Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 53
54 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
into some of the institutional and technological challenges facing large-scale implementation of
these concepts:
· Road User Fee Program is a pilot implemented in Portland, Oregon, and assesses the technical
feasibility of replacing the state gas tax with mileage fees in order to fund transportation, as well
as the potential of using variable fees in congested areas at peak travel times to influence traffic
levels. ODOT is also conducting a demonstration of a weightdistance tax for trucks in partner-
ship with a Portland-based trucking company.
· Traffic Choice Study in the Puget Sound Region was implemented over 8 months to test the prac-
ticality and travel behavior implications of charging tolls based on distance, time of day, and road
location.
· Mileage-Based User Fee (Pay-as-You-Drive) demonstration project in Minnesota evaluated
the impact on travel of charging auto lease costs or insurance premiums by the mile. The project
aimed at better understanding the sensitivity of drivers to alterations in vehicle ownership/
lease costs and how results varied by income, location, and annual mileage driven. Planners
also wanted to gauge the potential of VMT fees to reduce travel, acceptance of VMT fees,
and requisite institutional arrangements for eventual wide-scale implementation.
All the above studies involved relatively small sample sizes and were conducted in metropolitan
areas. Cooperating gas stations in the area and participant vehicles were equipped with hardware
needed to charge fees based on mileage. All programs established mileage budgets based on base-
line driving records from which mileage-based charges were debited.
2.3.6 Parking Pricing
Parking pricing strategies are applicable on and off street at spaces controlled by municipalities
and can be of the following types:
· Revising or instituting rates to vary by times and/or locations of peak use, for example higher in
congested zones and/or peak times of day
· Rates progressing by length of time parked, for example more costly rates for second or subse-
quent hours parked
· Charges applied by actual time parked versus by time blocks; examples include daily versus
monthly parking charges and rates by minutes instead of by hours or all day rates
Recent examples of these parking pricing strategies include the SFpark program in San Fran-
cisco, the Park Smart pilot program in New York City, and a pilot program in Austin.
Exhibit 25 provides more information on parking pricing.
Exhibit 25. Parking pricing.
Planning Considerations
Travel/Traffic Elasticity: General price-demand elasticity "rule of thumb" is 0.1 to 0.3,
meaning a 10% increase in price reduces demand about 1% to 3%, including
shifts to other available parking on and off street, alternative modes, or
forgone trips.
Through-traffic proportion: New York City finds 39% of central business
district traffic is through, unaffected by parking policy.
The role of subsidized parking: Subsidized parking by employers affects the
price elasticity of parking demand (New York City experience).
Municipal rate hike: The City of Eugene raised monthly parking rates at two
municipal garages from $16 to $30 per month, and at several surface lots
from $6 to $16 per month, reducing number of monthly parkers from 560 to
360 (about half changing parking locations, the rest shifting modes).
OCR for page 54
Planning Guide: Developing Road Pricing Plans and Programs 55
Exhibit 25. (Continued).
Planning Considerations
Variable on-street meter rates: Port of San Francisco adopted "progressive
rates" at meters (low first 2 hours, higher third and fourth hours) with "minimal
change" in parking demand or turnover due to minimal enforcement in
contrast to same strategy in New York City with good enforcement bringing
"significant decrease" in occupancy and duration.
Revenue/Finance Generally parking demand has low elasticity, meaning an increase in price
usually brings an increase in revenues to operators, though results depend
on the availability and price of alternative parking supply; where such supply
is very competitive, parking demand may prove to be more elastic.
Revenue sharing may enhance acceptability, as with some increased
revenues going to a parking district for priced zone improvements in
sidewalks, lighting, landscape, and security.
Equity Little empirical research on parking pricing impacts across income groups.
Perceived or actual income inequity may be mitigated by some revenues
devoted to increased transit, as in Boulder, Colorado.
Environment Revised on-street variable pricing projected to reduce VMT 14,000/day in
non-attainment areas of California (San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley).
Policy/Institutional Little or no required new policy or institutional formation if parking authority
and operations already in place.
New residential preferential parking programs require legislation, permit
sales, and enforcement.
Emerging Directions
Motivators Driver familiarity and acceptance of parking pricing.
Possible allies in businesses concerned with commuters "poaching" shopper
parking, where there are no time limits for parking and/or low meter rates
encouraging feeding.
General excess parking demand relative to availability of spaces.
Inconvenience to many interest groups in long search times for parking.
Promising New electronic technologies make variable pricing easier to implement and
Developments customer friendly by accepting various payment types.
Possible integration of parking pricing technology with payment for transit
and toll roads.
Technologies offer improved data collection on parking use and turnover for
evaluation and planning.
New York City and San Francisco implementing pricing pilots on street, with
comprehensive evaluations.
Success Considerations Identify and engage affected parties early in planning, including residents,
businesses, commuters, shoppers, and environmental interest groups
(downtown and residential associations may provide starting points).
Identify appropriate multiple goals of interest to affected parties (e.g.,
reduced cruising, more shopper parking, neighborhood protections); tailor
strategy to particular commuter market (especially cash out).
Develop explicit benefit plan for increased revenues dovetailing with goals
and mitigation concerns (e.g., enhanced transit, spillover protections, better
enforcement).
Ensure effective enforcement upon implementation of new pricing.
Ensure that revenue increase and allocation plan is within the bounds of
public and business acceptability.
Examples: New York City employs neighborhood and business champions,
walking surveys to evaluate and communicate impacts, regular neighborhood
seminars to 59 community boards, voluntary participation in pilot; Redwood
City, Pasadena, and Austin return portion of fee revenues to improvement
districts for zone.
