Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Third Edition: Chapter 3, Park-and-Ride/Pool (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-92
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
3-1 3 -- Park-and-Ride/Pool OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY Park-and-ride facilities and associated transit services along with park-and-pool facilities formalize and make readily available the option of mixed-mode travel. The combination they facilitate allows use of a low-occupancy mode, most often driving alone, where travel densities are low and high-occupancy modes are inconvenient.
|
From page 2... ...
3-2 Chapter users are urged to review the initial three subsections of this "Overview and Summary" before proceeding to the "Traveler Response Summary" and following sections, to be prepared with a fuller understanding of the context and the limitations of the information being provided. This chapter addresses park-and-ride and park-and-pool facilities working together with supportive features and in coordination with high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
|
From page 3... ...
3-3 • Shifting of parking away from the CBD and, to some extent, other dense activity centers. Thousands of parking spaces for a region's central core may be provided through parkand-ride and park-and-pool facilities.
|
From page 4... ...
3-4 parking is located on the edge of a downtown area or other major activity center. Such facilities expand the amount of parking available in the central area and help intercept automobiles before they enter the congested core.
|
From page 5... ...
3-5 may not be as attractive to riders as exclusive-use facilities, but they are an often-deployed low-cost solution. Pay Versus Free Park-and-Ride Facilities.
|
From page 6... ...
3-6 and HOV systems. A major example of larger facilities is provided by the HOV lane system Houston, Texas, which makes use of mid-to-large-size lots with 500 or more spaces.
|
From page 7... ...
3-7 travel, length of access trip, mode of access, and like characteristics of interest have been conducted in relatively few areas. Influences of external factors such as changes in service levels, transit fares, parking rates, and the local economy have not been well considered.
|
From page 8... ...
3-8 parking capacity is available, however, net revenue gains have been obtained by eliminating or selectively lowering parking fees. Reported systemwide average space utilization is typically 75 to 90 percent but ranges from roughly 50 to 100 percent.
|
From page 9... ...
3-9 facilities include direct priority transit service to the CBD, congested highway travel conditions, lack of convenient parking at the destination, and long travel distances. Key reported incentives for using park-and-ride/pool besides cost and time savings are avoidance of driving stress and allied benefits.
|
From page 10... ...
3-10 Response to Rail Park-and-Ride Facilities Table 3-1 lists data on rail transit park-and-ride from a variety of locations, giving number of individual facilities, amount of parking, and utilization levels. Additional information for selected systems, including some growth trend data, follows.
|
From page 11... ...
3-11 Table 3-1 Examples of Utilization of Rail Park-and-Ride Facilities System (Year) Number of Facilities Number of Spaces Parked Vehicles Percent Capacity Commuter Rail – North America Caltrain (1998)
|
From page 12... ...
3-12 The New Haven Line, including the main line and its three branches, captures 75 percent of the work trips bound for New York City according to 1990 Census data for Connecticut. A majority of these may be assumed to start their trip by auto, because 70 percent of Connecticut New Haven Line customers drive or carpool to their station and park.
|
From page 13... ...
3-13 22 percent of the users previously drove. This was taken to be equivalent to 0.22 new rail riders per commuter parking space added, a value in close correspondence with the elasticity of ridership to park-and-ride spaces of +0.2 suggested by Metro-North (Levinson and Weant, 2000)
|
From page 14... ...
3-14 Road service area was fairly common, however, while the reverse was not observed. These phenomena were presumably induced by the more frequent service of the C&NW and rapid transit lines, and demonstrate both the relevance of transit service levels and the inherent ability of the park-and-ride patron to drive to the best of competing services (Pratt and Bevis, 1971)
|
From page 15... ...
3-15 Table 3-3 Metra Park-and-Ride Usage Characteristics and Mode of Arrival Station Distance to CBD (Miles) 0-10 10-20 20-30 30+ Overall System Weekday boardings (AM peak inbound)
|
From page 16... ...
3-16 and Impacts" section in two locations: under "Prevalence of Park-and-Ride Activity" and also under "Usage Characteristics of Park-and-Ride/Pool Facilities" -- "Mode of Access." End-of-line HRT/Metro stations often have more than 1,500 spaces while many closer-in stations may have few if any parking spaces. For example, Atlanta's MARTA offers approximately 26,000 spaces at its 38 rail stations.
|
From page 17... ...
3-17 been taken well beyond original expectations. As of 2002, 33 out of 83 stations had all-day park-and-ride facilities with 44,300 spaces in operation by or in arrangement with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
|
From page 18... ...
3-18 access modes to the LRT system at suburban stations are feeder buses and park-and-ride. In 1992, 11 park-and-ride lots with 6,800 parking spaces were in operation with the three lines.
|
From page 19... ...
3-19 busways/BRT are explored in Chapter 4, "Busways, BRT and Express Bus," with related mode of access data on a route level in that chapter's "Related Information and Impacts" section under "Mode of Access and Egress to BRT/Express Buses." Table 3-4 presents information on park-and-ride lots associated with HOV facilities. Such park-and-ride lots tend to have a degree of park-and-pool activity associated with them.
|
From page 20... ...
3-20 Table 3-4 Examples of Utilization of HOV Park-and-Ride Facilities HOV System (Year) Number of Lots Number of Spaces Parked Vehicles Percent Capacity Houston I-45 North (1998)
|
From page 21... ...
3-21 Snohomish County, Washington, Community Transit Park-and-Ride Lots. Community Transit operates 18 park-and-ride lots with express bus service to downtown Seattle and the University of Washington.
|
From page 22... ...
3-22 Table 3-5 Examples of Utilization of Express and Local Bus Park-and-Ride Facilities System (Year) Number of Lots Number of Spaces Parked Vehicles Percent Capacity Buffalo-Niagara Frontier (1995)
|
From page 23... ...
3-23 a 29 percent average utilization, compared to 41 percent for the 61 state-owned park-and-pool lots (King, 2003)
|
From page 24... ...
3-24 Transportation Institute, 1998)
|
From page 25... ...
3-25 Table 3-6 Examples of Utilization of Park-and-Pool Facilities System (Year) Number of Lots Number of Spaces Parked Vehicles Percent Occupancy With HOV Facilities Houston – I-10 West/Katy (1998)
|
From page 26... ...
3-26 at a sample of lots, the average occupancy of vehicles entering the lots was 1.17 persons per car and the average occupancy of vehicles departing the lots was 3.00 persons per car. This ratio equates to one carpool formed for every 2.5 vehicles entering.
|
From page 27... ...
3-27 vanpools statewide, ranging from 9 to 489 spaces in size and totaling 5,367 parking spaces. The average size was 78 spaces and the median was 60 spaces.
|
From page 28... ...
3-28 ride/pool facilities can thus reasonably be characterized as "choice" users, not "captive" to public transit, and also not generally "captive" to their auto. The one travel option they may well not have is the option of using transit service for the entire trip.
|
From page 29... ...
3-29 • The utility of the auto portion of the trip, between the origin and the park-and-ride facility (travel time and cost)
|
From page 30... ...
3-30 and other, 14 percent. Responses varied slightly by the seven counties in the region.
|
From page 31... ...
3-31 Similar findings pertaining to market shed shapes were obtained in research conducted in several Texas metropolitan cities. In the Texas study, the parabolic shape was found to extend 0.5 to 1.5 miles downstream from the lot and upstream 5.0 to 7.0 miles.
|
From page 32... ...
3-32 Table 3-7 Distributions of Distances Traveled to Park-and-Ride Lots Locale (Year of Data) 0-5 miles 6-10 miles 10-20 miles 20+ miles Maryland (1988)
|
From page 33... ...
3-33 of which were discussed under "Overview and Summary" -- "Analytical Considerations." What is presented here, then, is a mix of observations based on limited studies mainly within individual corridors or jurisdictions, informal surveys, and general experience and logic as expressed in industry rules of thumb. Some of these observations are undoubtedly better founded than others.
|
From page 34... ...
3-34 High Visibility. Park-and-ride facilities are best located at sites that are highly visible from approach roads, preferably roads that serve as major commuting corridors (Weant and Levinson, 1990)
|
From page 35... ...
3-35 use/transportation field warn that the impact of automobile parking as a landscape feature is largely neglected in travel studies and research, and that expanses of parking (such as a parkand-ride lot can be) create dead spaces and unattractive access for pedestrians (Ewing and Cervero, 2001)
|
From page 36... ...
3-36 83 percent received service at 15-minute or closer intervals (Urban Transportation Monitor, 2003b)
|
From page 37... ...
3-37 Figure 3-1 Effect of transit frequency on park-and-ride utilization Figure 3-2 Effect of transit service hours on park-and-ride utilization Source: Both Figures – Institute of Traffic Engineers (1973)
|
From page 38... ...
3-38 (Hart, 1992)
|
From page 39... ...
3-39 spaces and increased security (Hendricks and Outwater, 1998)
|
From page 40... ...
3-40 downtown areas of cities. Park-and-pool trip destinations may be more dispersed.
|
From page 41... ...
3-41 spaces are in substitution for CBD parking spaces. These findings mesh well with the concept that park-and-ride should be looked upon as a "transfer of parking spaces from the city center outward along express transit routes" (Weant and Levinson, 1990)
|
From page 42... ...
3-42 Demand-model-derived auto access penalties differ from region to region for many reasons, including artificial differences in elements of the demand modeling sets. What is of primary interest here is the presence of penalties and how they vary by income and trip purpose.
|
From page 43... ...
3-43 RELATED INFORMATION AND IMPACTS Prevalence of Park-and-Ride Activity Park-and-ride and park-and-pool provisions and activity have become fully established and have continued to grow steadily throughout the latter half of the 20th Century and beyond, as seen in the time series parking space and parked vehicle counts presented in the case studies, "Park-and-Ride/Park-and-Pool in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area," "HOV Lane Park-and-Ride/Pool Facilities in the Houston Area," and "Park-and-Ride and Park-and-Pool Facilities in King County, Washington." In terms of share of the transit market, arrivals via all forms of auto access constitute anywhere from 2 percent of persons accessing transit from their home in the case of small city bus systems to on the order of 80 percent for certain express systems in large urban areas. Table 3-11 illustrates this range in shares for a variety of transit service types and metropolitan area sizes.
|
From page 44... ...
3-44 Table 3-11 Prevalence of Auto Access Among Transit Riders (Percent of Access) Urban Area (CMSA or MSA)
|
From page 45... ...
3-45 parking spaces intended for commuter parking. This comparison is made relevant by the fact that most users of park-and-ride are headed to the central business district (CBD)
|
From page 46... ...
3-46 Table 3-12 Income, Age and Gender of Delaware Park-and-Ride/Pool Users User Characteristic New Castle County Kent and Sussex Counties Family Income Under $25,000 3.9% 10.7% $25,000 to $49,999 22.0 32.2 $50,000 to $74,999 27.2 26.8 $75,000 to $99,999 21.5 5.3 Over $100,000 25.4 25.0 User Age 20 to 35 25.5% 21.4% 35 to 45 28.3 42.1 Over 45 46.3 36.4 User Gender Male 44.6% 20.7% Female 55.4 79.3 Note: From a study of 66 park-and-ride/pool lots, all that could be identified in the state of Delaware, including 46 in New Castle County, 14 in Kent County and 6 in Sussex County. See the preceding text for a description of the three counties.
|
From page 47... ...
3-47 Table 3-13 Tenure of Park-and-Ride and Regular CTA Transit Riders (Percent) Months of Use a Park-and-Ride HRT Riders Overall b Bus Riders Overall b Less than 6 months 17% 19% 18% 6 to 12 months 10 10 9 12 to 24 months 17 16 13 More than 24 months 56 55 60 Notes: a Individual facility use in the case of park-and-ride, use of "the bus/train" in the case of riders overall.
|
From page 48... ...
3-48 percentages excluding riders 12 years of age or younger (Foote, 2000; McCollom Management Consulting, 1999)
|
From page 49... ...
3-49 Table 3-15 Summary of Prior Mode of Park-and-Ride Facility Users (Percentages) Number of Lots Range Average Drove alone 305 11% to 65% 49.2% Carpool/vanpool 303 5 to 28 23.2 Transit (bus or other)
|
From page 50... ...
3-50 Table 3-16 Prior Mode of Park-and-Ride and Park-and-Pool Facility Users Previous Mode (Percent) Locale Number of Lots Surveyed Drove Alone Carpooled or Vanpooled Bus Did Not Make Trip Other California San Francisco/Los Angeles 15 22% 9% 38% 29% 2% Connecticut Hartford/New Haven 14 40% 22% 7% 27% 4% Texas El Paso 5 62% 20% 7% 8% 3% San Antonio 6 57% 10% 10% 20% 3% Dallas/Garland 1 50% 11% 11% 25% 3% Houston 11 49% 17% 8% 24% 2% Houston 8 45% 20% 6% 26% 3% Houston West Belt 1 31% 5% 47% 15% 2% Houston Mason 1 25% 11% 49% 15% Houston Addicks 1 25% 11% 49% 15% Fort Worth 8 63% 15% 8% 9% 5% Urban Fringe Lots 25 58% 24% 11% 4% 3% Urban Lots 32 57% 25% 7% 8% 3% Florida Miami n/a 46% 14% 16% 24% Dade County n/a 65% 12% 17% 6% Wisconsin Milwaukee n/a 25% 18% 38% 19% Milwaukee-Mayfair 1 33% 7% 40% 20% Milwaukee-Bayshore 1 38% 12% 35% 15% Milwaukee County 13 47% 15% 32% 6% Washington Seattle 1 65% 12% 23% Seattle 1 59% 11% 29% 1% Seattle a 26 34% 11% 55% Notes: a Trips to the CBD only.
|
From page 51... ...
3-51 Usage Characteristics of Park-and-Ride/Pool Facilities Mode of Access A park-and-ride/pool usage characteristic of particular interest is the mode of access used to reach the facility from place of residence. Travelers may access park-and-ride/pool facilities by a variety of modes, but the great majority of users arrive by driving alone.
|
From page 52... ...
3-52 Table 3-17 Summary of Access Mode of Park-and-Ride Facility Users Access Mode Range in Percent Number of Lots Average Percent Drove alone 38% to 91% 146 72.6% Shared ride 3 to 36 146 11.0 Dropped off 0 to 31 117 11.1 Walked 0 to 21 132 4.4 Bus 0 to 10 132 1.3 Note: The "average" values shown are weighted by the number of park-and-ride lots surveyed. Partial or missing data from certain studies may cause the percentages not to total 100.
|
From page 53... ...
3-53 Table 3-18 Modes of Access for Stations with Major Park-and-Ride Facilities and for Route-and-Area-Based Systems of Park-and-Ride/Pool Facilities (Percent) Walk Bus Drive Alone Carpooled Dropped Off Other Boston – MBTA Red Line HRT (1984)
|
From page 54... ...
3-54 BART mode of access was found to vary sharply according to access trip length. Figure 3-3 shows the variation in mode of access as a function of access trip length for all BART home-tostation commute trips.
|
From page 55... ...
3-55 What a display like Figure 3-3 cannot fully illustrate is the interplay between mode of access shares by distance, housing density, and decline in choice shares for the trunk-line transit mode with distance from the station. All three of these factors working together, along with various other considerations highlighted in the "Underlying Traveler Response Factors" section, contribute to determining park-and-ride use.
|
From page 56... ...
3-56 downtown. Carpooling was in the 10 to 11 percent range at inner stations, but increased in importance to almost 30 percent of auto arrivals at stations 60 miles out.
|
From page 57... ...
3-57 different perspective indicative of lesser frequency or regularity of use. The difference and the implications are fully discussed and demonstrated in Chapter 12, "Transit Pricing and Fares," under "Underlying Traveler Response Factors" -- "Transit Use Frequency." Arrival and Departure Times and Turnover.
|
From page 58... ...
3-58 Facility Size and Amenities Facility Size and Internal Walk Distances Park-and-ride facilities vary greatly in size, from as little as 20 to several thousand spaces, as covered in the "Traveler Response by Type of Park-and-Ride Facility" presentation. In addition to providing parking spaces, the available real estate must support internal and external circulation and access, and appropriate landscaping and amenities.
|
From page 59... ...
3-59 population, positively correlated with the kiss-and-ride mode of access and presumed by the researcher to simply indicate presence of multiple-person households (Schank, 2002)
|
From page 60... ...
3-60 Parking Pricing at Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-ride facilities themselves may charge fees for parking, especially at facilities that experience strong demand, such as at commuter rail and heavy rail stations. Such parking is usually priced at a substantial discount to the prevailing CBD parking rates.
|
From page 61... ...
3-61 The picture that emerges from Table 3-20 and other data is one of predominantly free parkand-ride parking, but with a majority of commuter rail and HRT/Metro systems levying a fee for parking at some of their facilities. The instances of both commuter rail and HRT/Metro systems charging for parking are all in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco metropolitan areas, all featuring among the most dense central cities of the United States.
|
From page 62... ...
3-62 uncertainties (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1996; Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2002c)
|
From page 63... ...
3-63 These positive impacts may be counter-balanced to some degree, however, if significant numbers of travelers attracted to park-and-ride were already transit users and previously rode feeder transit or walked to gain access to the long-distance transit mode. This effect, which would tend to manifest itself as increased traffic in the urban fringe, may be exacerbated if diversion to the parking facility introduces indirectness of travel or induces the making of additional auto trips (Pratt and Copple, 1981; Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2003)
|
From page 64... ...
3-64 Much of the before-and-after study information on park-and-ride facility traffic volume and VMT impacts is dated, but not likely to be invalidated by the passage of time. Some of the available findings must be subsumed from projects with heavy but not exclusive utilization by park-and-ride patrons.
|
From page 65... ...
3-65 Table 3-22 Relationship of VMT Reduction per Park-and-Ride Space to Distance to Primary Destination Distance to Primary Destination Annual VMT Reduction per Space 10 miles 20 miles 30 miles 40 miles 2,800 VMT 4,300 VMT 5,700 VMT 7,200 VMT Source: Flora, Stimpson and Wroble (1980)
|
From page 66... ...
3-66 or other major activity centers, park-and-ride lots help reduce cold starts, hot soaks and associated automobile emissions in these densely populated areas. Finally, it should be noted that as new no-emission and low-emission technologies are introduced, pollutant emissions may become more closely related to VMT incurred and less influenced by vehicle activation and parking.
|
From page 67... ...
3-67 provision of park-and-ride facilities was estimated to provide were 0.09 percent in carbon monoxide, 0.12 percent in hydrocarbons, and 0.16 percent in nitrogen oxide. Total suspended particles were estimated to have been increased by 0.08 percent (Rutherford and Wellander, 1986)
|
From page 68... ...
3-68 benefits should accrue to all groups, however, to the extent that traffic is reduced and trunk line transit service is maintained or enhanced to handle park-and-ride patrons. Providing park-and-ride facilities in lieu of local outlying area service may hurt transit dependent persons, however, particularly if lower-income jobs are left unreachable by transit.
|
From page 69... ...
3-69 The study started with a survey of users of the 26 permanent lots existing circa 1985. A 39 percent survey return rate was achieved.
|
From page 70... ...
3-70 • Location in corridors with highway congestion, preferably with facility siting in advance of the congestion. • Facility siting that affords quick and easy highway access, preferably within 1/2 mile or so of the direct auto travel route and with good visibility.
|
From page 71... ...
3-71 CASE STUDIES Park-and-Ride/Park-and-Pool in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Situation. The Metropolitan Washington region encompasses the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia, and south-central Maryland.
|
From page 72... ...
3-72 Table 3-23 Characteristics of the "Most Successful" Park-and-Ride (P&R) Lot at Each of 24 Transit Agencies Distance (miles)
|
From page 73... ...
3-73 Table 3-23 Characteristics of the "Most Successful" Park-and-Ride (P&R) Lot at Each of 24 Transit Agencies (continued)
|
From page 74... ...
3-74 The first park-and-ride lot associated with the Washington Metrorail system opened in 1976, at the Rhode Island Avenue station. Park-and-ride has continued to be developed as part of Metrorail expansion, with 39 facilities in operation in 1995.
|
From page 75... ...
3-75 a park-and-ride/pool facility on the typical weekday. The greater growth in parking than in spaces has produced a climb in the overall average occupancy rate from 61 to 76 percent.
|
From page 76... ...
3-76 There were, in 1995, 66 percent more facilities in the expanded region than in the constant sized 1977-1983 study area, along with 27 percent more park-and-ride/pool spaces and 24 percent more parked vehicles. Of the 59,258 parked vehicles in 1995, 34,195 were oriented to Metrorail (58 percent)
|
From page 77... ...
3-77 virtually empty. The study authors observe that a uniform regional development policy supported by accurate forecasting procedures would be helpful.
|
From page 78... ...
3-78 Corridor average utilization ranged from 34 percent in the Southwest to 56 percent in the Gulf corridor. Table 3-25 Houston HOV Lane Park-and-Ride/Pool Facility Supply and Utilization Year HOV Lane 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 North (I-45N)
|
From page 79... ...
3-79 Table 3-25 Houston HOV Lane Park-and-Ride/Pool Facility Supply and Utilization (continued) Year HOV Lane 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 TOTALS Park-and-Ride Lots 10 13 16 18 19 20 21 23 25 25 Spaces 6,414 11,994 15,426 19,397 20,862 22,882 24,030 26,374 27,806 28,507 Occupancy 4,070 6,233 8,118 10,230 11,210 12,626 12,335 11,806 11,608 13,781 Percent Occupancy 63% 52% 53% 52% 54% 55% 51% 45% 42% 48% Park-and-Pool Lots -- -- -- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Spaces -- -- -- 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,169 Occupancy 84 184 126 131 133 162 184 Percent Occupancy -- -- -- 7% 16% 11% 11% 11% 14% 16% Total Park-and-Ride/Parkand-Pool Lots 10 13 16 21 22 23 24 26 28 28 Spaces 6,414 11,994 15,426 20,766 22,031 24,051 25,199 27,543 28,975 29,676 Occupancy 4,070 6,233 8,118 10,314 11,394 12,752 12,466 11,939 11,770 13,965 Percent Occupancy 63% 52% 53% 50% 52% 53% 49% 43% 41% 47% Note: In the "Park-and-Ride Lots" tabulations for individual freeways, an asterisk (*
|
From page 80... ...
3-80 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in Texas, 1996. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX (1997)
|
From page 81... ...
3-81 Table 3-26 King County Park-and-Ride Capacity and Utilization, 1980-1998 Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 North District South District Permanent Park-and-Ride Lots 3 14 10 12 12 6 9 18 17 20 a Spaces 1,110 4,682 2,890 3,630 3,591 2,683 3,982 5,407 5,713 5,956 Occupancy 1,110 3,677 2,099 2,632 2,745 2,073 2,654 3,852 3,895 4,862 Percent Occupancy 100% 78% 73% 73% 76% 77% 67% 71% 68% 82% Leased Park-and-Ride Lots 1 14 7 10 14 4 18 17 22 37 Spaces 73 459 234 312 524 396 737 525 836 1,580 Occupancy 77 241 150 141 280 288 313 218 385 692 Percent Occupancy 105% 52% 64% 45% 53% 73% 42% 42% 45% 44% Subtotal Lots 4 28 17 22 26 10 27 35 39 57 Subtotal Spaces 1,183 5,141 3,124 3,942 4,115 3,079 4,719 5,932 6,549 7,536 Subtotal Occupancy 1,187 3,918 2,249 2,773 3,025 2,361 2,967 4,070 4,280 5,554 Percent Occupancy 101% 76% 72% 70% 74% 77% 63% 69% 65% 74% East District Total All Districts Permanent Park-and-Ride Lots 5 14 18 18 18 14 37 46 47 50 Spaces 1,897 4,002 5,157 5,301 5,330 5,690 12,666 13,454 14,644 14,877 Occupancy 1,895 2,711 3,776 3,920 4,577 5,078 9,042 9,727 10,447 12,184 Percent Occupancy 100% 68% 73% 74% 86% 89% 71% 73% 71% 82% Leased Park-and-Ride Lots 3 15 13 18 25 8 47 37 50 76 Spaces 169 749 546 584 905 638 1,945 1,305 1,732 3,009 Occupancy 186 270 214 211 387 551 824 582 785 1,359 Percent Occupancy 110% 36% 39% 36% 43% 86% 42% 45% 45% 45% Subtotal/Total Lots 8 29 31 36 43 22 84 83 97 126 Subtotal/Total Spaces 2,066 4,751 5,703 5,885 6,235 6,328 14,611 14,759 16,865 17,886 Subtotal/Total Occupancy 2,081 2,981 3,990 4,131 4,964 5,629 9,866 10,309 11,195 13,543 Percent Occupancy 101% 62% 70% 70% 80% 89% 67% 69% 66% 76% Notes: a One lot closed for two years. Source: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (1998)
|
From page 82... ...
3-82 Table 3-27 Central Puget Sound Park-and-Ride Facility Supply and Utilization Rates Expressed in Percentage Changes for Major Facilities, 1995-2001 Area Capacity Change Utilization Rate Change Northwest King County 14.2% 15.1% East King County -5.7 21.1 South King County 5.8 3.5 Snohomish Co. (north of King Co.)
|
From page 83... ...
3-83 newspaper publicity, pathfinder signs, civic ceremonies, inquiry responses and related activities. Analysis.
|
From page 84... ...
3-84 Source. Ambruso, C., "Tualatin Park-and-Ride Lot Program Evaluation." Transportation Research Record 1297 (1991)
|
From page 85... ...
3-85 Cervero, R., Ronald, A., Goldman, T., and Wu, K.-L., Rail Access Modes and Catchment Areas for the BART System. Working Paper UCTC No.
|
From page 86... ...
3-86 Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment -- A Synthesis." Transportation Research Record 1780 (2001)
|
From page 87... ...
3-87 Liu, R., Pendyala, R M., and Polzin, S., "Simulation of the Effects of Intermodal Transfer Penalties on Transit Use." Transportation Research Record 1623 (1998)
|
From page 88... ...
3-88 Michael Baker Corporation, Crain & Associates, LKC Consulting Services, and Howard/Stein-Hudson, "The Potential of Public Transit as a Transportation Control Measure: Case Studies and Innovations, Draft Document." Annapolis, MD (October, 1997)
|
From page 89... ...
3-89 Pratt, R H., and Copple, J
|
From page 90... ...
3-90 Stockton, B., Daniels, G., Hall, K., and Christiansen, D., An Evaluation of High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in Texas, 1996. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX (November, 1997)
|
From page 91... ...
3-91 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, "Daily Parking At Metro Stations." http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/daily-parking2.cfm (Website accessed July 22, 2002a)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.