Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Guidebook on Planning and Managing Park-and-Ride (2017)

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.

17 C h a p t e r 3 Purpose of This Chapter Planning requires both long-range planning and site-specific project planning. Planning park-and-ride requires an understanding of travel demand modeling and documentation of local factors that may affect service. The planning process has a significant impact on the result- ing built environment because it dictates the placement and supply of infrastructure to support transit access. This chapter describes options for model development and application. It details coordina- tion methods between transit agencies and local partners, and it identifies considerations for accurate forecasting. This chapter discusses: • How transit service characteristics affect park-and-ride. • How to incorporate park-and-ride into master planning/long-range park-and-ride planning. • How to incorporate park-and-ride into project planning. • How to estimate demand for parking. • How to decide which facility types and ownership approaches to use. Strategic Planning for Park-and-Ride P h ot og ra ph c ou rt es y of U ta h T ra n si t A u th or it y.

18 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Transit Service Characteristics Transit service characteristics directly affect the opportunities and requirements for park- and-ride. Planning must take into consideration these factors and how they influence travel behavior. Transit service frequency, area land uses, and regional travel patterns all affect mode choice and economic decision making. This section discusses the various transit service charac- teristics and how they affect planning for park-and-ride. Transit Services and Land Use Contexts Different transit services and land use contexts demand different park-and-ride planning considerations. High-capacity transit lines and suburban areas are likely to demand greater capacity for parking compared to local bus routes or higher-density areas closer to the urban core. This is because high-capacity transit typically serves large metro areas with high CBD parking costs and often provides a travel time or reliability benefit compared with driving in traffic. Suburban areas do not provide the land use density to support a frequent, fine-grained transit network, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in these areas is often insufficient. Higher-density areas, on the other hand, are more likely to provide good transit ser- vice close by that can be accessed by walking. Local bus routes have lower passenger demand relative to high-capacity routes and thus lower demand for parking. Land Value Land use and transit service dynamically affect the demand for and opportunities for park- and-ride. Chief among land use factors is the cost of land. Inexpensive land with few competing demands for development can be converted to parking in strategic locations for transit. Where land values are higher, the cost of dedicating real estate to parking will increase. In these cases, it may be necessary to charge for parking. Where land values are high and park-and-ride demand is also high, structured parking may be required to balance the land value with the costs associated with the parking facility. Opportunity costs associated with not developing this land can be significant, which leads some transit agencies to evaluate opportunities for TOD as a real estate investment. Park-and-ride planning must take into consideration the value of land around a transit agency’s preferred locations. Transit locations farther from the urban center have access to less-expensive real estate, and surface parking lots likely provide significant value to the transit agency. On the other hand, transit locations closer to the urban center typically experience greater competition for land, and therefore the cost of land is higher. As the cost of land increases, the transit agency needs to consider the cost–benefit ratio for the investment. TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations (Coffel et al. 2012) discusses parking facility types and costs. Parking lots are usually preferable where physical and environmental conditions permit. However, parking structures may be necessary under the following circumstances: • Open-lot parking space is insufficient to meet the anticipated park-and-ride demand, and the available land for additional parking is insufficient to meet the demand. • Walking distances between the station entrance or bus loading area and the most remote parking spaces exceed about 600 feet. • The parking footprint must be limited for environmental or land availability reasons. • TOD is planned (or anticipated) adjacent to the parking facility. • Land costs are high, and a parking structure would be less expensive in terms of life-cycle costs. Different transit services and land use contexts demand different park-and-ride planning considerations.

Strategic planning for park-and-ride 19 Open-lot parking is generally less expensive to build than garages. However, when land costs exceed about $50 per square foot, multilevel garages may have less total cost (land and construc- tion). Typical unit costs for parking lots and structures are shown in Table 2. These costs (Coffel et al. 2012) are based on values cited in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Transportation Planning Handbook updated in 2010 (Meyer 2009). The handbook assumes 350 square feet per car. The effects of land and construction costs (exclusive of design, interest, and finance costs) are shown in Figure 2. For land values below $40 to $50 per square foot, surface parking lots are more economical than structures. Where land costs exceed about $100 per square foot, under- ground parking may be more economical than a surface lot. Figure 2 indicates that a seven-story structure is always more cost efficient than a shorter struc- ture. In practice, this depends on the total size of the facility. A taller structure built for a small number of vehicles has a higher portion of floor space used for parking aisles and ramps, limiting the efficiency of building taller structures for small park-and-ride facilities (Coffel et al. 2012). These trade-offs represent one point in time and will change depending upon relative changes in lot and garage construction costs over time. Table 2. Assumptions for parking facility development (2010 dollars). Construction Costs (per Space) Surface lot $4,200–$5,250 Garage $14,000–$17,000 Underground $25,000–$35,000 Capital recovery factor of 4% over 30 years = 0.05783 Annual Operating Costs (per Space) Surface lot $100–$130 Garage $800 Underground $1,000 Source: Coffel et al. 2012. Underground Parking $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 To ta l C os t p er S pa ce (L an d an d Co ns tr uc ti on C os t) Land Value per Square Foot Figure 2. Effects of land value on type of parking space (2010 costs). Source: Coffel et al. 2012, Exhibit 10-9.

20 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Land Availability The availability of undeveloped land is another key factor. Most transit agencies and local com- munities are not inclined to pursue eminent domain for parking facilities. Often, the availability of land along a transit corridor limits options for park-and-ride facility locations. Land value and availability will change over the life of a park-and-ride facility, and maintaining flexibility for use of the property should be a planning consideration. Proximity Another key land use factor is proximity to home locations. If few people live or work within a mile or two of the transit station, there is little opportunity to attract walk or bike access trips. In these cases, passengers must make their trips either by a connecting transit service (which may be infrequent or nonexistent in low-density suburban areas) or by car (either driving their own vehicles or being dropped off), and parking facilities become critical. On the other hand, residential density within close proximity of a transit station may reduce the demand for parking where an automobile may not be required for the first mile of a trip. Where many potential riders live within walking distance, it may be more important to prioritize walk access over parking for private vehicles. Impact of Transit Level of Service Park-and-ride serves primarily customers who have access to private vehicles but do not need to use them during the middle of the day. These riders compare the cost, convenience, and quality of transit service to driving. High-quality transit that provides frequent and relatively quick access to major regional destinations attracts passengers, especially where traffic congestion and parking costs make driving to these destinations less desirable. Where feeder bus service is considerably less frequent than the high-capacity service it connects to, passengers may find it more convenient to drive to the high-capacity service than to plan their activities around the feeder bus schedule. Master Planning/Long-Range Park-and-Ride Planning Park-and-ride planning can happen ad hoc, when an opportunity arises at a specific site (see Chapters 5, 8, and 10 for examples), or as part of larger planning processes. The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or other regional planning agency may lead the planning effort in order to provide regional policy consistency in park-and-rides and to coordinate among the vari- ous potential providers of park-and-ride (e.g., transit agency, state department of transportation, municipalities, and private parking operators). Park-and-ride plans reflect policy for park-and- ride, identify the need for new facilities, and evaluate future needs and uses for existing facilities. Planning Process Park-and-ride master planning describes a process for identifying and evaluating potential park-and-ride locations according to variables such as residents within a geographic area and congestion along commuter corridors. The park-and-ride master planning process defines or refines such variables, which seek to align investment decisions with tran- sit agency and regional goals. Decisions to build parking facilities, like any land development decision, must take into consideration opportunity costs associated with other land use opportunities. In the Salt Lake City region, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) under- took a park-and-ride planning process to identify needs and opportunities Park-and-ride master planning describes a process for identifying and evaluating potential park-and-ride locations.

Strategic planning for park-and-ride 21 for parking and considerations for charging for parking. UTA’s Park-and-Ride Lot Master Plan (2014) also covers general planning topics, including design, maintenance, marketing, and opportunities for innovation. Other examples of targeted park-and-ride planning are found around the country. In Norfolk, Virginia, Hampton Roads Transit conducted a regional park-and-ride analysis to determine where to invest in future park-and-ride opportunities (Hampton Roads Transit 2014). Likewise, in metropolitan Washington, D.C., the regional planning agency—the Metro- politan Washington Council of Governments—led a regional station access planning effort across the region’s three primary transit providers: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Virginia Railway Express, and MARC Train. Among other activities, the effort looked at opportunities to add or modify parking at transit stations (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 2012). Strategies for Incorporating Park-and-Ride Planning into Long-Range Plans Transit station access evolves as an area’s land uses change and population and employment grow. Partner public agencies at the city and regional level periodically conduct long-range planning with particular attention to population and employment changes. Long-range trans- portation plans, for example, provide an opportunity to comprehensively envision a future transportation system for a region. Park-and-ride represents a fundamental component of the regional transportation system and needs to be integrated into the planning. Parking and Drop-Off/Alternative Modes In regional planning activities, park-and-ride is often seen as an opportunity to shift travel demand from driving to transit, especially along predominant commuting corridors. Travelers who drive to a transit station and ride the rest of the way to their destination can help reduce traf- fic congestion, emissions, and regional vehicle miles traveled. In larger cities where automobile capacity cannot meet traffic demand, regional transit and park-and-rides are critical. Another benefit of park-and-ride is the opportunity to attract passengers by drop-off and pick-up by family members or ridesourcing companies. In addition to providing priority spaces for individuals with disabilities, attention should be given to convenient space for passenger drop-off and short-term parking for drivers waiting to pick up passengers. As options for ride- sourcing expand and the feasibility of autonomous vehicle shuttles increases, more capacity for drop-off/pick-up access may be needed. Cooperation Between Transit Agency and Regional Planning Entity A transit agency should work closely with the regional planning entity, alongside local jurisdic- tions and the development community, to coordinate regional park-and-ride needs. For example, Metro, the MPO in Portland, Oregon, sets transportation policy and leads regional long-range planning. Future land use plans, including targeted growth and development, are coordinated around the region’s transit infrastructure, operated by TriMet. Metro and TriMet work together through planning to ensure that their plans are coordinated. TOD is a common focus in long-range planning since it provides an opportunity to increase residential and employment densities around existing or new transit infrastructure. If park- ing already exists, a transit agency may experience ridership benefits from eliminating parking capacity in favor of facility area development; however, the transit agency must also deal with the loss of parking that current riders may depend on. Some transit agencies have a policy that new development must provide at least one-to-one replacement of park-and-ride spaces.

22 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Transit agencies should be active participants in local and regional planning processes, both to get park-and-ride projects into regional plans (to facilitate future development and grant funding) and to identify opportunities to change station-area priorities, including the potential for TOD. Criteria for Parking Jurisdictions and planning bodies may establish criteria for when and where parking at transit stations is appropriate. For example, the City of Portland, Oregon, has an informal agreement with TriMet that there will be no park-and-ride lots within about 5 miles of the city center. Seattle prohibits new park-and-ride lots within the city, and the Seattle suburb of Bellevue does not allow any parking facilities (public or private) with more than 50 spaces. In contrast, Houston METRO expands park-and-ride capacity in response to demand and as a mitigation for congestion. Fixed-Guideway/Corridor Planning Park-and-ride planning also occurs during fixed-guideway and corridor planning activities, including planning for new service and operational analysis of existing service. Corridor planning, usually undertaken by the governing jurisdiction, can create opportunities for new park-and-ride facilities or enhance access for other modes, which may dictate reallocating station-area space. ConnDOT incorporates park-and-ride facilities into most transportation projects affecting highway intersections and high-capacity transit facilities. The relative additional cost to incorpo- rate a park-and-ride facility into programmed construction projects is generally considered low and the benefits considered worthwhile. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) includes park-and-ride in regional long-term planning while simultaneously developing shorter-term plans. Likewise, nearly all UTA-owned park-and- ride lots were developed in conjunction with rail projects. The incremental costs of these facili- ties within the scope of larger infrastructure investment can be easier to advance compared to stand-alone projects. Project Planning Planning activities described in the previous section focus on high-level, system-wide con- siderations. However, planning is also critical at a project-specific level. Park-and-ride project planning should adhere to the fundamentals of general planning processes. The keys to effective planning are: • Identification of need. • Evaluation of alternatives. • Project selection. • Implementation. Project planning should take into consideration the intended use and where the project fits in the park-and-ride typology (described in Chapter 2). Formal planning processes help ensure consistent decision making and predictable outcomes for all stakeholders. At the same time, flex- ibility is needed to allow transit agencies to respond to different needs in different contexts. Within a single transit service area, park-and-ride projects in different jurisdictions may face vastly different policies, reg- ulations, and required processes. Planning, locating, and selecting park-and-ride facilities require balancing many factors. Sites should be located where there are good Within a single transit service area, park- and-ride projects in different jurisdic- tions may face vastly different policies, regulations, and required processes.

Strategic planning for park-and-ride 23 highway and transit access and visibility, strong ridership potential, and a perception of security. Facilities should be located where land is available and affordable, and where environmental impacts can be minimized. TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transpor- tation Stations identifies the following broad planning principles underlying site locations and selection (Coffel et al. 2012): • Locate park-and-ride facilities to intercept motorists in advance of traffic congestion and before points where tolls are applied. • Locate transit station parking facilities at a sufficient distance from the city center where access is good, adequate land is available, and environmental impacts are minimal. • Maximize the utilization of existing park-and-ride facilities and ensure that the viability of existing facilities is not threatened by a possible new facility. • Assess the merits of each potential parking location individually, taking into account the likely market and potential demand, as well as the site’s physical, environmental, and cost characteristics. • Construct facilities that will maximize usage, provide good access to rapid transit lines, and promote reverse commuting. • Support community integration of park-and-ride facilities, based on local community input. • Make provisions for the payment of parking fees that could be adopted initially or in the future. • Balance the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers with the needs of automobiles. • Ensure the safety and security of all customers. Estimation of Demand for Parking Demand for park-and-ride service is dependent on a variety of factors. Key factors are facility location relative to other transportation modes, peak commuting congestion levels, and park- ing costs relative to transit service destinations. Transit service is typically designed to be more direct to the CBD (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012). However, development patterns that are reflected in decentralization and multi-core regions have resulted in park-and-ride facilities and services that provide access to non-CBD locations. Transit agencies adjust park-and-ride lot size, transit mode, and service characteristics on the basis of facility location relative to the immediately sur- rounding land uses and roads and to the primary transit service destination. Demand estimation models have emerged in recent years to help planners determine how much parking supply is needed at a given park-and-ride facility. A number of techniques can be used to estimate parking demand, ranging from simple sketch planning techniques (e.g., multiplying transit route ridership by the park-and-ride access share experienced on comparable routes) to sophisticated models. These models are useful in identifying an order of magnitude but generally cannot be relied on in isolation. In addi- tion, parking demand is not static and will change over time as condi- tions change. Models to Estimate Demand for Park-and-Ride Three techniques to estimate demand that are discussed in this guidebook are national models, regional travel demand models, and transit-agency–specific models. National Models National research has developed several models that can directly or indirectly estimate park- and-ride demand at fixed-guideway transit stations. Demand estimation models help planners determine how much parking supply is needed at a given park-and-ride facility.

24 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Input data requirements vary by model but generally include, at a minimum, demographic data for the station area, available from the U.S. Census, and data about the existing or planned transit service at the station. More information about each model, including specific data requirements, is provided in Appendix A. Station Access Model. The Station Access Model provided in TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations (Coffel et al. 2012) can be used to forecast the ridership of high-capacity (not necessarily fixed-guideway) transit stations by mode (walk, bike, drop-off, park-and-ride, and feeder transit). The model is based on a model originally devel- oped by BART (FTA 2013a) but has been refined with national data to address a wider variety of transit modes and station types. The model directly provides park-and-ride demand forecasts and can also be used to test the effects of parking pricing and improvements to other access modes on station parking demand. Indicator-Based Method. TCRP Report 167: Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success (Chatman et al. 2014) provides an indicator-based method for estimating the ridership of fixed-guideway transit projects. This model does not produce an esti- mate of ridership by access mode. The user applies a representative park-and-ride access share value to the model’s estimated station demand to develop a forecast of park-and-ride demand. Regional Travel Demand Models The regional travel demand model is another potential resource for forecasting the travel mode choice for travelers in an area. Trip-Based and Activity-Based Models. There are two typical approaches to travel demand modeling: • The more traditional, four-step approach includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and traffic assignment steps. • More recently, some MPOs have begun using activity-based models, so called because they are based on the principle that travel demand is derived from people’s daily activity patterns. Some transit agencies will work with the region’s MPO to conduct sketch planning exercises using the regional travel demand model as an investigatory tool. Modeling demand for a new or altered transit service using a sketch exercise requires making additional assumptions based on other attributes not inherently germane to the usual use of travel demand models for regional modeling (Galicia and Cheu 2010). FTA Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS). The FTA developed STOPS as a sim- plified ridership forecasting method for local transit agencies to use when planning major transit projects. At their option, local transit agencies can use STOPS to meet all of the forecast-related requirements for transit projects proposed for federal funding. STOPS is a region-wide travel model, similar to traditional trip-based models maintained by MPOs in larger metro areas. The package is simplified in two ways: 1. Its development has already accomplished the specification and calibration of its compo- nent models, in this case using data assembled nationally from transit systems with fixed guideways. 2. Its local application relies primarily on already-available data: the Census Transportation Planning Package for worker commuting patterns; the General Transit Feed Specification data for detailed representation of local transit services; and information from the local MPO travel model to represent zone-level population, employment, and highway impedances.

Strategic planning for park-and-ride 25 Like MPO-maintained travel models, the STOPS mode-choice and transit-loading models pre- dict the number of zone-to-zone trips on transit, the distribution of those transit trips by access mode (including park-and-ride or drop-off and ride), and the volume of trips by access mode at each boarding location (including designated park-and-ride facilities on fixed guideways or bus routes). Consequently, STOPS provides a useful option for the prediction of park-and-ride demand on new transit facilities and service. STOPS is intended for use by capable travel-forecasting professionals. The FTA provides detailed information on STOPS, as well as downloads of the software and a contact name for tech- nical assistance, on the STOPS webpage, which is accessible from the FTA’s Travel Forecasts page (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/travel-forecasts). Transit-Agency–Specific Models Some transit agencies have developed their own internal park-and-ride models. Examples of these are: • The Regional Peer Site Model, developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute for Fort Bend County (Texas) Public Transportation in 2012 (Brooks et al. 2014). • Milwaukie (Portland, Oregon) Park-and-Ride Estimates, developed by TriMet in 2011 (Callas 2011). • The Access Policy Methodology, developed by BART in 2005 (Willson 2005). A transit-agency–specific model takes considerably more time to develop, calibrate, and vali- date than do the national models. However, a transit-agency–specific model may also provide more accurate results because local data are used for all the inputs, and more types of inputs can be considered, relative to the national models. A prerequisite for developing a transit-agency– specific model is that park-and-ride facilities already exist within the transit agency’s service area. Rider Catchment Areas Park-and-ride facilities are developed in varying geographic, population, demographic, and service-type contexts. A facility’s context affects where customers travel from to access the park- and-ride facility. The area around a park-and-ride facility where customers travel from is called the facility’s catchment area. The size and shape of catchment areas vary. Common catchment area shapes are conical, parabolic, and ellipsoid zones around a facility. A transit agency can investigate catchment area size and shape for an existing lot using a customer survey or a license plate survey. Defining a specific, or typical, catchment area is useful as a demand estimation model input because it allows planners to estimate facility utilization (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012). Right-Sizing Facilities A transit agency’s approach to right-sizing park-and-ride facilities must balance several factors: • Transit agency objectives. • Estimated demand. • Time frame. • Current versus future land availability and cost. • Available financial resources. • Policies for parking fees. Park-and-ride facilities are developed in varying geographic, population, demographic, and service-type contexts. A facility’s context affects its catchment area.

26 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities One critical aspect of right-sizing a park-and-ride facility is understanding the transit agency governing board’s expectations and tolerance for investment in land for future use. For example, UTA policy permits the transit agency to acquire enough land and construct parking to serve long-term demand. The UTA board and customers do not expect the facility to be near 100 per- cent utilization for many years and accept a gradual increase in facility utilization. Other transit agency boards might expect a park-and-ride facility to be at a high percent of utilization in the first few years after implementation. Rail Terminal stations of rail lines tend to have more parking due to larger geographic catchment areas. The farther a station is from primary destinations, the greater the likelihood of a larger parking facility due to both lower land prices and a higher demand for parking from commuters who travel longer distances (Duncan and Christensen 2013). Bus Park-and-ride facilities whose primary transit modes are local or express bus tend to be smaller lots, usually between 25 and 100 total spaces. This type of park-and-ride facility is often described primarily as a transit center or transfer facility and secondarily as a park-and-ride (Turnbull et al. 2004). Park-and-ride facilities for higher-capacity regional commuter bus services tend to be larger because the park-and-ride function is primary (Turnbull et al. 2004). The higher-capacity transit service typically can support a larger number of total parking spaces, sometimes even as many as 2,400 at one facility (e.g., Houston METRO). Estimate of Demand An estimate of demand is integral to right-sizing a park-and-ride facility. The time frame transit agencies use for estimating demand (e.g., short term at 1 to 5 years versus long term at 30 years), the land purchase, and how much of the parking is built right away are separate but related decisions: • Some transit agencies choose to acquire the amount of land required to construct a park-and- ride at the right size to meet short-term demand and wait to evaluate growth in demand long term (e.g., ConnDOT’s CTfastrak). • Some transit agencies choose to acquire enough land to serve long-term needs but only con- struct a park-and-ride sized to short-term demand (e.g., King County Metro). • Some transit agencies choose to acquire enough land to serve long-term needs and construct for the full long-term demand (e.g., UTA). Facility Types and Ownership Approaches An important factor in planning for park-and-ride relates to facility ownership. The deci- sion needs to be made at the beginning about whether the transit agency builds a facility, leases spaces, or shares use with another entity. The decision directly affects the planning, operations, and maintenance of park-and-ride facilities and must be thoughtfully considered. Types of Owner-Operator Arrangements Park-and-ride facilities can have many types of owner-operator arrangements. Some of the observed types are: • The transit agency owns and operates lots (e.g., BART and Houston METRO). • The transit agency owns lots and contracts all operations and management (e.g., Chicago Transit Authority [CTA] and Metra in Chicago).

Strategic planning for park-and-ride 27 • The transit agency owns lots and contracts some operations tasks (e.g., snow removal, clean- ing, and landscaping) (e.g., UTA and DART). • The transit agency leases space from a private or public entity (with or without a financial transaction) (e.g., NJ TRANSIT). • Multiple entities share operations responsibility (joint operation) (e.g., King County Metro and TriMet). Decision Making About Owned Versus Shared-Use Park-and-Ride Parking facilities represent a capital investment but also a potential return on investment. The construction and maintenance of a parking facility, in addition to the land value, require transit agency resources. At the same time, property values around transit stations often increase over time because the service itself generates value through access to regional destinations. Holding onto this land to use for parking in the near term could provide a return on investment in the future if sold or leased for private development. The decision of whether to own or lease park-and-ride facilities must be made early in the plan- ning process. Opportunities may be limited by local policy or customary practice. The following considerations may weigh into the decision to own or lease parking facilities. Following are features of owning park-and-ride facilities: • Offers control over all aspects of the parking facility (subject to local zoning considerations), from design through policies and practices for operations. • Requires capital investment. • Requires ongoing operations and maintenance of the capital investment to maintain a state of good repair (SGR). • Provides flexibility in future uses of the property. • Provides potential return on investment. If FTA funds are used to construct the park-and-ride facility, there may be constraints on later revising use of the property for another purpose. Leasing park-and-ride facilities, on the other hand, offers important trade-offs: • Limits flexibility for parking policies and practices for operations due to lack of control over the property. • Requires limited upfront capital investment. • Requires ongoing operating costs for lease payments. • Provides the opportunity to expand or contract the amount of parking provided by adding or closing leased park-and-ride facilities. • Creates a level of uncertainty for future parking availability if the property is sold or the owner decides to repurpose the facility and no longer wishes to lease the property. Over time, the opportunities and trade-offs may change. As regional development patterns change and a transit agency evolves, the prefer- ence to own versus lease park-and-ride lots may also change. These changes may be difficult to predict, but transit agencies can benefit from maintaining flexibility. Examples of Shared Use Many transit agencies use shared-use agreements to help control costs and take advantage of existing infrastructure. As regional development patterns change and a transit agency evolves, the preference to own versus lease park-and-ride lots may also change.

28 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities NJ TRANSIT has several types of shared-use facilities, acting as property owner, leaser, or simply a benefactor of available nearby parking. The majority of NJ TRANSIT’s park-and-rides are not directly operated by NJ TRANSIT, and with limited room for expansion, NJ TRANSIT has a high degree of shared-use facilities in its parking inventory. NJ TRANSIT generally finds its shared-use approach to parking to be advantageous because this allows it to focus its efforts on transit planning and operations instead of parking operations and maintenance. Likewise, WMATA has accommodated many different shared-use agreements and occasion- ally pilots innovative shared-use agreements. WMATA began testing a partnership with a grocery delivery service in 2016 to set up in its parking lots to provide services to WMATA customers. UTA has agreements with over 90 churches to use parking facilities on weekdays. CTA uses shared-use agreements to add parking capacity where owning a park-and-ride facility is not feasible. CTA also leases spaces for special events. Sound Transit, King County Metro, and TriMet also have extensive leasing programs to help control costs and take advantage of existing infrastructure. Summary Park-and-ride facilities offer an important opportunity for transit agencies to attract ridership from customers who live outside a comfortable and convenient walking distance from stations. Park-and-ride can take advantage of land at or near transit stations that is often already under the ownership of the transit agency. Planning for park-and-ride can occur in many different ways. Park-and-ride can be part of a comprehensive planning process, either driven by the transit agency or a regional planning entity. Or park-and-ride can take place when a transit agency is considering a specific opportunity—that is, considering providing parking for a planned or existing station. Land availability and cost are key factors in where and how large a site can be developed for park-and-ride. In any case, transit agencies benefit from planning for park-and-ride as early as possible. Transit agencies have many options in planning and implementing park-and-ride facilities. Transit agencies can own or lease the land, invest directly in parking construction or partner with other public or private entities, and can manage or contract out parking facility management. The right decision in each area depends on many factors, including a transit agency’s regulatory structure, goals and vision, and available resources. Moreover, preferences may change over time due to shifting policy or regional dynamics. Effective park-and-ride planning takes into con- sideration a wide range of opportunities and trade-offs and ensures flexibility moving forward. Regular review of and updates to the plans help transit agencies stay ahead of these changes and foster thoughtful decision making into the future.