Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

13 important to understand, as transit parking policies are often context-specific and may be affected by local jurisdictional parking policy. This can sometimes result in a patchwork of parking policies within a single transit agency’s service area. Most transit agencies surveyed serve multiple counties (or parts of counties); only about one-third serve one city, one municipal jurisdiction, one county, or equivalent (Figure 2). Five agencies serve more than one state. Agency Organization Respondents were asked to identify agency organization, political structure, and authority. This helps to understand the extent to which respective agencies are able to set their own parking policies. Most respondents have autonomous author- ity and are not part of an elected government, but have similar powers such as taxing, bonding, or eminent domain. A smaller number of agencies are a department of state, regional, or local government, including metropolitan planning organi- zations. Others are more complex; for example, CTA is an independent governmental agency created by state legislation with an appointed board, and the Utah Transit Authority is a local district political subdivision of the state of Utah. Transit Service Types Many agencies provide an array of public transit services. More than 80% of the agencies surveyed provide local fixed- route bus service, whereas 22% offer urban heavy rail ser- vice. Almost half of the respondents provide either light rail or streetcar service (Figure 3). Three agencies provide commuter or heavy rail service only (no bus service). Most respondents indicated that they themselves provide demand- responsive services (possibly in addition to required comple- mentary paratransit service). Immediate Station Areas Almost all agencies have a variety of types of station areas, ranging from suburban park-and-rides to downtown employ- ment centers with no dedicated rider parking. Five of the respondents reported that they have the full range of identi- fied station area classifications (Table 2). Fifteen agencies have some dedicated rider parking in the system, although seven agencies report that they have no park-and-ride station areas. This chapter presents findings from the survey conducted for this synthesis. The following sections identify parking policies and programs of responding transit agencies, including inven- tory and utilization, pricing, and management. Also included in this chapter are more in-depth agency profiles that explore issues raised in the survey. TRANSIT AGENCY CONTEXT This synthesis surveyed 37 transit agencies across the country representing a diversity of service types, jurisdictions, rider- ship levels, modes, and types of parking and parking policy. This section provides a summary of the types of agencies that responded to the survey and the context for conclusions drawn in forthcoming sections. Service Area The service areas represented by the agencies surveyed include a diversity of settings and land use types, spanning different states and regions of the country. They serve popu- lations from ranging from 100,000 in Fairbanks, Alaska, to 8 million people across the state of New Jersey. Population densities vary as well, from 13 persons per square mile in the Fairbanks (Alaska) North Star Borough Transit service area to more than 12,000 persons per square mile in the Metro–North Commuter Railroad’s service area. Nearly half of the agencies (46%, or 17 of 37 respondents) describe their service area to include suburban, small urban, and urban contexts. Most of the other agencies serve urban areas only. Nine agencies, including Capital Metro (Austin, Texas), Long Island Rail Road, and Ozark Regional Transit (Northwest Arkansas) reported that their service areas include rural or semi-rural areas. Several also serve specific populations, such as a university campus or central business district including the Delaware Transit Corporation, Maryland Transit Administra- tion, and Triangle Transit (Wake, Durham, and Orange coun- ties, North Carolina). The built environment context is a key factor in understanding transit agency parking policies and is explored in greater depth in subsequent survey sections. Jurisdiction Respondents were asked to provide a description of the differ- ent jurisdictions within their respective service areas. This is chapter four SURVEY RESULTS

14 0 5 10 15 20 One city/municipal jurisdiction More than one state One county or county-equivalent jurisdiction Multiple counties or parts of counties Number of Agencies FIGURE 2 Survey respondent service area jurisdictions. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Local Bus Express Bus Demand-responsive Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Other transit types Streetcar Ferry/water taxi Number of Respondents FIGURE 3 Number of respondents by transit service type. Types of Immediate Station Areas Percentage of Respondents Within Agency Service Area Types (many respondents report more than one type) Rural Semi- rural Suburban/ small urban Urban Special targeted area Park-and-ride/parking facilities available for transit rider use 6% 13% 29% 41% 12% Downtown or other employment center with some dedicated rider parking (either privately or publicly owned/operated) 8% 15% 30% 33% 15% TOD or other mixed-use districts with some dedicated rider parking 3% 10% 23% 50% 13% Downtown or other employment center with no dedicated rider parking 4% 11% 29% 45% 13% TOD or other mixed-use districts with no dedicated rider parking 6% 15% 26% 47% 6% TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIONS OF IMMEDIATE AREAS AROUND STATIONS BY AGENCY SERVICE AREA

15 Of the 37 responding agencies, 32 reported that they own or manage park-and-ride facilities. Of the 31 agencies that describe their service area as urban, most (28) reported hav- ing some available park-and-ride facilities. Of these same 31 urban-serving agencies, 25 responded that they operate in a downtown or employment center with no dedicated rider parking. Less common among such agencies is some dedi- cated rider parking in a downtown or employment center area (13 of 31 respondents). Five agencies describe their service area as semi-rural and four agencies their service area as rural/semi-rural. All nine of these agencies manage or own park-and-rides for their customers. Park-and-Ride Mode Share When asked what percentage of transit riders use park-and- rides to access transit, the responses vary by agency, mode, and number of parking spaces. The agency average of transit passengers who drive and park to use the system is a weighted average of 22%, which effectively means that for every five riders, there is about one parking space. The caveat to this generalization is that this auto mode split varies considerably among agencies, ranging from a reported 1% drive mode share for local bus and trolley for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to a 75% drive mode share for the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) express and commuter bus service. Overall, the survey data show that agencies that serve suburban areas and those that provide more parking reported the higher percentages of commuters who use park-and-ride. Types of transit service that traditionally provide greater coverage, such as commuter rail and express bus, have a higher percentage of riders who drive and park as compared with other modes (Table 3). Heavy and light rail modes also have higher percentages of those who park-and-ride. PARKING INVENTORY AND UTILIZATION Agency Parking Supply Thirty-three of 37 respondents (89%) own or manage park- ing facilities. Table 4 shows a grouping of agencies by the number of parking spaces owned or managed; the remain- ing four agencies do not own or manage any parking spaces. The surveyed agencies have a considerable range of parking inventory, as many as 62,000 parking spaces, although most own and manage fewer than 10,000. Agencies were also asked to supply the number of agency- owned or managed parking spaces by transit mode. Although some spaces are used for more than one mode, the results gen- erally show that the majority of the parking spaces are pro- vided for heavy rail, followed by commuter rail, light rail, and express bus. Local bus and bus rapid transit have significantly fewer parking spaces than the other modes. Not enough data were provided for several other modes (streetcar, ferry and water, etc.). The reported number of trips per parking space revealed by the survey data and NTD unlinked passenger trip data is compiled in Table 5. The modes show a wide range of trips per parking space from a variety of different factors including indi- vidual station context, development densities, and connecting transit service. The data show that at local bus stations there are many more trips per parking space than for other modes. Nonagency Parking Supply Transit agencies are not the only providers of parking at and around stations. Nonagency parking supply refers to parking spaces that are not under the ownership or management of Modes Number of Respondents Percentage of Riders Who Park-and- Ride (unweighted mean) Commuter Rail 15 41.6 Express Bus 31 30.4 Heavy Rail 8 23.3 Light Rail 13 20.6 Local Bus 32 11.1 Other Transit Types 6 9.3 Bus Rapid Transit 17 8.5 Streetcar 5 4.7 TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE OF RIDERS WHO PARK-AND-RIDE BY MODE (average) 0 –999 Spaces 1,000–2,999 Spaces 3,000–9,999 Spaces 10,000 –24,999 Spaces 25,000–62,000 Spaces Number of Agencies 7 8 8 7 7 n = 37. TABLE 4 PARKING SPACE QUINTILES

16 the transit agency, but provide parking for transit riders. This includes parking facilities primarily owned by municipalities, private landowners, and/or other transit agencies. These facili- ties are often a substantial complement to the agency parking supply. Of those agencies surveyed, 88% (33 of 37 agencies) have riders who regularly park in facilities not owned by the transit agency. All four of the agencies that do not own parking have riders that use parking facilities not owned by the agency. Although a minority of transit agencies reported that their riders do not use any nonagency park- ing, including BART, Central Ohio Transit Authority, Hillsborough (Florida) Area Regional Transit, and Metro Tran- sit (Minneapolis), transit rider spillover parking demand may be difficult to determine. Most agencies have riders who park in nonagency facilities and allow nontransit riders to park in transit agency parking facilities (Figure 4). In terms of the types of nonagency park- ing supply, most agencies (29 of 33 respondents, or 88%) reported that riders use municipal-owned parking facilities. Nineteen of 33 respondents or 58% have riders who access single-use lots or structures owned by private entities. Demand for parking at most transit stations is significant enough for the private sector to support or subsidize the parking. Survey data also show that these private facilities are associated with an active land use (as opposed to a facility solely dedicated to general parking). Such private parking areas include facili- ties leased by the transit agency as well as facilities that are privately owned and independent from the agency, includ- ing private facilities dedicated to transit riders only, other facilities available for general parking purposes, and some lots and structures associated with another purpose, such as a church or residences. In addition, 12 of 33 respondents (36%) reported that riders use lots or structures owned by another transit agency. Alternatives to Standard Vehicular Parking All surveyed transit agencies that own or manage parking provide parking types other than standard vehicular spaces. Because space in proximity to transit stations is limited, this percentage or trend shows that parking policy is evolving to embrace nontraditional parking types including modes serving other than drive-alone commuters. The most common alter- native parking type is bicycle parking; 31 of 33 respondents (94%) provide some type of bicycle parking. The prevalence of bicycle parking may also reflect that bicycle parking is space- efficient and comparatively more cost-effective than other types of parking. Other common types of parking include car- pool and vanpool, electric charging stations, compact vehicle, large vehicle, motorcycle and scooter, carshare, and short-term/ pick-up and drop-off spaces. The prevalence of alternative parking types indicates that transit agencies have made choices or adhere to policies to support parking for other than single- occupancy vehicles. The breakdown of the nontraditional parking supply is in Table 6. Parking Utilization An understanding of how much parking transit agencies own and manage is important because it quantifies the parking Mode Total Agency Parking Spaces (supply) NTD Reported Trips (2014) Average Number of Trips per Parking Space Number of Agencies Reported Local Bus 8,454 687,726,197 81,349 15 Bus Rapid Transit 410 4,854,519 11,840 Heavy Rail 149,763 821,786,309 5,487 7 Commuter Rail 112,890 316,452,800 2,803 8 Light Rail 99,622 231,034,729 2,319 12 Express Bus 15,567 20,804,766 1,336 2 1 TABLE 5 TRIPS PER AGENCY-PROVIDED PARKING SPACE FIGURE 4 Parking supply and rider/non-rider use.

17 Agency Bicycle Parking Carpool or Vanpool Green/ Hybrid Electric Charging Stations Compact Vehicles Large Vehicles BART Capital Metro Central Ohio Transit Authority Chicago Transit Authority Delaware Transit Corporation FNSB Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Hillsborough (FL) Area Regional Transit Jacksonville Transportation Authority KCATA King County Metro Transit LA Metro Lane Transit District LIRR MARTA Maryland Transit Administration Metro Transit–Saint Louis Metro Transit (Minneapolis) MTA Metro North Railroad Nashville MTA/RTA of Middle Tennessee NJ TRANSIT Pace Suburban Bus Agency (Chicago suburbs) Port Authority of Allegheny County Regional Transportation District Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) SEPTA Sound Transit TANK Triangle Transit TriMet Utah Transit Authority VIA Metropolitan Transit WMATA Total Number of Agencies 29 10 5 11 8 5 Percentage of Agencies 89% 30% 15% 33% 24% 15% n = 33. FNSB = Fairbanks North Star Borough; LIRR = Long Island Rail Road; TANK = Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky; TriMet = Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon. TABLE 6 PREVALENCE OF NONTRADITIONAL PARKING

18 spaces available for transit rider use. Equally important is parking demand and patterns of actual parking space utiliza- tion. Underused parking facilities are often a critical consider- ation for transit agencies, as they may represent potential lost revenues and lower cost recovery for maintenance, land, and construction. Both full parking and underused facilities reflect a mismatch between factors driving demand and supply. Peak parking is the time of day when parking facilities are the most full. Based on the survey results, transit agencies reported an average of 65% utilization at peak (27 respon- dents), which would be considered underutilized based on parking industry standards. This suggests that, as a whole, on average, this sample of transit agencies has approxi- mately155,000 unused parking spaces on any given day. However, agencies noted a wide range of peak utilization, from 20% to 130%. Figure 5 shows peak parking utilization in relation to whether or not parking is priced. Although a small dataset, a pattern emerges when agencies have parking utilization of under 70%. Most agencies with free parking (12 of 16, or 75%) on average have parking facilities that are less than 70% full at peak. Of the agencies that have paid parking, four of 11 (36%), have parking systems that are less than 70% full, a pattern that may suggest that agencies with free parking have less demand than those that price. Many agencies (41% or 15 of 37) reported that fewer than 25% of their facilities are full at peak (Figure 6); of these agencies, 11 offer free parking and four have paid parking. Eight agencies reported that more than 70% of their facilities are full at peak; of these agencies, five charge for parking and three offer free parking. For agencies that charge for parking, more facilities in the system are full than for agencies that do not charge suggesting that parking pricing may be being used as a tool to control parking demand. There are, however, many factors, besides price that influence the use of parking including transit service and ridership, availability of other modes, and ease of station access. n = 27. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Free Parking Paid Parking N um be r o f R es po nd en ts 20% - 50% full 50% - 70% full 70% - 80% full 80% - 90% full 90% + full FIGURE 5 Reported peak parking utilization cross referenced with parking pricing. n = 33. 0 0-2 5% 25 %- 50 % 50 %- 70 % 70 %- 90 % 90 %- 10 0% 2 4 6 8 10 12 N um be r o f R es po nd en ts Percentage of Parking Facilities Full at Peak Free Parking Paid Parking FIGURE 6 Percentage of parking facilities that is full.

19 PARKING PRICING Parking pricing is commonly used to balance supply and demand. Whether or not to charge for parking and how much to charge are perhaps the next most critical aspects of park- ing policy after the decision of whether or not to actually provide parking. Parking pricing is understood as an effec- tive tool not only for managing demand but also as an oppor- tunity to recoup some of the costs of parking operations and maintenance. The cost to park, even if there is no cost, has an impact on user choice and the transportation network. This section explores parking pricing policies including relation- ship to parking utilization, rate types, revenue impact, and the reason(s) why agencies charge for parking. Why Charge? Fifteen of the 33 agencies that own or manage parking charge some type of fee. When asked why they charge for parking, multiple reasons were cited. The most common response (11 of 15 agencies or 73%) was to generate revenue (Figure 7). The second most common reasons were to manage demand and cover costs (53%, or eight of 15 respondents). Two agencies reported that they charge below market parking rates to attract riders. When asked how transit parking rates are determined, eight of the 15 agencies described their policies as being based on parking demand and market rates. On weekdays, 60% of surveyed agencies have some type of parking pricing, and 40% do not. When examining park- ing pricing by transit service type, results showed that transit agencies that provide heavy rail service are more likely to charge for parking than agencies that do not (Table 7). Agency Profile: Legislative Parking Restrictions for Denver Regional Transit District Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) operates bus and light rail services in the Denver metropolitan area. The Dis- trict is midway through a major expansion program known as FasTracks, which is funded by a voter-approved sales tax. The program focuses primarily on expanding the light rail network, but also makes investment in bus and expanded parking capacity. RTD currently manages approximately 30,000 park-and-ride spaces. By the time the FasTracks pro- gram is fully built, the District estimates that the parking supply will expand by approximately 21,000 spaces. RTD began investigating the possibility of charging for parking in 2006 as a way to help cover the costs of parking facilities. In 2007, however, the Colorado State legislature passed a bill placing restrictions on the District’s authority to charge for parking. Under these restrictions, RTD may not charge District residents for daily parking. Today, all users may park for free at 40 park-and-ride facilities. At RTD’s 38 other facilities, out-of-district resi- dents are charged $4 for every 24 hours. In-district resi- dents may park for free for the first 24 hours; however, each 24-hour period thereafter costs $2. Since the implementa- tion of the current paid parking system, RTD has not seen a decrease in the share of out-of-district parkers, and currently the parking system generates approximately $1 million per year in gross revenue. 0 8642 10 12 Balance Demand Between Stations Attract Riders Other Cover Costs Manage Demand Generate Revenue Number of Responses FIGURE 7 Why do agencies charge for parking? Transit Service Type Free Parking Paid Parking Heavy Rail 3 Commuter Rail 9 Light Rail 9 Express Bus 17 10 Bus Rapid Transit 6 Streetcar 4 Local Bus 12 n = 33. 5 6 4 1 16 9 TABLE 7 TRANSIT SERVICE TYPE AND FREE/PAID PARKING

20 A recent legislative change raises the possibility that park- ing charges could change at some RTD facilities. This change, which was backed by the RTD Board, was made after several municipalities lobbied to have parking structures (as opposed to surface parking lots) built at new FasTracks stations. As a way of potentially offsetting the cost of new parking struc- tures, the legislature allowed that in-district residents could be charged for parking at agency stations as long as parking fees are paid to a third party, such as a developer or the city. The District has not yet formulated a policy on how it will respond to this legislative change. Parking Rate Type Parking rate types are the cost by time period. Agencies use several different rate types to manage parking at transit sta- tions. The most common type is a daily rate, which is typi- cally a flat rate for a traditional weekday (Table 8). This is not surprising, as traditionally park-and-ride facilities are used by commuters who are parking for a full workday. Twelve of the 15 agencies that charge for parking offer a daily rate. Six of these 12 agencies also offer a monthly rate option. A monthly rate indicates that there is an opportunity to pay for parking once for the month and that the agency may offer a discount. Some agencies offer both hourly and annual rates; however, these rate types are less common. The prevalence of daily rates may mean there is an accep- tance among industry professionals that smaller time incre- ments (e.g., hourly and daily) are a more effective means of fine tuning the balance between demand and supply or that payment technology is more suited to hourly and daily payments. Rate types are important because they influence parking behavior. An hourly or daily rate provides the greatest level of flexibility because it allows commuters to pay and park only when needed. Monthly or annual rates tend to encourage parking for the duration of the month or year because the parking is paid for in advance. The rate types offered, and the financial incen- tives that come with them, can influence how drivers behave. Agency Profile: WMATA Tiered Daily and Monthly Rates In Washington, D.C., WMATA is responsible for over seeing the operation of Metrorail, a 117-mile heavy rail transit network, and MetroBus, which provides fixed-route bus service. The WMATA District includes the District of Columbia; Mont- gomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland; the north- ern Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudon; and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. WMATA owns and/or operates 62,000 commuter parking spaces at or near 44 of its 91 Metrorail stations. All parking is paid parking, with commuters charged various rates depending on the location of the station, ranging from $4.00 (Wheaton Station) to $5.10 (multiple stations). Despite the parking fees, most park-and- ride lots in the region fill to capacity on weekdays (Figure 8). Parking rates are set by WMATA’s Board through a man- dated public engagement process. In general, parking prices are set by the Board to ensure that the combined cost of daily parking and the appropriate transit fare does not exceed the cost of parking in central Washington, D.C., although in limited circumstances the Board has provided agency staff with the flexibility to adjust parking fees (within limits adopted by Board policy). Hourly Rates Daily Rates Monthly Rates Annual Rates Number of Respondents 3 12 6 2 n = 15. TABLE 8 PARKING RATE TYPES FIGURE 8 WMATA surface parking (Branch Ave above) and structured parking (Franconia–Springfield below) at its heavy rail stations. [Source: WMATA (2006).]

21 To accommodate the limited share of park-and-ride com- muters, the 44 Metrorail stations with parking offer either hourly or daily paid parking on weekdays, with parking free at all stations on weekends and holidays. Thirty-six of these sta- tions offer reserved parking until 10:00 a.m. for transit riders who purchase monthly reserved parking permits, which can be purchased in advance online at a cost of $45–$65 per month. Permit holders are still required to pay all applicable daily park- ing fees in addition to this monthly reserved permit fee. At select stations, WMATA uses a two-tiered parking pric- ing structure. For example, at the east end of the Orange line, parkers at New Carrolton who use a SmarTrip card to pay for parking and transit fare are charged $4.75 per day for parking, provided they exit the parking facility within 2 hours of leav- ing the fare gates. Parkers who do not use a SmarTrip card that was used for travel to another station on the same day, or who stay longer than 2 hours after they exit the fare gates, are charged a higher parking rate of $8.85 per day. This tiered pric- ing system allows WMATA to prioritize station parking for Metrorail commuters, while still permitting use of the facility by customers of nearby commercial establishments. WMATA’s systemwide parking occupancy rate of 94% indicates that even at the stations with the highest daily park- ing prices, the rates currently charged do not discourage use of Metrorail by park-and-ride commuters. Agency staff notes that most of Metro’s paid parking facilities are filled every weekday regardless of changes in prices. In addition, fluctua- tions in parking prices, transit fares, and the cost of alternatives (including driving) do not appear to have impacted ridership over the past several years. In March 2008, demand for station parking increased at the same time the price of oil spiked well above $100 per barrel. In 2010, parking was within 0.1% of the utilization in 2008 during the height of the gas price spike. However, system ridership today is 4% higher than in 2008. Parking Rates As identified earlier, most surveyed transit agencies charge for station parking to generate revenue, manage demand, and cover costs. There are high costs associated with providing parking; land, construction, maintenance, and external costs such as contracts with parking operators. Costs to provide park- ing vary significantly between the type of structure (surface lot, above ground, or underground structure) and its characteris- tics (area per space, geographical location, site challenges, and other on-site uses). With average costs of parking construction in the thousands of dollars per surface space (and tens of thou- sands for structured parking) it is difficult for a transit agency to recover its costs with the parking rate ranges shown in Table 9. Of the respondents that charge for parking, daily rates (the most common rate type) range from less than $0.50 to $25.00 per day, with an average of $4.54 per day. There is a wide range both overall and within agencies, implying that most agencies have variation in their rates. Transit agencies are not the only providers of parking in the vicinity of transit stations. Agency-owned or managed parking competes with other nearby parking facilities, pri- marily in terms of location or proximity to the station, by type of facility, and by price. Of the 14 respondents, seven reported that transit agency rates are lower than surround- ing rates, three that their rates are about the same, one that it varies widely by station; only one agency reported that its rates are typically higher. Two agencies reported that there are no other direct comparisons; they are the only agencies that provide paid parking at station. Agency Profile: BART Demand Responsive Parking Fees BART operates heavy rail serving the San Francisco Bay area. The system carries more than 420,000 passengers per day. The BART District owns and manages more than 46,000 park- ing spaces at 33 stations, including 15 parking structures and 30 surface parking lots. The capital cost of most facilities has been paid entirely by the District. Until recently, the price charged for parking at these facilities has not offset the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of operation. In 2013, to help offset the costs of providing parking, the BART Board adopted a demand-based parking pricing policy. Under the new parking program, parking at all BART facilities costs at least $1 per day on weekdays from 4 a.m. to 3 p.m. Occupancy in parking facilities is evaluated every 6 months. If the lot is found to be more than 95% occu- pied during the a.m. peak period, BART may increase the parking fee by 50 cents. The maximum cost is capped at $3 per day at all stations except at West Oakland, which is the last station in East Bay before the Bay Bridge for passen- gers traveling inbound to San Francisco. BART customers pay for parking using their BART fare ticket, cash, or their Clipper Card, the regional smart card that is also used to pay for BART fares. The data collected by parking valida- tion machines are also used by BART staff to determine parking lots fill times. Passengers may also pay for their parking by purchasing an advanced monthly, single-day, or airport/long-term permit. During a winter 2014 evaluation, daily-fee parking facilities were found to be more than 95% full at all but two stations. Beginning in January 2015, BART began charging a $3 fee to Parking Rate Ranges Level Hourly Rates Daily Rates Monthly Rates Annual Rates Low $1.00 <$0.50 <$0.50 $15.00 High $2.00 $25.00 $168.00 $250.00 Most Common $1.00 $4.54 $35.50 $92.50 TABLE 9 PARKING RATE RANGES (OF RESPONDENTS THAT CHARGE FOR PARKING)

22 park at 23 stations, plus it instituted a $7 daily rate at the West Oakland BART station. Lower fees were maintained at five sta- tions. The remaining four stations had just begun implemen- tation of the daily parking fee within the previous 6 months. As a result of the modifications to its parking policy, BART forecasts that it will collect more than $30 million in parking fees in Fiscal Year 2016, doubling the revenue collected prior to adoption of the new policy. The additional revenue generated is exclusively dedicated to station access, rehabilitation, and modernization needs. Contrary to expectations, BART has not yet noticed a measureable impact on the time at which parking lots fill. These pricing changes were implemented during a period of rapidly increasing ridership; therefore, demand for parking at most BART stations continues to exceed supply even at the higher prices. With no cap on price in place at the West Oakland Station, BART will have the opportunity to test the impact of market prices. The $7 per day fee at West Oakland is lower than the $9 per day charged at adjacent commercial lots. However, with incremental price increases, the price of parking in this lot may reach or even exceed the price of nearby commercial lots before demand and supply balance. Parking Revenue Transit agency survey respondents generate a wide range of annual parking revenues. When normalized by the number of spaces owned and managed by the agencies, annual revenue per parking space ranges from a high of $725 (WMATA) to $0.42 (Triangle Transit) (Table 10). These figures indicate that most agencies heavily subsidize the cost of providing parking for their riders. Transit Agency Total Reported Parking Spaces Total Gross Reported Parking Revenues (annual) Annual Revenue per Parking Space Operating Expenses (NTD 2014) (by $1,000)* Parking Revenues as a Percentage of Operating Expenses Parking Revenues as a Percentage of Parking Expenses WMATA 62,000 $45,000,000 $725.81 $1,581,104 2.8% 66% BART 47,000 $26,250,000 $558.51 $535,986 4.9% 51% CTA 5,600 $2,284,317 $407.91 $1,277,926 0.2% 37% NJ TRANSIT 47,000 $17,500,000 $372.34 $1,983,325 0.9% 34% Delaware Transit Corporation 6,300 $2,000,000 $317.46 $105,713 1.9% 29% MTA Metro North Railroad 25,000 $5,000,000 $200.00 $1,077,417 0.5% 18% SEPTA 24,500 $4,500,000 $183.67 $1,160,054 0.4% 17% Santa Clara VTA 5,300 $747,957 $141.12 $316,924 0.2% 13% MARTA 25,350 $2,552,000 $100.67 $455,383 0.6% 9% Jacksonville Transportation Authority 2,957 $200,000 $67.64 $83,511 0.2% 6% Port Authority of Allegheny County 6,687 $305,879 $45.74 $358,983 0.1% 4% Regional Transportation District 30,000 $1,000,000 $33.33 $447,172 0.2% 3% Pace 1,024 $12,000 $11.72 $198,190 0.0% 1% Triangle Transit 2,400 $1,000 $0.42 $18,274 0.0% 0% *National Transit Database (2014). TABLE 10 ANNUAL PARKING REVENUES BY SPACE AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF AGENCY OPERATING EXPENSES AND PARKING EXPENSES

23 As indicated previously, 73% of respondents (11 of 15) reported that they charge for parking to generate revenue. To put annual parking revenues in context with transit agency expenses, Table 10 shows parking revenues as a percentage of annual operating expenses. BART’s parking revenue contrib- utes to the highest percentage of operating expenses at nearly 5% when compared with other surveyed agencies. Parking revenue covers less than 3% of operating expenses for all other agencies in this sample. Table 10 also shows parking revenues as a percentage of estimated parking expenses. Parking expense assumes a con- servative capital cost of $18,038 per space (Cudney 2014)— inflation adjusted estimates from ITE’s Parking Generation 3rd edition suggest as little as $1,300 and as much as $46,000 in construction costs for structured parking (this does not include the real estate costs, which can be considerable). Further, annual operations and maintenance are assumed to be $500 per space and the lifespan of a facility at 30 years (Litman 2013). Using these assumptions, WMATA has the most efficient expense-to-revenue ratio, losing only 34% of their parking investment. Why Agencies Do Not Charge The survey identified agencies that do not charge for parking at stations. Twenty-two of the 33 respondents (67%) reported that they have no parking fees. When asked why agencies do not charge for parking, most respondents (14 or 64%) reported that they offer free parking to attract more riders. Other reasons why agencies do not charge for parking are that enforcement costs are too high (11 respondents or 50%), there is public or rider resistance or pushback on parking fees (11 respondents or 50%), and that other nearby parking is free (10 respondents or 45%). Similarly, others indicated that parking payment technology costs are a barrier (nine respon- dents or 41%) and that there is not enough parking demand to warrant fees (eight respondents or 36%). This range of responses indicated that there are a variety of reasons why many agencies do not charge for parking. There are also other complicating factors, such as lots that are owned by multiple owners, which can get complex owing to revenue sharing and legislatively mandated requirements for public hearings for parking fee changes. Agency Profile: Central Ohio Transit Authority: Free Park-and-Ride to Promote Ridership The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) provides pub- lic transit (bus) service for greater Columbus and central Ohio, with a service area that includes 1.2 million residents in Ohio’s Franklin County, and parts of Delaware, Fairfield, Licking and Union counties. COTA provides 19 million pas- senger trips annually on Local, Crosstown, Circulator, and Express buses. COTA currently operates 27 park-and-ride lots with 2,354 spaces, all in Franklin County. These lots provide passenger access to Express bus routes that primarily serve downtown Columbus and Ohio State University. There are also a few lots designed to serve Local routes. All parking is free and the stated purpose of the lots is to “reduce central Ohio traffic congestion during peak period travel times and to help improve the region’s air quality.” The agency estimates that roughly 30% of Express bus riders use the park-and-ride lots. Most park-and-ride lots include enclosed shelters, bench seating, and posted bus schedules. Many lots also have bike racks and, as new facilities are acquired and updated, more bike racks are being added. COTA owns some of these facilities, but many are leased. In some cases, this has been accomplished through partnerships with churches and shopping centers. Peak period occupancy of these facilities is typically well below capacity. As of 2014 (the last period for which complete data are available), park-and-ride occupancy averaged 646 of the 2,354 spaces, a 27% rate. Average occupancy of individual lots varied considerably, between 5% and 70%. Despite the low occupancies in existing facilities, COTA sees the acquisition of new parking lots as a way to create a greater presence in the community and raise the visibility and convenience of transit. These parking facilities are used throughout the year for many of Columbus’ special events, including to support the 500,000 people who attend the city’s 4th of July celebration and for Ohio State fans to attend home football games (promoted as “Bus it to the Buckeyes”) (Figure 9). COTA’s special event services are popular and also provide significant visibility for COTA within the FIGURE 9 Ohio State Buckeye’s fans aboard COTA’s “Bus it to the Buckeyes” service. [Source: COTA (2015).]

24 community, particularly by introducing people to COTA who are typically not regular transit riders. In 2014, COTA created a new, permanent 88-space park- and-ride facility in the city of New Albany, replacing a smaller 26-space lot that was leased from a nearby church. This change was carried out in partnership with New Albany and will provide park-and-ride access not only to Express buses bound for downtown Columbus, but also to a new shuttle service operated by New Albany to serve reverse commuters headed to job sites in the surrounding business park. COTA may further expand this facility as demand requires. In its 2015–2019 Short-Range Transit Plan, COTA has targeted four potential park-and-ride lots for relocation or acquisition. Key factors in the creation of new park-and-ride locations are outreach to the community and identification of accessible, visible, and safe locations that provide trans- portation that is competitive with driving. COTA does not have plans to price parking at these lots. PARKING MANAGEMENT Management Approach Role of Parking Most transit agencies pursue a wide range of strategies to pro- mote ridership, one of which is parking. Most but not all of the agencies surveyed for this synthesis consider parking to be an important part of their transit strategies. Thirteen of 35 agen- cies (37%) rated Parking at Major Stops as a Very Important strategy for promoting access, and an additional 13 agencies rated it as “Moderately Important” (Figure 10). Parking at major stops ranked 10th out of 13 ridership promotion strategies in terms of the number of agencies considering it a top priority. The most commonly prioritized strategies are passenger amenities (35 agencies ranked this as very important or moderately important), improved oper- ational efficiency (34), station area planning (33), improved station access (33), and real-time arrival information (32). Organizational Structure A variety of functions are required to provide park-and-ride facilities including planning, finance, enforcement, operations and maintenance, and capital projects. In large organizations, these functions tend to be carried out by several different departments. Ultimate responsibility for management of the parking system can be housed in one of these departments or in a stand-alone parking or access division. Of the 37 agencies surveyed, the most common department for housing parking management is planning (eight agencies), followed by maintenance or facilities (five), finance (five), operations (four), real estate (three), and a stand-alone park- ing or customer access division (three) (Figure 11). The choice of department responsible for parking management does not appear to having any bearing on the agency’s management approach, such as whether customers are charged for parking or whether the agency is planning to build new parking. Policy Vision When asked if agencies have a long-term plan or defined vision for station parking, two-thirds (22 of 33 respondents) reported that they have or are working on a plan or vision. Agency policies vary from parking expansion policies to TOD policies. Five agencies have tailored park-and-ride policies, including the Port Authority of Allegheny County, whose Transportation Development Plan proposes addi- tional park-and-ride locations; Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, which has a plan to expand local-serving park-and- rides to regional park-and-rides to serve multiples routes 14 21 17 16 21 18 14 19 14 13 13 5 3 21 13 16 17 11 14 18 11 15 13 12 15 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Passenger amenities Improved operational efficiency Station Area Planning Improved station access Real-time arrival information New Transit Capital Infrastructure Increased security Strategic Partnerships Marketing/Advertising Parking at Major Stops New rolling stock Bicycle parking Priority parking Number of Responses Very Important Moderately Important FIGURE 10 Ridership promotion strategies.

25 and destinations; and Metro Transit (Minnesota) that has a corridor-specific park-and-ride policy. Other agencies have long-term parking plans that are focused on TOD. KCATA has a policy that encourages sur- face lots in the CBD to develop; Capital Metro’s 2013 TOD Strategic Plan includes strategies to build transit facilities to support TOD. It recently worked on two TOD concept sta- tions (Leander and Lakeline) that envision future mixed-use development on existing park-and-ride lots. Eight agencies noted that their parking visions and plans are currently being updated or developed, some of which are part of a larger planning process. Policy Application Of the agencies surveyed, 29% (10 of 37) have a uniform approach to parking management; they apply the same poli- cies to all parking facilities. Of these, most (7 of 10) are agen- cies that do not charge for parking at any facility (Figure 12). Roughly one-third (13 agencies) have a specific station-by- station approach to parking management; they consider local conditions and decide on regulations and pricing on a case- by-case basis. Three responding agencies use a “typology” system; transit stations are divided into groups based on their character and managed on that basis. The remaining nine agencies use some mix of these approaches. For example, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) has an overall set of park- ing rules and regulations that are applied systemwide, but tailors approaches such as demand management, preferred parking, maintenance, and improvements that are done station by station. Policies on Bicycle Parking and Nontraditional Vehicle Parking Although transit parking facilities are devoted mostly to stor- ing typical motor vehicles, many agencies also reserve space 8 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 0 9876542 31 Planning Maintenance/Facilities Finance Operations Real Estate Parking/Customer Access Other No Response Number of Respondents FIGURE 11 Division responsible for parking management. 13 10 3 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Specific station-by-station System-wide approach applied uniformly Typology Other/Mixed Number of Agencies FIGURE 12 Parking management approach.

26 in those facilities for bicycle storage, carpool vehicles, and electric or other low-emissions vehicles. All survey respondents that provide vehicle parking also provide some form of nontraditional parking, with the most common type being bicycle parking. However, bicycle parking provisions are often not codified in a policy and are frequently arranged on a demand- or location-specific basis, when fund- ing is available, and/or in coordination with municipal or other partners. Just 11 of 33 agencies (33%) reported having a specific policy around nontraditional uses of parking facilities, with most of these focused on bicycle parking. One of these, King County Metro Transit’s Strategic Plan for Public Transporta- tion 2011–2021, Strategy 3.3.2, outlines support for bicycle and pedestrian access to jobs, services, and the transit system. It states that “Metro provides three-position bike racks on transit vehicles and is working to increase the availability of secure bicycle parking at new and existing Metro transit facilities.” At stations, Metro also offers leased bike lockers, on-demand eLockers, and bike racks. Electric vehicle charging stations are also available at transit hubs in King County. Parking Expansion Expansion Planning Twenty-five of 36 surveyed agencies (69%) reported that they are currently expanding their parking supply or have plans to do so. Of these, 14 are providing expanded parking to provide access to existing services, whereas 11 are expanding parking supply specifically to provide access to new transit service now under development (Figure 13). The most commonly cited reasons for parking supply growth include expansion of the transit system itself, in response to the demand that exceeds supply, or simply the availability of funding. One agency is planning to expand parking supply not by building new facilities, but instead working to share or lease already existing lots and structures. Two agencies are considering parking supply expansions pending current studies. Nine agencies, or 25% of those surveyed, have no current plans to expand their parking supply. Several agencies have parking expansion plans, although the current parking supply has not been fully utilized (Table 11). Sixteen of 21 agencies (76%) have existing parking facilities that are under capacity and also plan to build more parking. Five of the 21 agencies that plan to build more parking (24%) own or manage parking facilities that are more than 90% full at peak. Funding for Parking Expansion No transit provider charges parking fees that cover the full cost of parking garages. Parking expansion is paid for using a variety of sources and often several different sources for the same facility. Overall, agencies cite the use of federal, state, and local grant funds, or simply note that parking facilities are paid for out of the agency’s own capital program, which is typically funded using a similar mix of federal, state, and local revenue sources as well as fare revenue and other user fees (Figure 14). Often federal funds are available when parking is being expanded as part of the construction of a new transit line or station. In this case, FTA funding (along with a local match) may cover the cost of parking facilities. 11 10 9 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Yes - Existing Service Yes - New Service No Under Study Number of Agencies FIGURE 13 Planned expansion of parking supply. Typical Peak Parking Utilization (agencywide) Expansion Plans No Expansion Plans Less than 50% Full 2 4 50%–75% Full 9 2 75%–90% Full 5 0 90%+ Full 5 0 Total 21 6 n = 27. TABLE 11 EXISTING PARKING UTILIZATION VERSUS FUTURE PARKING EXPANSION

27 Three agencies reported on the use of Joint Development Agreements or other public–private partnerships to fund parking facilities. NJTRANSIT mentioned the use of financ- ing backed by parking revenue in addition to the agency’s capital program. Shared Parking Transit Customer Use of Nonagency Facilities Many transit agencies collaborate with other entities to man- age parking at and around station areas. Half of these agencies (18 of 36) have agreements or arrangements with other enti- ties that allow for transit riders to use nontransit agency-owned parking. When asked specifically with whom agencies work, most agencies reported that they coordinate and communicate most often with municipalities, private organizations, and state agencies (Figure 15). Some agencies have formal programs; for example, King County Metro operates a lease-lot program where private lots dedicated to other uses (theaters, churches, etc.) are used for transit riders as park-and-rides. The agency pays the lot owners a small monthly fee. For Triangle Transit, the city of Durham requires any new development that provides more than 400 parking spaces to include at least 5% of the required spaces (or 100 spaces, whichever is smaller) for on-site park-and-ride. Other agencies do not have a formal program but have arrangements with some private partners, such as Pace, which has several arrangements with churches, big box stores, and others such as Metro Transit (MN) and NJTRANSIT. Overall, agencies reported that they most typically work with churches and shopping malls to provide parking for transit customers. The other half of the respondents do not have these types of official arrangements, although in some cases riders use non- agency parking. Three respondents (Broome County Transit, City and Borough of Juneau, and Ozark Regional Transit) do not own or manage any parking and also do not have agreements with other entities to provide transit rider park- ing. Regional Transportation Commission in Reno does not own parking, but does have several arrangements with private parking operators for transit customer use. 13 6 17 9 3 0 5 10 15 20 Local State Federal Agency Capital Budget Public Private Partnership Number of Responses FIGURE 14 Funding sources for parking expansion. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Municipality Private Organization Downtown Development Agency or Similar MPO, COG, or Similar State Agency Other N um be r o f R es po nd en ts FIGURE 15 Common entities that provide transit rider parking.

28 Agency Profile: Metro Transit Joint Use Agreements Metro Transit is the primary public transit operator in the Twin Cities region of Minnesota. The agency operates bus, bus rapid transit, light rail, commuter rail, and paratransit. Each year the agency, in partnership with county governments, MnDOT, and suburban transit providers, conducts an annual park-and-ride census to track parking trends at the facilities, which helps plan for system expansions and transit service levels (Figure 16). As of its 2014 park-and-ride census, Metro Transit and suburban transit providers manage 108 park-and-ride lots and structures regionwide, primarily served by suburban express bus, as well as light rail and commuter rail. Park-and-ride lots in the Twin Cities are typically larger facilities: 48 of the 108 facilities have more than 200 spaces, comprising 86% of the 32,000 spaces in the system. The region has significantly expanded park-and-ride capacity in recent years, guided by the 2030 Plan and Ride Plan. Over the past decade, the park-and-ride parking sup- ply grew 78%, from approximately 18,000 to 32,000 spaces. During the same time period, parking utilization increased 51%, from approximately 12,000 to 18,000 parked cars. Express bus ridership grew as well, but less so; a 23% increase from approximately 650,000 to nearly 800,000 riders (Fig- ure 17). The size and nature of park-and-ride facilities in the Twin Cities has changed over time. The system originated in the 1970s with shared-use surface lots, typically at churches. Over time, the system was expanded to include larger facili- ties that could support more frequent service and were sited at locations near transit advantages to provide faster travel times. Today, 44 of the 108 parking facilities have shared or complementary uses, comprising 40% of the facilities and 20% of the park-and-ride spaces in the region. Metro Transit relies on joint-use agreements with parking lot own- ers for park-and-rides. Many of these agreements are with landowners who host facilities that need parking at comple- mentary hours compared with traditional weekday transit ridership needs. These parking facilities may be used for park-and-rides on weekdays, and on nights and weekends, but primarily support churches, movie theaters, parks, and shopping centers. For Metro Transit, feasible joint use facilities must meet several criteria to be considered, including a visible loca- tion, easy to access near transit stations, and sufficient parking capacity, which is evaluated on a site-by-site basis. Some lots allow for a portion of the site to be used for park- and-ride parking, others the entire facility; the number of spaces available for transit customers’ needs to help the agency meet demand. Operationally, the joint use agree- ments would benefit both the landowner and Metro Tran- sit. The agency negotiates joint agreements with various stipulations (shared maintenance, etc.) and the needs of both parties must be mutually satisfied. Metro Transit has different types of arrangements and agreements that are site-specific. FIGURE 16 Mound Transit Center includes a three-level municipal parking ramp that has 50 spaces reserved for Metro Transit park-and-ride customers. (Source: Metro Transit.) 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 R id er sh ip Pa rk in g Sp ac es Parking Supply Parking Utilization Express Bus Ridership (October) FIGURE 17 Metro Transit park-and-ride parking supply, demand, and express bus ridership 2004–2014. Source: 2014 Annual Regional Park-and-Ride System Survey, Metro Transit.

29 Sharing Transit Parking During Off-Peak Periods Because the peak demand for park-and-ride parking is typi- cally on weekdays during traditional business hours, many transit agencies permit other drivers to use the parking facili- ties outside of peak hours. Most respondents that own or manage parking (25 of 33 agencies, 76%) have some type of agreement or policy for the nontransit users. Off-peak uses include special events such as farmers markets, food truck events, and carnivals and fairs. Other occasional or temporary uses include film production and construction project staging. Some agencies allow for other transit agencies, local businesses, and municipalities to lease or use parking (including both during the weekday and at off-peak hours). King County Metro Transit works with several partners to offer its parking for both peak and off-peak uses. At tran- sit facilities with less than 90% utilization on weekdays the agency offers a special permit to businesses that allow for the use of the excess parking supply. After hours, Metro has an agreement at its Issaquah Highlands Park & Ride lot for use as overflow parking for a nearby cinema. The agency’s lots are used by the Bellevue School System for school pick-up needs at the Overlake Village Park & Ride, with a special use permit. For weekend special events, such as University of Washington Husky, Seahawks, and Sounders sports games, Metro allows for park-and-ride spaces to be used for game day parking. Transit-Oriented Development TOD creates walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods near high- quality public transit services (typically within ½ mile). In recent years, many transit agencies have worked to encour- age TOD near their stops and stations to promote ridership, generate revenue, or accomplish other goals. Because this type of development is often contemplated for surface park- ing lots adjacent to the stations, transit agencies’ policies and efforts around TOD are closely related to their parking policies. Joint Development Many transit agencies have pursued “Joint Development”— arrangements in which agency-owned land near a stop or station is developed in partnership with a private developer or other public agency. Most commonly, this land is in use as surface parking prior to development. Most agencies surveyed (23 of 32 or 72%) have engaged in (or have the authority to engage in) joint development on agency land. The complex nature of development on transit agency land has resulted in a variety of types of development projects in relation to parking. Some projects provide or replace exist- ing parking. Agency Profile: MARTA TOD and Parking MARTA is the largest transit provider in the southeastern United States, providing heavy rail and bus service to Fulton, DeKalb, and Clayton counties in the Atlanta metropolitan region. Its 38 rail transit stations represent a variety of com- munity contexts, from stations in the high-intensity metropol- itan core (such as the Peachtree Center station in downtown Atlanta) to those in lower-intensity, park-and-ride-oriented settings (such as the Hamilton E. Holmes and Indian Creek stations at either end of the east–west Blue Line). These also include purpose-built park-and-ride stations such as North Springs and the station connecting directly to the domestic terminal at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The majority of MARTA’s rail stations feature parking, even in highly urban environments. Historically, MARTA has not charged customers for daily parking, although it does charge $5–$8 per day for parking more than 24 hours. The agency is beginning to explore changes to its parking policy that may include charging nontransit users. With such a variety of stations, MARTA has taken a case- by-case approach to managing its parking resources and advancing TOD throughout the system (Figure 18). To date, the most tangible efforts in TOD have been at the Lindbergh Station, where the agency constructed a new headquarters and led a joint development project that added office, multi-family residential, and retail development around the station. This relatively early effort introduced new opportunities for the agency, but also led to new challenges; the one-for-one park- ing replacement policy that MARTA used at the time led to the replacement of a large number of spaces, many of which are underutilized today. This amount of parking was planned and constructed for the full buildout of the TOD district, although weaker development market conditions than those at the time of the station area planning and a change in the development team kept many of the proposed development phases from occurring leaving MARTA with an excess of parking at the station and assuming responsibility for its financing. FIGURE 18 MARTA’s surface parking at Inman Park Station. (Source: Nelson\Nygaard.)

30 Revising the Approach Having learned lessons from its experience with the Lindbergh Station, MARTA has recently shifted attention and resources back to its TOD program and is currently in the process of forming joint development agreements at multiple stations. It has taken a revised approach to parking retention and other site development dynamics; the agency calculates the average utilization of station parking over a 5- to 7-year period and uses this number as the basis for parking replacement targets. The agency is taking a more proactive role with surrounding neighborhoods, working to build consensus and understand neighborhood expectations on the scale of development and appropriate parking levels to avoid neighborhood spillover. The agency has also taken a more innovative approach to financing parking, using federal transportation funding admin- istered through the Atlanta Regional Commission (the Atlanta area’s MPO) and its own local match to secure funds for garage construction, but allowing developers to finance and build the facility with a guarantee that MARTA will reserve a portion for rider use. MARTA then uses these funds to purchase spaces for its patrons in a constructed parking facility. The joint development agreements that MARTA is cur- rently creating and advancing engage FTA for review and approval of parking plans. FTA has allowed MARTA to estab- lish agreements on sharing the parking that it secures, with an overall goal of reducing parking. One approach that the agency has begun taking for this is instituting requirements that a portion of MARTA’s replacement spaces would be avail- able for MARTA users for certain times of the day, such as from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. This allows the basic commuter market using these MARTA-reserved parking spaces to continue to be served; however, it also allows for any fluctuation in these commuter demand levels to flex parking to other users without needing to revise parking rights agreements. Parking Replacement When transit agencies pursue joint development on land for use as surface parking, they often seek to replace some or all of that parking, most commonly in a new on-site parking struc- ture. Twenty-six of 37 respondents (71%) have considered or implemented structured parking at stations in coordination with TOD or joint development. Because parking structures are both expensive and require a large amount of space, the issues of how much structured parking to provide, and how to pay for it, become a major factor in determining the feasibility of joint development. Twenty-three of 36 respondents (64%) do not have a written or formal policy governing what should happen when devel- opment replaces surface parking. Regardless, most responding agencies typically aim for a one-to-one replacement or build more parking where existing or expected demand is high. Some agencies refer to FTA’s Joint Development Guidelines during decision making. A minority of agencies have a standard policy that speci- fies what should happen when development replaces surface parking (Table 12). Six of 36 respondents (17%) have a policy that requires one-to-one replacement of all parking removed by development (some specify that they regularly accommo- date exceptions to this rule.) Six of 36 respondents (17%) plan for parking replacement based on current or expected future parking demand. For example, MARTA bases its num- ber of parking spaces needed on historical parking demand counts (using 7 years of data). Utah Transit Authority esti- mates the parking needed using a minimum 20-year horizon, which projects the number of spaces needed to meet future peak hour demand, plus 5%. Anecdotally, several agencies have recently worked on joint development projects to minimize the amount of park- ing provided. For example, Capital Metro (Austin) is cur- rently negotiating joint development for agency-owned land at Plaza Saltillo Station, which is adjacent to the Downtown Station. No off-street parking is expected to be provided and on-street parking is readily available. Another example is a joint development agreement between the Delaware Transit Corporation, ING Bank at Riverfront, and the city of Wilmington, Delaware, to build a new structured parking facility at a major station. Agency Profile: BART Replacement Parking Policy BART operates heavy rail serving the San Francisco Bay Area. The system carries more than 420,000 passengers each day. The District owns and manages more than 46,000 parking spaces at 33 BART stations, which includes 15 parking struc- tures and 30 surface parking lots. Since the adoption of its TOD policy in 2001, BART has sought out opportunities to develop the property around its stations, including in some cases the land held as surface parking. As the agency has evolved from strictly a transit (and parking) provider to also a land developer, it has sought a better understanding of the implications of its parking poli- cies and how those policies impact its ability to maximize the value of its transit stations. One-to-One Replacement Demand-Based KCATA BART (tradeoffs tool) LIRR CTA (tradeoffs tool) NJTRANSIT (and account for growth potential) LA Pace MARTA RTD (with exceptions) TriMet WMATA UTA TABLE 12 AGENCIES WITH PARKING REPLACEMENT POLICIES

31 Historically, BART has had a one-for-one parking replace- ment requirement for any development that affected its exist- ing parking facilities. In recent years, as more development has occurred at BART, it became clear that this policy was negatively impacting the agency’s ability to jointly develop its valuable land assets. Although agency staff provided for some flexibility with replacement parking on an ad hoc basis, there was limited consistency about how parking replace- ment should be evaluated internally and applied externally. The end result was developers consistently asking for waiv- ers from parking requirements and increased uncertainty regarding project approval. In 2005, a new BART replacement parking model was developed with the goal of providing internal and exter- nal stakeholders with an open and practical planning tool. The model seeks to account for not just impacts on parking and BART ridership, but also how projects can support joint development efforts, address BART’s overall fiscal health and long-term capacity challenges, and ensure consistency with BART’s multimodal access policy. The model incorporates four steps. First, specific data inputs are collected for the station area where the joint development is proposed such as existing ridership, parking occupancy data, access data by mode, and population and employment within 0.5 mile. In addition, a synthesis of the policy context and access issues at the station is completed. This qualitative information is used to assess whether local partners are willing to make decisions that will support the replacement parking scenario being considered by BART. Second, specific future development scenarios are created including project size, type of land uses, parking assets and policies related to shared parking, parking pricing, and other planned access improvements. In the third step, each sce- nario is evaluated according to established criteria for that station, such as ridership impacts, parking demand impacts, associated costs and revenues, and mode shifts. The final step is to use the analysis to develop a joint development and access and replacement parking scenario that could be included in ongoing planning processes. By using this policy, BART has been able to complete joint development projects on its property that will supply less than full parking replacement, but meet the agency’s goals for increased ridership and revenue. For example, a large development project is proceeding for MacArthur Sta- tion in Oakland (Figure 19). The model showed that even with a loss of 50% of the parking, ridership would increase substantially because of BART’s ability to capture a portion of the trips from the new residential and retail activity, as well as improve transit access to the station. It also revealed that this reduced parking scenario outperformed other sce- narios from an expenditure and revenue perspective. The final development plan changed substantially from the model inputs; however, the model was a crucial piece in securing approval of a final development plan that required approximately 75% replacement parking. When complete, MacArthur Transit Village will supply 624 units of housing adjacent to the station, including 90 units of permanently affordable housing. A new parking structure, built by the developer, will supply 478 parking spaces for BART riders. Value Capture The presence of high-quality transit increases the value of surrounding land. Some localities and transit agencies have sought to generate revenue, either for transit or for other local needs, by attempting to realize or capture some por- tion of this additional land value generated by transit prox- imity (Figure 20). Joint development, discussed previously, can be a form of value capture if the deal is revenue-positive for the operator. Eighteen of 21 responding agencies (86%) have used joint development. In addition, seven agencies have used air rights development—creating new developments in the empty space above transportation facilities. Four agencies have used a developer impact fee to generate revenue and three have used negotiated exactions. One agency has used transporta- tion utility fees as a value capture strategy. Station Area Policies Transit agencies collaborate with several other entities to manage parking at and around station areas. This includes, but is not limited to, agency participation in the development of local land use policies, development standards, and station area access. When asked specifically with whom agencies work, most reported that they coordinate and communicate most often with municipalities; private operators, businesses, and institutions; and state agencies (Figure 21). Several agencies reported that local governments have implemented policies that encourage TOD or transit-supportive development densities. Working with CTA, Chicago created a TOD policy that allows for lower parking ratios within FIGURE 19 TOD at MacArthur BART station. (Source: Nelson\ Nygaard.)

32 1 4 3 7 18 0 5 10 15 20 Transportation utility fees Development impact fees Negotiated exactions Air rights development Joint development Number of Responses FIGURE 20 Value capture strategies in use. 600 feet of all stations, and within 1,200 feet if the devel- opment occurs along a “pedestrian street.” In the St. Louis region, some municipalities have created overlays or special districts to allow for lower parking ratios at transit stations. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority serves as a tech- nical resource for the municipalities it serves. Almost all of the 16 local governments in the Authority service area have TOD and/or transit-supportive policies and zoning codes, including San José, which has set reduced parking require- ments near transit stations. Agency Profile: LA Metro Documented Parking Policy LA Metro is the regional transportation planning agency and public transit operator for Los Angeles County. LA Metro pro- vides a range of transit services, including local fixed-route bus, bus rapid transit, commuter rail, heavy rail, streetcar, and demand-responsive ADA transit. Metro operates park-and-ride facilities with 22,000 parking spaces at 48 bus and rail stations. The parking supply is expected to increase to 25,000 parking spaces with the completion of its Expo II, Gold Line Foot- hill Extension in 2016 and could increase to 30,000 spaces if Metro acquires the Caltrans-owned parking lots scattered throughout the county. In July 2003, LA Metro formally adopted policies for man- aging its park-and-ride assets. It documents how the agency will manage its existing parking resources, develop new facilities, and work with localities to improve and periodically assess the need to provide nonauto access to transit. For exist- ing facilities, the policy states that LA Metro will monitor occupancy, and for facilities with more than 75% occupancy it will pursue management strategies such as parking districts that allow for shared parking between sites or users, and charging at parking lots where occupancies exceed 90%. The policy places several conditions on the implementation of parking charges including that the actions not cause significant decreases in transit system ridership, not cause adverse spillover parking into surrounding areas, that rates are competitive with sur- rounding facilities, and that revenue can cover expected costs. Variable pricing by time of day is permitted, and payment is to be integrated with the fare payment system. The policy also documents the agency’s strategy for improving the efficiency 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Municipality Private Organization State Agency MPO, COG, or Similar Downtown Development Agency or Similar Other N um be r o f R es po ns es FIGURE 21 Common collaborators on parking for transit.

33 of parking (carpool/vanpool preference, time limits, and innovative technologies), and increases the supply of parking cost-effectively (re-striping, tandem parking, and mechani- cal parking). For the highest-demand facilities, the policy documents a set of strategies for increasing the supply of available parking including buying or leasing nearby existing parking facilities, building parking lots or structures, and working with jurisdic- tions or private entities to provide parking or shared parking. The policy also encourages working with localities to make more on-street parking available to transit riders. Finally, the policy provides for the consideration of other public policy changes to promote station access, including working with cit- ies to better integrate land use and transportation and improve local parking controls. The first paid parking facilities under the policy were implemented in 2004. Paid parking permits were introduced at two Gold Line Metrorail stations (Sierra Madre Villa and Lake Avenue) at a cost of $29 and $28 per month, respectively. Today, reserved paid parking is available at 15 LA Metro sta- tions, with both monthly and daily reserved parking available (Figure 22). Patrons register and pay online. According to LA Metro, such charges have not resulted in reduced ridership or neighborhood spillover. More than 90% of parking spaces in the system remain free. LA Metro also has a joint development policy that was last revised in October 2009. The goals of the policy are to encourage comprehensive planning and development around station sites and along transit corridors, and reduce automobile use and congestion through encouragement of transit-linked development. At specific sites, the policy aims to promote and enhance transit ridership, enhance and protect the transporta- tion corridor, enhance the land use and economic development goals of surrounding communities, and generate value to LA Metro. The joint development policy provides specific imple- mentation procedures for soliciting project proposals, evalu- ating proposals, and dealing with unsolicited proposals. The policy includes no specific requirements for parking replace- ment. According to LA Metro staff, parking spaces are added or replaced depending on demand. LA Metro currently has a project underway to update the agency’s parking policies and develop a comprehen- sive Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan. In its first phase, the project will develop management alternatives for the board to consider. In its second phase, a Metro Parking Strategic Implementation Plan (a 5- to 10-year program) will be presented to the Board for adoption that will include proj- ects for implementation. Finally, some of the areas the master plan will cover include a facilities assessment, ridership versus demand model, supply and demand analysis, and an evalua- tion of Metro’s parking enforcement, management, organiza- tional structure, and maintenance schedule. FIGURE 22 LA Metro park-and-ride parking facility. (Source: LA Metro.)