Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs (2016)

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.

34 • Partnerships: – Leasing parking through a private partner, – Leasing parking through a municipal partner or another public entity, – Sharing transit agency-owned parking with other uses, and – Partnering with localities to manage parking in a sta- tion area. • Nontraditional parking policy: – Bicycle parking, – Carpool and vanpool parking, – Green and hybrid and electric charging stations, and – Carshare pods or bikeshare stations. • Transit-oriented development and joint development: – One-to-one parking replacement, – Site-specific or flexible parking replacement, and – Station typology. • Parking capacity expansion: – Expand parking (and use parking more efficiently) for existing service, and – Expand parking for new service. Notable findings from this synthesis included the following. • Inconsistent findings about the ridership impact of providing parking versus station area development. Published research has arrived at various conclusions on transit ridership when comparing providing parking at stations with providing housing or jobs. One study found that to maintain ridership levels the density of housing or jobs needed is higher than most municipalities would be able or willing to build. Another study found that to generate the same ridership as a surface parking lot hous- ing development must be built to 110–150 units per acre. Other studies have concluded that building housing at transit stations, not parking, is the most effective way to maximize transit ridership. Another paper demonstrated that parking and transit-oriented development are depen- dent on local real estate conditions, implying that the trade-offs between parking supply and the built environ- ment are highly contextual. • Parking pricing is used as a tool to boost ridership. Findings regarding parking pricing at transit stations revealed contradictory approaches to encouraging transit ridership, as charging for parking may reduce demand. Some agencies offer free parking to encourage tran- Parking is widely recognized as an important factor influ- encing transit access and ridership. As transit agencies work to attract customers, parking policies, in particular parking pricing, play a critical role in transit agency decision mak- ing. An increasing number of transit agencies are currently revising their parking policies to encourage transit use and to efficiently use resources consumed for parking. This synthesis documents transit agency parking policies and parking management at transit stations using three primary resources: (1) a scan of current research on transit-supportive parking policies, (2) an original survey distributed to a sample of transit agencies, and (3) several brief agency profiles based on interviews and existing available data. The survey was dis- tributed to 46 transit agencies of which 37 (80%) responded. Participating transit agencies represent a broad spectrum in terms of service type, jurisdiction, ridership, mode, types of parking, and parking policy. Although there is substantial published literature on parking policy, there is limited existing research docu- menting the impact of parking policies on transit ridership. Within the existing research, there are inconsistent findings regarding which parking policies support and promote the use of transit. The survey results also indicated that there are differing approaches to parking management designed to attract transit riders. Opposing approaches to achieve the same objective furthers the notion that parking manage- ment is highly contextual, as well as suggests that further research is warranted. Several factors can complicate a transit agency’s park- ing policies and decision making, including station context, land value and development opportunity, network service characteristics, community plans, state and local laws, and funding. In response to these challenges, transit agen- cies have adopted a variety of policies to manage station parking. The primary parking management tools identified through the literature review, survey, and agency profiles include: • Parking pricing: – Free parking, – Flat pricing, – Demand-based pricing, and – Event pricing. chapter five CONCLUSIONS

35 sit customers, while others price parking to shift some parkers to the use of alternative access modes, leav- ing the limited parking available for those who are less price-sensitive or lack alternatives. Although the litera- ture and survey results do not agree on standard pricing approaches or fees, TCRP Report 153 from 2012 notes that for transit to be a competitive option parking fees in combination with a round trip transit fare should be less than all day parking costs in the central business district. • Only one of five riders uses a park-and-ride, and as a result many agencies have an excess parking supply. Although the degree to which there is an excess parking supply varies between transit modes and between agen- cies, transit riders use fewer parking spaces than corre- sponding ridership levels would suggest. Survey results indicated that the average park-and-ride mode split is only 22%, implying that 78% of riders are arriving at the station by taking transit, walking, biking, or some- thing else. Results also revealed that across all survey respondents 35% of the parking supply is unused at the busiest time on a typical weekday, although capacity varies widely from station to station. • Three-quarters of survey respondents that have excess parking capacity also plan to build more parking. Despite excess parking capacity in many agency sys- tems, most survey respondents have plans or policies to build more parking. The most commonly cited reasons for increasing parking supply include expansion of the transit system itself, response to the demand that exceeds supply at a specific station, and funding availability. • Providing parking is not a top strategy for agencies to attract riders. Survey results indicated that providing parking at stations is not as important to agencies as fac- tors such as passenger amenities, operational efficiency, station area planning, and improved station access. Indeed, providing parking was ranked 10th out of 13 rid- ership promotion strategies by responding agencies. Nevertheless, research shows that agencies spend sub- stantial resources constructing, maintaining, and operating their parking supplies. • Many agencies provide nontraditional parking (e.g., bicycle parking). Although there is little documented evidence about the impact on providing nontraditional parking on transit ridership, almost all respondents pro- vide some type of nontraditional parking. The most com- mon alternative parking type is bicycle parking, with 94% of survey respondents providing some type of bicycle racks. As documented in TCRP Synthesis 62, more research is needed to quantify the impact of provid- ing bicycle parking on transit ridership. • Agencies engage in joint development agreements. Most survey respondents have either employed (or have the authority to employ) joint development agree- ments. Some projects have replaced parking and others have not; however, transit agencies are becoming expe- rienced with these types of transactions. • Transit parking is provided by transit agencies, municipalities, and the private sector. As transit agen- cies are primarily in the business of providing transit ser- vice, agencies regularly coordinate and partner with the public and private sector to provide and manage parking facilities for transit riders. Likewise, three-quarters of agency respondents indicated that nontransit riders use agency parking, typically outside of peak hours. This suggests that these partnerships allow for flexibility and demand-responsiveness in the parking system. Overall, the lack of research that quantifies the impact of parking policies on transit ridership suggests several opportu- nities for follow-up work. Several key areas are largely absent from the existing documentation on this topic including: • When to provide parking and when not to, which is espe- cially pertinent given the relatively high cost of land within transit agency service areas, the high cost of pro- viding parking, and increasing demands for transit agen- cies to control costs and help meet air quality targets. • Comprehensive and detailed analyses of the quantita- tive relationship between providing parking and levels of transit ridership. • Station typologies and their catchment areas with regard to the role of parking and parking replacement includ- ing data on individual station areas, their placement on the transit route or line, catchment areas and land use context, and how these variables would be used to man- age parking supply and regulations.