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.
5 implementing parking policies. In response to these challenges, transit agencies have adopted a variety of policies to manage parking at stations. Some agencies have formally adopted the policies outlined in Table 1; others have informally or periodi- cally applied these approaches. The content included in Table 1 is a compilation of the literature review and the survey results. Transit agencies have access to many tools to manage park- ing at stations; however, several factors complicate parking policies and decision making. Station context, land value and development opportunity, network service characteristics, community plans, state and local laws, and funding are just a few of the many issues to be confronted when developing and chapter two TRANSIT AGENCY PARKING POLICIES
6 Policy Opportunities Challenges Example Agencies Pricing Free Parking Encourage ridership, Reduce costs to riders Expensive for agency, Limits opportunities for demand management Capital Metro, COTA, Sound Transit Flat Pricing (weekday) Simple for riders, perceived as fair Unresponsive to market conditions SEPTA Demand-Based Pricing (weekday) Maximize revenue, Manage demand, Maximize efficiency More complex for riders BART, WMATA, CTA Event Pricing (weekday) Generate revenue, efficient use of facilities Management challenges WMATA, DART, JTA Partnerships Leasing Parking (private partner) Space-efficient, cost- effective; riders may support local business Land uses/parking demand by time of day may change; opportunity for joint development partnership; lack of control Capital Metro, LA Metro, King County Metro Transit Leasing Parking (municipal partner) Municipal support of transit; may be able to use municipal umbrella insurance Do not control long-term rights to parking; could preclude flexibility BCT, TriMet, RTD Leasing Parking (other public entity partner) Space-efficient, cost- effective; builds partnerships Do not control long-term rights to parking; long lease terms Port Authority of Allegheny County, UTA Transit-owned Parking Shared with Other Uses Potential additional revenue; space-efficient; build partnerships with neighbors Potential management and/or liability issues KCMT, VTA, TriMet Partner with Localities to Manage Parking in Station Area Efficient use of space around stations; build partnerships Staff time required to set up and maintain partnerships TANK, VIA, TriMet Nontraditional Parking Bicycle Parking Provide access choice; cost-effective Compete with other uses for space VIA, Capital Metro, MTA, Metro TransitâSaint Louis (also 84% of responding agencies) Carpool/Vanpool Parking Spaces Encourage more transit passengers per parking space Compete with other uses for space; potential to under-/over-supply in specialty sub-markets RTC (Nevada), Metro Transit (Minneapolis), JTA Green/Hybrid Vehicle Spaces/Electric Charging Stations Encourage low-emissions trips Compete with other uses for space; potential to under-/over-supply in specialty sub-markets WMATA, Sound Transit, TriMet Carshare or Bikeshare Stations Use parking spaces for shared economy use, increase space availability Demand management and expansion policy BART, CTA, WMATA TABLE 1 TRANSIT AGENCY PARKING POLICY SUMMARY
7 Policy Opportunities Challenges Example Agencies Transit-Oriented Development/Joint Development 1-1 Parking Replacement Maintains parking opportunities; potentially generates revenue Expensive; may crowd out space for other uses, such as development and placemaking NJ TRANSIT, WMATA, Regional Transportation District Site-Specific or Flexible Parking Replacement Balances maintenance of parking opportunities with other goals Often requires parking removal; complex transactions require time and effort from the agency/local government BART, MARTA, CTA Station Typology Application General policy application to station types/station area types Station area types may change over time; may be difficult to categorize unique contexts Metro Transit (Minneapolis), UTA Parking Expansion Expand Parking for Existing Service Increase drive access opportunities High cost; use of valuable space near stations; placemaking impacts VTA, SEPTA Expand Parking for New Service Increase drive access opportunities High cost; use of valuable space near stations; placemaking impacts RTD, TriMet, MTA COTA = Central Ohio Transit Authority; SEPTA = Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit; WMATA = Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; CTA = Chicago Transit Authority; DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit; JTA = Jacksonville Transportation Authority; Capital Metro = Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority; LA Metro = Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; BCT = Broome County Transit; TriMet = Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon; RTD = Regional Transportation District; UTA = Utah Transit Authority; KCMT = King County Metro Transit; VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; TANK = Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky; VIA = VIA Metropolitan Transit; MTA = Maryland Transit Administration; RTC = Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada; Sound Transit = Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority; NJ Transit = New Jersey Transit; MARTA = Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. TABLE 1 (continued)
