; j ; I ! : "' soi e23 i i ; i i i i i 1 a. : ; I! i ! I ; ! w 0 8 --t --1.. i '"'"'""" ' ........ ... -... .... ....... t ...... 1 ---t ............ r -............... i .... j ........ a lu i : i i 1 i l 1 1 i c:: .,_ i 47 9 1 : i ; i 1 o.s s 0 .4 .. MJ.. .... -t --i ............. ........ ,27 ......... +=.. .. r ...... ...... i ........ -;1 ............. i ......... ...... i ........... .... J .. .... ......... 0 i ; l 1 e4& l '2 i : l 1 eiiS i ; 36 : i ; i i I 0 2 4 ... .... ... .. .. 4T_;_iz_--_ .. ... +1'_ .. .. ... ... ... +-! .. ... ... ... ... ... -i.1 ... ... -_ .. ... ... 4T_ ... .. ... ... _--... ... ... ... .. T:.. .. .. ... _42...j_r_ .. .. ... ... ... -IT .. ... .... ... ... + .... .... ... ... ... -! ... 0.0 0 l l i i ; l i 1 0 1 A tlanta 2 Balti mor e 3 Balon Rouge 4 Boston 5 Bradenton 6 B u r ling ton, VT 7 C h icago 8 Cleveland 9Dallas 10Daytona Beach 11 -Denver 12 -Des M oines 13-Det r oit 30 4 0 50 60 70 80 1990 Transit Trips per Cap ita ( A Florida Cities Other Cities J 1 4 Euge ne, OR 1 5 Evansville, IN 16-Ft. lauderdale 17-Ft. Myers 18GalrMSvl11e 19 Hartf or d CT 20 Houston 21 H u ntsvill e AL 22 Jacksonvl11e 23 Knoxville TN 24 lakeland 25-Mad ison, WI 26 Melbourne 27-Miami 28 Milwa u kee 29New Haven, C T 30 New Or lean s 31 Omaha 32-Orlando 33 Pensacola 34. Phi la d e l phi a 35-Phoeni x 3tl Pi"sb u r gh 37. Portland OR 3 8 R eno N V 39 Ric h mon d, VA 90 100 110 40San Antonio 41 San Diego 42 San Franc isco 43 -San Jose 44 -Sarasota 45Savannah 46 -Sea1tl e 47St. Lo uis 48 St Petersburg 49Tallahassee 50Tampa 51 Washi ngton DC 52 W. Palm Beach 1 20 N O TE: Because dat a are n ot availabl e cities 3, 5 6, 1 4 18 26, 29, 31. 33, 3 4 35 38 39, 44, 45, 48, a n d 49 are n ot shOW!'\. 21


(I) : fssooi------+........ + .............. + -+ .............. l ..... .......... f-+-+---+.......... + ............. l ..... +.. --+----+--+ .. ........ f ......... -.. l . , I f 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 1 0 1990 Tr ansil Trips per Capita ( Aorida Cities Other Cilies J ., 1! a: ., J sao 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1900 Transi1 Trip$ per Capita 1 Atlanta 2 Balll mo(e 3 Bal o n Rouge 4 Bo$1on 5 Bradenton 6 Burlington, VT 7 Chicago 6 Cleveland 9. Dallas 10 DeytoNI Beech 11. Denver 12 Des Moines 1 3 Detroit 14 Eugene. OR 1 5 E vansville, I N 16 Ft. Lauderdale 17-Ft. Myers 18 Gainesville 19 Hartford, cr 20 Housto n 21 HIJ1tsvilla. Al 22Jacksonville 23 Knoxville, TN 24 Lakeland 25 Madison, W I 26 Melbourne 27 Miami 28 Milwaukee 29 New Haven. CT 30 New Orlean s 31 Omaha 32 Orlando 33 Pensacola 34 Philadelphia 35. Phoenix 36 PlttSWgh 37 Portland, OR 38 -Reno, NV 39 Richmond, VA 40 San Antoni o 4 1 San Diego 42 San F r a n c isco 43. San Jose 44 Sarasota 45 Savannah 46. Saal11e 47. St. Louis 48 St. Petersburg 49 Tallahasoaa SO Tampa 5 1 Washi ngton, OC 52 W. Palm Beach NOTE: Because data are n01 available, ci ties 3, 13, 1 4 20, 26, 31, 33. 3 4 35, 38, 39, 44, and 49 are not shown 22 120


REVIEW OF NATIONAL PARKING EXPERIENCES This section of the report contains a discussion of parking management programs and parking/trans i t coordination efforts in other states. Technical Memorandum No. 1 presented results of a literature review of parking and transit polic y coordination. That review revealed little current literature involving the coordination of parking and transit policies, but revealed a great deal of literature on parking management measures. The types of parking management measures can be grouped into four broad areas: supply-side measures; demand-side measures; enforcement measures; and transportation demand management (TDM) initiatives. TDM often includes parking-related measures tha t can be grouped into one or more of the first three areas. Because TDM initiatives generally represent a more active and aggressive approach by cities, it is separately identified. Subsequent to the literature review, 20 cities were identified as being particularly innovative or aggressive in managing downtown parking. These cities were contacted directly in order to obtain more information about their efforts to coordinate transit policies and parking management programs. The cities were surveyed about parking and transit coordination efforts in three specific areas: the impacts on transit ridership that resulted from implementing parking policies or measures; the key factors of the policies or measures that increased use of transit; and implementation issues. These surveys yielded little information beyond what was found in the literature review. In general, loca l officials had little specific information regarding coordination efforts or processes and only anecdotal information on impacts, characteristics, and implementation issues. However, the discussions led to a greater understanding of the unique conditions that J ed to the implementat ion of each city's parking polic ies and measures. 23


There are several reasons why cities parking measures and programs, such as to comply with Clean Air Act requirements,to generate revenue, to restrict parking for spec ific uses (e.g., residential parking, and carpools and vanpools), to m anage congestion, and to increase transit usage. In the majority of the cities contacted, officials indicated that they have not recently implemented parking measures, primarily because of tbe impact that the economic recession bas bad on local business activity. Because of the recession new development activity bas slowed or ceased. Many existing businesses have restricted or postponed expansion plans, and others have relocated to suburban locations to save costs or have gone out-of-business. Most cities now have an over supply of parking for the level of commercial and retail activity occurring in their downtown areas; which is a condition not conducive for reducing automobile trips and increasing transit usage. Further, most cities are reluctant today to place constraints on parking given the sensitivity of the development community to such constraints. The parking management measures and, if known, parking and transit policy coordination efforts are described below for 20 cities. A consistent format of describing the measures and coordination efforts in each city is attempted: However due to the inconsistency in the quantity and quality of information obtained from the i nterviews, some cities have broader and more detailed descriptions than others. To facilitate comparison of the cities, Table 3 summarizes the parking management measures implemented in each city. It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive list of measures; it includes only measures considered to have some impact on transit. Baltimore. Maryland According to city officials, there have not been specific efforts to coordinate parking and transit policies, though they recognize the importance of doing so. These officials believe, however that with increased political emphasis on air quality, the city and the local transit operator, Mass Transit Administration of Maryland (MT A), will begin to coordinate activities and policies. The city is currently implementing trip reduction programs in the downtown among businesses with over I 00 employees Baltimore is classified as a severe nonattainmen t area for ozone and a moderate nonattainment area for carbon monoxide, and meeting the Clean Air Act provisions is one of the primary concerns of the city, These programs i n clude preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), government assistance in form i ng carpo ols and vanpools, and employer subsidized transit passes. 24


TABLE3. Parking Managem ent Measu r es. Measures 24 Supply Measures: Maximum/No Mi nimum I Requi rements I I I I I I I B "'' T : e I : S!'".:. !', I I I tml I I li4ili l 11 Aedueed Minimum or Aex:i ble Parking I I I I Through HOV and I I I I [""i' l'' e I I t': r.; I I H'litl I I f iRI lelele Trans it lncentives Parlt .. ". ;.., . .. .. & 1 .1.1. ' Res.ttict Principa! Use ... h Faci\Jties Conversion of Park ing I I I I I I I I H .,.,_""i_ ; I I I I I I lifi l I I 1.1. to Other land Uses Park i n g Exempt /veaa I I I I I I I IX I Reserved $!)aces tot le Resecved Parking f o r HOVs Fringe Parking Park-af\d.Rlde l e Key: 1 = Baltimore 7 = Denver 13= Knoxv iUe 19= Or l ando 2 Wa 8 = Ore$ Moines 14= Madbon 20= Pittsburgh 3 = Boslon 9 .. Ft. L.audorcb.le 15 .. Miami 21 = Portland Or. 4 = Burlington vt 10= Ft. Myora 16= 22= San Francisco 5 .. ChicaQO 1 1 = Hartf01d Ct. 17= Mo nlgome

TABLE 3. (Continued). ' !' jjl 21122123124 Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ,. l' ,;llf 11 12 13 14 16 17 -' .. ; : ; : t Jolflt Use of Parking Facilities Directing High-Den:sitv Development to Main TranSit Coaldor : ' : . !': ..... . ; '' Parking ... . . . Program Demand Measures: Reduced Parking Rail$ I for HOVs I e I I I I I I r' c q-. I ?. / _,._ I I I lff'ml lelele Rates Which Encour age ST ; I 'I ele LT Parking . ( '" .:. Increase in Pafk i n g : : . ... Ao::ot .... N a- Employer Subsidized I I I I I J I e I I I I t!iiitl I e I I Transit Passes Patking Tax Enforcement Measures: Aggresslve I t I e I I l e Enforcement Program 1 {:':;;;: ..,:-<{,'<; v. . ... 't(.i\ i:$,' TDM Measures: TMA TRO CAP I I Keyc 1 = Baltimore 1 Dtnvet 13= KnoxviOe 19= Ortando 2 "' Bellevue, wa 8 = Des Moines 14= Madison 20 Pi11sbwgh 3 Boston 9 = Ft Lauderdale 15 Miami 21 = Portland, Or. 4 = Burli ngton, VI 10= F1. Myers 16= Minneapolis 22 = San Franci$CO s Chicago 11 = Hartford, Ct. 17 = Montgomery Co Md. 23= Seattle 6 Dallas 12 HOU$100 1 8 New 011eans 24= Wasllington, D.C.


The city has also implemented parking management measures to encourage retail activity, to reduce congestion in the downtown and on major access routes, and to raise revenue In several satellite business areas of the city, long -term spaces were converted to short-term spaces to discourage long-term parkers from using spaces that local businesses wanted to reserve for patrons. The program has not been successful because of inadequate enforcement. There are also several fringe parking lots around the periphery of the CBD and the MTA operates several park and-ride lots along major travel corridors. Officials believe both programs are successful. The city's parking tax was implemented to raise additional revenue. Because the tax is a flat fee, it discourages short-term parking. The city is conSidering changing the tax from a flat fee to a percentage of the total parking fee. Bellevue, Washington The city of Bellevue, which i s locate d north of Seattle, is a model city regarding the coordination of parking and transit policies. City officials indicate that parking and transit/rideshare policies are always coordinated. Over the past twelve years, the city has implemented several parkingand transit-related programs in order to inerease transit ridership. These measures include reduced minimum and flexible parking requirements preferential parking for HOVs, preferential parking rates for HOVs, residential parking program, and subsidized transit passes. The city's earliest efforts to increase transit ridership through parking policies involved reducing the minimum number of parking spaces required in developments and offering a flexible minimum option to developers. The flexible minimum option permitted developers to reduce the number of parking spaces beyond the established minimum if they promoted carpooling and transit usage. However, because many developers failed to meet the obligations of the agreement, the city discontinued the option and has since enacted a trip reduction ordinance ('TRO ) The ordinan ce was adopted to increase the proportion of ridesharing and transit commute trips to 18 percent of the to tal trips i nto the CBD. The TRO applies to developments in the CBD with !50 employees or more. A transit and vanpool fare subsidy program has also been implemented by the city. 27


Boston. MaS!acltusetts The city of Boston has implemented several parking management measures that address enviromnental, economic, and congestion issues. These measures include a parking freeze, promotio n of short-term parking to enhance retail activity, subsidized transit passes, and an aggressive enforcement program. In 1976, the city implemented a freeze on the development of commercial parking spaces (i.e., public parking spaces for which a fee is paid) in an effort to comply with the Clean Air Act. According to local officials, since the ban did not apply to private spaces, it actually encouraged the development of private parking. To manage the growth o f private parking, the city now requires development proposals that include private parking to be reviewed and approved by the Boston Air Pollution Control Commission. In addition to environmental goals, Boston is also trying to encourage economic activity in retaiVcommercial areas. In these areas, many short-term metered spaces are not accessible until 9:30 a.m., thus reducing their use by commuters. The city's aggressive enforcement policy is an important component of its parking management programs. The city is also making efforts to change commuting habits through a commuter mobility program. A cooperative effort between the city's transportation department and major employers, the program seeks to develop strategies to reduce single occupancy automobile work trips. The transportation department influences parking policies through its planning activities and through the permitting process. Occasionally, the department works with the transit operator, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) on various parkingand transit-related issues, such as commuter station parkillfl. City officials indicate, however, that coordination between parking and transit is more likely to be initiated by Boston s two TMAs, rather than by the city or the MBTA. Overall officials believe the city's parking management measures are a success. However the impacts of these measures upon transit usage or carpooling have no t been analyzed. Vermont Burlingto n is a small city of approximately 40,000 people. Recently the city has become invo lved in several parking and transit-related programs. These programs include promoting ridesharing and transit use, and operating a shuttle service connecting fringe parking lots with the 28


downtown. The state also operates park-and-ride lots along major travel corridors. City officials indicate that these programs have been successful. The city has also recently passed a TOM ordinance that provides developers with alternatives to meeting minimum parking requirements. A parking mass capital fund also was created in which developers can make cash contributions in exchange for reduced parking requirements. Officials indicate that Burlington does not currently have a parking problem, and that the impacts of the city's parking programs have not been analyzed. Chicago, Illinois Chicago is the largest city examined in this study and, compared with most of the other cities studied, has a rather long history in parking management. Historically, parking measures for Chicago have been implemented to manage traffic congestion, control parking supply, and to meet guidelines for air quality. The parking management measures currently in place include: a ban on parking in the CBD core; restriction of principal use parking facilities; reduced minimum and flexible parking requirements in lieu of support for HOVs and transit; zoning incentives to reduce parking; fringe parking; park-and-ride; parking rates which favor short-term parking; employer subsidized transit passes; and aggressive ticketing The city's role in the elimination of parking spaces for off-street facilities is in the approval process. For on-street parking, the city has placed a ban on all spaces in the downtown core, this was in response to a recent flood in April 1992. the ban is in operation from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. and affects 1,200 on-street spaces. The effect of this ban has been minimal due to the small number of on-street spaces. Development within the core has become more dense over the past two decades in part because of the large amount of fringe parking. The city is concerned, however, that its parking supply is decreasing as a result of new developments replacing CBD core and fringe parking lots. 29


The cicy recognizes that maintaining a reasonable parking supply is necessary to accommodate the needs of certain downtown users such as, those who need the automobile due to poor transit acce:isibility, visitors, shoppers, and YIPs. In recent years the city has been selling. many of the publicly owned parking facilities. According to local officials the city is virtually out of the parking business, with only one or two parking facilities still under public control. Air quality is also an important concern of the city ln 1972, the city began to actively discourage parking in the downtown area in an effort to improve air quality. (Chicago is classified as a nonattainment, severe area for ozone.) There has been some disagreement however whether reductions in parking actually help to improve the air. It has been reported by such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences that efforts to reduce the parking supply can have the actual effec t of worsening air quality because automobiles are forced to run lo nger on the streets, producing more emissions as they look for parking. Also, since I 972 improved emission controls have significantly reduced vehicular emissions. It is recognized th!lt in order for there to be a significant improvement of air quality within the Chicago region, emissions from all sources will have to be reduced. The Chicago region has two major public transit providers into the downtown. The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) serves the city and the surrounding neighborhoods by motor bus and rail. The Chicago RT A Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) is a commuter rail system that provides service to the city from the outlying suburbs. City officials indicate that 75 percent of trips taken into the CBD are on transit and 25 percent are taken by automobile. CTA is part of an interagency coordination effort in such matters as the approval of the construction of parking garages. The city recognizes that if transit becomes a more attractive alternative to automobile use, more people will be encouraged to commute downtown more often. Thus, the city encourages and supports efforts to improve transit. DaUa,s. Texas Due to lo\v density development patterns in Dallas, the city does not have a significant parking problem, and therefore, bas no significant parking constraints. However, there are localized parking problems found in small pockets of the downtown, generally near hospitals, and other high traffic generators. The c i ty does, however promote TDM. For example, the city wiU reduce minimum parking requirements for developers if they promote TDM and transit use. The 30


city has also adopted a special parking program in the downtown area which allows the joint use of parking facilities. The program is ai med at owners of older buildings who have submitted rehabilitation plans to the city. If the building does not meet the current minimum parking requirements, the city will approve the rehabilitation plans if the owner enters into a joint use agreement with another nearby building that exceeds the minimum number of required spaces. Public transit in the city is provided by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). DART operates a .succe ssful transit fare subsidy program begun in 1977, which now has 258 participating businesses. Since 1988, DART has also provided rideshare matching services. Denver, Colomdo The Parking Management Department is the agency responsible for developing parking policies and programs, and managing on and off-street parking for the city of Denver. Department officials indicate they occasionally interface with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) on parking issues related to transit. One example of coordination between the city and the RTD involved a joint effort to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces at a new baseball park. The city and the RTD successfully argued that the requested number of spaces would lower parking costs in the area and reduce incentives to use public transit. The city currently has two parking management measures in place, an employer subsidized transit pass program, and park-and-ride. The subsidized transit pass program, which is managed by the RTD, is considered to be highly successful according to local officials. Nine different price categories are available under the pass program, depending upon the number of full-time employees in the company and the level of bus service available to the company's location Enrolled employees have unlimited rides and are also guaranteed a ride home at no cost in case of emergency. The program began in September 1991 and bas nearly 400 companies under contract and over 19,000 registered employees. Recent ridership counts indicate that ridership has increased 4 percent in the district and 40 percent in the city of Denver; much of the ridership increase is attributable to the transit pass program. There are two important factors in place in Denver which encourage future coordination of parking and transit policies. The first is an established communication link between the city and the RTD. Both parties have demonstrated a willingness and ability to address transportation issues that involve parking and transit. The second factor is a recognition among city officials 31


of the need to develop parking policies that support public transit. T)lere are three areas of future coordination efforts that have been cited by local officials: slowing the rate of parl<.ing lot development, implementing parking rateS t1W discourage long-term and encourage short-term parking, and providing more incentives for carpooling and transit usage. Des Moines, loWII The public transit provider, Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority (MT A) has implemented an employer provided transit subsidy program. The program, which began in 1974, currently has 55 to 60 major employers enrolled. MTA sells the monthly pass at the regular price to the employer and the employer then decides what amount the subsidy should be. Most employers subsidize half the monthly transit fare of $22.00. The program is considered to be very successful, and is attributable for at least one-third of MTA's operating revenue Hartford, Connecticut The cities major parking management measures were implemented in the CBD between eight and ten years ago primarily to address congestion problems resulting froni the economic growth in the 1980's The current economic recession however, has curtailed growth, and congestion is no longer a major problem. There have not been any new development projects in recent years and the building vacancy rates have been rising in the downtown. While air quality is a concern for the city, (Hartford is classified as a serious nonattainment area for ozone and a moderate nonattainment area for carbon dioxide) the city has not used parking management measures as a means to reduce auto emissions. The city's current parking management measures include: conversion of long-term spaces to short-term; reduced minimum and/or flexible parking requirements for developers in exchange for support for HOV and transit usage; HOV reserved parking ; fringe parking; park-and-ride; employer subsidized transit passes; and a TMA Connecticut Transit (Cf Transit) operates a shuttle system from fringe parking facilities to the downtown. Greater Hartford Transit also provides a "scooter" service which provides transportation between downtown buildings. 32


According to city officials, parking is now used primarily as a development incentive. Further, issues involving parking are generally addressed without input from either CT Transit or Greater Hartford Transit. H:ou!on, Iew Because of the recession, which has been particularly severe in Texas, the city does not currently have a parking problem. Office vacancy rates are among the highest in the country. Houston presently has several parking management measures in force, including parking rates that favor carpools and vanpools employer subsidized transit passes HOV lanes on the interstates, and park-and-ride. The primary objective of these measures is to reduce congestion on the interstates City officials indicate that the measures have been successful so far, though they have not quantified the impacts. Knoxville. Tennessee The central business district of Knoxville is compact due to physical boundaries imposed by surrounding hills and a river. Because of the scarcity of land and a desire to manage traffic congestion, the city has implemented a fringe parking program. The Knoxville Transit Authority operates a free trolley shuttle service from these facilities to the downtown. The trolley service has not had a significant impact on land use or economic development in the c i ty. According to city officials Knoxville has considered but not yet formed, a local parking committee to address parkiog concerns and to coordinate future parking and transit policies. Madison, Wisconsin The city has made an effort to increase transit ridership and economic activity through the implementation of severa l parkiog management measures. These measures include the conversion of long-term spaces to short-term, elimination of downtown parking spaces, fringe parking park andride, increase in parkiog rates, and a surcharge on parkers arriving during peak hours. The conversion of long-term parking to short-term and increasing long-term parkiog rates has iocreased parking availability for downtown shoppers The city has also eliminated many on street spaces io the downtown in an effort to reduce traffic congestion. The city has also instituted a peak period surcharge of $1.00 at several parking facilities. T he purpose of the 33


surcharge is to provide an incentive for persons who drive alone to use transit or join carpools. The surcharge has resulted in a decrease in occupancy levels at these parking facilities during the morning peak periods. The public transit operator; Madison Metro T ransi t System, opemtes service from several park-and-ride lots in the area. Minneapolis. Minnesota The city of Miuneapolis has recently constructed a new interstate that has incorporated conveniently located park-and-ride lots and gamges, and HOV lanes for transit and HOVs. Parking rates are significantly reduced for carpoolers: $10 per month versus the regular $80 per month for persons who drive alone. Minneapolis and its sister city, St. Paul, are served by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). The MTC was involved with the interstate project throughout all phases of the project. City officials believe that the new interstate has increased both the number of persons who carpool and transit usage. Montgomery County, Macyland Montgomery County is located north of Washington, D.C .. Major cities within the county includ e Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Forest Glen. Public transit is provided by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (the Metro) and the Montgomery County Ride-On. The county is responsible for organizing both parking management and transit service provided by Ride-On. Montgomery County has several parking management measures in force, including preferential/reserved parking for HOVs, parking rates which favor HOVs, and park-and-ride. A TMA has also .been formed in the county. The primary goals of these measures are to reduce traffic congestion and to more effectively use the county's available parking supply. According to local officials, there have been noticeable impacts resulting from its parking measures. For example, there has been a one-third to one-half reduction of parking in developments, which has facilitated the conversion of former parking areas to other land uses. Economic development impacts have been hard to measure due to the current recession 34


In 1988, a TMA was formed in Silver Spring and was made part of the Montgomery County Department of Transportation. The principal goal of the TMA is to minimize downtown traffic congestion. Companies registered with the TMA are required to sign a ten-year traffic mitigation contract requiring them to reduce single occupancy vehicle use to no more than 50 percent of their employees (54 percent for Silver Spring). These goals were achieved in 1992. Current TMA programs include discount transit fares, carpooling (preferential rates in public facilities which are two-thirds of regular parking cost), and a matching service for carpoolers. New Orleans. I&uisiana The city of New Orleans has formulated parking management measures to decrease the number of automobiles within the CBD by increasing the utilization of both peripheral parking and public transit. The CBD is small and compact with little room for road capacity improvements. The combination of a largt: downtown workforce, limited parking and road capacity creates congestion in the area. The city has mandated that CBD developments of 50,000 sq. ft. or more must develop a transportation plan that support HOV and transit use. In addition, the city has CBD fringe parking, which is served by a shuttle bus system operated by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Overall, city officials indicate tbat its parking management measures have been successful in reducing CBD traffic congestion. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Parking management measures for the city of Pittsburgh include a city-wide parking tax and fringe parking. The city is planning to construct parking garages in the CBD periphery and to provide transit service from these facilities to downtown. Proposed interstate improvements include HOV lanes which will be directed into the peripheral garages. The local transit agency the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT), has been involved in the planning of these garages. Portland, Omon The city of Portland has a long history of coordinating parking and transit policies. Coordination between the transit agency and the city began before the implementation of the 1975 parking cap. The city felt strongly that downtown workers should have alternatives to driving alone and worked with businesses and the transit agency to guarantee that the travel demands of downtown workers could be met with these alternatives. Almost al l parking policies are 35


discussed by a committee consisting of representatives of the city transit agency, and the downtown business conununity. Officials believe that communication between all agencies is important for ensuring the success of the city's transportation program. The city's current parking management program contains measures that support transit and HOV use. The parking measures currently in place i nclude: a cap on downtown parking supply; promotion of short-term parking; res\riction of principal use parking facilities; maximum and no minimum parking requirements; joint-use of parking facilities; no mixed-use of hotel and residential; directing high-density developments to main transit corridors; preferential parking/reserved parking for HOV s; park-and-ride; rates which favor short-term parking; rates which favor HOV s; employer subsidized transit pass; and an aggressive enforcement program. The parking cap was instituted in 1975 as part of Portland's Downtown Parking and Circulation Policy. The cap was set at 4:>,000 to 41,000 spaces in the downtown area (residential use and hotels are exempt) Parking supply is also controlled through restricting the construction of principal use parking facilities. The city's parking code sets a maximum number of parking spaces allowed depending on proximity to transit; there are no minimums, ex cept for residenti al uses. The code also permits developers to enter into joint parking agreements with other developments that have parking surpluses or whose tenants operate at different hours. The city supports carpools and vanpools by setting preferential parking rates and reserving parking splices. The city requires that the parking supply of a facility is limited to no more than actual demand and that 15 percent of total parking spaces are to be reserved for HOVs. An on street preferential parking program bas also been instituted. These spaces are localed in the less densely developed portions of the CBD where long-term parking will not disrupt traffic flow or utilize spaces that could be used by patrons of local businesses. Like many other cities, Portland is concerned about regional air quality. In response to federally mandated clean air requirements, Portland has implemented coordinated transit and parking policies designed to discourage downtown vehicle traffic and promote the use of transit. For example the city directs high-density development to its main transit corridor. 36


Officials indicate that the city's parking management measures have reduced congestion, but have not adversely affected economic development. For instance, downtown employment has increased from 69,800 in 1975 to 90,000 in 1990. During this same timefrarne, daily one-way transit ridership increased from 79,000 to 125,000. These measures have also contributed to improved air quality. Before 1975, the city exceeded carbon dioxide limits at least three times a year. During the past three years, however, the city bas not exceeded the limits. Overall, the parking measures and policies for Portland are considered very successful. The key component to the city's success is effective communication between the city, the transit agency, and the downtown business community. San Francisco, California Like similar west coast cities included in the national review, San Francisco actively coordinates parking and transit policies. Many of its parking management measures were implemented to reduce automobile trips to the downtown by increasing transit usage These measures include: restrictions on principal use parking facilities; maximum and no minimum parking requirements; reduced minimum/flexible parking requirements for developers in exchange for support of HOVs and transit; conversion of long-term spaces to short-term; rates that favor short-term parking; preferential/reserved parking for HOVs; rates that favor HOV s; fringe parking; park-and-ride; parking tax. The city has established three parking districts in its downtown. The first district is the downtown core; new parking facilities are prohibited and existing parking is being converted to short-term use. Parking rates in this zone are established so that the hourly rate increases with the number of hours parked. The second district contains a belt of short-term parking around the central core of the downtown. The third district contains peripheral parking facilities. Parking rates in the third district are less expensive for long-term commuters. Shuttle buses provide service from these facilities to the CBD. 37


San Francisco's zoning ordinance places a maximum on parking requirements and flexible parking requirements in certain areas for developers who agree to ridesharing and transit use. The c ity has also instituted a transit impact fee for new developments. The impact fee is $5.00 per square foot of office space and is used to support transit operations. The city considers its parking management measures to be successful. For example, the city experienced heavy and rapid developmental growth between 1977 and 1985. However, the number of parking spaces increased by only I ,200 sp"ces and the traffic volume on the major arterials did not increase greatly. The number 0 f single occupancy vehicles entering the downtown has greatly decreased during this time period and currently account for only 12 percent of the CBD's work trips. This accomplishment is attributed in part to the success of the regional rail system, Bay Area Regional Transit (BART), and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) Seattle, \Vashinefon The city of Seattle also coordinates parking and transit policies. The city has implemented a comprehensive set of parking management measures in order to comply with the state's growth management laws and to make people less dependent on single occupancy automobile use. Seattle's parking managemen t program consists of the following measures: maximum and no minimum parking requirements reduced minimum and/or flexible parking requirements that support HOV and transit carpoollvanpool preferential parking preferential rates for short-term parking preferential rates for carpoolslvanpools subsidized employee transit pass park-and-ride Seattle's zoning code contains no minimum parking requirements in certain areas but specifies parking maximums depending on the type of land use. In other areas, the code specifies other minimum and maximum requirements based on a development's proximity to transit stops, the number of carpool spaces provided, and whether or not employee transit subsidies are provided. According to local officials, carpools and vanpoo ls have been very successful in Seattle. Carpools and vanpools are given preferential treatment in terms of pricing and l ocation There 38


is currently a waiting list for carpool spaces in city operated lots. The city is reluctant to dedicate more spaces to HOV use because the action may reduce spaces that would be available for shoppers. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. has a unique parking situation due to its large federal government employment base. The federal government is the single largest employer in the Washington metropolitan area with 362,000 employees,or 16.7 percent of the area's total workforce. 0 According to a study performed by the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, 74 percent of the vehicles parked at federal facilities park for free, and only 4 percent pay the full market rate. Of those vehicles parked at non-federal facilities in the CBD, the study found that 30 percent park for free. With Washington's l arge downtown workforce of nearly 700,000 persons and a downtown parking supply of approximately 311,000 spaces, parking management is a serious concern for the city. The city and the transit operator, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (the Metro) have a long history of coordinating parking and transit policies. The parking management measures which are currently in force int he c ity include: reserved parking for HOVs, fringe lots, park-and-ride, parking tax, residential parking program, and an aggressive enforcement pro!,>ram. Many federal parking facilities promote HOV use by reserving spaces for HOVs. This measure has been successful i n downtown Washington, resulting in a high rate of carpooling and vanpooling. There are several park-and-ride lots in the metropolitan area. Several of the Jots are free and are served by bus, while other Metro lots serve the park-and-ride lots by Metrorail. The Metroraillots are highly utilized. The parking tax instituted in the city is based on a percentage of the total fee rather than a flat fee that is common among other cities reviewed in this report. The city also has an aggressive parking enforcement program which is an important factor contributing t o the success of the city's parking management program. The results of the enforcement program has been very positive; illegal parking has been greatly reduced, metered parking turnover bas increased, congestion in the CBD has been reduced, and bus travel times have improved. 39


REVIEW OF PARKING EXPERIENCES IN THE SELECTED FLORIDA CITIES This section of the report presents aii evaluation of parking and transit policy coordination efforts in the four selected Florida cities. Also presented are an evaluation of transit and parking costs, data from transit on-board surveys, and parking cost coefficients used in Florida urban area mode split models. Transit Cost versus Parking Cost Research has shown that parking cost is a factor that affects mode choice The significance of this factor in detennining mode choice is directly related to the availability cost and quality of other modes. For example, if persons have what they determine to be acceptable transportation alternatives, they are more likely to change modes or commuting habits (e.g. they may carpool) as the price of parking increases beyond acceptable limits If there are no acceptable alternatives, parking cost increases will have little effect on mode choice. (Ultimately, however, persons may choose to find employment in locations where parking costs are more reasonable.) Parking and transit costs were examined for the four selected Florida cities. Table 4 presents unsubsidized monthly parking rates the estimated percentage of downtown employees who park for free, and the cost of a monthly transit pass. Of the four cities, the downtown areas of Miami and Orlando have the highest unsubsidized monthly parking rates. In Ft. Myers unsubsid i zed parking rates are less than the cost of a monthly transit pass. In certain fringe areas of Miami, the monthly parking rates are less than the cost of a monthly transit pass. One of the most significant findings of the research conducted for this study is the percentage of parkers who . have their parking costs subsidized by an employer. In Orlando, a survey conducted by the Downtown Orlando TMA found that 7 5 percent of the employers responding to the survey provided free parking for their employees and that 81 percent of the downtown employees who drive, park for free. A 1987 study in Miami found that 50 percent of the employees that park downtown receive parking subsidies from their employers. In Ft. Myers, 7 1 percent of the parking space s downtown are unmetered county, city, and private spaces, which are generally provided free to employees. Although there are no statistics available for Ft. Lauderdale, a significant number of the parking spaces in the downtown are located in private facilities, where parking is often provided free by employers. Employer subsidized parking is an important fringe benefit provided by employers. It is also one of the biggest barriers faced by a city seeking to improve transit usage and r idesharing. 40


TABLE 4. Transit Pass sod Parking.Rates Miami $60 $50-80 CBD East $2540 CBD West Ft. Lauderdale $30 $45 Orlando $30 $75 -DT $35 -Fringe Ft. Myers $25 $9 Source$: Metro-Dade Tranoil. 'Dad e Counl)' Transit Map . ( 1991) Broward County Transit. "Broward Coun1y Transit Map." (1992). Lee Tran. "Lee Tron System Map." (1992). 50% nla 81% 71% K.T. A nal)'tics, Inc. "Dada County Parkingfl"ransi: Ridership Study. Frederick, MD: K.T. Anstytica, Inc. (January 1987) Telephone surveys a n d interviews with t ransit and parking divisions. To address this problem many cities are promoting transportation allowances--cash payments that employers give to employees to purchase transit passes or pay for ridesharing costs. These payments are made in lieu of par k ing subsidies that employers provide to their employees. Trans i t OnBoard Surveys/Other Surveys Transit agencies occasionally conduct on-board passenger surveys to obtain information to help in service planning These surveys sometimes include questions regarding parking-related motivations for using transit. Of the four Fl orida cities, Ft. Myers (LeeTran) has conducted the most recent (1989) on board survey. However, there were no parking-related questions on the survey. Ft. Lauderdale (Broward county Transit) and Orlando ( Lynx) have not conducted on-board surveys in the past six years. In 1988, Metro-Dade T ransit conducted a tracking study of transit usage patterns, which is similar to an on-board survey The survey found that of the motivations for using the bus system: 56 percent of the surveyed passengers ind icated they did not have a car or an operational vehicle; 16 percent said they did not drive or had no license ; 7 percent indicated they use transit to avoid congestion or that it was faster; and 4 percent said that parking was i ncon v enient. Of the rail passengers surveyed, 45 percent said they used rail to avoid congestion or that it was faster ; and 25 percent said it was economical (i.e they could save o n gas and parking). 41


Metro-Dade Transit also conducted a rider retention and service perfonnance evaluation in 1989. The purpose of the survey was to obtain passenger opinions on service attributes and recently implemented service enhancementS. Eight percent of the respondents said that an increase in Metrorail station parking was responsible for them initiating rail use, and 23 percent indicated that increased station parking was responsible for them increasing rail use. In another question, passengers were asked what service attributes were most likely to cause them to decrease their rail use Among the responses involving parking, 27 percent of the respondents said safety in station parking lot was a factor that would decrease rail use; 24 percent said station parking lot payment procedure; 16 percent said availability of station parking; and 7 percent said accessibility of station parking lots. These survey findings indicate the importance of the design and operation of park-and-ride facilities in attracting and maintaining transit users. Although an on-board survey has not been conducted recently in Orlando, the Downtown Orlando TMA conducted an employer and employee survey in 1991 to obtain information on commuter attitudes toward parking, traffic, and commuting alternatives. As mentioned earlier, the survey found that 75 percent of responding employers provide free parking for all employees, while only seven percent make no provisions for any employee parking. The survey also found that 86 percent of downtown employees drive alone to work at least four days per week, and only one percent ride the bus or walk to work on a regular basis. Parking and the Travel Demand Modeling Process An evaluation was made of the mode split modules contained in the state's travel demand models to determine whether the coefficients on parking cost accurately reflect actual parking rates in the four urban areas. Local governments and metropolitan planning organizations develop transportation improvement programs and long-range transportation plans based on projections of travel patterns and volumes in the region. The Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FS UTMS}, tailored to each urban area, is the basic travel demand modeling software used in the state. The models contain several modules, such as trip generation, distribution, assignment, and mode split. FSUTMS can produce both highway and transit network runs. Most of the cities in Florida only produce highway network runs, because transit's share of the travel market is small. Of the four selected cities, however, Ft. Lauderdale (Broward County) and Miami (Dade County) produce transit runs. 42


Parking and Transit Policy Coordi nation Efforts ig the Four Florida Citi.e Miami There are no fonnal agreements in Miami requiring agencies to coordinate parking and transit policies. Coordination occurs, however, because of common goals shared by the city, the Department of Off-Street Parking, Metro-Dade Transit, and the development community. Because of growth management and air quality concerns, the city has implemented several parking management measures to reduce congestion by increasing transit use and ridesharing. These measures include establishing maximum parking requirements for downtown developments, reducing minimum on-site parking requirements for developers if they provide off-site parking or commit to supporting transit and ridesharing, and park-and-ride. The city is als o in the process of forming a TMA. In 1987, the city conducted a parking/transit ridership which recommended several changes in parking policies in order to improve transit ridership and economic development. These recommendations included increasing parking rates for long-term parkers, decreasing rates and reserving spaces for short-term parkers, relaxing parking requirements in areas where parking controls have constrained development, adding parking at two southern Metrorail stations, charging fees for low occupancy vehicles parking at Metrorail stations and reserving spaces for HOVs at Metrorail stations. Since then the city has increased parking at the Metrorail stations and increased downtown parking rates. The rate increase, however, was implemented to offset rising operating costs rather than to discourage long-term parking. The other recommendations have not yet been implemented. Orlando The city of Orlando does not have a formal process for coordinating parking and transit policies. However, all of the principal agencies (i.e. the city planning department, Lynx Transit, the Parking Bureau, and the Downtown Development Board) have established strong lines of communication with each other and continually participate in a process of coordination when considering parking and transit issues. Local officials are keenly aware of the impacts of parking on transit usage and the need to balance those impacts with economic development, air quality, and growth management concerns. 43


A TMA has been formed in the city to educate employers and emp l oyees on commute alternatives. Enrollment in the TMA is not as high as expected because of the economic recession. Local officials are optimistic that the program will significantly influence transit and ridesharing in the city as the economy recovers and participation increases. Orlando's principal transit-related parking policy is a flexible parking requirement on new developments in the downtown core Under this option, developers may reduce the amount of required parking up to 20 percent in exchange for contributing the city's Parking Program Trust Fund. Revenue from this fund can be used for construction of off-site parking, to fund parking facility operating costs, to provide transit or transit-related services to off-site parking areas, and to conduct parking needs studies. This policy is of marginal benefit to transit. The policy limits the growth in downtown parking by transferring spaces to fringe areas that arc served by transit shuttles. This does not eliminate required automobile trips and only marginally reduces vehicle miles traveled. Ft. Lauderdale Similar to Orlando, there is no formal process for coordinating parking and transit policies in the city. Unlike Orlando, however, there is little communication between the transit authority and the city involving parking issues and policies. Local officials believe that there has not been a real need to coordinate policies, since transit plays such a minor role in bringing people into downtown. However, the city is concerned about growth management and air quality, and is interested in developing a more pedestrian friendly environment downtown. As a result, the city formed a TMA in November 1992 to promote ridesharing and other commute alternatives. Ft Myers There is no significant coordination of parking and transit policies in Ft. Myers. The city has considered forming a TMA to address congestion problems in the downtown. Because of the recession, however, there is not an urgent need to form the organization. The city has one park and-ride lot, located in a shopping center. The downtown area is a parking exempt zone, in which minimum parking requirements in new developments are waived This policy was formed to provide an incentive to developers to implement projects in the downtown The policy is also supportive of transit since it can limit the supply of parking downtown. 44


The need for coordination, however, has been expressed by local officials. For example, the local transit agency (LeeTran) exp ressed concern over the construction of county and state office buildings that contain 830 and 400 parking spaces, respectively Their concern was that the parking plans for these buildings were developed without consulting witll LeeTran and determining whether the transit agency cOuld meet any of the accessibility needs of the building. CANDIDATE POLICIES AND COORDIN:ATION ACTIVITIES This section of the report identifies candidate policies and coordination activities that may have application in Florida. The Florida and national review of parking and transit policy coordination efforts revealed that cities llave implemented a wide range of parking management measures Many cities have adopted similar measures, but 'vith varying results The success or failure of parking measures depends on many factors that defme an area's travel demand market and affect local mode choices. In other words, parking measures that are effective in one city may not be effective in another. Coordination activities also vary from city to city. D efming specific coordination activities is difficult because coordination is both a process and a "mind set". Coordination is a process because it requires that certain agencies discuss their plans and activities with other agencies in order to develop actions that benefit both. Coordination is also a "mind set" because the effectiveness of it depends on the spirit in which it is practiced; some individuals and organizations are more active than others in communicating with other individuals and organizations. The parking supply and price situation in Florida's cities is a natural result of market forces respouding to the transportation needs of a dispersed population. The state has recognized the benefits of concentrating development activity, as evidenced by the growth management legis lation of the 1980s. Although the legislation has not been tested fully because of the downturn in economic development, the process is in place to change development patterns as the economy recovers. The approach for coordinating parking and transit policies in Florida would include the following characteristics: parking measures that balance parking supply controls with gradual changes i n development patterns that result from the state's growth managem ent initiatives, coupled with transit improvements and demand-side parking management measures that encourage developer and employer subsidization of transit rather than parking Because of the state's 45


dispersed development patterns and the sensitivity of the development community to parking con trols, it is important not to pursue drastic measures to reduce parking supply or raise parking rates, since transit can not effectively provide an equivalent level of quality and convenient service as the automobile. The types of policies that may be appropriate for Florida cities include: Zoning/Land Use policies: o Adopt maximum parking requirements. o Adopt no minimum or flexible minimum parking requirements for developers who support transit and HOVs. o Adopt no minimum or flexible minimum parking requirements for developers who construct off-site parking in park-and-ride facilities and/or provide transit operating subsidies for park-and-ride transit service. o Construct more park-and-ride facilities. Demand-related policies o Encourage employers to provide transit subsidies or transportation allowances in lieu of parking subsidies. TOM Measures o Create more TMAs and continue support for existing TM:As. Improving coordination efforts in Florida involves improving communication among government agencies and between the public and private sectors on issues of parking and transit. This is a key characteristic of cities such as Portland, Seattle, and Bellevue, Washington, which are cities considered to be innovative and progressive in developing parking policies that support transit use Orlando is an example of a Florida city that has established and maintains strong lines of communication between city agencies, the parking department, the transit agency, and the private sector. A state-level educational/marketing program on the subject of communication and coordination of parking and transit policies, perhaps, should b e considered. The program could be direc ted to local governments to increase their awareness of the need for, and the benefits of, coordination. T he program could present coordination case studies using Portland, Seattle, and Bellevue as models. 46


NEXT STEPS The third and fma! teclmical memorandum for this study will focus on three areas. First, major issues identified in the study, such as employer subsidization of parking costs, the affect of parking constraints on economic development, and the integration of HOVs in a coordinated package of transit and parking policies, will be addressed. Second, the report will describe various parking-related policies that local governments could adopt that would increase transit use and the cost-effectiveness of public investments in transit and parking. Third, the report will include recommended changes in federal, state, and local government policies and programs that would serve to better coordinate transit and parking programs and will include an action plan for implementing recommended changes. 47


LIST OF REFERENCES Anonymous. "Parking Policy Refonn, A White Paper, Draft." (August 1990). Boston Transportation Department. "1987 Downtown Boston Parking Inventory Survey." (May 1988). Cambridge Systematics Transportation control Measures Informational Document. Cambridge, MA: U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources (1991). Center for Urban T ransportation Research Commute Alternatives Systems Handbook. Tallahassee: F lorida Department of Transportation. (1992). Center for Urban Transportation Research. "1990 Performance Evaluation o f Florida Transit Systems: Part I Trend Analysis 1 984-1990." Tallahassee, F L: FOOT ( 1 992). Chicago Plan Commission. Downtown Parking Policies (January, 1989). DiRenzo, J., B. Cima, and E. Barb e r. Parking Management Tactics: Vo/. 3 Reference Guide. Washington D C.: USDOT (1981):9. Downtown Orlando Transportation Management Association. "Commuting in Downtown Orlando, Survey Results." ( 1 991). Downtown Research Corporation. "The 1 991 Downtown Chicago Parking Survey." Chicago: Downtown Research Corporatiqn (May 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 1 992):7 Higgins, Thomas "Parking Management and Traffic M i tigation in Six Cit ies: Implications for Local Policy." Transportation Research Board, 68th Annual Meeting. Washington D.C. (January 1989). K. T Analytics, Inc. Dade County P arking/Transit Ridership Study." Frederick, MD: K.T. Analytics Inc. (January 1987). Knoxville/Knox county Metropolitan Planning Commission. "Downtown Knoxville Parking Study." ( 1990). 48


Levinson, Herbert S. "Zoning for Parking Global Perspective." ITE Journal 54 ( 1984). "Whither Parking in the City Center?" T1"ansportaJion Research Record 957 (1984):7779. Lopez-Aqueres, Waldo, and Catherine Wasikowski. "Relationship Between Employer-Paid Parking and Average Vehicle Ridership Among Employers Affected by Regulation XV." Transp<>rtation 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 CoWlcil of Governments. "Commuter Parking Cost Study." Washington, D.C. (1991). Meyer, Michael D., A.M. ASCE and Mary McShane. "Parking Policy and Downtown Economic Development." Miami Planning, Building & Zon ing Department. "Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000: Goals, Objectives, and Policies." (February 1991) Mierzejewski, Edward A., and William L. Ball. ''New Finding s on Factors Related to Transi t Use." ITE Journal (February 1990):34-39. Miller, Craig, Doug Coomer, and Rick Jameson. "Role and F unction ,of Transit in Growth Management: Current Issues in Florida." 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." In: USDOT, Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. US DOT: Washington, D.C. Pratt, Richard H. "Employer Parking Pricing and Incentive Programs That Change Modal Split: A White Paper." In: USDOT, Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. USDO T: Washington, D.C. (1990). Public Parking System. "Downtown Parking Analysis for the City of Ft. Myers, Florida." Chattanooga, TN (October 1988). Public Te chnology Inc. The CoordinaJion of Parking with Public Transportation and Ride-sharing : An Urban Consortium Information Bulletin. Washington, D.C. (June I 982). Ramp Consulting Services, Inc. "Annual Report, Municipal Parking System, Fort La u derdale, Florida." (December 1990). 49


St Martin, Marcia Annant. "A Synopsis of the New Orleans On-Street Parking Management Program Evaluation Report." ITE Journal 56 (May 1986) :29-32. Shoup, Donald C., and Richard W. Willson. "Employer-Paid Parking: The Infl u ence of Parking Prices on Travel Demand." In: USDOT, Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. USDOT: Washington, D.C. (1990). Surber, Monica, Donald Shoup, and Matrin Wachs. "Effects of Ending Employer-Paid Parking for Solo Drivers." Transporrotion Research Record 951 (1984): 67-70. U.S Bureau of the Census. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book 1991. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. (1991). U.S Department of Transportation, Transportation Task Force of the Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives. "Parking and Traffic Enforcement." Washington, D .C.: USDOT (September 1980). U.S Department of Transportation. Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. USDOT: Washington, D.C. (1990). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Profile: Agencies in Urbanized Areas Exceeding 200,000 Population for the 1990 Section 15 Report Year. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. (1991) . U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Profile: Agencies in Urbanized Areas with a Population Less Than 200,000 for the 1990 Section 15 Report Year. U .S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. (1991). Ulberg, Cy. "Park ing Tax Discussion Paper: White Paper." In: USDOT, Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium. USDOT: Washington, D.C. (1990). Seattle, WA (December 1990). Urban Mobility Corp. "Tax Treatment of Employer Parking and Transportation Subsidies." Private Sector Briefs. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. Vol 4, No. I (1991): 1-2 Weant, Robert A., and Levinson, Herbert S Parking. The Eno Foundation. Washington, D.C. (1990):10. Wegmann, Frederick J., Arun Cbaterjee, and Jeffrey A. Welch. "Downtown Circulation System in a Medium -Size City: A Case Study." JTEJournal 58 1988): 37-41. Williams, Jon. "Free and Paid Parking in the Washington Region." Transportation Research Board Paper 920562, 7lst 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 fl81 (1988):50-56 50

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 029155130
005 20110906163056.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110906s1993 fluab ob s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00230
HE336.P37 (ONLINE)
0 245
Parking and transit policy study.
n Technical memorandum no. 2,
p Evaluation of parking and transit policies
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
Evaluation of parking and transit policies
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida,
1 online resource (iv, 50 leaves) :
ill., maps.
"May 1993."
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-50).
Description based on print version.
Automobile parking
x Government policy
z Florida.
Automobile parking
Government policy
United States.
Transportation and state
1 710
Office of Public Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
i Print version:
t Parking and transit policy study. Technical memorandum no. 2, Evaluation of parking and transit policies.
d [Tampa, Fla.] : Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, [1993]
w (OCoLC)262685316
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856