Click for next page ( 22

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 21
Current literature focuses primarily on the following to modernize and upgrade public transportation aspects: infrastructure. There is limited discussion on how this applies to smaller components of the network such Standards for the physical design and initial as park and ride facilities. However, there are sev- siting of park and ride facilities. eral active alternative finance programs, such as the The social, economic, environmental, and com- Virginia Public-Private Partnership (PPP), which munity benefits of park and ride programs. are attracting interest. Techniques in the marketing and promotion of commuter services and park and ride programs. 2. A.5 Agency Websites The inventories of state, regional, county, and local park and ride programs, specifically the It was discovered during the literature search that number of lots and spaces, as well as their the best resources for examining current parking locations. management practices are the websites of transporta- Methods for estimating the future demand and tion agencies and transit authorities. Here, initiatives utilization of park and ride facilities. captured in an agency's transportation policies and plans and its capital improvement program offer vary- 2. A.2 Leasing Agreements and User Fees ing levels of insight and detail on efforts to increase the viability and presence of commuter parking. One notable management practice documented The websites offered enough information to con- in the literature is the use of leasing agreements to firm the possibility of several best practices and helped eliminate or lessen the cost of facility maintenance to identify candidate programs for study. and improvements. Leasing takes several forms, such as the leasing of state property to regional transit authorities or local governments or the leasing of 2. B Findings from the Program Surveys transit authority property to private interests to stim- The researchers conducted 13 telephone surveys ulate mixed-use development. The process, terms, with park and ride program managers from August 2, and legal instruments used for these agreements vary 2010, to October 28, 2010. The telephone surveys cov- by agency. Another less documented but increasing ered 12 programs. Eight of the agencies (62 percent) practice is the imposition of user fees on formerly free represent state DOTs. Two represent transit author- commuter parking spaces. There is limited research ities, one represents a transit district, one represents in this area but a review of several government a transportation district, and one represents a turnpike websites found a number of new policies, advising authority. A synopsis of program survey findings is that user fees were necessary to cover the cost of provided here. maintenance. Year Started. All of the programs except two were 2. A.3 Emerging Technologies initiated prior to 1990. The New Mexico DOT and One less documented but emerging area of the Phoenix Valley Metro Regional Public Transit research describes "smart card" and "smart park" Authority (RPTA) programs started in 2000 or later. technologies, such as real-time parking information Most of the programs (58 percent) were created systems. These technologies are either in place or through legislative mandate. being tested across the country, mostly at facilities characterized by chronic overcrowding and acute Spaces and Lots. The total number of park and ride demand. There are a number of technical reports lots varied by program from 19 to 326. California that describe these applications, but there is limited DOT (Caltrans) has the most lots (326). The Maine information on their long-term costs and maintenance Turnpike Authority (MTA) and the New Mexico requirements. DOT have the least lots, 19 and 19, respectively. The Virginia DOT has the greatest number of park and 2. A.4 Alternative Financing ride spaces (estimated at 61,835) compared to the MTA, with 1,155 spaces. Another area of emerging research examines creative and alternative financing, which involves the Parking Fee. Only two of the agencies--the Bay leveraging of federal funds, private capital, or both Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and the Denver 21

OCR for page 21
Regional Transit District (RTD)--charge a direct utilization rates. Twenty-five percent of the agencies parking fee. The latter permits limited free parking set the success goal at 60 percent, which was usually for district residents. The New Mexico DOT has in- achieved or exceeded. Two agencies, the MTA and direct fees, representing user fees for bus, rail, and Maine DOT, consider not only lot occupancy, but also shuttle services to the state park and ride facilities. other factors in determining success. This includes a measureable decrease in vehicle miles traveled on Average Occupancy. Average lot occupancy rates state roadways, the initiation of express bus service ranged from 40 to 95 percent. The agencies that to the lots, and commuter education and promotional charged parking fees have the highest occupancy rates. programs. Number of Staff. For most of the agencies, the park Underutilization. When lots are determined to be and ride management function is administered by underutilized, three of the programs (23 percent) limited staff. Agencies with district offices had the initiate marketing to inform the public of space avail- greatest number of staff. For example, Caltrans has ability. Two of these agencies offer free bus service 13 Park and Ride Coordinators, one in its central to or from the lots. Two agencies place canopies over office and one in each of its 12 districts. Similarly, stalls in the underutilized lot. According to Phoenix the Florida DOT has eight staff, one in the central Valley Metro RPTA, sun protection in the harsh office and one in each of the seven districts. For the summer climate is an incentive to users. The other remaining programs, staffing averaged 1.17 employ- agencies either have no underutilization policy or ees per program. In most cases these are not full address the issue on a case-by-case basis. time equivalents, with employees dedicating about 14 percent of their time to the program. Legal/Policy/Program Constraints. Most of the man- agers (66 percent) say there are no legal or policy In-House Inventory. All of the agencies have some constraints to operating their programs. Two of the form of park and ride lot inventory in either a spread- managers report that any program action must be ap- sheet format or annual report. Not all of the invento- proved by the agency's board of directors. This is ries are current. perceived as a constraint. Another manager cites the lack of enforcement of laws governing the use of In-House Policy. Most of the agencies have informal the lots. policies or procedures that govern their programs. The Florida DOT has a formal and comprehensive Replication Potential of Program. Most of respon- set of policies and procedures. Caltrans has a park dents (75 percent) believe that their park and ride and ride resource guide. The Phoenix Valley Metro programs can be replicated by other states. They cite RPTA and Maine DOT have commissioned studies the simplicity and straight-forwardness of managing that advise on next steps. park and ride stalls. Two respondents had no opin- ion or were not sure. One manager reported that his Coordination with Others. There is little coordination- program could not be replicated because the agency of-effort within the agencies for their current park is a regional authority, with a different organizational and ride programs. However, there is considerable form and mission than a state DOT. coordination and cooperation with local, county, regional, and state stakeholders for future park and Typical Budget. Of all responses, the program budget ride/intermodal commuter facilities. These discussions response was the most difficult to interpret, in part usually follow the metropolitan and/or regional plan- because several of the managers were not knowledge- ning decision-making process which requires con- able on how aspects of their programs are funded. sensus with stakeholders on a list of project priorities. In most cases, there are no line items in the agency These are then programmed through a multi-year work budgets dedicated to the administration and main- plan, a capital improvement plan, and/or the State tenance of park and ride/intermodal commuter facili- Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). ties and programs. These functions and costs are comingled with other agency operations and admin- How to Define Success. Most of the managers define istrative costs and are not separated out. Capital the success of their programs by lot occupancy or expenditures and budgets for future facilities were 22

OCR for page 21
easier to decipher. This information is typically (Federal) Grant Anticipation Revenue published in the agency multi-year capital improve- Vehicle (GARVEE) Loan. ment plan. (Federal) Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan. Primary Fund Sources. Several of the managers were Local Sources. The local sources of support-- unable to explain the primary funding sources used to also used as match to federal or state grants-- support their programs. In a review of each agency's are typically drawn from either a local transit program budget and multi-year capital program, it agency or local government capital or operating was determined that all of the agencies, except one, fund. Local funds may also represent bridge rely heavily on federal aid. The agencies typically tolls or a voter-approved sales tax dedicated to match federal funds with state or local funds. A list a specific transportation improvement. The of the sources used by the agencies is provided here. local contribution is usually tied to a specific These and other sources and techniques are discussed capital project. more fully in Chapter 3, Section 3.C: Funding Sources Agency Sources. Agencies that generate their and Innovative Financing Techniques. own revenue have the option of allocating Federal Sources. a portion of parking or fare revenue to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project or program. The agency may also Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Pro- have the authority to levy local taxes or issue gram (CMAQ), bonds. Pavement Management, State Planning and Research (SPR), Program Issues. When asked to identify program Surface Transportation Program (STP), shortfalls or issues, most of the managers (62 percent) and cited the need for additional funding. They believe Transportation Enhancements (TE). funding of park and ride facilities is a low priority Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for their agencies. Other responses included "parking Section 5307--Urbanized Area Formula supply shortage," which was expressed by BART; Program, the authority is experiencing an acute demand for its Section 5309--Major Capital Investments spaces. The MTA cited "acquiring land" because it (New Starts and Small Starts), cannot build outside of its highway corridor, and Section 5311--Formula Grants for Other Maine DOT cited public outreach and education. The Than Urbanized Areas, Virginia DOT cited "inventory and program man- Section 5311(b)(3)--Rural Transit Assis- agement" as a critical issue. The department plans to tance Program, and hire a consultant to update its inventory, strengthen Section 5311(c)--Public Transportation program policies and procedures, and assess the on Indian Reservations. demand for future facilities statewide. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Innovative Management. Management and program State Sources. State funds in support of park innovations determined by research are discussed in and ride/intermodal commuter programs are Section 2.C, "Best Practices." drawn from a variety of revenue sources. These funds are typically categorized, for example, Customer Amenities. All of the surveyed programs as a State Transit Assistance Account or Public provide user amenities. "Bus Shelters and Benches" Transportation Account. The categorizations are the most common, provided by 92 percent of the vary by state. The most common revenue programs. Other amenities include: sources used by states (to support the programs of the surveyed agencies and to match federal Security (83 percent). grants) are listed here. Lighting (83 percent). Gas Tax. Connections with Other Modes (67 percent). Sale Use Tax. Bicycle Parking (67 percent). Bond Proceeds. Retail Services (50 percent). State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan. Parking/Ticket Attendant (42 percent). 23