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.

85 C h a p t e r 7 Purpose of This Chapter Some transit agencies with park-and-ride facilities provide parking as part of the transit fare, and others choose to charge for parking separately from fares. Charging for parking can offset capital and operating costs associated with the park-and-ride facility. Additionally, charging for parking can assist with managing demand for parking (as discussed in Chapter 6). Despite these benefits, charging for parking can be challenging. For example, a transit agency must enforce payment of parking fees to see a benefit. Other challenges include rider ship impacts, the logistics of collecting parking fees, and customer relations. This chapter helps transit agen- cies consider why parking charges are appropriate in the service area (or why they are not) and assess the market potential for implementing a parking charge. This chapter discusses: • How case study transit agencies charge for parking. • How the legislative and regional context affects charging for parking. • How to determine whether parking fees should be separate from fares. • How to set parking fees. • How to consider equity in charging for parking. • How to collect fees. • How to enforce fee payment. • How to address challenges with charging for parking. Charging for Parking P h ot og ra ph c ou rt es y of S K ID A TA A G .

86 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Case Study Transit Agencies To provide context for parking fees, Table 12 summarizes the median daily parking fee for each case study transit agency (as available). The table shows: • Parking pricing in the CBDs. • Whether the transit agency charges for parking. • The maximum parking fees the transit agency charges. • The transit agency’s rate of parking utilization (for those that provided data). Of the 16 transit agencies in the case studies, 10 charge for parking at some or all park-and- ride facilities. Legislative and Regional Context Restrictive Legislation Some transit agencies are restricted by legislation that limits their legal options to charge riders for parking. For example, legislation precludes Denver RTD from charging daily riders that live within the transit agency’s jurisdiction because they have already paid for the service through taxes. In Washington State, charging for parking is not permitted at some park-and-ride facilities located on state property. Coordination with Regional Entities Regionally, some transit agencies must coordinate with multiple transit providers and other stakeholders to implement policies for charging for parking. This requirement may limit the locations where a transit agency can charge for parking (because some lots are within the juris- diction of an entity that does not authorize charging a parking fee). Charging for parking at only some park-and-ride facilities can cause customers to shift to non-pay lots. Facility Ownership Facility ownership may also limit a transit agency’s ability to charge for parking. For example, the owners of a park-and-ride may decide that providing parking for transit is a means of giving back to the community, such as a church that offers space for park-and-ride, and may not allow a transit agency to charge for parking. Additional complications related to facility ownership include questions of which party is entitled to parking revenues and how to install parking fee collection devices on non–transit-agency property. Whether to Charge for Parking Separate from Fares Transit agencies that decide to charge for parking separately from transit fares may choose to do so for a variety of reasons. According to case study findings, transit agencies decided to charge for parking to achieve the following goals: • Encourage drop-offs, carpools, and non-auto access to transit. • Equitably allocate the cost of services to users of services. • Recover/offset the costs of operating and maintaining park-and-ride facilities. • Generate funds dedicated to improving access to park-and-rides or the security of park-and- ride facilities. • Manage demand among park-and-ride facilities.

Charging for parking 87 Transit Agency CBD Daily Pricing (Median)* Does Transit Agency Charge a Parking Fee? Maximum Daily Transit Agency Parking Fee Transit Agency Park-and-Ride Utilization U.S. national average $17.19 BART $29.00 Yes $3.00 or $8.50 at one station Over 95% Calgary Transit (CAD) $25.00 Yes $85.00/month reserved space Measured as percent of parking reserved; average 66% ConnDOT $19.00 No parking fee for CTfastrak Excess demand for parking at some CTfastrak park-and-rides CTA $35.00 Yes Varies $2.00 to $12.00 Data not reported in case study DART $10.50 No Average 45% Denver RTD $16.00 Yesa Resident 24-hr $2.00 or nonresident $4.00 Average 60% GCRTA N/A No Data not reported in case study Houston METRO $15.00 Yesb $2.00 garage or $3.00 rail Average 53% LA Metro $28.88 Yes Varies $2.00 or $4.00 reserved space Data not reported in case study Metra $35.00 Yes Varies $1.00 to $5.00 Varies by location, some greater than 85% NJ TRANSIT N/A Yesc Varies $2.00 to $11.00 Range 53–77% by mode Average 74% Port Authority of Allegheny County N/A Yesd Varies $2.00 or $8.00 Park-and-ride on light rail corridors and rapid bus corridors fill to capacity Sound Transit/ King County Metro $27.00 Noe Sound Transit average 93%; King County Metro average 67%; Washington Department of Transportation average 81%; shared-use average 59% TriMet $15.00 No TriMet average 56%; shared-use average 34% UTA $8.00** No Average 50%; designed to meet projected demand for 2030 WMATA $19.00 Yes Varies $3.50 to $5.00 Average 94% * Source: Cook and Simonson 2012. ** Source: UTA staff. a Denver RTD charges under certain circumstances (e.g., resident long-term parking >24 hours and nonresident parking), but the majority of vehicles (85 percent) are not subject to parking fees. b Houston METRO charges at three park-and-ride facilities (a rail station and two joint-development parking garages). c NJ TRANSIT charges parking fees at NJ TRANSIT–owned facilities. Fees at privately or municipally operated lots are similar. d Port Authority of Allegheny County charges at two transit-agency–owned park-and-ride facilities. e Sound Transit adopted a reserved parking fee program in 2016 for a limited number of park-and-ride facilities. N/A = data not included in the source reference. Table 12. Central business district parking charges for case study transit agencies.

88 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities A transit agency must also consider the parking market within the service area to determine if the market is capable of supporting charges for parking consistent with these goals. The following section discusses market analyses and the variables to consider when implementing parking fees. Setting the Amount of Parking Charges Parking Market Analysis Before determining whether to charge for parking, a transit agency must consider the parking market within the service area. The transit agency must determine whether the market is capable of supporting charges that help the transit agency reach the goals/outcomes identified as reasons to charge for parking. Transit agencies should analyze the market for parking near each park-and-ride facility and in the CBD or transit service destination(s) to determine the level of parking fees the market can support. Parking charges at park-and-rides are gener- ally only implemented if parking prices in the CBD or transit service destination are high. Once the market analysis is complete, the transit agency will have a better idea of the level of parking fees the market can support at each of the transit agency’s park-and-ride facilities. The goal is to establish parking fees that are competitive, without being so high that transit riders choose to drive and park at their destinations. Amount of Parking Charges As discussed previously, transit agencies should identify a specific goal or goals to charge for parking. These goals translate into objectives for parking fees (e.g., recover a specific dollar amount or manage demand). If a transit agency has determined that the market can support parking fees, the agency must determine how much to charge for parking. Certain variables, derived from the reasons case study transit agencies chose to charge for parking, influence the calculation of parking fees that are market appropriate. These variables include: • Revenue generation. • Cost recovery objectives. • Roundtrip transit fares and CBD/destination parking prices. • Fees according to service. Beyond specific parking fees, transit agencies should establish policy guidance and expecta- tions that guide the parking fees program and complement the objectives the transit agency set forth when it elected to charge for parking. Revenue Generation Parking charges at park-and-ride facilities can generate significant revenue. According to the trends among case study transit agencies, those that operate in areas with higher population density and higher land values, and consequently higher CBD parking costs, appear to have the greatest success generating revenue from parking. Case study transit agencies’ revenue genera- tion experiences are as follows: • Metra uses the revenue from parking fees to maintain park-and-ride facilities instead of using the transit agency’s general fund. The transit agency must determine whether the market is capable of supporting charges that help the transit agency reach the goals/outcomes identi- fied as reasons to charge for parking.

Charging for parking 89 • Houston METRO recovered about 29 percent of park-and-ride facility O&M expenses from parking revenues in 2013. • NJ TRANSIT charges for parking at most of its park-and-ride facilities to help offset parking facility costs and add to the transit agency’s revenue stream. • The Port Authority of Allegheny County charges for parking at two of its park-and-ride facilities to generate additional revenue and offset facility maintenance costs. • WMATA funds its park-and-ride program entirely from revenue generated by charging for parking at park-and-ride facilities. This revenue covers operating expenses, such as personnel, facility maintenance, and fare collection equipment and labor. • BART instituted a demand-based parking program for daily, non-reserved parking in late 2013. BART’s parking program revenue is dedicated to station and access improvements, program enforcement, and encouragement of non-parking modes of access at BART park- and-ride facilities. Cost Recovery Objectives If a transit agency elects to charge for parking to generate revenue (or recover costs), it should establish an objective for how much revenue the program is intended to generate and establish policies to govern use of the funds. These policies can help ensure that a transit agency’s initial goals associated with implementing parking fees are not overlooked when revenues start to flow. Roundtrip Transit Fares and CBD/Destination Parking Prices Customers’ Cost Comparison and Decision Making. Commuters typically assess total travel cost when deciding whether park-and-ride transit service will meet their needs. This assessment includes a comparison of the total cost to ride transit from origin to destination and the cost to drive a personal auto and park at or near the destination. Because park-and-ride is typically a commuter mode, most commuters compare the cost of transit with the cost to park at work—commuters with parking that is low or no cost near work are less likely to find a financial reason to ride transit. If parking costs are low at the destination, transit customers are less likely to pay parking fees for park-and-ride. UTA tried charging $1 per day at its two structured park-and-ride facilities between 2011 and mid-2013. UTA found that customers switched to using free on-street parking in the area rather than pay the daily fee for park-and-ride, and UTA eliminated the parking fee. On-street park- ing is free throughout the region, except in the urban core, and off-street parking is relatively inexpensive in downtown Salt Lake City ($8 per day) and at the University of Utah. A parking fee on top of the minimum roundtrip fare of $5 on UTA’s light rail (and higher for commuter rail) made the total out-of-pocket transit cost uncompetitive. Assessing the Cost of Transit and Parking at Destinations. Transit customers commut- ing to areas of high density and high property values, such as a large metropolitan downtown, could face significant parking prices at or near work. When a commuter compares the high price to park at or near work to the total cost to ride transit, transit may compare favorably. To remain competitive and encourage commuters to use park-and- ride, transit agencies that choose to charge a parking fee should ensure that the cost of riding transit (including the cost of parking) is lower than the cost of commuting to work using a personal auto and paying for parking at the destination. The cost of riding transit including parking fees for park-and-ride should be lower than the cost of commuting to work using a personal auto and paying for parking at the destination.

90 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities According to the case studies, CTA, Metra, NJ TRANSIT, and BART assess the cost of transit and parking at destinations to set parking fees. The transit agencies’ experiences are as follows: • CTA adjusts parking fees in an effort to better manage parking at rail stations to maximize revenue and ridership. CTA also reduces parking fees at underutilized park-and-ride facilities to increase demand and attract additional customers in those locations. • Metra determines parking fees in context with the local stations and the community’s ability to pay. Rates are set so that the price does not create a dramatic redistribution of commuter parking patterns and are based on rates at nearby private parking facilities. • NJ TRANSIT sets its parking fees based on a comparison of the quality and frequency of tran- sit service to the commuter’s next best option, such as driving a personal vehicle and parking near work. In most cases, the transit agency establishes parking fees that are at or below the current local market rate for parking. • BART provides rail service through the San Francisco Bay area. Local transit agencies provide connecting bus access and charge a separate fare for the bus trip. To encourage shifting from parking to bus access, BART needed to set parking fees higher than the roundtrip bus fare. Fees According to Service Transit agencies may choose to implement parking fees that reflect a specific parking service. For example, reserved parking commands higher parking fees from commuters who want the reliability of a guaranteed parking space. Additionally, transit agencies can implement parking options that improve the customer’s experience in an effort to further increase parking revenues—a better experience is more valu- able. Parking fees that reflect parking service are more likely to be successful in areas of high demand and limited availability. This section describes additional parking types and how each parking type might influence parking fees. Reserved Parking. Reserved parking includes daily, monthly, carpool, and long-term (airport) parking. Reserved parking provides an additional level of convenience for park-and- ride customers because they know they will be able to park when they arrive at the park-and-ride facility and can reduce the time otherwise required to look for a parking space. Reserved parking spaces may also be located closer to the transit boarding location (e.g., the front row) to further incentivize riders to pay for reserved spaces. BART, Calgary Transit, Denver RTD, Sound Transit, and WMATA offer reserved parking. Dedicated Spaces for Carpools and Vanpools. Transit agencies can encourage carpools and vanpools by providing reserved parking that acknowledges the park-and-ride customers’ commitment to reducing congestion and guarantees that they will be able to find parking. Sound Transit and King County Metro provide reserved parking specifically for carpools and vanpools. Parking Fees Set According to High-Demand or Low-Demand Location. High-demand park-and-ride facilities are typically faced with traffic/parking congestion problems. As discussed in Chapter 6, one way to reduce demand is to price parking according to demand at a specific park-and-ride facility. BART, CTA, Metra, NJ TRANSIT, the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Denver RTD, and WMATA all account for demand and congestion at parking facilities when establishing parking fees. Covered Versus Uncovered Parking. Covered parking reduces a vehicle’s exposure to the elements and helps keep riders cool and dry. Transit agencies may choose to implement covered parking to provide these additional benefits and justify premium parking fees.

Charging for parking 91 Equity Concerns: Title VI Analysis The FTA requires that certain transit agencies conduct fare equity analyses and report specific data to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI does not require transit agencies to conduct analysis of parking fees, but transit agencies may choose to consider the equity of charging for parking. Title VI Program Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance (e.g., states, local governments, and transit agencies) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities, and it obligates federal funding agencies to enforce compliance. All recipients of federal funding for transit must develop a Title VI program and present program updates to the FTA every 3 years. Required documentation includes, but is not limited to, Title VI notices to the public, instructions for filing a discrimination complaint, documentation of Title VI protected and vulnerable populations (low-income and minority populations), and a public participation plan that includes outreach to engage minority and limited-English-proficient populations. Title VI Documentation Transit agencies that provide fixed-route service must submit documentation of the transit agen- cy’s service standards and policies when updating the Title VI program. Transit agencies that operate 50 or more fixed-route vehicles in peak service and provide service within urbanized areas that have a population of at least 200,000 people have specific requirements that other transit agencies are not required to meet. These requirements include conducting fare equity analyses, presenting demo- graphic data, and reporting on transit service delivery consistent with the Title VI goals for non- discrimination. Transit agencies that analyze fare equity must complete the analysis for any changes in fare policy implemented in the 3 years prior to the transit agency’s due date for a Title VI update. Title VI and Parking Fees Transit riders use many modes to access transit service, including driving and parking, feeder bus service, bicycles, and shared-ride ser- vices such as taxis. Parking fees are associated with the mode of access and therefore are not considered a transit fare. The FTA does not require transit agencies to conduct a Title VI analysis regarding parking fees or mitigate potential impacts of parking fees. Sound Transit elected to perform a Title VI analysis of its permit parking program to assess the impacts on low-income and minority populations (Sound Transit 2015). The analysis found that the program would not have a disparate impact on minority populations, nor would the program place a disproportionate burden on low-income riders. However, a disparity would exist in the receipt of benefits for minority and low-income riders. Sound Transit chose to mitigate this disparity in several ways: • At least half of each permitted facility remains open for transit riders without permits. • HOV permits are low cost. • Those who arrive after the morning rush hour have access to unused permit spaces without needing a permit. The FTA does not require transit agencies to conduct a Title VI analysis regarding parking fees; however, a transit agency may choose to perform a Title VI analysis to assess the impacts on low-income or minority populations.

92 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities • Any future board decision on pricing SOV parking permits will also take into consideration options for discounted pricing for low-income riders. Methods of Collecting Fees Once a transit agency decides to charge for parking, it must determine how it will collect the parking fees. This section describes on-site, online, and staff-managed fee collection options, including cash, credit/debit cards, smartcards, fee payment applications (apps) for smartphones, and in-house or contracted staff. Each method of collecting fees costs the transit agency something to implement, operate, and maintain. For example, processing payments from credit and debit cards incurs fees, typically charged as a percent of each transaction. These costs reduce the net revenue from parking fees. Self-Service Payments On-Site Methods of Accepting Payment To accept payments on-site at park-and-ride facilities without employing customer service staff, transit agencies may choose to implement automated or semi-automated options. These options include: • Transit ticket vending machines. • Parking payment kiosks. • Automated driveway gates that require a payment to open. Forms of Payment As of 2016, each of these automated or semi-automated options is capable of accepting pay- ments from: • Cash. • Credit and debit cards. • Transit smartcards. To process payments from electronic media (credit/debit cards and smartcards), self-service on-site solutions must be connected to payment servers. Additionally, to process credit/debit card payments, a transit agency (or the transit agency’s parking vendor) must establish itself as a merchant and pay merchant processing fees for each transaction. Case Studies Case study transit agencies described self-service on-site fee collection as follows: • BART designed its parking payment system to ensure that customers are using BART transit service. The customer enters the station, pays the transit fare, passes through the fare gates, enters the parking stall number into an add fare/parking validation machine, inserts the cash fare or magnetic strip fare card, and takes the parking receipt. Customers that have a Clipper Card (smart fare card) can register online so that it can be used to pay daily parking fees. Once registered, customers receive a hang tag to display in their car. To pay for parking, they tag their Clipper Card at a parking validation machine after entering the fare gates. This deducts the daily fee charge from their account only on the days that they park and tag the validation machine. • Denver RTD accepts parking fees via on-site pay stations and identifies paid vehicles by rider- provided vehicle license plate numbers. Payment is made by cash or credit card, and riders may opt in to an automated program that deducts parking fees from a registered bank account. (The automated program gives the rider a 15 percent discount on parking fees.)

Charging for parking 93 • Houston METRO accepts payments at the Fannin South park-and-ride facility from a machine in the lot. Riders at the Cypress park-and-ride pay for parking using the transit agency’s smart fare card. • Metra contracts with a parking management company to manage its parking. Riders are offered both daily and monthly parking options, and the fee can be paid using manual pay boxes, automated ticket machines, or stored-value debit cards. • WMATA accepts parking payments from credit/debit cards or the transit agency’s smart fare card at ticket machines in the lane as customers exit the park-and-ride facility. WMATA does not accept cash payments for parking. Because WMATA operates with a flat parking fee structure, the transit agency does not require ticket vending machines or time stamps to accept payment. The ticket machines that accept payments for parking have a call button that will connect customers to a customer service representative at a central office location. Self-Service Payments Online and via Smartphone Applications Methods of Accepting Payment Paying for parking online or through smartphone apps alleviates the need to provide physical fee payment infrastructure at park-and-ride facilities but, if other options are not available, could potentially discourage riders who prefer to pay with cash or do not have a credit card. Transit agencies can collect self-service parking payments via transit agency websites and smartphone apps: • At the time of service (as with on-site self-service payments). • Ahead of time. Forms of Payment Websites and apps can accept payments via: • Transit-agency–specific stored-value accounts (such as those that provide funds for smart- card use). • Credit and debit cards. Processing payments via websites or apps requires web hosting (either in-house at the transit agency or via a third-party provider). Additionally, to process credit/debit card payments, a transit agency (or the transit agency’s parking vendor) must establish itself as a merchant and pay merchant processing fees for each transaction. Case Studies Case study transit agencies shared the following information about online and app-based parking payment options: • BART contracts with a vendor to implement the reserved parking program. Through the BART website, customers can pay for station-specific reserved daily, monthly, carpool, and long-term parking. The vendor also accepts applications for and manages the station-specific waitlist service for reserved monthly parking permits. • Calgary Transit only accepts payments for reserved parking online using the ParkPlus reservation system managed by the City of Calgary Parking Authority. • Denver RTD’s parking vendor offers a smartphone app for riders to use to pay for parking and to complement its on-site payment options. Each transaction completed through the smartphone app incurs a transaction fee of $0.35. • Metra’s parking management vendor offers online payment, pay by phone, and the Passport- Parking application for use on smartphones.

94 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Payments Accepted by Staff (In-House/Contracted) Methods of Accepting Payment Transit agencies that wish to provide immediate customer service and have on-site fee enforcement may choose to hire staff (or contract for the service) specifically to collect park- ing fees (and, in some cases, transit fares), answer customer questions, and provide an extra set of eyes on their facilities to improve security. While the customer service outcomes associ- ated with on-site staff are likely positive, additional costs will be incurred for on-site staff and some type of workspace (e.g., ticket booths, customer service center, or other enclosed space). Additionally, adding a human element increases the need for procedures to prevent theft or fraud. Case Studies Despite the challenges and additional cost, Houston METRO determined that providing on-site staff at park-and-rides is worthwhile. This transit agency provides on-site staff at the transit agency’s Fannin South park-and-ride facility to accept payments for daily parking and sell monthly parking hangtags to display within vehicles. Parking Fee Enforcement Transit agencies that choose to implement parking fees must con- sider the need to enforce payment policies. Without enforcement, transit agencies are likely to struggle to achieve intended outcomes. Methods of Enforcement Enforcement of parking fees requires transit agency staff, police, or other enforcement personnel to identify whether the owner of a parked vehicle has paid for parking. Determining payment status may include: • Observation of parking permits on the vehicle or dashboard-displayed parking receipts. • License plate matching technologies that reference a database of license plates of those who have paid the appropriate fees. • In-person payment collection. Transit agencies that operate across municipal, county, or state jurisdictions should consider the impact of varying ordinances and other governance on the enforcement of parking fees. Case Studies Case study transit agencies described parking fee enforcement experiences as follows: • BART has learned that, without a strong enforcement program, the transit agency’s parking fee program would not be successful. Enforcement of the parking program is the responsi- bility of the BART police department. In 2016, BART employed six full-time enforcement officers to enforce parking fees and included parking enforcement duties in the assignments of 26 additional officers. As of May 2016, BART intended to hire an additional four full-time parking enforcement officers using the revenue from the parking program and anticipated that the hiring trend would continue in future years. Parking permits are issued to a specific license plate number, which is used by enforcement personnel to verify valid fare payment. • Calgary Transit is a department within the City of Calgary. As such, the city’s parking authority provides parking enforcement for monthly reserved parking spaces. Roaming security officers Transit agencies that choose to implement parking fees must enforce payment policies. Without enforcement, transit agencies are not likely to achieve the intended outcomes.

Charging for parking 95 enforce parking policies and practices using license place recognition and other matching techniques. Calgary Transit’s facilities do not have dedicated on-site security personnel. • CTA provides roaming security at all park-and-ride facilities. Some facilities have physical barriers, such as fences and gated entry, to provide additional security. Municipalities with park-and-ride facilities are responsible for security and enforcement. Additionally, CTA’s parking management contractor employs attendants at each park-and-ride facility to handle day-to-day maintenance and customer issues. • Denver RTD’s parking program is based on vehicle license plate numbers. Customers enter their license plate numbers when paying the parking fee. The parking management vendor uses a mobile license plate reader technology that reads each license plate with mobile cameras in a short period of time (two cameras mounted on a vehicle reading both rows of vehicles simultaneously). For example, a 1,500-space facility can be monitored in about 30 minutes. The technology is able to identify 80 to 82 percent of the license plates it scans. Those missed are due to missing plates, out-of-state vehicles, dirt/snow, and other miscellaneous issues. License plate numbers are instantly checked against a database to verify compliance with parking fee rules for out-of-district customers. • Metra provides park-and-ride service under a variety of operating agreements. As a result, each municipality is responsible for the security and enforcement of park-and-ride facilities in its jurisdiction, and security and enforcement are different at each park-and-ride location. Metra police are not typically tasked with park-and-ride enforcement duties. • NJ TRANSIT’s vendors use demand for payment as a deterrent for parking violations— payment is required to either enter or exit the facility. Private operators also send bills to transit riders who violate parking restrictions or fail to pay at proof-of-payment locations. Challenges Associated with Parking Charges Charging for parking can provide transit agencies with benefits such as cost recovery and demand management. However, these benefits may be associated with some challenges, including parking spillover, ridership impacts, altered customer relationships, and the need for coordina- tion. This section documents each of these challenges and outlines potential solutions. Parking Spillover Parking charges may cause some park-and-ride customers to park on nearby streets or in adjacent parking lots for local businesses. The impacts of spillover parking can be mitigated by instituting a neighbor- hood parking permit program, implemented by the local municipality at the request of neighborhood residents or businesses. To improve the customer experience and help mitigate spillover effects from full parking facilities, Sound Transit developed a pilot proj- ect for showing real-time parking availability. Despite not charging for parking at the time of this research, UTA has implemented parking charge policies proactively—one policy requires the transit agency to coordinate with local jurisdictions to prevent spillover impacts when parking fees are implemented. Ridership Transit agencies may experience changes in ridership as a result of implementing parking fees. Parking fees may shift riders to other modes, such as bicycling or carpooling, freeing up space for Parking charges may cause some park-and-ride users to park on nearby streets or in adjacent parking lots for local businesses. The impacts of spillover parking can be mitigated by instituting a neighborhood parking permit program.

96 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities new park-and-ride customers and resulting in a net increase in ridership. However, parking fees may increase the total cost of the transit trip to the point that there is a loss of ridership. DART and Houston METRO do not have parking fees at most park-and-ride facilities because analysis shows that ridership is likely to decline as a result. Customer Relations Implementation of new parking fees or an increase in parking fees can upset park-and-ride customers. To address this challenge, transit agencies that consider implementing parking fees should work with the community to understand their concerns and develop policies and charges that account for customer input. Educational information explaining that parking fees can solve problems, such as reducing parking congestion and providing guaranteed places to park, can help address customer concerns. Case study transit agencies described customer relations challenges and experiences as follows: • Calgary Transit’s evolution of the park-and-ride service from completely free to pay per use to a reserved/free service has influenced riders’ travel patterns and opinions. A passenger sur- vey revealed a divide in values and perceptions between those respondents who felt that free parking is a right versus those respondents who liked the choice of reserving a space: – Reserved-parking respondents were generally free of stress and frustration, although a few had suggestions to make the experience better. – Free-parking respondents typically voiced frustration and anger at their experiences since reserved parking became an option. – The survey assessed which factors affected the decision to purchase a reserved parking space. Cost was the main factor deterring free-parking users from reserving a space. • DART’s Fair Share parking trial originated, in part, because of feedback from riders about the use of parking. DART learned that residents of the service area were frustrated by the fact that so many nonresidents (individuals that reside in locations outside of DART’s 13 member cities) were using park-and-ride transit service to commute and that DART residents were struggling to find parking. To address this issue, DART proposed the concept of charging nonresidents to park at specific, heavily congested park-and-ride locations. After Fair Share was implemented, customers who responded to a DART survey said that parking fees caused congestion at parking lots closer to the CBD (as a result of people avoiding parking fees by driving to free parking locations) and overloaded parking dedicated for people with dis- abilities. At the end of the Fair Share trial period, DART discontinued parking charges at all park-and-ride facilities. • NJ TRANSIT charges for parking at most of its park-and-ride facilities. The main exceptions are facilities that have a combined higher transit fare and lower frequency of service. The transit agency believes that the combination of a higher fare and lower frequency of service decreases customer tolerance for an additional parking fee. Additionally, based on experience, NJ TRANSIT implements parking fee changes incrementally, if possible, to reduce negative feedback from customers and the impact on customers’ finances. • WMATA offers centralized customer support to provide customer service in a cost-effective manner. Centralized customer support for parking, via intercoms at each station, offers a service to customers at less cost while allowing for easier control and management. Coordination with Other Providers Some metropolitan areas have several transit providers with adjacent or overlapping ser- vice areas. Regional coordination of parking fees presents challenges because the different

Charging for parking 97 jurisdictions and transit agencies may have different laws, policies, and goals for charging (or not charging) for parking at park-and-ride facilities. Additionally, the distribution of revenue derived from parking fees may be a source of friction between the different parties involved. Case study transit agencies described the transit agencies’ coordination experiences as follows: • Calgary Transit achieves effective regional coordination of a park-and-ride program with consistent communication to other public agencies involved in the planning and managing of park-and-rides. • Metra has learned that local control of parking allows each park-and-ride facility to be moni- tored more closely than if Metra were solely responsible. However, the mix of rules, regulations, and pricing schemes that have been adopted by Metra’s various partners makes coordinating a regional park-and-ride program challenging. • NJ TRANSIT operates park-and-ride service over a large coverage area. To do so effec- tively, the transit agency coordinates its work with many jurisdictions and municipalities. NJ TRANSIT works with three different MPOs, the New Jersey Department of Transpor- tation, and over 300 individual municipalities and jurisdictional partners across the state. This large number of partners is challenging for the coordination of services in general and for the planning and managing of park-and-ride facilities in particular. Often, stakeholders’ opinions and approaches to park-and-ride facilities vary widely, and this variation makes establishing a regional perspective about park-and-rides more difficult. The transit agency must also consider local zoning and ordinances when looking to expand or improve its park-and-ride program. • Sound Transit and King County Metro operate in the Central Puget Sound Region, with Seattle as the economic center. The region’s public transit agencies have a long history of collaboration, sharing facilities, and coordinating transportation services, creating a regional service network with 217 park-and-ride facilities. All public transit agencies and transit customers may use the facilities of any other transit agency in the region, facilitat- ing regional travel. Establishing and coordinating parking fees is complicated by issues related to ownership of the individual facilities. Of the 217 facilities, 26 are owned by King County Metro, 18 are owned by Sound Transit, 25 are owned by other transit agen- cies, 56 are owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and 92 are privately owned shared-use/leased facilities. In terms of total parking capacity, over one- third of the spaces are owned by the State of Washington. Specific challenges to regional coordination are that many state-owned facilities are prohibited from charging a parking fee and that the shared-use/leased spaces may not allow the infrastructure to implement parking fees. The regional MPO, Puget Sound Regional Council, is coordinating an effort to develop a regional parking management policy and resolve issues around parking facility ownership. • WMATA’s operating context means that regional coordination is both essential and chal- lenging. Since the transit agency operates in two different states plus the District of Columbia, it is subject to many different planning and zoning requirements. WMATA’s organizing document, known as the Compact, requires the transit agency to follow local parking and building ordinances and processes. Future Challenges In the future, the concept of charging for parking at park-and-ride facilities is likely to be affected by two emerging practices: mobile pay- ments via smartphone apps and dynamic parking pricing. The concept of charging for parking at park-and-ride facilities is likely to be affected by two emerging practices: mobile payments via smartphone apps and dynamic parking pricing.

98 Decision-Making toolbox to plan and Manage park-and-ride Facilities Mobile Payments Some transit agencies in the United States currently accept mobile payments for parking. As more transit agencies adopt mobile ticketing platforms and become more technology focused, the share of transit agencies that charge for parking via smartphones will increase quickly. Mobile parking payments also decrease overall capital costs because transit agencies can charge for park- ing without installing pay stations. Therefore, more transit agencies might begin to charge for parking because the cost of establishing a paid parking program will decline with continued adoption of mobile technologies. Dynamic Parking Pricing Dynamic parking pricing—adjusting parking fees according to real-time measurements of parking demand and supply—can help manage demand for parking and achieve the highest possible revenue generation from a paid parking program. Demand could shift as a result of dynamic pricing because some people will choose to pay lower fees at other park-and-ride facili- ties that have greater parking supply than their first-choice lot. Dynamic pricing can maximize revenue generation and is designed to establish market-derived parking fees (according to real- time micro-markets) that will appeal to a majority of customers without being so expensive that parking spaces are left empty. Summary Efforts to charge for parking at park-and-ride facilities are susceptible to market variables, and each paid parking program documented through case study research is unique—functioning under different parameters, established to achieve place-specific goals and objectives, and con- tributing to transit agency operational efficiency and revenue generation in different ways. How- ever, despite the individually tailored nature of existing parking fee programs, the considerations required to establish such programs are the same. Considerations for implementing parking fees include legislative and regional context, whether to charge for parking, analysis of parking markets, establishment of the amount to charge for parking, equity concerns, fee collection methods, fee enforcement, and challenges associated with charging for parking. More Information TCRP has published additional information about charging for parking. The following report offers more information: • TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c13.pdf. • TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Chapter 18: Parking Management and Supply: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_ 95c18.pdf. FHWA also offers additional information: • Contemporary Approaches to Parking Pricing: A Primer: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ fhwahop12026/fhwahop12026.pdf.