Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies (2017)

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.

1-1 DECISION-MAKING TOOLBOX TO PLAN AND MANAGE PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PART 1: RESEARCH REPORT

1-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 4  List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 4  Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5  Park-and-Ride Benefits ............................................................................................................... 5  Need for a Park-and-Ride Facility Guidebook ........................................................................... 6  Research Report Organization .................................................................................................... 7  Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 8  Themes ........................................................................................................................................ 8  Uses and Classifications of Park-and-Rides ............................................................................... 9  Uses of Park-and-Ride Lots ................................................................................................................. 9  Classification by Function .................................................................................................................. 10  Classification by Location and Distance ............................................................................................ 10  Purpose-Built versus Shared Facilities ............................................................................................... 13  Planning and Estimating Demand ............................................................................................. 13  Demand Estimation Methods ............................................................................................................. 13  Role of Geographic Information Systems .......................................................................................... 15  Rider Catchment Areas ...................................................................................................................... 17  Right-Sizing Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 18  Selecting the Facility Site ................................................................................................................... 19  Timing of the Site Location Decision ................................................................................................ 22  Stakeholders and Land-Use Policies ......................................................................................... 22  Stakeholders and Community Integration .......................................................................................... 23  Land Use and TOD with Park-and-Rides ........................................................................................... 24  Funding Park-and-Ride ............................................................................................................. 26  Development Costs ............................................................................................................................ 27  Operations and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................... 29  Funding Options ................................................................................................................................. 29  Amenities for Park-and-Ride Users .......................................................................................... 31  Pedestrian and Passenger Amenities .................................................................................................. 31  Pricing for Parking at Transit Facilities.............................................................................................. 32  Recent Publications ................................................................................................................... 38  Summary of TCRP Synthesis 122, Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs ................... 38  APTA Transit Parking 101 ................................................................................................................. 40  Bus Transit Operational Efficiency Resulting from Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................... 41  Summary of Literature Review Findings .................................................................................. 41  Role and Function of Park-and-Rides ................................................................................................ 42  Park-and-Ride Demand Estimation .................................................................................................... 42  Park-and-Ride Facility Location Selection ........................................................................................ 42  Partnering with Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 42  Construction Costs and Timelines ...................................................................................................... 42  Funding Options and Financial Risk .................................................................................................. 43  Land-Use Policies and Amenities ...................................................................................................... 43  Parking Pricing ................................................................................................................................... 43  Technologies ...................................................................................................................................... 44  Chapter 3: Industry Scan ........................................................................................................... 45 

1-3 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 45  Target Audience and Outreach ................................................................................................. 47  Data Cleaning and Organization ............................................................................................... 48  Scan Respondents and Results .................................................................................................. 49  The Transit Agencies Responding to the Scans Represent the United States and Canada ................ 49  Most Transit Agencies Are from Large Urbanized Areas .................................................................. 49  All Modes of Transit Service Are Represented by the Participating Transit Agencies ..................... 50  All Sizes of Park-and-Ride Programs Were Presented ...................................................................... 50  Chapter 4: Demand Estimation Models and Planning ............................................................ 51  Demand Estimation Models ...................................................................................................... 51  Park-and-Ride Demand Model: Station Access Model ...................................................................... 51  Park-and-Ride Demand Model: Indicator-Based Method .................................................................. 55  Regional Travel Demand Model: FTA STOPS .................................................................................. 59  Transit-Agency-Specific Models ....................................................................................................... 60  Observations about Transit Agency Model Selection ........................................................................ 64  Results from the Scan Surveys ................................................................................................. 65  Formal Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 65  Demand Estimation Method ............................................................................................................... 65  Estimating Demand for Park-and-Ride: Synthesis from Case Studies ..................................... 68  Model Estimates and Actual Utilization............................................................................................. 69  Influence of Context on Effective Modeling ...................................................................................... 71  Effective Capacity of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 73  Effective Practices .............................................................................................................................. 74  Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................................. 77  Chapter 5: Case Studies ............................................................................................................. 79  Mini-Case Studies ..................................................................................................................... 79  Selection of Mini-Case Study Transit Agencies ................................................................................ 79  Topics ................................................................................................................................................. 80  Detailed Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 82  Selecting Case Study Transit Agencies .............................................................................................. 82  Conducting the Case Study Research ................................................................................................. 83  Summary of Case Study Topics ......................................................................................................... 84  Chapter 6: Introduction to the Guidebook and Future Research Needs .............................. 88  Introduction to the Guidebook .................................................................................................. 88  Concepts ............................................................................................................................................. 88  Planning .............................................................................................................................................. 89  Design and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 90  Managing and Operating Park-and-Ride Facilities ............................................................................ 90  Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................... 92  Development ...................................................................................................................................... 92  Future Research Needs ............................................................................................................. 92  References .................................................................................................................................... 94  Appendix A: Literature Review Summary Table .................................................................. A-1  Appendix B: U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities...................................... B-1  Appendix C: Transit Agencies Responding to State-of-the-Practice Scan .......................... C-1  Appendix D: Response to the State-of-the-Practice Scan ..................................................... D-1  Appendix E: Case Study Research Protocol .......................................................................... E-1

1-4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Model to Estimate Ridership Based on Population and Station Characteristics. .......... 15  Figure 2. Expert System with GIS Tool to Locate a Park-and-Ride Facility. .............................. 16  Figure 3. Catchment Areas in Literature. ...................................................................................... 18  Figure 4. Station Positioning and Road Congestion. .................................................................... 20  Figure 5. Measured Ridership Results. ......................................................................................... 22  Figure 6. Effects of Land Value on Type of Parking Space (2010 Costs). ................................... 28  Figure 7. Metra Park-and-Ride Sign Messaging System. ............................................................. 37  Figure 8. Introductory Page—Park-and-Ride State-of-the-Practice Scan. ................................... 46  Figure 9. Summary of Scan Responses—Screenshot. .................................................................. 47  Figure 10. APTA Outreach Email Request to Participate. ........................................................... 48  Figure 11. TCRP 153 Station Access Planning Tool Mode Modules. .......................................... 54  Figure 12. Specific Demand Models in Practice for Park-and-Ride. ........................................... 67  Figure 13. Development Adjacent to Willow Creek / 185th Avenue Station Transit Center. ................................................................................................................................... 76  Figure 14. Transit Agencies Participating in TCRP H-52 Park-and-Ride Case Studies. ............. 85  Figure 15. Guidebook Organization. ............................................................................................ 89  LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Park-and-Ride Facility by Distance from Primary Destination. ..................................... 11  Table 2. TOD Developments at Rail Stations with Park-and-Ride. ............................................. 25  Table 3. Examples of Parking Reductions for Other Land Uses. ................................................. 26  Table 4. Examples of Parking Fees Charged by Transit Agencies. .............................................. 34  Table 5. Formal Planning Process Summary. ............................................................................... 65  Table 6. Number of Transit Agencies Using a Park-and-Ride Demand Model. .......................... 66  Table 7. Transit Agency Demand Estimation Models. ................................................................. 69  Table 8. Transit Agencies Selected for Mini-Case Studies. ......................................................... 81  Table 9. Full and Targeted Case Study Transit Agencies. ............................................................ 83 

1-5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The objective of TCRP H-52 – Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation is to develop a decision-making guidebook to better plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. The guidebook builds on relevant completed research to address both of these important concerns. Park-and-ride planners and managers need targeted research that will develop a single resource for improved strategies and best practices in order to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. Transit customers will benefit from park-and-ride services and facilities that maximize space, incorporate the latest advances in technology, and ultimately meet their transportation needs. To document current best practices as well as lessons learned and challenges related to park-and- ride planning and management, the research team gathered detailed information from transit agencies throughout the United States and one transit agency in Canada. The research team documented 11 full case studies and five targeted case studies. The objectives of this TCRP H-52 Research Report are to summarize the research team’s findings from a literature review and a state-of-the-practice scan, describe the case study research methodology, document the case studies, and outline the guidebook that the research team developed using case study findings. PARK-AND-RIDE BENEFITS Park-and-ride facilities for public transportation provide numerous benefits to transit agencies and communities. Historically, park-and-ride facilities served primarily as parking lots. In recent years, these facilities have been morphing into investment properties, and park-and-ride facilities have undergone major transformations. In 2004, the Transportation Research Board produced TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3, documenting traveler responses by type of park-and-ride facility. This document described the following benefits associated with park-and-ride facilities for public transportation service:  Providing alternatives to driving alone.  Concentrating transit rider demand to enable transit service in low-density areas.  Providing access to premium transit services.  Providing convenient and safe meeting points for car and vanpool users.  Reducing vehicle miles traveled and therefore reducing vehicle emissions.

1-6  Managing the shift of parking away from the central business district (CBD) and other dense activity centers.  Relieving neighborhoods of informal parking nuisances. Other benefits include:  A reliable location for people to leave their personal vehicles while using public transportation—facilitating transitions from single-occupancy travel to mass-transit options.  Service customization—transit agencies can design service and facilities to meet specific needs of the transit agency’s customers.  Regional coordination—in many areas, park-and-ride facilities exist because of shared-use agreements with local/regional governments and are included in regional transportation planning.  Service for riders that might not otherwise ride—beyond service in low-density areas, park-and-ride service also provides a one-seat service that has the potential to attract riders who might otherwise choose to drive.  Additional ridership on other modes, via transfer—park-and-ride service connects riders with other transit options, such as CBD circulators or local bus service, and helps transit agencies increase ridership on other modes. NEED FOR A PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITY GUIDEBOOK There are a range of concerns regarding the management of park-and-ride facilities for public transportation that need to be addressed, as well as opportunities that should be explored for introducing new technologies and innovation. Questions often arise regarding the following:  Whether to charge and how much to charge for parking at public transportation park-and- ride facilities.  How to fund park-and-ride services.  Whether to expand existing parking facilities, build new parking facilities, or use transportation demand management strategies.  How to respond to market changes.  How to work effectively with communities and stakeholders.  How to incorporate evolving technologies to improve the utilization of available parking. Planners and managers of park-and-ride services for public transportation will benefit from a research product that presents strategies and practices targeted to their needs. The final product for this research is a guidebook to serve as a single resource for best practices to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities.

1-7 RESEARCH REPORT ORGANIZATION The purpose of TCRP Web-Only Document 69 is to present valuable information gathered in the development of the A Guidebook for Planning and Managing Park-and-Ride Facilities, recap the research, and present the in-depth park-and-ride case study research. The document is presented in two parts. This is Part 1 of the report. Part 2 documents the case studies. Part 1 has six chapters and five appendices:  Chapter 1 offers the introduction and the report organization.  Chapter 2 provides a summary of findings from the literature review.  Chapter 3 provides a summary of the state-of-the-practice scan.  Chapter 4 discusses how transit agencies model demand for park and-ride facilities and summarizes a review of demand estimation models.  Chapter 5 summarizes the case study process.  Chapter 6 introduces the guidebook and identifies future research needs.  Appendix A is a summary of the literature by topic area.  Appendix B provides a matrix of U.S. transit agencies with park-and-ride facilities.  Appendix C provides a table of the transit agencies that responded to the state-of-the- practice scan.  Appendix D provides the responses to the full and limited scan questions.  Appendix E presents the case study protocol used in conducting the case studies.

1-8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of the literature review was to establish a foundation for the project research by documenting current practices and trends in park-and-ride-facility planning and management. THEMES The literature review documents previously published reports, articles, journals, books, web pages, and presentations from research institutes and transit agencies that explore practices in park-and-ride planning and operations in the United States. The literature review was a frame of reference for the project to identify (a) existing available guidance on park-and-ride lot planning, operations, and maintenance and (b) gaps in available guidance to be addressed through this research project in the guidebook. The literature review identified key themes in park-and-ride planning, design, operations, and maintenance. The topic areas are grouped as follows:  Uses and classifications of park-and-rides. o Uses of park-and-ride lots. o Classification by function. o Classification by location and distance. o Purpose-built versus shared facilities.  Planning and estimating demand. o Demand estimation models. o Role of geographic information systems (GIS). o Rider catchment areas. o Right-sizing facilities. o Selection of the facility site. o Timing of the site location decision.  Stakeholders and land-use policies. o Stakeholders and community integration. o Land-use and transit-oriented development (TOD) with park-and-rides.  Funding park-and-ride. o Development costs. o Operations and maintenance costs. o Funding options.  Amenities for park-and-ride users. o Pedestrian and passenger amenities. o Pricing for parking at transit facilities. o Technologies and park-and-ride service.

1-9 To facilitate researching specific topics within the literature, a table of literature sources was created with marks indicating the document’s relevancy to key topics related to park-and-rides and is provided in Appendix A. USES AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF PARK-AND-RIDES This section summarizes the various uses of park-and-ride lots and different approaches to classification by function, the location of the facility, distance from primary commuter destination, and characteristics of the transit service. Uses of Park-and-Ride Lots Park-and-ride facilities provide an option for commuters other than driving automobiles from origin to destination. Park-and-ride facilities are staging locations that provide intermodal transfer points for travelers between single-occupancy automobiles and other transportation modes (Spillar 1997). Facilities can function as multimodal hubs to encourage the use of alternate travel modes rather than commuters relying on single-occupant vehicles (Florida Department of Transportation 2012). Park-and-ride facilities are primarily oriented toward commuters transferring modes between automobile and bus or rail transit, but park-and-rides also assist with the organization of carpools and vanpools (Turnbull et al. 2004). The Minnesota Department of Transportation defines park- and-ride facilities as locations where commuters can park their cars for long periods of time, transit service is available, and carpools or vanpools may form (Minnesota Department of Transportation 2012). In some locations, typically where high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or lower tolls for HOV provide an incentive to carpool, park-and-ride lots are used to form informal, spontaneous carpools (also called slugging). Potential carpool members arrive at the lot by any mode (car, transit, bike, on foot) and join up with a driver who drops by the park-and-ride lot to pick up a passenger in order to qualify for the carpool incentive (Coffel et al. 2012). A recent use of park-and-ride lots is as an overnight parking facility for reverse commuters. The commuter may have transit service near home but poor service at the work location, such as in a suburban office park. The commuter drives to work on Monday, leaves the car at the park-and- ride lot on the way home that night, and takes transit the rest of the way home. The car then serves as the mode of transportation for the last mile from the station to work during the week. At the end of the week, the commuter drives home from work and has access to the car for the weekend (Coffel et al. 2012).

1-10 Classification by Function Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines (Spillar 1997) classifies the types of park-and-ride facilities into six functional groups:  The function of a suburban park-and-ride lot is to collect transit patrons as close to the origin of a commute trip as possible and to provide a transfer point to long-haul transit service (bus or rail). Suburban park-and-ride relies on the automobile as the collection and distribution mode.  A transit center is a place where transit passengers can transfer between routes, between local and express transit service, or between modes (intermodal transit center). A transit center park-and-ride lot adds another mode of access to transit services.  The opportunistic or joint-use lot shares the facility with another activity, such as a church, theater, shopping mall, or special events center. Opportunistic lots can also describe smaller lots built near a local bus stop or major roadway intersection to take advantage of surplus highway right of way or vacant lots.  A park-and-pool lot is typically a smaller lot intended for the formation of carpools or vanpools. This type of lot is often developed as an opportunistic or joint-use facility and may be a part of a development mitigation plan whereby a developer may dedicate a small number of spaces within a larger development for park-and-pool purposes.  An informal park-and-ride lot is simply a transit stop where motorists regularly drive their cars and park on the street or in an adjacent property. Informal park-and-ride lots can also be locations where carpool or vanpool formation takes place.  A satellite parking facility (also known as a remote parking lot) is placed at the edge of an activity center as an alternative to parking within the activity center itself. The satellite parking facility is characterized by proximity to the destination end, rather than the origin end, of the commute trip. Access to the final destination may include transit shuttles. Classification by Location and Distance The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published the Guide for Park-and-Ride Facilities in 2004. Referencing the functional groups identified in Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines (Spillar 1997), AASHTO identified four classifications of park-and-ride lots based on the location of the facility, distance from primary commuter destination, and characteristics. Table 1 identifies the types of park-and-ride facilities according to distance.

1-11 Table 1. Park-and-Ride Facility by Distance from Primary Destination. Facility Type Distance fromPrimary Destination Characteristics Remote long-distance lots 50 to 100 miles Intercity Suburban park-and-ride lots 10 to 50 miles Intermodal; change of modes Local urban park-and-ride lots 1 to 10 miles Informal, shared use or opportunistic Peripheral park-and-ride lots Located at edge of primary Destination Intercept prior to activity center; satellite park-and-ride Source: AASHTO 2004. The Update of FDOT State Park & Ride Lot Program Planning Manual (2001) for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT or Florida DOT) has slightly different classifications for facility types based on location from the CBD or major activity center and road system characteristics. The lot types listed in the manual are urban corridor, HOV corridor, peripheral, urban fringe, and remote. Although similar to AASTHO’s classifications, the lot types also consider additional factors such as dwelling units in the area, distance from the commute route, and availability of public right of way (Chu et al. 2001):  Urban corridor lots are located along a major commute corridor within an urban area and are served by HOV lanes or line-haul transit consisting of express bus, urban rail, or commuter rail services. Trip origin patterns tend to be dispersed along the corridor; trip destination patterns are usually concentrated in a CBD or other major employment center.  HOV corridor lots are a subset of the urban corridor lots and are located adjacent to major commuting highways with HOV lanes. They are located and sized to maximize usage of HOV lanes, and they support carpooling and access to line-haul transit that uses the HOV lanes. Trip origins tend to be dispersed along the corridor. Trip destinations are usually concentrated in a CBD or major employment center.  Peripheral lots serve activity centers having limited parking and/or auto access, such as auto-free zones and colleges. As such, they are usually located at the outer edge of activity centers. Distances to the lot from residential areas are typically longer than other park-and-ride facilities, while distances from the lot to the activity center are usually shorter.  Urban fringe lots are located at the outer edge of urban development. Trips tend to originate outside or on the fringe of the urban area, while destinations may be concentrated or dispersed within the urban area. Fringe area lots are generally not served by transit, although this circumstance is not universally true.  Remote lots are generally located outside the urban area in a rural or small town setting. Trip lengths for both home-to-lot and lot-to-work are much longer than for other types of park-and-ride lots. Park-and-ride facilities can function in either a peripheral, suburban, or remote capacity relative to employment centers. Peripheral facilities are located on the edge of a downtown area or other major activity center. Suburban facilities are located closer to home origin points and provide access to transit services to destinations in the CBD or major activity centers, while remote lots

1-12 function in a similar capacity to suburban facilities with longer trip lengths (Turnbull et al. 2004):  Peripheral 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. Peripheral facility users make the major portion of their trip by automobile and then use transit or walk for the last short segment. Peripheral parking may be served by shuttle or local bus routes. Peripheral parking may also be used to provide reduced or free parking rates for carpools and vanpools.  Suburban park-and-ride and park-and-pool facilities tend to be located relatively near the home origins of trips. The destinations of these trips are typically concentrated in a central employment area or areas, although there may be some dispersion within the urban area, particularly for park-and-pool activity.  Remote lots tend to be situated in rural or small town settings. Trip lengths for both home-to lot and lot-to-work are much longer for remote lots than for other types of park- and-ride facilities. In a study of park-and-ride for New York City, Holguin-Veras et al. (2012a) discussed a connection between the location of the park-and-ride facility (distance from downtown), the supply (the frequency of transit service), and the demand (the size of the park-and-ride lot). According to the authors, a number of communities have park-and-ride facilities located on the periphery of downtown. At such a service facility, commuters accomplish the line-haul portion of the trip in their cars, and a transit service operates between the park-and-ride lot and downtown. The primary objective of such a facility is to diminish the requirement for downtown parking. Peripheral park-and-ride also generally reduces the commuter parking cost. Since the major portion of the commuter journey is on the highway network, there is likely considerable variability in the journey time between the residential origin and the peripheral facility location due to traffic congestion. Accordingly, if a commuter plans to meet a specific scheduled bus trip, he or she will have to depart considerably earlier to assure with high confidence that he or she will arrive in time for the scheduled bus departure. As an alternative, the transit service could operate with sufficient frequency that a commuter would be able to arrive randomly at the facility and not have an intolerable wait time. The research suggests that with published headways of 12 minutes, about half of the customers will arrive randomly and half will pre-time their journey to a specific bus trip. The cost of providing such service is rather expensive and is efficient if and only if there is a high volume of commuters over which to spread the cost (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a).

1-13 Purpose-Built Versus Shared Facilities The AASHTO 2004 report also includes definitions for facility types based on construction purpose. Purpose-built lots exist to operate as parking facilities for commuters to transfer to another transportation mode, as opposed to parking lots originally built to serve neighboring residential or commercial buildings that later become shared-use park-and-ride facilities (AASHTO 2004). A shared-use park-and-ride facility rather than a dedicated transit facility may place the transit agency at a disadvantage because of limited control over facility operation and maintenance and the risk of the landowner terminating a lease agreement (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). PLANNING AND ESTIMATING DEMAND This section looks at planning for park-and-ride lots and identifies demand models and techniques used for estimating park-and-ride lot demand. Demand Estimation Methods Demand for park-and-ride service is dependent on a variety of factors; key factors are facility location relative to other transportation modes, peak commuting congestion levels, and parking costs relative to transit service destinations. Transit service is typically designed to be more direct to the CBD (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). However, development patterns that are reflected in decentralization and multi-core regions have resulted in park-and-ride facilities and services that provide access to non-CBD locations. Transit agencies adjust park-and-ride lot size, transit mode, and service characteristics based on facility location relative to the immediate surrounding land uses, roads, and densities and to the primary transit service destination. Some transit agencies evaluate station access decisions (including park-and-ride) by converting riders to revenues. Bay Area Rapid Transit uses an elasticity-based demand shift model, along with judgmental forecasts, to estimate the ridership consequences of changes in parking supply and price (Willson and Menotti 2007). TCRP Report 153 (Coffel et al. 2012) built on this model to develop a station access planning tool that uses transit service and station-area characteristics to estimate ridership and evaluate the effects of access decisions for each facility. The following are models used by transit agencies to estimate latent and/or future demand for park-and-ride (planning for park-and-ride facilities may be one element of a complex fixed guideway project):  Park-and-ride demand models. o Station access model, TCRP 153, developed by Coffel et al. (2012). o Indicator-based method, TCRP 167, developed by Chatman et al. (2014).

1-14  Regional travel demand models. o Region-specific models. o Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS), developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2013).  Transit-agency-specific models developed and utilized internally by the transit agency. o Milwaukie (Portland, Oregon) park-and-ride estimates, developed by Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) (2011). o Regional peer site model for Fort Bend County (Texas) Public Transportation, developed by Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) (2012). o Access policy methodology, developed by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (2005). Forecasting passenger trips using transit service from park-and-ride facilities can be part of a travel demand model to determine the travel mode choice for users in an area. There are two typical approaches to travel demand model-based modeling. The more traditional, four-step approach includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and traffic assignment steps. More recently, some metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have begun using activity- based models based on probabilistic, dynamic, and disaggregate processes (Kittelson & Associates Inc. 2007). Some transit agencies will work with the region’s MPO to conduct sketch-planning exercises using the travel demand model as an investigatory tool. Modeling demand for a new or altered transit service using a travel demand model sketch exercise does require making additional assumptions based on other attributes not inherently germane to the usual use of travel demand model for regional modeling (Galicia and Cheu 2009). Horner and Groves (2007) used a spatial tool called a preventative inspection model to find optimal locations for park-and-ride facilities to capture the largest amount of traffic flow along origin-destination paths at early portions of the commute trip. This method allowed facilities to remove a maximum amount of vehicular traffic from the road network earlier along the origin- destination path. Galicia and Cheu (2009) used a combination of population and ridership models along with the strength of station characteristics such as park-and-ride, branding, shelters, and service levels in order to estimate the potential daily ridership for a bus rapid transit system. Figure 1 shows the relationship of the model inputs.

Source: G Figure Role o Planners attract co obtain U identify t Planners evaluatio corridors resident w A variety geometri varying l facility. C facilities alicia and Ch 1. Model to f Geog can use GIS mmuters for .S. Census B he number o in New Jers n of options exhibiting a orkers by c of GIS tool c shapes, ea evels of cap alibration w and adjustm eu 2009. Estimate R raphic I software to potential n ureau popu f commuter ey develope for expandi n apparent n ensus tract s was used t ch of which ture rates fo as accompl ent for trans idership B nformat estimate de ew park-and lation and de s who live w d a screenin ng or supple eed for suc to support th o allocate re was tagged r each segm ished by co it service ch 1-15 ased on Pop ion Sys mand from -ride facility mographic ithin specif g tool using menting ex h facilities. e quantifica sident work with market ent based on mparing the aracteristic ulation an tems the area in w sites. For e data and use ied distance GIS to perf isting park-a For this ana tion of pote ers to catch capture per the distanc estimates w s and access d Station C hich the tra xample, a G GIS analyt s of the park orm a prelim nd-ride fac lysis, planne ntial park-an ment areas d centages. Th e from the p ith usage of ibility as ob haracterist nsit agency IS analyst m ical tools to -and-ride. inary ilities in rs analyzed d-ride patro efined by e planners ark-and-rid existing served with ics. will ay ns. used e in

the study around 2 BART in home loc and-ride Faghri et determin informati private d questions location u other var engineers professio selection So area. The st 0 percent of the San Fra ations of us facilities cap al. (2002) u e the optima on for mode evelopers, a . Variables pstream of iables. The r and planne nals who we process. urce: Faghri Figure 2. Ex udy found t predicted us ncisco Bay ers in its res ture users f sed a knowl l location of l variables w nd governm used as inpu congestion, esearchers c rs. In both c re consulted et al. 2002. pert System hat actual us age for mos Area, Califo erved parkin rom differen edge-based park-and-ri as collecte ent officials ts in the mo areas with c ompared th ases, the too did. Figure with GIS 1-16 e of analyze t locations ( rnia, has us g program t t neighborh expert syste de facilities d through su provided in del included ompatible l e model resu l chose the 2 shows th Tool to Lo d sites for c Ehrlich 201 ed fare card o help unde oods (Coffe m (EXSYS) in two case rvey resear formation b location co and uses, sit lts with rec same site as e procedure cate a Park ommuter tr 3). data and GI rstand how l et al. 2012 together w studies. Th ch. Engineer y respondin mpared to t e expansion ommendatio the one that of the case -and-Ride F ips averaged S to map th effectively p ). ith GIS tool e critical s, planners, g to a series he CBD, potential, a ns by the the study site acility. e ark- s to of nd

1-17 Fort Bend County Public Transportation near Houston, Texas, serves commuters by providing transit services to regional activity centers. To assist in projecting demand to the Houston CBD, researchers at TTI created the regional peer site model (RPMS). RPMS estimates demand for potential new park-and-ride sites by estimating latent demand. Latent demand is measured by establishing park-and-ride capture rates at existing park-and-ride facilities in the same region as the new site(s) by comparing ridership to the U.S. Census Bureau’s longitudinal employer- household dynamics (LEHD) data (or other travel flow dataset). The demand model estimated low, medium, and high capture rates for commute trips between Fort Bend County and the Houston CBD (Cochran 2014). Farhan and Murray (2005) used GIS software to identify census block centroids within modified parabolic shapes as well as travel time amorphous shapes. In addition, Farhan and Murray (2006) conducted a case study for potential sites in Columbus, Ohio, using a maximal/minimal covering-distance decay problem model to estimate the effects of catchment areas given distances from facility sites. The case study identified 153 potential facility locations and then selected sites based on potential ridership. Farhan and Murray (2008) conducted another case study in Columbus, Ohio, using a multi-objective spatial optimization model to address the competing needs of park-and-ride system coverage, existing facility location and performance, and proximity to major commuter roadways. The model identified sites by census block centroids in ArcGIS and calculated rankings for locations with consideration to maximizing coverage versus minimizing travel times from major roadways. The model was particularly designed for transit agencies looking to expand existing park-and-ride transit service. Rider Catchment Areas Park-and-ride facilities are developed in varying geographic, population, demographic, and service-type contexts. A facility’s context impacts where facility users travel from in order to access the park-and-ride facility. The area around a park-and-ride facility where users travel from is called the facility’s catchment area. The size and shape of catchment areas vary; common catchment area shapes include conical, parabolic, and ellipsoid zones around a facility. A transit agency can investigate catchment area size and shape for an existing lot using a user survey or a license plate survey. Defining a specific, or typical, catchment area is useful as a demand estimation model input because it allows planners to estimate facility utilization (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012b). Figure 3 illustrates common catchment area shapes described in literature or used in practice.

Keck and site simil Allen (19 facility, w Cox (198 CBD and farther aw Christian shape wi were will useful ap like func Engel-Ya straight-l indirect p Right- There is research, the facili of transit larger ge greater th for comm Source: Holg Liu (1976) ar to two sid 79) and Sac ith the site 2) used an i a narrower ay from the sen et al. (1 th both corri ing to drive proximation tions that cre n et al. (201 ine distance ath preferen Sizing F only limited the number ty in relation service at th ographic cat e likelihood uters (Dunc uin-Veras et a Figur used a proje es of a trian ramento Re located with rregular sha catchment a facility. 981), Spillar dor and perp the indirect s for catchm ate the para 4) used a ca away from ces (not illu acilitie literature ab of parking s to the CBD e facility. T chment area of parking an and Chri l. 2012a. e 3. Catchm ction with t gle, with no gional Tran in the oval pe around th rea immedi (1997), and endicular b path from th ent areas bu bola rather tchment are the facility s strated). s out right-si paces at a p or other m erminal stat s. The farth due to both stensen 201 1-18 ent Areas i wo straight catchment sit (1987) pr approximate e facility, w ately around Holguin-V reak-even d e CBD to u t do not exa than actual c a defined by ite adjusted zing park-an ark-and-ride ajor employ ions of rail l er away a st lower land p 3). Major bu n Literatur lines drawn area project ojected a pe ly halfway ith a small a the facility eras et al. (2 istances to d se a facility ctly define ustomer tra a convex h by street-ne d-ride facili facility is d ment center ines tend to ation is from rices and hi s transfer lo e. outward fro ed toward th rfect oval sh from the cen mount of ar site that exp 012a) used etermine w . Perfect par the area due vel time alo ull polygon twork trave ties. Accord ependent on s and the typ have more primary de gher overal cations may m the facili e CBD. ape around ter. ea toward t anded in w a parabolic hen commut abola shape to the ellips ng roads. based on a l distances a ing to previ the locatio e and frequ parking due stinations, t l travel dista also have m ty the he idth ers s are is- nd ous n of ency to he nces ore

1-19 parking and passenger amenities despite closer distances to the CBD (Kittelson & Associates Inc. 2007). Park-and-ride facilities whose primary transit modes are local fixed routes or local express bus routes tend to be smaller lots, usually between 25 and 100 total spaces. This type of park-and- ride facility is often described first as a transit center or transfer facility and secondarily as a park-and-ride (Turnbull et al. 2004), as opposed to park-and-rides with rail transit service or regional express bus service, where the park-and-ride function is primary. The much higher- capacity transit service typically can support a larger number of total parking spaces, sometimes even as many as 1,000 at one facility. Selecting the Facility Site There are many ways to select a site for a new park-and-ride facility. The method used depends on the needs of the transit agency for a particular facility, priorities of the selection process, and tools available. FDOT identified the most important factors for site selection as including available right of way, perceived area atmosphere, site size, visibility from adjacent travel routes, site access, existing transit service, road congestion, and lot design (Chu et al. 2001). This section discusses considerations and methods for determining facility locations. Siting by Distance to CBD At park-and-ride facilities in suburban Chicago, stations with more parking spaces tend to be located in places where, because of the distance to the central employment areas, commuter rail is a time-competitive mode for users (Turnbull et al. 2004). Over 50 percent of parking spaces for Atlanta’s MARTA rail stations are located at stops either one stop away from the end of the rail line or at the end of the line (Turnbull et al. 2004). In 1993, BART in San Francisco operated 34 rail stations, 24 of which had parking and were located in either low-density areas or suburban centers. The remaining 12 stations did not have parking and were located in CBDs (Turnbull et al. 2004). A 2001 study by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) in Phoenix, Arizona, highlights several findings about the connection between park-and-ride facility location and utilization by commuters. A MAG survey of park-and-ride programs throughout the United States found the ideal conditions for high lot utilization to be transit service headways under 10 minutes to facilities located 15 miles or more from the CBD. Placement Relative to Congested Areas Selecting locations for park-and-ride facilities is a balance of meeting expectations for demand, integrating park-and-ride facilities with the surrounding communities, and minimizing the risks of implementation (Spillar 1997). Transit agencies tend to locate park-and-ride facilities in lower-density areas, not in locations with high, urban densities.

Other fac commute ride site n commute Sou Visibility awarenes Chicago used by d Park-and projected 4 to 5 mi Commut reach a p facility is Groves 2 In its 200 locations with ligh from a fr to identif a primary tors that inf r corridors— ear the corr rs to avoid c rce: Holguin- of park-and s of the park found that la riving past -ride faciliti to have con les away fro ers prefer no ark-and-ride located nea 007). 9 park-and- with highes t rail service eeway. The y the best ca commuter luence park- increased c idor. Park-a ongestion, a Veras et al. 20 Figure 4. S -ride facilit -and-ride fa rge percent them (Turnb es should be gestion, in a m the activi t to travel o facility. Co r the beginn ride study, t t utilization , locations a Jacksonville ndidates for route, proxi and-ride fac ongestion m nd-rides loc s seen in Fi 12b. tation Posit ies along ma cilities amo ages of user ull et al. 20 located in c reas with h ty center de ut of their w mmuters ar ing of their he Jacksonv were, in des djacent to a Transporta future park mity to a co 1-20 ility site sel eans a high ated next to gure 4 (Hol ioning and jor commut ng potential s found out 04). ongested tr igh travel de stination (Tu ay and want e more likely trip before t ille Transpo cending ord major arter tion Authori -and-ride sit ngested and/ ection inclu er potential the edge of guin-Veras e Road Cong ing corridor users. Surv about the pa avel corrido mand to act rnbull 1995 to avoid bo to use park hey encount rtation Auth er, location ial road, and ty used a m es. The cate or constrain de congestio for demand congested c t al. 2012b) estion. s is importa eys in Delaw rk-and-ride rs, in advanc ivity centers ; Mather 19 ttlenecks of -and-ride se er traffic (H ority found s that offere locations le ulti-category gories inclu ed corridor, n along at a park-an orridors allo . nt in increas are and facilities the e of areas , and at leas 83). heavy traff rvice if the orner and park-and-ri d connection ss than 1 m rating proc ded proxim high reside d- w ing y t ic to de s ile ess ity to ntial

1-21 population density, adjacent commuter corridors, anticipated transportation projects, neighboring residential land use, proximity to an existing informal lot, existing transit service at the site, potential future transit service, and multimodal activity. Placement Based on Projected Demand Various research reports propose different methods for determining commuter demand for park- and-ride facilities. The populations targeted for park-and-ride facilities are the residents within a geographic area that begins at the facility site and spreads outward away from the CBD (the catchment area). The catchment area identifies where park-and-ride users originate and may be used to evaluate one location against other location candidates (Horner and Groves 2007). A 2012 study to identify potential park-and-ride facility sites in New York City used requirements including demand considerations, transit connectivity and design, community integration, and economic viability to determine optimal sites for facility placement (Holguin- Veras et al. 2012a). Farhan and Murray (2005) suggested that approaches to identifying park-and-ride catchment areas can be grouped into the following categories: using a geometric shape for area, comparing travel costs between travel modes, and identifying current or past users. Shortcomings cited for the various approaches include unidentified spatial barriers in catchment areas, direction of travel for the user, and lack of user data. The study reported in TCRP Report 167: Making Effective Fixed Guideway Investments: Indicators of Success (Chatman et al. 2014) used over 140 different data factors to estimate ridership levels for fixed guideway transit projects, conducting a multiple regression analysis with variables that reflect transit agency decision making for facility placement. The study also compared the results of actual ridership to the regression analysis predictions, as seen in Figure 5. The results found that service characteristics such as fare, frequency, and distance from the CBD tended to be insignificant predictors for estimating ridership. The results showed that severe congestion in the corridor, high densities of residents at the origin, and high densities of jobs at the destination are significant indicators for estimating ridership.

Source: Timin A 2014 c service fo made ear study eff decision placemen in ridersh engineeri of the fac STAK Transit a providers the surro commun areas affe agency a both the t will effec Chatman et al g of the onvenience- und that the ly in the pro orts or durin during the p t decision m ip modeling ng cost estim ility (Mock EHOL gencies bene , and develo unding areas ity organizat cted by faci nd neighbor ransit agenc tively serve . 2014. Figu Site Lo sample surv decision of ject develop g a period o reliminary e ight be cha , environme ates, and r and Thill 20 DERS A fit from stro pers when t . Transit ag ions, local a lity sites an hood (Mock y and area s their servic re 5. Measu cation D ey of transi where to ph ment lifecy f system pla ngineering w nged later in ntal survey esults were 14). ND LA ng relation he transit ag encies build uthorities, a d create part and Thill 2 takeholders e areas. 1-22 red Riders ecision t professiona ysically loc cle, such as nning. A mi ork phase. the project s, design det available to ND-US ships with lo ency seeks ing new par nd private b nerships to 014). Land-u in order to hip Results ls at transit ate the park during part nority of re Transit age cycle once ails, real est consider for E POL cal governm to integrate k-and-ride f usinesses to strengthen th se policies determine h . agencies wi -and-ride fa of the initial spondents m ncies also re further work ate appraisa the final pl ICIES ents, other park-and-rid acilities ofte provide inp e ties betw are also a co ow park-and th park-and cility is usu investment ade the loca ported that was condu ls, or acement loc local transit e facilities n involve ut about the een the trans nsideration -ride facilit -ride ally tion the cted ation with it for ies

1-23 This section describes how transit agencies partner with stakeholders and determine land-use priorities during park-and-ride planning. Stakeholders and Community Integration Transit agencies typically make the decision of where to place park-and-ride facilities, although the decision-making responsibility could fall on the planning department for a local government, a regional planning council, the MPO, or the relevant state DOT. Regardless of the decision- making entity, these jurisdictions and other area businesses and community groups are stakeholders in the location decision (Mock and Thill 2014). Community involvement in the planning process for park-and-ride facilities can be used to develop service standards, parking lot characteristics, and prioritization of local corridors. Efforts for involving the public may include tools such as information gathering sessions and technical advisory committees (Spillar 1997). TCRP Report 153 (Coffel et al. 2012) outlined a four-step process to balance the interests of the diverse set of stakeholders: 1. Develop strong and open relationships with local authorities, roadway agencies, developers, and residents. 2. Maintain the relationships through regular and ongoing communication, such as establishing interagency committees. 3. Ensure access planning professionals are appropriately skilled. People involved in station access planning should understand transit, traffic operations, parking, pedestrian design, and station design. 4. Define and publicize the mission and goals of the transit agency in the context of local goals and values. Facility Sites and Neighborhoods Placement of park-and-ride facilities should account for community attitudes and local land-use plans in order to avoid negative effects on neighborhood land values, community goals, noise, traffic, and air quality. Additionally, transit agencies may potentially reduce costs by forming partnerships with area businesses to share surface parking areas (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012b). Local stakeholders also possess skillsets that are helpful for the preliminary design process of developing park-and-ride facilities and coordinating service planning for a future facility to work effectively. Transit agencies should consider community values so that park-and-ride facilities are consistent with community needs and desires for transit service (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). Partnering with Stakeholders Working with area stakeholders may help transit agencies address infrastructure and utility needs at new park-and-ride facility sites. Fort Bend County Transportation Department acquired a piece of property for a new facility with grant funding, but the parcel did not have any existing utility connections. Fort Bend County worked with a nearby municipal utility district to have the

1-24 property annexed into the district to tie into existing water and sewer lines. The annexation will provide Fort Bend County the opportunity to build a park-and-ride facility and to construct a maintenance facility on site to meet future transportation goals (Kerr 2015). Partnering with existing private developers offers a potential tool for transit agencies to enter into agreements to provide park-and-ride service at shared-lot sites. Advantages of using partnerships for park-and-rides include increased safety for pedestrians resulting from activities at the development, encouragement to use transit for area residents, and economic savings from reduced costs in sharing space and increased property values (Jacksonville Transportation Authority 2009). Integrating design requirements with local jurisdictions around park-and-ride facilities can be beneficial for improving pedestrian access to these facilities through increased sidewalk network connectivity and amenities. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver created the 2009 Access Guidelines document to provide guidance to local jurisdictions on a consistent approach for making pedestrian improvements around stations in the system (Coffel et al. 2012).   New York City Transit’s Safe Routes to Transit program identifies missing sidewalks around transit stations to foster collaboration between the transit agency and the city to improve sidewalk conditions (Coffel et al. 2012).  Working with stakeholders allows transit agencies to assign responsibility for maintenance of park-and-ride facilities, including management of lighting, trash pickup, and cleaning of the locations. Determining the best stakeholder to handle maintenance tasks may allow the transit agency to pay for maintenance at a lower cost than self-managing it in addition to managing operations. Possible stakeholders for maintenance tasks include DOTs, local jurisdictions, or contracted services. Regular maintenance of park-and-ride facilities results in a high level of facility longevity and sustainability, increased safety for pedestrians, and greater overall aesthetic appeal for all users (Virginia Department of Transportation 2013). Land Use and TOD with Park-and-Rides Land uses around the park-and-ride facilities and the amount of available parking affects the demand for transit services at park-and-ride facilities. Many transit agencies have adopted station access and joint development policies for land around stations, including Los Angeles Metro, Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, and BART. TCRP Report 153 (Coffel et al. 2012) identified a set of access policy guidelines for all modes. Parking serves an essential access role in many station types, but park-and-ride is the most costly access mode to accommodate and requires the most land area. Trade-offs between parking and TOD must be carefully considered. The travel impacts of TOD projects around park-and-ride facilities include increased transit trips resulting from greater walkability, increased transit commuting by residents at TOD centers, and

1-25 parking requirement reductions at the facilities themselves. Table 2 shows examples of mixed- use TOD projects adjacent to stations with park-and-ride originally listed in TCRP Report 102 (Cervero et al. 2004) and reprinted in TCRP Report 153 (Coffel et al. 2012). Table 2. TOD Developments at Rail Stations with Park-and-Ride. Location Development Mix Situation Travel Impact Ballston Station Area Arlington, Virginia 1960-2002 5,914 residential units Office: 5,721,000 square feet Retail: 840,000 square feet Hotel: 430 rooms The Ballston area has transformed from an automobile-oriented close-in suburb into a full-fledged TOD since the heavy rail transit Metrorail station opened in 1979, supported by strong planning. Retail activity in Ballston is bolstered by an enclosed destination shopping mall located within walking distance. The walk mode of access/egress for the station in 2002 was 67% of about 22,000 average daily entries plus exits. Case study, Arlington County, Virginia, TOD Densities, provides additional findings. Village Green Arlington Heights, Illinois 2001 250 condominiums Office: 17,000 square feet Retail: 53,000 square feet The Village Green project is located in downtown Arlington Heights, near the commuter railroad station. A big grocery store is also within walking distance. One of several downtown redevelopment projects. Of all downtown residents (inclusive of Village Green project), 17% report Metra as their primary commute mode versus 7% for all of Arlington Heights. Mockingbird Station Dallas, Texas 2000 211 apartments Office: 140,000 square feet Retail: 180,000 square feet This $105 million project is located on a 10-acre site four miles from the CBD via light rail transit, adjacent to Southern Methodist University and the North Central Expressway. A full service grocery store is within five minutes on foot. Parking requirement reduction of 27% was allowed for shared-use parking. About 10% of patrons reported to arrive by transit. Hazard Center San Diego, California 1997 120 condominiums Office: 300,000 square feet Retail: 136,000 square feet Hotel: 300 rooms Constructed on formerly industrial land, this development on the Mission Valley light rail transit line has gradually grown into a horizontally mixed, mixed- use center. Pedestrian- friendly design encourages living, working, and shopping within the self-contained community. No quantitative travel data given. The supermarket has been observed to serve customers from other rail stations. Source: Cervero et al. 2004, and reprinted in Coffel et al. 2012. Including trip generators into the plans for the area around a park-and-ride can be beneficial for ridership even if it results in fewer parking spaces at the park-and-ride site. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon in Portland, Oregon, successfully used this strategy in the design of a transit center and surface park-and-ride lot that were in an undeveloped area when the station was opened. More than 10 years after the station opened, development intensified around the station. The station was redesigned to include a community

1-26 college and workforce center; a portion of the park-and-ride space transitioned to shared-use parking. Ridership generated from the development at the station more than offset the limited loss of parking (Coffel et al. 2012). Table 3 shows examples of parking reductions that occurred at transit stations to provide space for specified land uses. Table 3. Examples of Parking Reductions for Other Land Uses. Location Land Use Parking Reduction Pacific Court (Long Beach, California) Uptown District (San Diego, California) Rio Vista West (San Diego, California) Pleasant Hill (California) Pleasant Hill (California) Dadeland South (Miami, Florida) City of Arlington (Virginia) Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, Georgia) Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, Georgia) Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, Georgia) Portland (Oregon) Suburbs * Portland (Oregon) Suburbs * Retail Commercial Retail/Commercial Office Retail Office Office Speculative Office Retail Single Tenant Office Towers General Office Retail/Commercial 60% 12% 15% 34% 20% 38% 48%-57% 19% 26% 29%-70% 17% 18% * Calculated relative to maximums specified in Metro’s Title 2 Regional Parking Ratios. Source: Coffel et al. 2012. Transit agencies may reduce the number of spaces at park-and-ride facilities in favor of providing more space for enhancing developments around transit service, such as city centers, high-density areas, and business or cultural districts. A case study modeling scenarios of development around a BART rail station found that the largest increases in both ridership and total revenues (including rent, fares, and parking fees) would occur in a scenario with high- intensity development rather than medium development with more parking spaces (Willson and Menotti 2007). Based on the findings of Willson and Menotti, conversion of park-and-rides to TOD near CBDs and other densely developed areas is likely to generate the greatest ridership and revenue returns. In a study of park-and-ride at commuter rail stations in the Boston, Massachusetts metro region, Burgess found the best opportunities for redevelopment of facilities were in communities nearer to the CBD, where the benefits of TOD are also often greater (Burgess 2008). However, rail stations in less dense or newer neighborhood TOD districts may generate a greater number of transit trips by providing more parking at the facility to encourage transit use. Each park-and-ride facility must be evaluated in light of local conditions. FUNDING PARK-AND-RIDE During the initial planning stages, transit agencies consider the construction costs and sources of funding they will use for park-and-ride facility sites in addition to calculations for demand. Sometimes the ideal site location will be too expensive for the transit agency to secure property, forcing transit agencies to evaluate alternatives for a park-and-ride location. Funding beyond

1-27 capital construction is also considered to ensure quality operations and maintenance of the facility. This section discusses the types of costs transit agencies face and examples of funding options used for park-and-ride facilities. Development Costs Development costs for park-and-ride facilities include two major components: the cost of land and the cost of construction. Land value is determined by the total area of the facility location multiplied by the unitary land value cost, which may vary significantly depending on the land characteristics, such as location, accessibility, and needed improvements (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). El Dorado County Transit Authority (EDCTA), California, developed new policies as part of their Park-and-Ride Facilities Master Plan after finding it was less costly to construct new park-and-ride facilities than to expand existing facilities with park-and-ride service (2007). Market Influences on Development Costs Market influences on land values can play a significant role in determining where park-and-ride facilities may be located. Land costs typically increase with closer proximity to the primary travel destinations in the CBD. For transit agencies, the economic benefits of the location and investment costs of purchasing the land may result in trade-offs when deciding where to place a park-and-ride facility (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012b). The associated opportunity cost and value of land for uses other than park-and-ride service makes private property more difficult and expensive to acquire than publicly owned land. Transit agencies construct park-and-ride facilities based on consumer perceptions of cost savings from automobile-only use, calculations of travel demand, and potential monetary savings for users (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012b). While developments are typically subject to local value capture mechanisms such as taxes, user fees, or system development charges, transit agencies implementing park-and-ride and/or TOD may need to finance improvements at the beginning of the project before those mechanisms are put into effect. Transit agencies must consider the lag time between the initial investment and the actual development when planning for needed finances (Matichich 2014). Rapid development in a metropolitan area puts additional time pressures on the park-and-ride development process on top of existing market pricing concerns. One possible result of rapid development is compressing the time to complete the environmental review process. Stakeholders may want to acquire land quickly to avoid higher project costs or losing a desirable facility site to private developers and may have limited time for the environmental review processes. Potential solutions to the dilemma include conducting an environmental clearance study as part of the park-and-ride selection process and working with local jurisdictions to purchase desirable property (with no significant environmental impacts) in an expedited manner (Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority 2008).

Land Co Placemen demand f agencies private p locations can enco pedestria purchasin would th The cost and illust interest, a are more undergro Source: Co Surface The diffe surface p sts for Park t of park-an or service. E because it u roperty is an to offer par urage transit n amenities g property en require id of land is a rates the im nd finance economical und parking ffel et al. 2012 Figure 6. Parking Ve rence in con arking lots o -and-Ride d-ride facili xisting pub sually mean other option k-and-ride s ridership bu needed. Lea outright, but entifying a significant f pact of incre costs. For la than structu may be just , Exhibit 10-9 Effects of L rsus Elevat struction co r parking ga Lot Sites ties may be lic property s lower- or n if transit ag ervice from t may requ sing private there is the new facility actor on the asing land v nd values be res. Where ified. . and Value ed/Undergr sts will vary rages. Tran 1-28 dependent o is often the o-cost acqu encies can p retail or mix ire additiona property is risk of the o (Iowa Depa price of par alue on par low $40 to land costs ex on Type of ound Gara widely acc sit agencies n costs to a least expen isition for th artner with ed-use cent l costs for n less expensi wner termin rtment of T king. Figure king constru $50 per squ ceed about Parking Sp ges ording to wh incur lower cquire the si sive option f e transit ag private dev ers. These d ecessary pa ve in the sh ating the co ransportatio 6 is from T ction, exclu are foot, sur $100 per sq ace (2010 C ether the fa costs when te in additio or transit ency. No-co elopment evelopment ssenger and ort term than ntract, whic n 2014). CRP Repor sive of desi face parking uare foot, osts). cility needs constructing n to st s h t 153 gn, lots

1-29 surface parking because these lots only require conditioning of the facility surface for parking and circulation of vehicles, whereas parking garages have additional costs associated with the building, appliances, structural support, and possible excavation in the case of underground garages. Construction costs are less per space for surface-level parking and increase dramatically with each additional floor when garage parking levels are added (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). Cost estimates for park-and-ride facilities vary. TCRP Report 153 (Coffel et al. 2012) estimated construction costs for parking facilities at $4,200–$5,250 per parking space for surface lots. Structured garages range from $14,000 per space for a two-level garage to $17,000 per space for multi-level garages. Underground parking construction was estimated at around $35,000 per space. Operations and Maintenance Costs There are additional costs and a need for ongoing funding sources for transit agencies to consider beyond construction. Park-and-ride facilities require ongoing maintenance for a state of good repair and incur operating costs for a variety of functions: security, collecting parking fees (if applicable), sweeping and trash removal, preventative maintenance for the surface and passenger facilities, and more. In an article about station parking and transit-oriented design, Martin and Hurrell estimated that the average annual operating and maintenance costs for parking spaces can be anywhere between $300 and $500 per space depending on the parking level of the space (Martin and Hurrell 2012). Cold weather climates will have increased maintenance costs for snow removal and winter impacts requiring routine maintenance. Funding Options Transit agencies typically receive federal, state, and local funding assistance to construct significant capital projects such as park-and-ride facilities. A variety of funding options have been used by transit agencies to pay for the costs of park-and-ride facilities, particularly for the initial construction phase but also for continued operations and maintenance of the facilities. Capital Funding for Construction Costs A variety of funding sources exist at the federal, state, and local levels to fund park-and-ride facility expenses. In a 2012 survey, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program found that nine out of 13 states polled used federal funding sources for park-and-ride projects. Federal sources of funding eligible to be used for park-and-ride facility construction include the following:  FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula.  FTA Section 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula (includes the Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program).

1-30  FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula.  FTA Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment. FTA New Starts funding (Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment) has been a source of federal funding for the capital costs of park-and-ride facilities when included as part of a fixed guideway project.  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). CMAQ funds are one of the major sources for project funding due to the program’s shared goals with park-and-ride service—decreasing congestion and improving air quality as a result. CMAQ funds can be used for 80 percent of project costs.  Surface Transportation Program. Surface transportation programs, also available for 80 percent of project costs, allow for flexibility because the grant recipients may be either state DOTs, MPOs, or regional planning organizations (Iowa Department of Transportation 2014).  Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. TIGER grants may be used to fund public transportation projects that are eligible for funding in chapter 53 of title 49 of the United States Code. Federal sources of funding require that grant recipients provide a local match as part of total project costs through either state or local funding sources. Federal funding awards can be up to 80 percent of capital costs, while the local match amount must provide the remaining. State DOTs, including California (Caltrans 2013), Virginia (2013), and Iowa (2014), have created park-and-ride plans that include possible sources of funding for park-and-ride facilities (AASHTO 2014). Regional and local funding sources will vary depending on the funding mechanisms put in place by specific states. The Iowa Department of Transportation identified funding sources at a state and local level (applicable throughout the United States), including road use tax fund dollars, city capital improvement programs, county construction programs, and public transit infrastructure grants, as state and local funding sources used for park-and-ride projects (2014). Depending on state and local authority, transit agencies may also use financing mechanisms such as provided by the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act loans, state infrastructure bank loans, or general obligation bonds to fund the upfront capital costs of projects and pay the amount back over future years. Ongoing Funding for Operations and Maintenance Regular operations and maintenance costs for park-and-ride are eligible expenses under FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula and Section 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula funds. For transit agencies eligible for federal assistance for operating costs, park-and-ride operations are reimbursable from federal funds at 50 percent, and facility maintenance costs are reimbursable from federal funds at 80 percent. For new projects eligible for CMAQ funds, federal funds can be used for up to 80 percent of project operating costs for up to three years

1-31 after implementation (the three years of operating assistance allowable under the CMAQ program may be spread over a longer period, for a total of up to five sequential years of support). EDCTA, near Sacramento, California, published a Park-and-Ride Facilities Master Plan that estimated funding needs over a 20-year period. With a $33.3 million capital program for park- and-ride, EDCTA also found over $10 million is needed to fully fund annual operations, maintenance, and long-term maintenance. The authority identified strategies to reduce and avoid future costs for operating park-and-ride:  Standardize features (where possible)—such as lighting fixtures—to provide cost efficiencies in maintenance.  Install landscaping that minimizes need for ongoing maintenance.  Design structural elements that minimize vandalism.  Install garbage collection systems only when the park-and-ride is located within walking distance of commercial areas/fast food.  Work with the city and county to combine the annual park-and-ride facility surface treatment with the local annual road-surface treatment programs to achieve cost efficiencies.  Monitor the cost of contract landscape-maintenance services and seek cost-reduction options. Seek price quotes from the city, county, and special district grounds-keeping services and consider hiring in-house staff. Transit agencies sometimes use revenues from park-and-ride facilities to help fund the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the facilities. BART in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, uses a dedicated portion of parking revenue to fund accessibility and other improvements at their facilities (Coffel et al. 2012). AMENITIES FOR PARK-AND-RIDE USERS Beyond location relative to the CBD and traffic congestion, the success of park-and-ride facilities is further dependent on the characteristics of the facility, cost of use, and overall convenience from the customer perspective. Factors such as the price of parking, number of spaces available, and transit service frequency significantly influence commuters’ choice in transportation (Li et al. 2007). This section describes examples of how transit agencies provide amenities for passengers, determine parking fees, and integrate new technologies into park-and- ride service. Pedestrian and Passenger Amenities Amenities at and around park-and-ride facilities can encourage transit ridership. Customer amenities at park-and-ride facilities may include passenger shelters, public telephones, bicycle accommodations, ticketing machines, service information, and newspaper racks (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a).

1-32 Parking spaces and parking lot design are also a part of the amenities at facilities since the proximity of spaces to station platforms is important for pedestrian walkability. RTD in Denver mandates that at least half of the spaces at park-and-ride facilities must be located within 600 feet of the platforms, while all spaces must be within 1,500 feet (Coffel et al. 2012). Lot design, including proper signalization and crosswalk markings, should ameliorate vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and allow for pedestrian access to the lots at nearby intersections (EDCTA 2007). Studies in Seattle, Chicago, and Delaware found that, beyond the availability of parking spaces, safety and security features were important for park-and-ride customers. Park-and-ride users also stated that coffee shops, dry cleaning services, and car care services are appealing business types when considering what businesses should be adjacent to park-and-ride facilities (Turnbull et al. 2004). Planning to offer additional service accommodations for commuters is a way to supplement service from park-and-ride facilities and make commuting via transit more appealing. For example, guaranteed ride home programs such as the program in Arlington, Virginia, offer commuters that frequently use park-and-ride services a ride home when the rider has to miss scheduled return trips for unexpected reasons. This program allows commuters to attend to periodic work or personal emergencies while having the assurance that commuting on transit from a park-and-ride, instead of driving a personal vehicle, will not leave them stranded (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). Transit agencies sometimes build redundant features into the station design, such as constructing more extra shelters and platforms than normally needed, that can allow transit service to continue uninterrupted during facility maintenance periods. Without alternative facilities in place at a park-and-ride location, transit agencies may be forced to detour buses off their normal routes to stop elsewhere while the station is being repaired (American Public Transportation Association [APTA] 2010). Pricing for Parking at Transit Facilities A commuter’s choice to use a park-and-ride service may be dependent on a comparison of daily costs of driving an automobile and the costs of transit travel time, transit fares, and parking fees. If park-and-ride service (including travel from the home and transferring from the parking lot to transit) is time competitive with driving an automobile from origin to destination, there will be demand for the service. Otherwise, commuting by automobile may be more attractive for commuters unless there are toll roads, rising fuel costs, or end-of-trip parking costs to consider (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012b).

1-33 Pricing for parking spaces at park-and-ride facilities, therefore, requires that the transit agency balance the influences of operating and maintaining the facilities, encouraging use of the park- and-ride service, and managing crowding at popular lots. While most park-and-ride facilities have free parking for users, some facilities utilize parking pricing to help control demand at stations (Turnbull et al. 2004). The majority of capital costs for constructing facility stations and parking lots for park-and-ride are typically covered through grant funding. While free parking is a good mechanism for increasing park-and-ride use by commuters, it is not useful in the long term for covering the operations and maintenance costs of the facilities. Examples of Parking Pricing Parking costs vary by transit agency. For example:  Chicago Transit Authority prices parking at their facilities between $1.75 and $2.50 per day, generating parking revenues from 2.3 million rides out of their annual 445 million annual rides (Turnbull et al. 2004).  WMATA, in Washington, D.C., charged between $2.00 and $10.00 per day at Metrorail parking lots in 2002, depending on the location (Turnbull et al. 2004).  MARTA, in Atlanta, began charging users $1.00 per day to park at rail station facilities, leading to an estimated $2 million in annual revenues in 1985. However, the transit agency later eliminated daytime parking fees in order to encourage ridership. MARTA charges overnight parking fees in order to address users leaving their cars at the park-and- ride facilities to go to the international airport (Turnbull et al. 2004). TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3, reviewed park-and-ride parking fees reported in the 2002 APTA Transit Fare Summary (Turnbull et al. 2004). The report organized parking fee ranges by the transit mode connection at the facility and by minimum versus maximum times. Transit agencies in San Diego, Miami, and Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C., offered free parking at commuter rail stations during all times of the day. Transit agencies that offer rapid transit, light rail, or local bus service with free parking at facilities include Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Maryland Transit Administration, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, and 35 other transit agencies in the United States and Canada. Table 4 shows parking fee ranges collected in the 2002 survey as printed in TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3 (Turnbull et al. 2004).

Sourc * Indi –– Ind Using Pr Parking f at variou parking f to faciliti  K an et  R re un Table e: Turnbull et al cates a parking f icates the trans icing to Ma ees have als s facilities in ees being us es with avai itsap Trans d-ride facil al. 2004). TD, in Den lation to par derutilized 4. Example . 2004, Table 3- ee that applied it agency offered nage the D o been used their system ed to shift e lable spaces it, in Wash ity and bega ver, uses a d king fees, a lots, as inten s of Parking 20. to bus or light r no parking for emand for P as a tool by s in additio xcess deman : ington, intro n offering fr atabase that llowing them ded (Coffe 1-34 Fees Char ail at facilities t a particular tra arking transit agen n to raising d from park duced a par ee shuttles monitors us to observe l et al. 2012) ged by Tra hat primarily pr nsit mode. cies to man revenue. Be -and-ride fa king fee in 1 for users to age of park if parking f . nsit Agenci ovided parking f age the dem low are exa cilities with 997 for an a other nearby -and-ride fa ees are shif es. or heavy rail. and for park mples of at-capacity t-capacity p lots (Turnb cilities in ting users to ing lots ark- ull

1-35  WMATA, in Washington, D.C., offers both monthly parking permits and guaranteed parking spaces for extra fees at Metrorail stations, allowing users to pay a premium price to eliminate the uncertainty of available parking spaces when transferring modes to transit.  BART, in Oakland–San Francisco, also offers reserved parking spaces for a monthly fee (Turnbull et al. 2004).  Metro, in Los Angeles, introduced limited paid permit parking at two rail stations in 2004 after the transit agency board policy was approved to set aside reserved parking at stations where demand frequently exceeded capacity. At introduction, the permits were only available to use during working weekdays (Los Angeles Metro 2004). Using a space numbering system in tandem with the pay station inside the transit station helps ensure that parking is used by transit riders rather than by people parking in the area to go to nearby traffic attractors. Transit agencies such as BART and Miami-Dade Transit have integrated these kinds of pay systems to manage the demand for parking at their park-and-ride facilities and help ensure that parking spaces are available to commuters (Coffel et al. 2012). This type of payment system is most applicable for facilities owned by the transit agency and not for shared-use lots. In 2009, BART began utilizing daily parking fees and reserved parking memberships to smooth arrival times of park-and-ride customers. Previously, same-time arrivals of customers at facilities were causing traffic jams and missed trips due to the inability to park in time to reach the transit station. The new pricing system at facilities had no significant effects on travel and parking behavior by customers and increased parking availability during the day by allowing customers paying the fees to arrive later (Syed et al. 2009). Technologies and Park-and-Ride Service Newer technologies have allowed transit agencies to provide additional features and amenities at park-and-ride facilities beyond parking spaces and transit service. Transit agencies can now use the Internet and associated applications to provide updated service information, options for reserving parking, and directions to facilities with open spaces. This section describes examples of new technologies that have allowed transit agencies to enhance park-and-ride service. Pay for Parking by Phone In July 2015, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) implemented a pay-by- phone payment system for parking lots at 78 commuter rail stations. Previously, MBTA required commuters to use honor boxes, an antiquated payment system that required customers to fold dollar bills and stuff them into tiny slots (Dungca and Nguyen 2015). Communicating Information Transit agencies have the ability to offer information about park-and-ride service through online sources such as transit agency websites, trip planners, and mobile phone applications. These

1-36 sources can show commuters the facility location, address, directions to the facility, hours of service, connecting routes, fare prices, and more. Such online systems result in a cost savings for the transit agency because providing information online is less expensive than posting and printing it on physical mediums. Additionally, the Internet allows transit agencies to quickly edit and update information as needed (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a). Two Metra park-and-ride facilities in greater Chicago utilize a dynamic messaging system that collects information about parking availability at lots and relays the information at strategic points along freeways and arterial streets on commuter corridors for display on roadside signs, which is depicted on a road network map in Figure 7 (Federal Highway Administration 2007). Other signs provide directions to lots with availability from the road or from full parking lots to parking lots with spaces. Transit agency operating costs of electricity for the dynamic messaging signs is estimated to be $20 per sign each month. Metra is able to power seven signs around the two park-and-ride facilities for an annual total of $1,680. The cost to operate the signs is paid by the cities in which the signs are placed rather than Metra under a local collaboration agreement (Federal Highway Administration 2007). This type of information can also be provided directly to customers through their smartphones. The prevalence of Internet use has led to the creation of online parking reservation systems for commuters willing to pay additional fees in exchange for guaranteed spots. Caltrans and BART collaborated to create an online parking reservation system at a park-and-ride facility with both daily and reserved parking. This system offers users the ability to reserve spaces over the Internet for a premium rate through a service called ParkingCarma (Federal Highway Administration 2007). The ParkingCarma field test resulted in increases in trips per month by both on-site and off-site commuters and increased utilization of reserved parking (Shaheen and Kemmerer 2008). Other examples of technological amenities at park-and-ride facilities include:  Car Heaters. Many Calgary park-and-ride facilities for the light rail transit system provide stalls in the parking lots with auto heater plug-ins allowing easier starts for car engines that commuters can use during winter months (Turnbull et al. 2004).  Surveillance. Transit agencies, such as Metro Transit in Minneapolis, utilize surveillance technology at facilities, which can minimize the cost associated with security/management staffing and provide an increased level of security for customers (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012a).

Source: Federal Highway Administration 2007. Figure 7. Metra Park-a 1-37 nd-Ride Sign Messaging System.

1-38 RECENT PUBLICATIONS The research team received three new research studies after the formal literature review: (a) the findings from TCRP Synthesis Topic SH-15, Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs, published as TCRP Synthesis 122 (Jacobson 2016); (b) Transit Parking 101 by American Public Transportation Association (APTA 2015), and (c) Bus Transit Operational Efficiency Resulting from Passenger Boardings at Park-and-Ride Facilities by the Mineta Transportation Institute (Niles and Pogodzinski 2016). Summary of TCRP Synthesis 122, Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs Parking is widely recognized as an important factor influencing transit access and ridership. An increasing number of communities and transit agencies have been revising their parking policies to encourage transit usage and to minimize resources consumed for parking. The overall objectives of this synthesis were to document the evolving parking practice among transit agencies and to identify the complex factors involved in how parking and transit service intersect. Approach The approach to the research included a literature review on the state-of-the-practice in transit agency parking policies, an original survey designed to gather comprehensive parking information from a diverse set of transit agencies, and several transit agency profiles to explore key topics in more detail. The synthesis survey was distributed via an email invitation to transit agency staff. In addition to an online form, participants received the survey in a printable format to share with colleagues and assist in the collection of answers. Recipients had two weeks in February 2015 to complete the survey. Of the 46 survey recipients, 37 transit agencies completed a survey. Participating transit agencies represented a broad spectrum in terms of service type, jurisdiction, ridership, mode, types of parking, and parking policy. Parking is widely recognized as an important factor influencing transit access and ridership. An increasing number of communities and transit agencies have been revising their parking policies to encourage transit usage and to minimize resources consumed for parking. The overall objectives of this synthesis were to document the evolving parking practice among transit agencies and to identify the complex factors involved in how parking and transit service intersect. Findings Notable findings from this synthesis include the following.

1-39 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 or create. Another study found that to generate the same ridership as a surface parking lot, housing 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 TOD are dependent on local real estate conditions, implying that the trade-offs between parking supply and the built environment 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 since charging for parking may reduce demand. Some transit agencies offer free parking to encourage transit customers, while others price parking to shift some parkers to the use of alternative access modes, leaving the limited parking available for those who are less price-sensitive or lack alternatives. Although the literature 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 CBD. Many transit agencies have an excess parking supply. Although the degree to which there is an excess parking supply varies between transit modes and between transit agencies, transit riders use fewer parking spaces than corresponding ridership levels would suggest. Survey results indicated that the average park-and-ride mode split is only 22 percent, implying that 78 percent of riders are arriving at the station by taking transit, walking, biking, or something else. Results also revealed that across all survey respondents, 35 percent 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 plan to build more parking. 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 transit agencies to attract riders. Survey results indicated that providing parking at stations is not as important to transit agencies as factors such as passenger amenities, operational efficiency, station-area planning, and improved station access. Indeed, providing parking was ranked 10th out of 13 ridership promotion strategies by responding transit agencies. Nevertheless, research shows that transit agencies spend substantial resources constructing, maintaining, and operating their parking supplies. Many transit 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 provide some type of nontraditional parking. The most common

1-40 alternative parking type is bicycle parking, with 94 percent of survey respondents providing some type of bicycle racks. As documented in TCRP Synthesis 62, more research is needed to quantify the impact of providing bicycle parking on transit ridership. Transit agencies engage in joint development agreements. Most survey respondents have either employed (or have the authority to employ) joint development agreements. Some projects have replaced parking and others have not; however, transit agencies are becoming experienced with these types of transactions. Transit parking is provided by transit agencies, municipalities, and the private sector. Since transit agencies are primarily in the business of providing transit service, transit agencies regularly coordinate and partner with the public and private sector to provide and manage parking facilities for transit riders. Likewise, three-quarters of transit agency respondents indicated that non-transit riders use transit agency parking, typically outside of peak hours. This finding suggests that these partnerships allow for flexibility and demand-responsiveness in the parking system. Additional Research Needed Overall, the lack of research that quantifies the impact of parking policies on transit ridership suggests several opportunities 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 especially pertinent given the relatively high cost of land within transit agency service areas, the high cost of providing parking, and increasing demands for transit agencies to control costs and help meet air quality targets.  Comprehensive and detailed analyses of the quantitative 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, including 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 manage parking supply and regulations. APTA Transit Parking 101 APTA Standards Recommended Practice: Transit Parking 101 is an overview of the many factors that must be considered in the planning, construction, and management of transit park- and-ride and mixed-use development. The rule of thumb that all transit (rail) stations need parking and the priority to surround stations with parking is giving way to a more complex and nuanced approach to providing access at transit stations that includes walking, biking, shared vehicles, and more. This change is due, in part, to the ongoing trend in the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and vehicles sales and the interest in the sustainable and/or urban lifestyle. The APTA document includes a discussion of

1-41 system design, land use, and environmental considerations for providing parking access to transit. Of particular interest is its discussion of the environmental justice issues raised by providing parking and/or by changing parking fee structures. Transit agencies are encouraged to evaluate carefully all possible investment options for providing access to transit and are reminded that parking is just one of many options available, including enhanced transit service, better bike/pedestrian facilities, and other last-mile solutions—each of which contribute to ridership and return on investment in differing degrees, depending on the local context. The document proposes a riders per dollar metric to help transit agencies evaluate and judge which set of options are actually implemented. Bus Transit Operational Efficiency Resulting from Park-and-Ride Facilities The Mineta Transportation Institute investigated the effect on bus system operations of the drive- and-park-and-ride means of transit access and its fiscal implications. According to the research premise for the study, transit advocates sometimes criticize park-and-ride because government- funded construction and operation of parking at transit centers is perceived as an expensive way to increase transit ridership. The study used data about bus service from three transit agencies in Washington State and two agencies in California. Transit’s economic efficiency is defined as the number of riders per unit of transit resource, or passenger boardings per vehicle hour of service. For four agencies out of the five, quantitative evidence emerged that the bus routes with higher productivity (measured by boardings per service hour) are associated with park-and-ride facilities to a greater degree than routes with lower productivity. The results of the case studies suggest that expanding parking facilities near suburban park-and- ride increases the productivity of bus operations as measured by ridership per service hour. The authors also illustrate that reasonable daily parking charges (reasonable as compared to the cost of driving to much more expensive parking downtown) would provide sufficient capital to build and operate new park-and-ride capacity without subsidy from other revenue sources. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS The following section provides highlights of key points and themes that have particular relevance to the development of the guidebook.

1-42 Role and Function of Park-and-Rides The type of park-and-ride facility and distance from the CBD tends to determine the type of transit service provided from the park-and-ride facility and the amount of parking spaces constructed. Purpose-built parking lots are designed expressly for park-and-ride facilities, while shared-use parking lots and TODs have uses other than park-and-ride intended for the facility and provide shared parking lots for surrounding uses. Park-and-Ride Demand Estimation Different models are used to estimate demand for new park-and-ride facilities or revised park- and-ride facilities. Literature provides descriptions, required software, required data and assumptions, calculation processes, strengths and limitations, available resources/guidance, and highlights applications of the models. Park-and-Ride Facility Location Selection Park-and-ride facilities are most effective in areas with lower densities, along commuter corridors and highways, and with high visibility for drivers. Identifying catchments areas for park-and-ride facility sites tends to utilize a parabolic or irregular polygon shape tailing away from the CBD, with the park-and-ride facility site near the arc of the parabola. This forecasting method accounts for commuters’ general unwillingness to travel away from their destination. Partnering with Stakeholders Community involvement in the park-and-ride facility development process can assist transit agencies in designing facilities based on local needs, partnering with local jurisdictions and developments, and integrating the park-and-ride facility with the surrounding neighborhood. Construction Costs and Timelines Capital costs for parking facilities vary depending on the number of spaces needed and the amount of aboveground or underground parking to be constructed. Projected demand for the park-and-ride facility is critical in the initial planning stages of the construction process. Proximity to the CBD and trends in real estate pricing can make it difficult for transit agencies to secure optimal locations for park-and-ride facility sites. Publicly owned land is the easiest option upon which to place facilities for transit agencies but may not be located in an optimal catchment area for park-and-ride users. Transit agencies must balance the influences of land values, service demand, and available project funding in the site selection process. Regular maintenance of park-and-ride facilities leads to longer life for the capital investment and greater utilization by commuters. Planning for ongoing funding sources and collaborating with

1-43 area stakeholders to achieve maintenance goals during the implementation stages help avoid the deterioration of facilities. Funding Options and Financial Risk FTA formula funds and discretionary funds such as CMAQ and New Starts are the most common sources of federal funding used to pay the majority of one-time capital costs of park- and-ride facilities. These funding programs require a local match. Transit agencies with a dedicated source of local funds may elect to develop park-and-ride facilities without federal grants. Operating and maintenance costs of parking facilities require transit agency planning for regularly occurring local revenue streams. Land-Use Policies and Amenities Park-and-ride facilities may be used solely for a parking service or incorporate area residential, retail, and mixed-use developments as part of the facility site. Depending on transit agency goals, the number of parking spaces may be reduced in order to accommodate other land uses to develop on site. The role of the park-and-ride facility is changing. Park-and-ride facilities once served simply as parking lots for commuters, but park-and-rides are moving toward being used as a tool for congestion reduction in larger cities and subsequently becoming a means of investment tools for urban and suburban areas. In some areas, transit agencies are financially investing in TODs and public-private partnerships. Amenities at park-and-ride facilities help to increase comfort, safety, and facility attractiveness for potential users. Park-and-ride facilities should be designed to separate pedestrians from traffic and minimize walking distance for pedestrians from their vehicles to the transit stop. Parking Pricing Free parking provides an additional incentive for commuters to choose park-and-ride service for their trips but may not be fiscally realistic for the transit agency. Parking prices should be set based on area demand for service, costs of transit fares, and travel time compared to auto trips. Transit agencies have used pricing as a tool to shift parking demand for facilities at parking capacity to underutilized facilities. Parking fees may shift customer attitudes toward parking at a less convenient lot location and help the transit agency spread out parking among facilities. Parking reservation systems can help spread out the arrival times of commuters at facilities, prevent a bottleneck of cars at parking lots, and raise additional parking revenue for the transit agency.

1-44 Technologies Technology can be used to provide additional amenities for users, including waiting area comfort and schedule information. Online resources, in particular, are valuable for transit agencies as more commuters begin to utilize them. Online services provide a fast and accessible way to find information about transit service.

1-45 CHAPTER 3: INDUSTRY SCAN The research team found that the existing literature did not address several emerging or hot topics of interest and relevance to public transit properties considering or operating park-and-ride facilities. In addition, many of the cited sources pre-date the rapid progression of technology available today. For these reasons, the research team conducted a brief survey (scan) of transit agencies that have park-and-ride facilities to learn the state-of-the-practice for park-and-ride. The research team purposefully limited the number and complexity of the questions to make the survey as quick to respond to as feasible. The research team therefore refers to the survey as a “scan” to indicate brevity—the full scan required less than 15 minutes to respond. APPROACH The target audience for the scan was the list of transit agencies reporting park-and-ride facilities to the APTA 2014 infrastructure database. Each transit agency responding to the scan was asked 25 primary questions. Most questions required only a check box answer. At the end of the initial questions, the transit agency could agree to answer a few more questions. Then, depending on responses in the first 25 questions, a transit agency might be asked to respond to one to eight more questions. The literature review revealed that the TCRP Synthesis 122 project (Jacobson 2016) included a survey of transit agencies with parking that asked similar questions to the scan for this research. Because of the similarities, the research team did not want to ask the same transit agencies repetitive questions. Instead, a limited scan with five questions was developed to request information that was not available in the synthesis study. The research team created online scan instruments—a full scan and a limited scan for the transit agencies who participated in the synthesis survey. Each scan instrument was provided using SurveyGizmo.com and was available to anyone with the web link. To provide ongoing insight for the research team and scan respondents who were interested, TTI hosted a live scan summary on the Transit Mobility team’s website. Figure 8 presents a screenshot of the introductory page for the state-of-the-practice scan. Figure 9 presents a screenshot of the scan results summary page hosted by TTI’s Transit Mobility team.

Figure 8. Introductory Page—Pa 1-46 rk-and-Ride State-of-the-Practice Scan.

TARG The targe informati and-ride. from the agencies scan. APTA em 2014 data participat correspon the state- ET AU t audience f on, was the The primar list of transi that particip ailed invita base and co ion on beha dence to its of-the-pract Figure 9. Su DIENC or the scan, approximat y source for t agencies w ated in TCR tions with a ntacted mem lf of APTA. members in ice scan. mmary of E AND according to ely 186 tran contact info ith parking P Synthesis link to the s bers multip Figure 10 p forming the 1-47 Scan Respo OUTR the availab sit agencies rmation wa for bus, rail 122 receive can to the tr le times to resents an e m of the pro nses—Scre EACH le literature identified in s the 2014 A , and/or ferr d a request t ansit agenc explain the p xample of A ject and req enshot. and industr Task 1 that PTA infras y services. T o respond to ies respondi roject and e PTA’s ema uesting that y-provided provide par tructure data he 37 trans the limited ng to the ncourage il they respon k- base it d to

In additio made fol two week consisted professio purposes of the res DATA The resea minimize database. (occurred shared by into the l database Fig n to the AP low-up cont s of Decem of addition nal contacts received a m earch team CLEA rch team de data post-p Processing two times) transit agen arger full sc and provide ure 10. AP TA outreach acts with no ber 2015 (th al email requ . Each trans inimum of emailed pro NING A signed both rocessing. O consisted m , reviewing cy represen an database. s detailed in TA Outrea , members n-responsiv e scans rem ests as wel it agency tha two emails fessional acq ND OR online scan nly substan ostly of syn written resp tatives. The A complete formation d 1-48 ch Email R of the resear e transit age ained open p l as direct ph t the resear and two pho uaintances GANIZ s to automat tially compl thesizing du onses, and r research tea data diction efining each equest to P ch team mo ncies throug ast Decemb one calls to ch team con ne calls and to request sc ATION ically collec ete response plicated tran emoving any m combine ary is inclu column in articipate. nitored scan hout Novem er 1). Follo transit agen tacted for fo , when poss an participa t response d s were inclu sit agency r personal in d the limited ded in the s the database responses a ber and the w-up outrea cy directors llow-up ible, memb tion. ata and ded in the esponses formation scan respo can response , including nd first ch and ers nses

1-49 column name, subject matter, sub-answer choice information, and column data format. The final data processing step consisted of matching scan response data with background information about each transit agency. Background information includes transit agency name, location, urban area size, transit mode(s), and type, number, and size of transit rider parking facilities. The final database contains 141 data columns; each one is defined in the data dictionary. SCAN RESPONDENTS AND RESULTS A total of 83 transit agencies responded to the two scans: 71 to the full scan, 17 to the limited scan, and 5 transit agencies answered both the full and limited scans. The responses were merged in the database, resulting in 83 responses as listed in Appendix B. Each scan helped the research team more fully understand the state-of-the-practice for planning and managing park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. The following summaries document the characteristics of the transit agencies responding to the scans. The Transit Agencies Responding to the Scans Represent the United States and Canada  Eighty transit agencies are from the United States, representing 26 states and the District of Columbia. The transit agencies are distributed regionally. o Northeast (11). o South (21). o Midwest (15). o West (33).  Three transit agencies are from Canada—Vancouver, British Columbia (TransLink), Calgary, Alberta (Calgary Transit), and Montreal, Quebec (Agence metropolitaine de transport). Most Transit Agencies Are from Large Urbanized Areas Most transit agencies represent very large urban areas (population over 1 million) or large urban areas (population 200,000 to 1 million). A small number of transit agencies represent small urban areas (population 50,000 to 199,999) as per Census 2010 as reported in the 2013 National Transit Database (NTD):  Very large urban—49.  Large urban—28.  Small urban—6.

1-50 All Modes of Transit Service Are Represented by the Participating Transit Agencies The transit agencies operate bus, rail, ferry, and vanpool modes as reported in the 2013 NTD. (The research team did not record demand response or inclined plane modes.) The following list categorizes the modes represented:  Motorbus—76.  Trolleybus—4.  Commuter bus—22.  Bus rapid transit—6.  Light rail—18.  Streetcar—4.  Heavy rail—7.  Commuter rail—19.  Ferry—7.  Vanpool—23. Of the total 83 transit agencies, 48 were bus only (no rail), five were rail only (no bus), and 30 transit agencies operated both bus and rail. Of the seven transit agencies that operate ferries, four also operate bus and rail, and three operate bus only (no rail). Bus and bus/rail transit agencies also provide vanpools. All Sizes of Park-and-Ride Programs Were Presented The distribution for number of parking spaces (all modes) by transit agency varied from less than 300 to 89,500 spaces:  < 300—16.  >300 <1,000—14.  >1,000 <3,000—15.  >3,000 <12,000—15.  >12,000 <25,000—18.  >25,000 <50,000—5.  >50,000—4.  Not specified—5. Transit agencies responding to the scan were geographically distributed across the United States and Canada. A listing of transit agencies participating in the full and limited scans is provided in Appendix C. Results from the full scan and limited scan questionnaires are provided in Appendix D. Results related specifically to planning and demand model estimation are provided in Chapter 4, Demand Estimation Models and Planning.

1-51 CHAPTER 4: DEMAND ESTIMATION MODELS AND PLANNING This chapter reviews three types of demand estimation models and the results of the industry scan related to planning activities. DEMAND ESTIMATION MODELS This section reviews specific types of demand models and provides descriptions, required software, required data and assumptions, calculation processes, strengths and limitations, available resources/guidance, and highlights applications of the model. The review of available literature relevant to park-and-ride planning yielded the following models that may be used to estimate demand for new park-and-ride facilities or revised park-and-ride facilities:  Park-and-ride demand models o Station access model, TCRP 153, developed by Coffel et al. (2012). o Indicator-based method, TCRP 167, developed by Chatman et al. (2014).  Regional travel demand models o Region-specific travel demand models. o Simplified Trips-on-Project Software developed by Federal Transit Administration (2013).  Transit-agency-specific models developed and utilized internally by the transit agency o Milwaukie (Portland, Oregon) park-and-ride estimates, developed by TriMet (2011). o Regional peer site model for Fort Bend County (Texas) Public Transportation, developed by TTI (2012). o Access policy methodology, developed by BART (2005). A one-page handout for each of the first two models is included in the guidebook. Park-and-Ride Demand Model: Station Access Model TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations provides information to aid in the planning, developing, and improving access to high-capacity commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry stations. The report includes guidelines for arranging and integrating various station design elements, including park-and-ride. The report also features the station access planning tool, a spreadsheet-based planning tool that walks the user through the estimation and evaluation of ridership and access mode splits, the testing of alternatives, and a rough evaluation of costs and benefits.

1-52 Summary of Estimation Process The station access planning tool is set up as a step-by-step process. Although each step is part of the process, the tool generates interim outputs throughout and does not necessarily provide a clear answer at the end. Rather, the model is designed to provide information with which planners and designers can make decisions at each step. Following are the key steps in the estimation process:  Step 1—Estimate overall station ridership.  Step 2—Estimate station access mode split.  Step 3—Estimate automobile parking demand.  Step 4—Assess impacts of changes to parking supply.  Step 5—Assess effects of management options (parking pricing, improved feeder bus service, walk access, bicycle access, and TOD). Requirements The user is responsible for collecting and entering data related to the transit agency, the station itself, and the station area (within a ½-mile radius). The tools’ instructions identify typical data sources. Some data are available from external sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD data. For other data, default values are included using data obtained from over 600 high-capacity transit stations throughout the country. Station typologies allow the user to select a similar station area based on the surrounding environment and operating characteristics. Figure 11 illustrates the station access planning model process for each station access mode. Many of the decisions and assumptions are based on the transit station type. Software The tool works in an electronic spreadsheet, originally created in Microsoft Excel. Figure 11 highlights the four TCRP 153 station access planning tool modules by mode of access. Data and Assumptions Most data are available either from the transit agency or through publicly available sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau. The following are the key input items:  General information. o Climate. o Topography. o Predominant land use.  Transit system information. o Round-trip fare (between station and CBD). o Number of connecting transit lines. o Average transfer fee.

1-53  Demographic information within ½ mile of the station (from U.S. Census Bureau and the American Communities Survey). o Population. o Number of jobs. o Workers. o Median household income. o Percent zero-car households. o Area bicycle commute mode share. o Walk commute share.  Station parking information. o Daily/monthly car parking spaces. o Daily/monthly car parking price. o Car parking utilization. o Bicycle parking spaces. Strengths and Limitations The station access planning tool is based on a robust set of station access data from transit agencies in the United States and is effective for understanding how well a station is performing in terms of access. Given a set of station area and regional characteristics, the tool estimates a reasonable breakdown of access by mode. By comparing this information to actual station access data, planners can understand whether improvements to a given mode are likely to yield greater access numbers by that mode. However, like any model, the station access planning tool contains many assumptions and default values that may or may not be appropriate and that may be acceptable for comparing alternatives but would require significant time and attention to detail to develop specific estimates for a given station and context. Available Resources Appendix C of TCRP Report 153 provides a step-by-step overview of the tool and detailed instructions (including screenshots) to help users navigate the estimation process (see http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_153AppendixC.pdf.). Application Case Studies Sound Transit in Seattle-Tacoma, Washington, used the station access planning tool to identify station-area improvements around its Sounder Commuter Rail stations. In response to parking concerns, spillover impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and environmental priorities, Sound Transit pursued station access solutions to shift demand away from autos to other modes. Using the TCRP Report 153 station access planning tool, Sound Transit estimated how many access trips should shift away from single-occupant vehicle trips by 2030 given a set of infrastructure improvements for walking and bicycling.

Figure 11. TCRP 153 Station 1-54 Access Planning Tool Mode Modules.

1-55 Park-and-Ride Demand Model: Indicator-Based Method TCRP Project H-42 provides multivariate regression models constructed to predict ridership for heavy rail transit (HRT), light rail transit (LRT), and fixed guideway bus rapid transit (BRT) lines using data from existing park-and-ride facilities in the United States. The data were assembled from 55 existing HRT, LRT, and BRT lines in 21 U.S. metropolitan areas, along with supplementary information and guidance from focus groups and interviews with transportation professionals and information from six case studies. From these data sets, a statistical model was developed to predict two success metrics: the average weekday ridership and the change in annual passenger-miles traveled (PMT). The model is referred to as the indicator-based method. The corresponding report, TCRP Report 167, includes a handbook and spreadsheet tool to assist policymakers in evaluating potential HRT, LRT, and fixed guideway BRT lines. The report is divided into two different volumes. Volume 1 presents a user-friendly overview of the indicator- based method, a summary of the variables and factors involved in the model, an explanation of the model inputs using a spreadsheet tool, and an overview of the method’s overall usage for the project-level ridership estimate and the system-wide PMT estimate along with a simple capital cost calculator. Volume 2 includes a detailed report along with Technical Appendices A–J. Summary of Estimation Process The TCRP Project H-42 research objective was to develop an explanatory model that best fit transit ridership and PMT change based on the existing conditions in the corridor and characteristics of the metropolitan area, such as jobs and population around the stations, parking rates in the CBD, number of park-and-ride spaces, age of the facility, and other spatial measures. The authors tested more than 140 different factors that might be expected to influence project- level ridership or system-level PMT on transit. Multiple regression analysis was the mathematical tool researchers used to build the model based on projects and cities for which the authors had complete data sets. The model-building process specified models based on utility theory, focusing on the relative costs of transit and automobile use. Several important variables, such as the number of bus lines serving fixed guideway transit stations, parking availability, and percentage of the track at grade, were highly correlated with rail use but were considered by researchers to be “problematic as predictors, because they both reflect and generate demand” (Chatman et al. 2014, 2-28). Therefore, the final model in the report did not include these variables and only considered the most important based on theory and significance. TCRP Report 167, Appendix E includes a complete list of indicators that were considered in the research model and the contribution of each indicator as predictors of success. The most powerful predictive variables were jobs and population within ½ mile of park-and-ride/transit stations, daily parking rate at destination activity centers/CBD, and age of transit facility. Utilizing the final predictors, the authors built a spreadsheet tool to help planners estimate fixed guideway transit ridership in a fast and easy manner.

1-56 Requirements In the report, the authors presented two different mathematical models. One of the models predicts ridership as a function of multiple variables, as described below. Application of this model for the prediction of future ridership can be done in spreadsheet software such as Microsoft Excel. The original predicted ridership model was calculated by the following equation, defined by Chatman et al. (2014). ܴ ൌ 0.117ሺP_Jobsሻ ൅ 0.0384ሺP_Popሻ െ 393.64ሺP_Rateሻ ൅ 0.0455ሺR_Intሻ െ 9,971.61ሺ%_Gradeሻ ൅ 3.383ሺP&Rሻ ൅ 707.94ሺAgeሻ ൅ 8,235.44 Where – R = predicted ridership. – P_Jobs = jobs within ½ mile of project stations. – P_Pop = population within ½ mile of project stations. – P_Rate = daily parking rate in CBD. – R_Int = ridership model interaction term, which consisted of the relationship between jobs, and population and parking rate as a function equal to (I_Jobs × I_Pop × P_Rate)/(1 million). – %_Grade = percent of alignment at grade (0–100 scale). – P&R = number of park-and-ride spaces. – Age = age of the facility. According to the TCRP Report 167 authors, although this is the best-fit model mathematically, it includes variables that may be endogenous. Therefore, a second and more theoretically defensible model was implemented for the construction of the spreadsheet tool. The final model omitted the number of park-and-ride spaces and, due to the endogenous issue that was analyzed during the project process, expressed ridership in terms of jobs and population around the stations, percent at grade, parking rates in the activity center/CBD, and age of the project. The final ridership model was calculated using the following equation. ܴ ൌ 0.155൫P୎୭ୠୱ൯ െ 0.014൫P୔୭୮൯ െ 491.9ሺPୖ ୟ୲ୣሻ ൅ 0.0773ሺR୍୬୲ሻ ൅ 3,294.39ሺD_Gradeሻ െ 17,846.2ሺ%_Gradeሻ ൅ 1,040.3ሺAgeሻ ൅ 20,672.69 Where – R = predicted ridership. – PJobs = jobs within ½ mile of project stations. – PPop = population within ½ mile of project stations. – PRate = daily parking rate in CBD. – RInt = ridership model interaction term, which consisted of the relationship between jobs and population and parking rate as a function equal to (I_Jobs × I_Pop × P_Rate)/(1 million). – D_Grade = 0 if %_Grade variable is input or 1 if %_Grade value is not available. – %_Grade = percent of alignment at grade (0-100 scale). – Age = age of the facility.

1-57 Software The spreadsheet tool developed by the research team for TCRP Project H-42 is designed to help local governments and transit agencies evaluate alternative proposed fixed guideway transit projects in the planning stage. This tool can be accessed using Microsoft Excel 2010 or other earlier versions of Microsoft Excel that support Visual Basic macros. Users should enable macros while using this tool. Data and Assumptions The model requires entering project-level, system-level, and cost inputs. Listed below is a summary of the required inputs for the model. The first six inputs are designed to collect information about the proposed transit project. Inputs 7 to 12 are for the overall transit-system- related data. Finally, the cost section covers Inputs 13 to 20 and relates to the total cost for the project or the cost per mile:  Project-level inputs. 1. Metropolitan statistical area (name, background information). 2. Jobs within ½ mile of project stations. 3. Population within ½ mile of project stations. 4. Retail, entertainment, and food jobs within ½ mile of project stations. 5. Higher-wage jobs within ½ mile of project stations. 6. Percent of project alignment at grade.  System-level inputs. 7. Daily parking rate in the CBD. 8. Jobs within ½ mile of all fixed guideway stations in the system. 9. Population within ½ mile of all fixed guideway stations in the system. 10. Retail, entertainment, and food jobs within ½ mile of all fixed guideway stations in the system. 11. Higher-wage jobs within ½ mile of all fixed guideway stations in the system. 12. Average daily vehicle miles traveled per freeway lane mile from the Federal Highway Administration.  Cost inputs. 13. Cost method (user can choose among three different options). 14. Number of stations. 15. Percent alignment below grade. 16. Type of project. 17. Mode. 18. Route miles. 19. User-estimated capital cost per mile. 20. User-estimated total capital costs.

1-58 Strengths and Limitations The ridership equation is an easy-to-use methodology that can be applied to predict transit ridership based on data that can be easily accessed by the user. The model represents a low-cost and quick alternative to predict fixed guideway transit ridership. The data required for the model are relatively simple for planners to identify, and the model does not require an extensive numbers of variables. Transit planners can combine the modeled ridership with assumed access mode share to determine approximate demand for park-and-ride lot spaces while also identifying needs for other modal access to stations, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. However, the ridership equation fails to account for any future infrastructure changes such as new transit projects, and the equation does not take into consideration whether there is an existing transit service near the proposed HRT, LRT, or fixed guideway BRT lines. Additional information pertaining to the sample mean and median for some variables applied in the equation, such as park-and-ride spaces, is limited. The variable for predicting the total number of lots for a park-and-ride facility is not directly available. However, the user may derive the total number of parking spaces based on the total ridership estimated by the TCRP indicator- based model. The methodology presented in TCRP Report 167 does not allow researchers to directly estimate the park-and-ride demand and subsequently any other park-and-ride infrastructure characteristics. Available Resources Both volumes of TCRP Report 167: Making Effective Fixed Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success are available online at the following URL: http://www.trb.org/TCRP/Blurbs/170972.aspx. Additionally, the spreadsheet tool developed for the research project TCRP H-42, Draft Spreadsheet Tool—Estimated Ridership and Cost of Fixed Guideway Transit Projects, released August 28, 2013, is available for download in Microsoft Excel (.xlsm) format at http://www.trb.org/TCRP/Blurbs/170972.aspx. Application Case Studies The researchers analyzed one HRT project, four LRT projects, and one BRT project. Case studies for six different cities provided a means to evaluate and refine the performance of the TCRP Report 167 indicator-based method:  Lynx South Line (Charlotte, North Carolina).  North Central Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Extension (Dallas, Texas).  Emerald Express BRT line (Eugene, Oregon).  Interstate Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) (Portland, Oregon).

1-59  University and Medical Center Extensions (Salt Lake City, Utah).  Metro Branch Avenue Extension (Washington, D.C.). In terms of park-and-ride demand estimation and based on discussions while developing the project, the researchers decided to exclude the parking space and bus connection variables, arguing that these variables might be confusing from the user’s perspective and that “it would be incorrect in many cases to infer that building more parking spaces without otherwise changing the project would increase ridership” (Chatman et al. 2014, 2-33). Finally, the detailed report (Volume 2, Chapter 6) states that because the indicator-based method developed as part of the project focused on ridership and PMT and did not include other success measures, many of the interviewees for the case studies believed the use of the quantitative method would be limited. Interviewees for the case studies also expressed the opinion that changes and additions would be necessary for the tool to be more useful. Regional Travel Demand Model: FTA STOPS FTA developed STOPS as a simplified ridership-forecasting method for local transit agencies planning major transit projects. At their option, local transit agencies can use STOPS to meet all of the forecast-related requirements for transit projects proposed for federal funding. FTA developed STOPS to forecast ridership of new transit projects with fixed guideways based on the experiences of a wide variety of HRT, LRT, BRT, and other transit systems implemented over the last 40 years in various cities across the United States (Federal Transit Administration 2013). STOPS is a region-wide travel model, similar to traditional trip-based models maintained by MPOs in larger metro areas. The package is simplified in two ways. First, its development has already accomplished the specification and calibration of its component models—in this case using data assembled nationally from transit systems with fixed guideways. Second, its local application relies primarily on already-available data: the Census Transportation Planning Package for worker commuting patterns, the General Transit Feed Specification data for detailed representation of local transit services, and information from the local MPO travel model to represent zone-level population, employment, and highway impedances. Like MPO-maintained travel models, the STOPS mode-choice and transit-loading models predict the number of zone-to-zone trips on transit, the distribution of those transit trips by access mode (including park-ride or drop-off and-ride), and the volume of trips by access mode at each boarding location (including designated park-ride facilities on fixed guideways or bus routes). Consequently, STOPS provides a useful option for the prediction of park-ride demand on new transit facilities and service. Available Resources STOPS is intended for use by capable travel forecasting professionals. FTA provides detailed information on STOPS, as well as downloads of the software and a contact name for technical

1-60 assistance, on the STOPS webpage that is accessible from FTA’s Travel Forecasting page: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/travel-forecasts. Transit-Agency-Specific Models The first two discussions each summarized a publicly documented and nationally available model for estimating park-and-ride demand. In the course of reviewing available models and techniques, the research team noted that many transit agencies might have an in-house modeling technique or practice. This section provides examples of the demand modeling approaches developed internally and used by transit agencies. Additional information on transit-agency- specific models is found later in this chapter in the Estimating Demand for Park-And-Ride Synthesis from Case Studies section. Milwaukie (Portland, Oregon) Park-and-Ride Estimates, TriMet Source: Mr. Steve Callas, Manager, Service and Performance Analysis, TriMet. TriMet has a long history with park-and-ride lot facilities in support of bus, light rail, and commuter rail services. TriMet’s Green Line was opened in 2009. The 8.3-mile line has five park-and-ride lots with more than 2,300 spaces. Based on past experience, TriMet anticipated that the lots would be well utilized. Instead, several of the lots are significantly underutilized. During the planning phase for the Orange Line, demand was modeled for the two planned park- and-ride lots located in Milwaukie, Oregon. A multivariate regression that integrated current park-and-ride lot patronage, socioeconomic data, and other park-and-ride characteristics from all existing park-and-ride locations along TriMet’s MAX light rail system was used. The service and performance analysis manager conducted the analysis in-house. The variables included in the model were:  Number of households within a 10-minute peak-hour drive to the park-and-ride location (using the regional travel demand model).  Closest park-and-ride to the CBD along each alignment.  Variable for whether the park-and-ride was at the terminus location.  Variable for whether there was adjacent bus service nearby the park-and-ride.  Variable for whether the park-and-ride had good vehicle access from nearby freeway/arterials.  Number of other park-and-rides within a 10-minute drive (using the regional travel demand model).  Variable for Gateway park-and-ride. The Gateway location had high frequency of trains (three lines merged at this location) as well as good freeway access.  Westside factor—a factor applied to all Westside park-and-ride locations. Accounting for all the variables above, Westside locations still had a propensity for utilization of the park-and-rides.

1-61 The model estimated that, if opened at the time of the model run, demand at the Park Avenue facility would be 295 weekday vehicles, and demand at the Tacoma facility would be 470 vehicles. These estimates included the approximately 300 existing Milwaukie park-and-ride lot users. The model estimated that the demand for 765 vehicle spaces would exceed the planned capacity of 710 spaces for the two lots. In addition to the demand estimates, the analysis developed a map showing catchment areas for both the existing Green Line and the planned Orange Line based on households within a 15-minute drive of the two planned Milwaukie park-and-ride lots. The map also plotted the home locations of cars using the existing park-and-ride lots (one on the Green Line and one in Milwaukie currently served with bus service). The catchment area analysis revealed a significant level of overlap between the existing and planned park-and-ride lots. As a result, the new lots, which were anticipated to exceed capacity from the opening of the Orange Line, might pull riders from the existing lots, many of which were already underutilized. A memorandum (Callas 2011) summarizing the analysis and catchment area map was made available by TriMet: http://tti.tamu.edu/group/transit-mobility/files/2015/10/TriMetModel.zip. Regional Peer Site Model (PRSM) for Fort Bend County (Texas) Public Transportation, Developed by TTI Source: Mr. Jonathan Brooks, Assistant Research Scientist, TTI. Near Houston, Texas, Fort Bend County Public Transportation (FBC Transit) provides demand response transit, point deviation routes, and commuter park-and-ride services to regional activity centers. For park-and-ride services, FBC Transit leases parking spaces from a movie theater, university campus, and county fairgrounds. Existing park-and-ride routes connect residents to several non-CBD employment centers in the greater Houston area. FBC Transit wanted to investigate adding a park-and-ride route with direct, non-stop service into the Houston CBD, about 22 miles to the northeast. FBC Transit established a working group of stakeholders, including Central Houston Inc. (CBD management district) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston METRO), to investigate the proposed service (Cochran et al. 2013). To assist in projecting demand for park-and-ride to the Houston CBD, researchers at TTI created the RPMS model. RPMS is a type of sketch model that estimates demand for a potential new park-and-ride facility site by approximating latent demand. Latent demand is measured by identifying park-and-ride capture rates at existing peer park-and-ride facilities in the same region as the new site(s). The peer-mode capture rates were applied to known commuter volumes in the area(s) of potential new park-and-ride sites. Commuter volumes were based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD data. The RPMS demand model estimated low, medium, and high capture rates for daily commute trips between potential new park-and-ride facilities and Houston CBD. The key data and assumptions necessary to implement the RPMS model are:

1-62  Peer park-and-ride facilities (same region). o Similar distance to primary activity center served. o Similar services (type, frequency) as the potential new park-and-ride facilities.  Peer facility utilization rates (e.g., service ridership or lot utilization).  Assumption for ratio of peer facility users with origin (e.g., home) within 2.5-mile radius. o FBC to Houston CBD used 37 percent within 2.5-mile radius assumption. o Assumption was based on license plate survey findings for peer facilities.  Location(s) of potential new park-and-ride facilities.  LEHD paired-analysis findings for potential facility sites and destination site (e.g., CBD). The eight peer park-and-ride facilities identified in the greater Houston region were an average 24 miles from the CBD, had 767 CBD-bound park-and-ride transit riders each weekday-morning peak period, and had 1,579 commuters based on LEHD paired-analysis findings (2.5-mile radius around park-and-ride facility and 1-mile radius in CBD). The resulting mode capture rate for CBD-bound weekday-morning peak hour was 18 percent based on eight peer park-and-ride facilities (11 percent at the three lowest-performing park-and-ride facilities and 28 percent at the three highest-performing park-and-ride facilities). Applying the peer site mode capture rate to the new potential park-and-ride facility location resulted in an estimated weekday peak-period ridership of 532 commuters. No post-implementation validation of RPMS accuracy is available. FBC Transit is working to establish the new park-and-ride service. The strength of an RPMS type of sketch model is an inherent ability to account for conditions specific to the region. The model assumes similar economic, cultural, population, demographic, and policy (e.g., parking charges) conditions and allows for quick analysis of facility location alternatives and service-level scenarios. A description of the RPMS methodology and materials from the FBC to Houston CBD demand study are available here (Brooks et al. 2013): http://tti.tamu.edu/group/transit- mobility/files/2015/10/RPMS.zip. Access Policy Methodology, Replacement Parking for Joint Development, BART Source: Dr. Richard Willson, BART. BART developed a method for identifying access and parking replacement strategies for its transit-oriented Joint Development Program. Recognizing that BART is a major landowner in the San Francisco Bay Area, and that its land assets are in strategic, high-value locations, the transit agency sought to increase the revenue potential of its property. By charging for parking, creating additional parking supply, or earning ground rent through joint development, BART could generate additional revenue and improve its bottom line. The methodology, which is implemented through a spreadsheet tool and documentation process, assists in assessing replacement parking and joint development scenarios that are typical to BART’s service area. The method follows four steps: (1) establish policy and context issues;

1-63 (2) build parking and joint development scenarios; (3) evaluate the scenarios; and (4) select a preferred strategy. The spreadsheet tool focuses on the first three steps of the process and requires the following data inputs:  Station characteristics. o Station type. o Transportation function. o Weekday ridership. o Average weekday round-trip fare paid from station. o Weighted average service density. o Station catchment.  Station-area characteristics. o Population within ½ mile. o Employment within ½ mile.  Parking. o BART parking. o Parking utilization at 1:00 p.m. o Reliance on parking (number of BART spaces per weekday rider). Additional information is used to document other access modes and planning contexts. The scenarios are then built to test different approaches to parking, including changes to pricing and supply. The method also evaluates parking options for the joint development itself. Moreover, impacts to BART ridership are evaluated, considering both reductions from auto access riders who shift to another mode or station and additions from trips generated by the joint development. A detailed description of the methodology is available online (Willson 2005): https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_Access_Policy_Methodology.pdf. Virginia Department of Transportation, Statewide Park-and-Ride Program Best Practices Guide The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Statewide Park-and-Ride Program Best Practices Guide (2013) does not recommend or reference a specific model, per se. Rather, the document identifies relevant information in determining demand and provides criteria to consider when seeking to locate park-and-ride facilities. Relevant, useful data cited in the document include census data, land-use maps, long-range transportation plans, traffic and congestion data, transit/commuter surveys, and ride-matching databases with origin and destination information. Examples of criteria cited as relevant considerations when locating a park-and-ride facility include:  Locations directly upstream from congestion on major corridors.  Locations near transit connections or major arterials such as highways.

1-64  Locations where informal park-and-ride already occurs.  Locations near intersections of two or more major transportation corridors.  Locations where a measurable increase in transit/vanpool/carpool ridership is likely. The document provides a variety of observations about best practices for planning park-and-ride facilities. The VDOT resource is available here: http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/resources/parkAndRide/Final_PR_Best_Practices_021113.pdf Florida Department of Transportation, State Park-and-Ride Guide The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State Park-and-Ride Guide (AECOM 2012) provides three demand estimation methods. Two of the methods are simple formula models requiring existing data about parking spaces (for the remote site model) or 15-minute travel volumes (for the sketch-planning model). The guide provides a more extensive model process for urban park-and-ride sites; the references for the model are both from the 1980s and use mode- split assumptions from regional travel demand models as a key data assumption. The following excerpt is from page three of the document. Demand and facility size estimation should be accomplished concurrently with site selection. Size estimation methods were simplified into three categories: remote, urban, and sketch planning. The formulas presented include population and employment growth factors, counts of informal parked vehicles, calculation of the number of total spaces and the size of the lot. The FDOT resource is available here: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/FinalParkandRideGuide20120601.pdf. Observations About Transit Agency Model Selection Transit agencies have many options to estimate demand for park-and-ride. Each transit agency must determine the appropriate demand modeling approach. The Station Access Model and Indicator-based Method, both park-and-ride specific models, do not require analysts to have extensive modeling experience—although analysts should have a basic understanding of transit ridership markets, transit data collection, and the development of plausible forecasts. FTA’s STOPS does require implementation by analysts reasonably versed in conventional travel demand model applications. A transit agency with existing park-and-ride lots and access to a well-developed regional travel demand model might make forecasts for new park-and-ride facilities with the existing regional travel demand model and data collected from the existing park-and-ride lots. A transit agency planning a park-and-ride facility along a fixed-guideway transit project might implement one of the two park-and-ride specific models and/or STOPS. A transit agency with no existing park-and-rides may choose to implement one or both of the two park-and-ride specific models to identify potential demand for parking and transit service.

1-65 RESULTS FROM THE SCAN SURVEYS The following sections of this chapter discuss findings from agency survey responses and case study interviews regarding modeling park-and-ride demand. The full and limited industry scan surveys included questions on planning and demand estimation for park-and-ride facilities. The following sections summarize findings from the scans. Findings are based on a combined database of both full and limited scan responses. Formal Planning Process Transit agencies responded yes, no, or unsure to the following question in the full scan: Does your transit agency have a formal process to plan for park-and-ride facilities (e.g., to plan for new park-and-ride facilities or to expand existing park-and-ride facilities)? Seventy transit agencies responded to the question:  Formal process: 46 percent answered yes, the transit agency uses a formal process to plan for new or to modify existing park-and-ride facilities.  No formal process: 49 percent of the transit agencies answered no, they do not follow a formal process.  Unsure: 6 percent were unsure of the respective transit agency practice (Table 5). The scan did not inquire about the details of the formal planning process. The case studies will explore the details of planning processes for existing and new park-and-ride facilities. The question was not asked in the limited scan. Table 5. Formal Planning Process Summary. Formal Planning Process? Very Large Urban Large Urban Small Urban Total of Responses Grand Total Yes 19 27% 10 14% 3 4% 32 46% 32 No 16 23% 16 23% 2 3% 34 49% 34 Unsure 4 6% 4 6% 4 Total of Responses 39 56% 26 37% 5 7% 70 100% No Response/ Not Asked 10 2 1 13 Grand Total 49 28 6 83 Note: Differences are due to rounding. Demand Estimation Method Transit agencies were asked about methods used for estimating demand on both the full scan and limited scan questionnaires.

1-66 Number of Transit Agencies Using Demand Estimation Models Both the full scan and limited scan inquired about whether or not the transit agency used a specific demand estimation model. All responding transit agencies were asked the following question: Does your transit agency use a specific demand estimation model or structured methodology to estimate demand for park-and-ride facilities for public transportation?  Twenty-seven of 83 transit agencies (33 percent) use a specific demand estimation model for park-and-ride facilities (Table 6).  Transit agencies in very large urban areas are more likely to use a specific model. Table 6. Number of Transit Agencies Using a Park-and-Ride Demand Model. Demand Estimation Model Very Large Urban Large Urban Small Urban Grand Total Yes 22 27% 3 4% 2 2% 27 33% No 22 27% 25 30% 3 4% 50 60% Unsure 5 6% 0 0% 1 1% 6 7% Total of Responses 49 59% 28 34% 6 7% 83 100% Note: Differences are due to rounding. Specific Demand Estimation Models in Practice The 27 transit agencies that reported using a demand model were asked a follow-up question about the specific model: Is your transit agency’s model based on one or more of the following? Select all that apply. The answer choices included three TCRP or FTA published models, a regional travel demand model, a custom-developed transit agency model, and a write-in for “other” category. As illustrated in Figure 12:  Eighteen of the 27 transit agencies use a custom model specific to the transit agency.  Thirteen of the 27 transit agencies use, in some fashion, the particular region’s travel demand model.  Three responding transit agencies reported using the station access model found in TCRP Report 153.  One transit agency reported using the STOPS model provided by FTA for fixed guideway projects.  No transit agency responding to the scan reported using the indicator-based method found in TCRP 167.  Seven of the 27 transit agencies indicated agency planners use two or more models to estimate demand for park-and-ride.

1-67 Figure 12. Specific Demand Models in Practice for Park-and-Ride. Transit agency-customized models and regional travel demand models have existed for many years and, based on the responses to the state-of-the-practice scans, are the most commonly used to estimate demand for park-and-ride. Planning efforts for many facilities pre-date the publication of the three models by TCRP or FTA:  Station access model in TCRP Report 153 was published in 2012.  FTA released the STOPS model in 2013.  Indicator-based method in TCRP 167 was published in 2014. The following transit agencies submitted comments (shown in italics) for other models to estimate demand for park-and-ride (order is not significant):  Capital Metro, Austin, Texas: Texas A&M Transportation Institute developed a parabolic demand methodology that is used by our transit agency.  Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART), Tampa, Florida: We use the T-BEST Model, Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool, provided by Florida Department of Transportation and calibrated to HART.  Metro Transit, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Our model uses the following primary data sources and is developed at the traffic analysis zones level: (a) U.S. Census Population; (b) Downtown Employment (Longitudinal Employer & Household Dynamics data); (c) Long-range population forecasts (Regional); (d) Long-range downtown employment forecasts (Regional); and (e) Park-and-Ride user home origins (collected system-wide every 2 years).  Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Travel Demand Model produced by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, the MPO for the Pittsburgh Region. 18 13 3 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Custom Model Specific to Agency Model Specific to Region Station Access Model in TCRP 153 FTA STOPS Model Indicator‐based Method in TCRP 167

1-68  Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority, Durham, North Carolina: We use a combination of employee address data from major employers and LEHD data from the census to estimate demand and determine optimal locations.  Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Salt Lake City, Utah: Our methodology is a hybrid of travel demand drive access data and observed validation through surveys.  Virginia Railway Express, Alexandria, Virginia: Two on-board surveys a year with over 60 percent response rates.  Calgary Transit, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Our original policy (1986) stated that we would endeavor to provide parking for between 15–20 percent of transit trips generated within the LRT station service areas. We currently have 13,700 spaces at 21 LRT stations.  Los Angeles County MTA, Los Angeles, California: We can't increase ridership without park-and-ride facilities. Almost nobody walks from their home to the bus stop. Almost everyone drives somewhere to catch the bus. We see this mostly with our commuter express service (long trips). Our lots become so full that people have to park in the street and sometimes their cars get broken into.  Sarasota County Area Transit, Sarasota, Florida: We identify areas for future park- and-ride consistent with the regional park-and-ride study conducted for Sarasota County and Manatee County by the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization.  Metropolitan Transit Authority/Regional Transit Authority, Nashville, Tennessee: We manage our park-and-rides based on ridership demand in a certain area. ESTIMATING DEMAND FOR PARK-AND-RIDE: SYNTHESIS FROM CASE STUDIES According to the responses to the state-of-the-practice scans, transit-agency-customized models and regional travel demand models have existed for many years and are the most commonly used to estimate demand for park-and-ride. This section documents case study information that helps to answer the following questions:  How do characteristics of catchment areas, corridors, and commuter destinations influence which model is the most effective tool to estimate demand for park-and-ride at individual transit facilities/stations and in the corridor?  How do planners and decision makers use park-and-ride demand estimates?  How accurate are current demand modeling techniques?  What is the potential to improve the state of practice? The research team and panel concurred on transit agencies to invite to participate in a full or targeted case study. Seven transit agencies were selected as either full or targeted case studies specifically to investigate demand estimation practices. Participation by transit agencies was voluntary. Six of the seven transit agencies accepted the invitation to participate in an in-depth

1-69 case study. Intercity Transit in Olympia, Washington, declined to participate. Table 7 shows the participating transit agency and each transit agency’s model. Table 7. Transit Agency Demand Estimation Models. Transit Agency Model BART In-house custom model specific to the transit agency ConnDOT Regional travel demand model specific to region, FTA STOPS model (recent) Calgary Transit In-house custom model specific to the transit agency DART Regional travel demand model specific to region, FTA STOPS model (recent) Sound Transit TCRP Report 153 Station Access Model, regional travel demand model specific to region, and in-house custom model specific to the transit agency TriMet In-house custom model specific to the transit agency The following information is a synthesis of case study findings regarding how transit agencies use demand estimation models in park-and-ride facility planning and management. This section highlights some initial observations from in-depth case studies in the following areas:  Model estimates and actual utilization.  Influence of context on effective modeling.  Effective capacity of park-and-ride facilities.  Effective practices.  Lessons learned. Model Estimates and Actual Utilization DART (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) DART typically approaches demand analysis using a stoplight analogy—60 percent utilization and below is equivalent to a green light, between 60 and 90 percent is a yellow light, and 90 to 95 percent is a red light and requires immediate attention. As of May 2016, the average use of parking capacity throughout DART’s park-and-ride facilities was approximately 50 percent, despite some lots in key high-demand locations regularly operating at or near capacity. DART also relies on feedback from member cities regarding demand at park-and-ride facilities. If the city complains about overflow parking on city streets, DART knows there is a problem that requires intervention, and one solution to that problem is potentially expansion. Calgary Transit (In-House Custom Model) Calgary Transit planning staff use an in-house demand model that was originally developed in 1986 to estimate demand for park-and-ride facilities. Calgary Transit parking policy guidelines dictate that “parking lots should be located beyond 5 kilometers (3.13 miles) of the downtown” and that “the amount of parking at each station be capable of serving between 15 and 20 percent of the estimated transit trips generated by the area served by the station” (Calgary Transit 2016).

1-70 The monthly reserved parking system allows up to 50 percent of light rail parking spaces to be reserved at all LRT stations and provides about 33 percent of parking lot users with the certainty and convenience associated with having a guaranteed place to park (Calgary Transit 2016). This process ensures that the majority of light rail parking lots and most BRT lots are full to capacity by 10:00 a.m. on weekdays. Predicted demand is estimated during functional planning. The actual usage is consistently monitored. Calgary Transit bases its demand estimations on two main assumptions:  Too much parking can detract from the general goal of minimizing auto use (negatively affecting local communities, TOD, and ridership on feeder buses).  Too little parking may restrict the transit ridership in a corridor. The provision of park-and-ride requires striking a balance between providing a service to meet demand and recognition of costs and other implications. Calgary Transit’s overall strategy is to provide 15 percent of weekday light rail users with park-and-ride services. Calgary Transit staff use a target horizon year for planning park-and-ride of 30 years from the concept of a line or project, while at the same time keeping customer requirements in mind on opening day. The advantage of using a 30-year target horizon is that Calgary Transit is able to plan adequate space for future park-and-ride demand. On the other hand, one of the disadvantages is that Calgary Transit assumes the risk of providing too much parking and not anticipating technology changes. TriMet (In-House Custom Model) TriMet adjusted their in-house model to account for catchment area overlap between existing and new public transportation services. Catchment area analysis revealed a significant level of overlap between the existing and planned park-and-ride facilities. As a result, the new park-and- ride facilities were expected to pull riders from the existing, mostly underused facilities to the new lots, which were anticipated to exceed capacity the first month of operations. The in-house model calibrated well to existing park-and-ride utilization and was used to estimate the demand for two new Orange Line parking facilities. Results confirmed the Metro model estimates that demand would exceed the planned capacity of 719 spaces during the opening year. In anticipation of the demand, TriMet proactively looked for shared-use opportunities near stations in the corridor. Conversely, TriMet has existing parking facilities both owned by TriMet and shared-use proprietors that are underutilized. TriMet’s philosophy is to keep existing parking lots open as a commitment to their customers unless and until they decided to dispose of or reuse the land. Shared-use lots have low cost to TriMet, which results in little benefit from closing them. Typically, these lots are closed because of the owner selling the property. Two examples illustrate approaches to dedicated, underused lots: the Milwaukie and the Powell Station park- and-ride lots.

1-71 The 329-space Milwaukie lot is located on a major arterial and, until the MAX light-rail Orange Line opened, had high frequency bus service that fed into downtown Portland. The lot was regularly at capacity. Bus service to this park-and-ride lot was significantly altered and reduced when the Orange Line began operation in 2015. Riders shifted to the new, nearby Tacoma Station park-and-ride lot, resulting in almost no cars at the bus-only lot. Until a better use is found, TriMet will continue to operate and maintain the facility. Although it appears that the Powell facility is well situated, the location has difficult commuter access both from I-205 and from Powell Boulevard, a state highway. The indirect access has resulted in an average of only 30 of 391 spaces used in the fall of 2015. TriMet plans to repurpose most of the land into a paratransit vehicle facility while retaining a small park-and-ride lot. ConnDOT (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) used a region-specific travel demand model to estimate CTfastrak ridership at 11,800 one-way trips each weekday in Year 1. Actual ridership in Year 1 was nearly 15,000 one-way trips. Most station parking facilities are highly utilized. ConnDOT expected parking to be in high demand since stations were space constrained, so capacity was limited compared to modeled potential demand. ConnDOT planners related the challenge of modeling BRT with existing models. The statewide model was found to be too gross in predictions for modeling a 10-mile busway. The regional travel demand model that existed at the beginning of CTfastrak planning did not incorporate enough of the real factors that influence BRT transit ridership. Staff looked into using the Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting (ARRF) model that predated STOPS and were not convinced by the tool at that time. ConnDOT is now implementing STOPS concurrent to an adapted version of the regional travel demand model created by ConnDOT and Capitol Region Council of Governments’ planners. ConnDOT collected first-year survey data and now knows that the regional travel demand model over- predicted for some population cohorts, such as nearby suburban riders, and under-predicted for some other cohorts, such as bicyclists. Influence of Context on Effective Modeling BART (In-House Custom Willson Model) BART developed a method for identifying access and parking replacement strategies for its transit-oriented Joint Development Program. Recognizing that BART is a major landowner in the San Francisco Bay Area and that its land assets are in strategic, high-value locations, the transit agency sought to increase the revenue potential of its property. By charging for parking, creating additional parking supply, or earning ground rent through joint development, BART could generate additional revenue and improve its bottom line. The method follows four steps: (1) establish policy and context issues; (2) build parking and joint development scenarios; (3) evaluate the scenarios; and (4) select a preferred strategy. The

1-72 spreadsheet tool focuses on the first three steps of the process and requires the following data inputs:  Station characteristics. o Station type. o Transportation function. o Weekday ridership. o Average weekday round-trip fare paid from station. o Weighted average service density. o Station catchment.  Station-area characteristics. o Population within ½ mile. o Employment within ½ mile.  Parking. o BART parking. o Parking utilization at 1:00 p.m. o Reliance on parking (number of BART spaces per weekday rider). Additional information is used to document other access modes and planning contexts. The scenarios then test different approaches to parking, including changes to pricing and supply. The method also evaluates parking options for the joint development itself. Moreover, impacts to BART ridership are evaluated by considering both reductions from auto-access riders who shift to another mode or station and additions from trips generated by the joint development. Sound Transit (Station Access Model, Regional, and In-House Specific Models) Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is responsible for the regional travel demand model and ridership estimates used for long-range transportation plans. In estimating park-and-ride demand, the number of spaces at each facility is capped based on input from the transit agencies. Transit agency staff provides PSRC park-and-ride estimates based on their knowledge of the local jurisdictional constraints, land availability, freeway access, surrounding land use, proximity to other park-and-ride facilities, market conditions, and other factors. PSRC is in the early stage of updating Transportation 2040, the region’s long-range transportation plan. PSRC is considering ways to improve estimating park-and-ride demand in order to understand the implications for increasing supply in the future. DART (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) As with all markets, many variables influence demand for DART’s park-and-ride service. For example, parking in downtown Dallas is variable (in terms of both supply and price) and can sometimes greatly influence demand for park-and-ride service from the suburbs to downtown. For other riders, congestion (measured as travel time by DART staff) is the deciding factor when choosing transit over another mode. While DART acknowledges the fact that parking,

1-73 congestion, and other variables all influence demand for park-and-ride services, the transit agency has not asked its riders about how these factors influence their mode-choice decisions. Calgary Transit (In-House Custom Model) Corridor congestion and downtown parking supply and cost are significant factors affecting park-and-ride demand. Downtown parking charges have been critically influential in the success of transit ridership into downtown. There is no freeway into the downtown of Calgary, which leads to corridor congestion parallel to the light rail network, further supporting the use of park- and-rides. A high level of road capacity in suburban areas drives higher demand for park-and- ride. TriMet (In-House Custom Model) A significant factor in the demand at specific lots is the ease of access. The Powell station was anticipated to have solid usage because of the I-205 on- and off-ramps on Powell Boulevard and overall traffic levels on Powell Boulevard, a state highway. However, the heavy traffic volumes and proximity to the freeway interchange proved to be a barrier because they prohibit access to the park-and-ride directly from Powell Boulevard. Instead, access is indirect via a side street and multiple traffic signals. Close to the Powell station and park-and-ride is the Holgate station and park-and-ride, which is located off a street with much lower traffic volumes. The Holgate park- and-ride has 125 spaces and has access directly off Holgate. Due to the ease of access, Holgate consistently sees higher usage. ConnDOT (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) The region around CTfastrak is by most measures a mature transportation system with an established development pattern. Travel patterns stay consistent year-to-year since economic growth is low, and while sprawling suburban development exists, such areas are not rapidly expanding. Developing scenarios for CTfastrak in the regional travel model was straightforward since the service primarily was designed to enlarge the overall capacity of the transportation network with a dedicated busway and high-capacity transit for the existing population. Long- term population change will likely have some positive impact on BRT ridership, but it was not the primary project purpose. The modeling process included assumptions for parking utilization. However, the model underestimated both total ridership and utilization of parking. ConnDOT has identified a larger-than-anticipated portion of park-and-ride users with originations a significant distance away from CTfastrak stations—a portion of users willing to drive approximately half their trip, park, and ride CTfastrak to their destination. Effective Capacity of Park-and-Ride Facilities The six transit agencies typically define effective capacity as between 90 and 97 percent utilization on a typical weekday. Most transit agencies note that on a typical weekday, an industry operating several park-and-ride facilities will have many facilities at or near effective capacity and one or two underutilized facilities. High utilization near effective capacity results in

1-74 higher utilization of public transportation services. Effective capacity goals are not usually 100 percent because full facilities result in turning away some commuters who expected to find a parking space; turning away commuters may result in customer complaints. Customers may comment on parking capacity at lower percent utilization if the available spaces are not perceived as conveniently located. Effective Practices BART (In-House Custom Willson Model) BART’s fare and parking technology system allow the transit agency to track station ridership and parking in real-time. The transit agency is contracting with a vendor to develop an application that will take the existing data, provide capacity updates on the BART website, and push notices on parking availability to customers, such as through a text message. The data will be available to the developer community, so others can create apps that customize the information for riders. Sound Transit (Station Access Model, Regional, and In-House Specific Models) Sound Transit wants facilities to be essentially 90 percent full within the first year of operations. Using 97 percent as the criteria for reserved parking indicates that they do not want to leave parking spaces empty. Empty spaces may be perceived as an inefficient use of the facility and may encourage non-permitted travelers to park in the empty spaces. DART (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) DART is conscious of the regional role the transit agency plays and is committed to using and contributing to the regional forecasting model developed and managed by the region’s MPO, the North Central Texas Council of Governments. However, the transit agency has also identified a transit agency-specific need for rapid decision-making and on-demand forecasts related to various potential service scenarios. To meet this need, DART is working to implement STOPS for use in local forecasting needs. STOPS will allow DART to model different service scenarios quickly and simply, and it will facilitate streamlined interaction with FTA during grant processes. When demand at a specific facility is high, DART first reviews the facility’s site plan to determine if it has been completely built-out. If the original plans included phased parking construction (done to save funds and streamline environmental processes) DART will begin building the remaining parking to meet demand. At DART, requests for new capital projects typically take between three and five years to move through the full approvals process. Calgary Transit (In-House Custom Model) Calgary Transit usually plans for expanding park-and-ride facility facilities when light rail service is extended. Expansion plans are also guided by long-range planning. Transportation demand management strategies are explored and implemented when the opportunity arises.

1-75 Information and marketing is ongoing. Various factors affect Calgary Transit’s decision to build the various types of parking facilities: surface lot, aboveground garage, underground garage, or combination. These include the following factors: capital costs to build, operating costs to maintain, transit demand, land value, future TOD plans, and anticipated changes in vehicle usage. Per capita vehicle ownership in Calgary is high and contributes to an increase in demand for park-and-ride. It is important to recognize that the net cost of operating park-and-ride reduces the funds available to provide core bus and Calgary Transit train services. The decision for parking facility type becomes a balance of the above factors; however, cost is a significant element. Predicted demand is estimated during the functional planning phase. In order to have a validation of the in-house demand model, Calgary Transit consistently measures park-and-ride facility utilization. When Calgary Transit finds a case where one or more facilities exceeds demand, it proceeds to charge for parking, use security (parking enforcement) to prevent street parking, and make 50 percent of parking spaces at a light rail station available for reservation for a monthly fee. Calgary Transit has recently called for a review of its criteria for estimating park-and-ride demand by reevaluating existing and future facilities and incorporating the impacts on TOD and adjacent communities. TriMet (In-House Custom Model) TriMet’s 2001 Park-and-Ride Policy and Implementing Guidelines provide guidance on expanding capacity at existing parking facilities: “Projects that cost more than [a] maximum… should not be pursued except if special circumstances warrant. Parking facilities are recommended only on service with 15-minute or better headways to and from downtown Portland” (Callas 2011). TriMet’s Willow Creek park-and-ride lot averaged only 35 percent utilization in 2006. TriMet staff were aware of the poor utilization of the station area, and the transit agency was open to proposals for redeveloping the park-and-ride for another use. Portland Community College (PCC) had an extension campus located in several buildings on a former high-tech campus that did not have good transit access. PCC approached TriMet for help identifying a transit-served location to replace this space. TriMet identified surplus capacity at the Willow Creek Transit Center as a possible location for PCC.

Together building and trans a short, d and the tr three-stor LEED pl commun office an As a resu station fr which ad station ar This was number o and elimi ride lot w to demon the existi PCC Wil significan ConnDO ConnDO highway ConnDO agency m as redeve BRT stat ConnDO independ churches ConnDO between congeste the future travel dem public in operation , they propo adjacent to t it center and irect connec ansit servic y, 100,000 atinum build ity college, a d work force lt, there is n om 7:00 a.m ds to the ov ea. achieved by f bus bays a nating some as underutil strate to FT ng park-and low Creek h tly higher i T (Regiona T includes p intersection T has partic ay consider loping a par ion. T provides p ently, but do , and non-pr T understan high-growth d areas. CTf , there was and). The order to bui s would loo sed placing he light rail focused on tion betwee e (Figure 13) square foot, ing houses state emplo center, and ow activity . to 10:00 p erall security reducing th t the transit parking an ized, PCC s A that havin -ride facility as been suc n the new lo l Travel De ark-and-rid s or high-ca ipated in a c other publi k-and-ride f ark-and-rid es allow sh ofit organiz ds how to ad or high-con astrak BRT only modera transit agenc ld reasonabl k like and e C F the station creating n PCC . The certified the yment a deli. at the .m., of the e center d quick drop tudents and g these uses . cessful for T cation, and mand Mod e facilities in pacity transi ouple of TO c-private par acility near e facilities a ared use of f ations. just service gestion area serves the lo ted demand y was caref e expectatio xplain why t 1-76 ourtesy of Kath igure 13. D 185th (i.e., kiss-a visitors wer at the statio riMet and f ridership is el and FTA most transp t services. D proposals tnerships an a high-value nd related p acilities by developmen s compared w-growth H for the bus ul to commu ns of what s he project w ryn Coffel. evelopment Avenue Sta nd-ride) spa e allocated n would pro or the colleg up at the sta STOPS Re ortation pro tied in with d TOD opp highway in ublic transp local or regi t based on to low-grow artford reg way (based nicate clear uccessful im as warrante Adjacent to tion Transi ces. Becaus 150 spaces. vide more r e. Enrollme tion. cent) jects affect rail station ortunities in tersection o ortation serv onal public the nuanced th and mod ion, so, look on a 1.5 per ly with stak plementati d. Willow Cr t Center. e the park-a TriMet was idership tha nt is ing either s. The trans the future, r CTfastrak ices agencies, difference erately ing 25 years cent growth eholders an on and eek / nd- able n it such into in d the

1-77 Lessons Learned BART (In-House Custom Willson Model) BART’s purpose for parking fees are to (a) recover the operating costs of providing parking, (b) generate funding dedicated exclusively for station and access improvements, and (c) encourage non-parking modes of access at BART stations. Revenues generated are helping meet the first two goals. The flat number of parking spaces (same number of parking spaces) while ridership continues to climb has meant that a smaller percentage of riders are park-and-riding and are finding other modes of access. This result is helping meet the third goal of the program. However, so far the fees have not been shown to reduce demand for parking. All but five park- and-ride facilities have reached the allowed $3 daily maximum. The wait lists for monthly reserved parking are thousands of people long. At the same time, connecting transit services, such as San Francisco Muni and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), have adult, one-way base fares of $2.00 or more. A round-trip fare is at least $4.00, which is more expensive than the daily parking fee. If BART wishes for the user parking fees to reduce demand on parking and shift patrons to other modes of access, there is a need to review the maximum fees allowed such that parking is not more attractive than other options. Sound Transit (Station Access Model, Regional, and In-House Specific Models) Sound Transit wants facilities to be essentially 90 percent full in the first year of operations. Using 97 percent as the criteria for reserved parking indicates that they do not want to leave parking spaces empty. Empty spaces may be perceived as an inefficient use of the facility and may encourage non-permitted travelers to park in the empty spaces. DART (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) DART’s system has grown incrementally since 1996. To match this growth, the forecasting model used by the transit agency has also changed to include the horizon year of the project in question and the demographics associated with each census. The growth of the system and the population served by the transit agency challenges the forecast model. For example, stations that served as a temporary end-of-the-line station until the next phase of the light rail network was completed were built with a large supply of parking to support the inherently higher demand that occurs at end-of-the-line stations. As the region grows and DART increases the reach of the transit agency’s light rail network, the stations that previously served as end-of-the-line locations become mid-route stations and the demand for parking diminishes. From an external perspective, it appears as though DART may not have accurately estimated the demand for parking infrastructure, when in reality, the transit agency planned and constructed facilities to meet the needs to permit growth and flexibility. As the region grows, demand for transit service will continue to increase demand for park-and-ride.

1-78 Calgary Transit (In-House Custom Model) Calgary Transit identified that the primary demand for park-and-ride arises from downtown employees, and procedures for estimating demand from this market are based on a historical 15 to 20 percent park-and-ride access to transit mode share. TriMet (In-House Custom Model) TriMet adjusted their in-house model to account for catchment area overlap between existing and new transit services. Catchment area analysis revealed a significant level of overlap between the existing and planned park-and-ride lots. As a result, the new lots were expected to pull riders from the existing mostly underused facilities to the new lots, which were anticipated to exceed capacity in the first month of operations. The in-house model calibrated well to existing park- and-ride utilization and was used to estimate the demand for two new Orange Line parking facilities; results confirmed Metro model estimates that demand would exceed the planned capacity of 719 spaces during the opening year. In anticipation of the demand, TriMet proactively looked for shared-use opportunities near stations in the corridor. ConnDOT (Regional Travel Demand Model and FTA STOPS Recent) “It is easier to plan for additional parking spaces early on in the planning of park-and-rides, rather than to retrofit additional spaces down the road, after the facility is built” (ConnDOT 2016). When planning and modeling to estimate demand for park-and-ride services, transit agencies must consider that some contexts may reveal rider willingness to use transit varies by mode in unanticipated ways. ConnDOT found a larger-than-anticipated portion of park-and-ride users were willing to drive approximately half their trip, park, and ride CTfastrak BRT to complete their trip than were willing to do so when only frequent local or express bus on public roadways was available. ConnDOT is interested to see lessons learned by other transit agencies. They look forward to a list of lessons learned because they expect to see items they can incorporate or anticipate that the transit agency may have had to experience difficulty firsthand in order to learn independently. In addition, such a list of lessons learned will provide an authoritative reference that staff can use to strengthen recommendations to the decision makers and, ultimately, the public. For example, ConnDOT is curious as how other transit agencies manage cost to provide parking for riders accessing competing modes in the same station.

1-79 CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES Case studies of transit agencies that operate park-and-ride facilities provide invaluable detail on all aspects of park-and-ride planning, design, operations, maintenance, and management. This detail supplements the findings from the literature review and industry scan and provides the industry best practices and strategies included in the guidebook. A two-step process was used to identify the transit agencies for the detailed case studies: (1) background information on all transit agencies that provide park-and-ride facilities was used to identify 36 transit agencies for mini-case studies and (2) results of the mini-case studies were then used to inform the selection of final case study transit agencies. This chapter summarizes the case study transit agency selection processes, data collection efforts, and results of the detailed case studies. MINI-CASE STUDIES The purpose of the mini-case studies was to ensure that different strategies, best practices, and innovations were considered for representation in the full case studies. For information for the mini-case studies, the research team relied upon the responses to the state-of-the-practice scan, responses to the TCRP Synthesis 122 survey, information from the transit agency website, and other relevant documentation available online. The research team did not make direct calls to the transit agency in order to limit the amount of time required of transit agency staff before conducting the detailed case studies. Selection of Mini-Case Study Transit Agencies The research team selected 36 transit agencies for mini-case studies based on the following criteria:  Follow a formal process to plan park-and-ride facilities and/or use a demand estimation model.  Use standard operating procedures (SOPs).  Charge for parking or do not charge for parking (for comparisons).  Use shared-use park-and-ride facilities with other public, non-profit, or private entities.  Participate in TOD.  Participate in public-private partnership to develop property.  Coordinate design/features to complement adjacent developments. Further, the research team, in selecting the transit agencies, also considered the following: (a) region of operation, (b) modes operated, and (c) the parking program size as measured by the number of total parking spaces.

1-80 The mini-case studies included 30 top-priority transit agencies that met most or all of the criteria. In addition, six supplementary transit agencies were selected as having merit for one or more of the topics above. For example, the research team added a mini-case study for ConnDOT to learn about the demand estimation model used for the new BRT project, CTfastrak. The 36 transit agencies selected for the mini-case studies include a good representation for geographic U.S. regions and transit modes, plus two Canadian transit agencies (Table 8). The transit agencies include all sizes of transit agencies, both in terms of size of urban area served and in size of park-and-ride program, as measured by total parking spaces. Topics Each mini-case study briefly described the transit agency (including information about the transit agency’s history, its governance, its funding sources, and upcoming milestones as relevant), presented transit-agency-specific responses to key questions about park-and-ride trends, and provided transit-agency-specific references as available. The scan topics represented in the mini- case studies (as applicable) are as follows:  Formal planning process.  Demand estimation model or structured method to estimate demand for park-and-ride.  SOPs.  Contract with vendor for park-and-ride management.  Partnerships with other entities to provide park-and-ride.  Parking charges (including the impact on transit ridership if available).  Managing excess demand for parking.  TOD on or adjacent to park-and-ride.  Public-private partnership (P3) to develop property on or adjacent to park-and-ride.  Park-and-ride design/features to complement adjacent developments or neighborhoods.  Passenger amenities at park-and-ride facilities.  Security at park-and-ride facilities.  Maintenance and state of good repair/asset management.  Recent significant modification of park-and-ride facility.  Transit-agency-specific challenges and lessons learned.  Best practices and innovations. A review of mini-case study information provided the information needed to refine the list of detailed case study transit agencies.

1-81 Table 8. Transit Agencies Selected for Mini-Case Studies. State/Country Transit Agency California Foothill Transit Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) Los Angeles County MTA (LA Metro) Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) San Francisco BART Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Colorado Denver RTD Connecticut ConnDOT District of Columbia Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA) Illinois Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) Pace—Suburban Bus Division (Pace) Massachusetts MBTA Minnesota Metro Transit New Jersey New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) New York MTA Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) North Carolina Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Ohio Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) Oregon Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Pennsylvania Port Authority of Allegheny County Texas Capital MTA (Capital Metro) DART Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston METRO) Sun Metro, El Paso Utah UTA Virginia Fairfax County Department of Transportation (Fairfax Connector) Washington Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-TRAN) Intercity Transit King County Metro Transit Division (King County Metro) Kitsap Transit Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Pierce Transit) Snohomish County Public Transportation (Community Transit) Canada Calgary Transit, Calgary, Alberta South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink), Vancouver, British Columbia

1-82 DETAILED CASE STUDIES Case study research helps to understand the complex issues surrounding planning and managing park-and-ride facilities and makes contextual analysis of the information and data possible. The research team used a protocol with telephone/site-visit procedures and case study questions to help each researcher follow a similar process during data gathering and discussion activities. Individual reports were written for each case study and provided the basis for content in the guidebook. Selecting Case Study Transit Agencies From the 36 mini-case studies, transit agencies were identified that have planning processes and management practices that would be most useful for further case study research. Transit agencies were reviewed based on referencing existing literature and transit agency documentation and by assessing each potential transit agency’s unique characteristics. Characteristics include modes operated, demand estimation method, passenger amenities, maintenance and state of good repair practices, fare policy and fee structure, funding sources, facility structure and land use, stakeholder engagement and community coordination, and use of technology. In order to prioritize a set of transit systems for more in-depth case study research, the research team followed a four-step screening process: 1. Completed the mini-case studies for each of 36 transit agencies selected for mini-case study research. 2. Developed screening criteria and populated the corresponding information into a scoring sheet for each transit agency. 3. Tallied the scores to determine the transit agencies with the highest total score for the screening criteria. 4. Sorted the transit agencies into sub-groups according to the following. a. Highest overall scores. b. Highest scores for each screening criterion. Screening criteria included information about each transit agency’s service area (region and size), the scale of the park-and-ride operation (number of modes and number of parking spaces), and topical areas of interest (planning and demand estimation, management practices/policies, TODs and other partnerships, parking charges, and challenges/lessons/innovation). Eleven transit agencies were identified for full case studies, and six transit agencies with high scores in specific areas of interest were identified for targeted case study research (Table 9). During case study research, King County Metro was added to the Sound Transit full case study due to the integrated nature of park-and-ride services in the Seattle/Puget Sound region.

1-83 Table 9. Full and Targeted Case Study Transit Agencies. Transit Agency Full or Targeted Interest San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Parking Charges Calgary Transit Full Case Study Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) Demand Estimation, Bus Rapid Transit Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Parking Charges, Management Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Full Case Study Regional Transportation District (Denver RTD) Full Case Study Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) Community Involvement in Design Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) TOD, Public Private Partnerships, Design Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp. (Metra) Full Case Study Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston METRO) Full Case Study New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) Full Case Study Port Authority of Allegheny County Full Case Study Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) and King County Metro * Full Case Study Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Full Case Study Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Full Case Study Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Full Case Study * King County Metro was added to the Sound Transit full case study due to the integrated nature of park-and-ride services in the Puget Sound region. Conducting the Case Study Research Using the information the research team collected from the mini-case studies, the team created a series of in-depth questions for transit agencies in order to develop in-depth case studies. The case studies were conducted from April through June 2016. Case Study Protocol As a university research organization, TTI is required to request approval of the case study protocol by the Texas A&M Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human subjects’ research. This process requires two steps:  Develop case study research protocol.  Complete the IRB application and approval process. Researchers identified key people, prepared electronic letters of introduction, established rules for anonymity or confidentiality, and actively sought opportunities to address the set of research questions. Researchers conducted case study research via telephone, email correspondence, and in-person interviews during site visits.

1-84 To gather information from the final group of transit agencies (Figure 14), the research team first introduced the case study research by distributing an introductory letter/email to the chief executive officer or appropriate senior transit agency official at each transit agency. This letter/email requested the transit agency’s participation in case study research. After each researcher confirmed participation, the researcher worked with the transit agency contact to identify the transit agency’s appropriate staff for different topics. Appendix E provides the case study protocol. Transit Agency Staff Contacts Researchers identified key people, prepared electronic letters of introduction (emails), established rules for anonymity or confidentiality, and actively sought opportunities to address the set of research questions in telephone conversations. Researchers conducted site visits and collected data in person at seven transit agencies (DART, Houston METRO, BART, TriMet, Denver RTD, King County Metro, and Sound Transit). The research team conducted the remaining case studies through email and teleconference interviews and supplemented this research with web-based data collection. Researchers informed all transit agency staff that their participation was voluntary and gave them the option to decline to respond to any question. The following are examples of the staff that researchers contacted:  Transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to the planning of park-and-ride facilities.  Transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to the managing of park-and-ride facilities.  Transit agency management personnel representing finance and budget.  Transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to real estate and development. Summary of Case Study Topics The research team collected an extensive amount of information from the case studies. The following topic areas summarize the case study information. Part 2 of this report documents the full case study reports. Operating Context Operating context refers to the local or regional factors that affect how a transit agency strategically approaches park-and-ride. Researchers also documented eligible access to park-and- ride (e.g., transit riders only) and parking for other modes (e.g., bicycles).

Courtesy of TTI. Figure 14. Transit Agencies Participat 1-85 ing in TCRP H-52 Park-and-Ride Case Studies.

1-86 Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking According to the responses to the state-of-the-practice scans, transit-agency-customized models and regional travel demand models have existed for many years and are the most commonly used to estimate demand for park-and-ride. The research team discussed such models with case study participants to learn about how each transit agency considers catchment areas, corridors, and destinations in the model, how demand estimates are used by planners and decision makers, how accurate the models are, and what opportunities for improvement might exist. This data collection was limited to transit agencies that provided preliminary information that warranted additional investigation. Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities Shared-use agreements can be a cost effective way for transit agencies to provide park-and-ride lots without the capital costs and possibly limit maintenance costs of operating a park-and-ride facility. Examples of property owners include state and local governments, private businesses, and churches. Some transit agencies have formal shared-use agreements while others maintain shared-use agreements via handshake or verbal agreements. The research team discussed shared-use practices and implementation with case study participants to learn more about how these agreements are created, utilized, and maintained. Parking Charges and Managing Demand for Parking Transit agencies that provide parking facilities must consider whether a parking fee is appropriate in the transit agency’s market. Additionally, among other options, parking charges can be used to manage demand. The research team discussed parking charges and demand management with case study transit agencies to learn more about how these transit agencies decide to charge for parking and what other ways the transit agencies manage demand for parking. Parking Management (in-House and Contracted) Ongoing management of park-and-ride facilities requires operations and maintenance across a wide array of facility types and sizes. Operations and maintenance may include customer service, preventative and corrective maintenance, cleaning, snow removal, trash removal, and parking fee collection. Transit agencies have approached the responsibilities for ongoing park-and-ride facility management through a mix of in-house operations and contracting out to private companies (and in some cases public agencies). The research team discussed the issue of park- and-ride management with case study participants to learn about how each transit agency provides ongoing management and why the transit agency chose its particular approach. Park-and-Ride Capital Investment Park-and-ride facilities require substantial capital investment. To manage investments, transit agencies rely on strategies that include incorporating park-and-ride development into corridor improvements for fixed guideway, coordinating with partners (municipalities or private

1-87 developers) to share expenses, and choosing to limit/minimize parking capacity. The research team discussed capital investment strategies and actual capital costs with case study participants to learn about how each transit agency handles capital costs related to park-and-ride facilities. Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented development complements park-and-ride transit service by enhancing station locations with other uses, such as residential, retail, and office space, that contribute to possible ridership increases. Often, TODs are implemented as joint developments between transit agencies and developers. Parking for transit riders at TODs can be implemented and managed in coordination with developers, allowing transit agencies to share the costs of construction and maintenance. The research team discussed the opportunities provided by TOD with case study participants to learn about each transit agency’s experience with TOD. Innovation Evolving technologies influence transit in many ways. The research team discussed these innovations with case study participants to learn about how each transit agency uses technology and innovation to improve parking utilization and customer service.

1-88 CHAPTER 6: INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDEBOOK AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS The final product of this research effort is a decision-making guidebook for planning and managing park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. This chapter introduces the guidebook and identifies future research needs related to park-and-ride facilities. INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDEBOOK The purpose of the data collection and case study research was to provide transit agencies guidance on planning, implementing, and maintaining park-and-ride facilities. The tools, techniques, and best practices gathered have been synthesized into a user-friendly guidebook. The guidebook takes planning and managing park-and-ride facilities from concept through planning to implementation and then from implementation through the life cycle of a project, with highlights of key innovations dispersed in each chapter. The guidebook provides information that will be needed at specific points in the process of planning, designing, constructing, and operating park-and-ride facilities. Although it is not necessary for users to read this guidebook from cover to cover, many users will benefit from the lifecycle discussion. Chapter 1, Introduction of the guidebook introduces readers to the guidebook and describes its organization, research process, terminology, and resources. Figure 15 presents the structure of this guidebook as a route map for planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. The guidebook contains ten chapters, including the introductory chapter, grouped by their relationship to the evolution of park-and-ride facilities. Each chapter concludes with a brief summary and a list of any relevant auxiliary information; auxiliary information may include important reference documents, guidebooks, or emerging practices. Concepts Chapter 2, Park-and-Ride Overview, helps readers to delve into the guidebook by addressing the basic concepts of park-and-ride facilities and related public transportation services. The overview to park-and-ride addresses the following questions:  What is park-and-ride?  Why do transit agencies provide park-and-ride?  How does park-and-ride fit in a transit agency’s suite of services?  What are the types of park-and-ride facilities?  How does a transit agency implement and operate a park-and-ride?

Plann Chapter site-spec services. Impleme fits into b role in th identified address a ownershi park-and maintena financial Chapter facilities, Park-and Capital e include f ing 3, Strategic ific planning nting park-a oth a transit e communit for park-an given locat p and mana -ride plannin nce costs. T implication 4, Financia typical ong -ride faciliti xpenses incl acility maint Fig Planning f in the deve nd-ride begi agency’s v y’s vision fo d-ride facili ion’s unique gement desi g, both in te ransit agenc s throughout l Planning, oing costs, a es may requ ude real est enance and ure 15. Gui or Park-an lopment of p ns with long ision of how r its future l ties, plannin opportuniti red for the lo rms of initi ies should c the plannin helps reade nd potentia ire capital in ate costs and repair, staff 1-89 debook Org d-Ride, des ark-and-rid -range plan to attract p and use. Af g continues es and chall cation. Fina al capital co onsider com g process. rs understan l sources of vestment an fees and co ing expense anization. cribes the ro e facilities a ning—deter assengers to ter potential with site-sp enges, and t ncial plann sts and ongo munity desi d the cost to revenue. d ongoing o nstruction c s (if the faci le of both lo nd public tr mining how its services locations h ecific proje o determine ing is also a ing operatin res, transit g develop pa perating inv osts. Opera lity is staffe ng-term an ansportation park-and-ri and transit’ ave been ct planning the type of vital part of g and oals, and rk-and-ride estments. ting expense d), d de s to s

1-90 enforcement/patrol, and utilities. Transit agencies should carefully plan park-and-ride facility implementation to ensure that future budgeting activities and long-range plans account for the associated investments. Paying for park-and-ride facilities requires various revenue sources, which include federal grants, state grants, local investments, and private sector funding. The financial planning chapter will help guidebook users understand the cost to develop facilities, typical ongoing costs, and potential sources of revenue. This chapter discusses the following:  Capital investment.  Sources of revenue for capital expenses.  Ongoing operating and maintenance expenses.  Sources of revenue for operating expenses. Design and Implementation Chapter 5, Design and Implementation, outlines the most common design considerations during the planning of a park-and-ride facility. These include:  Types of parking required.  Characteristics of parking facilities.  Urban and landscape design elements.  Passenger amenities.  Electrical systems and utilities.  Safety and security systems.  Wayfinding signage and markers.  Vehicle and access variables. Chapter 5 also discusses the need to design for possible future facility expansion or conversion in response to a rapidly changing industry. Transit agencies have adapted by arranging for amenities such as carsharing and bikesharing to assist transit customers with completing the first- mile/last-mile portion of their trip. Transit agencies should plan to integrate possible future land use plans into park-and-ride design. Managing and Operating Park-and-Ride Facilities Chapter 6, Operating Park-and-Ride, discusses ongoing operational needs, management requirements, parking demand management, first- and last-mile access, and performance metric monitoring. Access from home to transit is referred to as the first mile, and access from transit to the destination is referred to as the last mile (the actual distance may be more or less than a mile). Once a park-and-ride facility is built, the facility requires ongoing management, operations, and maintenance. Transit agencies approach park-and-ride operations in a variety of ways—from fully in-house to fully outsourced operations (and all approaches in between). No matter what the approach, the most beautiful or well-designed park-and-ride will not succeed without being managed well.

1-91 This chapter discusses the following:  Management and oversight.  Insurance.  Legal issues and regulations.  Potential facility use for special events.  Utilities and routine maintenance.  Fee collection (if parking fees are charged).  Security and parking regulation enforcement.  Operations and maintenance inspections.  Customer service and complaint handling. Chapter 7, Charging for Parking, highlights key aspects of a transit agency’s decision to charge for parking separately from fare in terms of market analysis, setting parking charges, recovering costs, enforcement, fee collection, and managing rider demand. Some transit agencies with park-and-ride facilities provide parking as part of the transit fare while others choose to charge for parking separately from fares. Charging for parking has the potential to offset capital and operating costs associated with the park-and-ride facility. Additionally, charging for parking can assist with managing demand for parking. However, despite these benefits, charging for parking can be challenging. For example, payment of parking charges must be enforced in order for a transit agency to see a benefit. Other challenges include ridership impacts, the logistics of collecting parking fees, and customer relations. This chapter discusses the following:  Legislative and regional context.  Market analysis.  Recovering costs.  Equity concerns.  Methods of collecting fees.  Fee enforcement. Chapter 8, Park-and-Ride and the Community, explores the role of a park-and-ride facility (pre- and post-development) in the community, with a focus on interactions with adjacent land uses, community engagement, and potential impacts on the community. Park-and-ride facilities become part of the surrounding community and typically remain in place for decades. Because of the ongoing presence in the community, strategies for engaging customers and generating involvement for planning and managing park-and-ride facilities are important. This chapter addresses the following topics and provides strategies and examples for addressing the community regarding park-and-ride facilities:  Community impacts.  Community engagement.

1-92 Maintenance Chapter 9, State of Good Repair and Asset Management, discusses how to incorporate park- and-ride facility maintenance into asset management practices and plans. A park-and-ride facility is a transit agency asset, and, as such, needs to be strategically managed as part of the transit agency’s asset management plan and needs to be maintained in a state of good repair. This chapter discusses the following:  What is a state of good repair for a park-and-ride?  Park-and-ride in transit asset management. Development Chapter 10, Transit-Oriented Development, offers information about the potential for park- and-ride facilities to maximize the use of the land and complement public transportation services by enhancing station locations with other uses, such as residential, retail, and office space. Land that is dedicated for park-and-ride use may have to be able to accommodate additional uses. TOD is a method of developing or redeveloping park-and-ride facilities that maximizes the use of the land and complements park-and-ride transit service by enhancing station locations with other uses, such as residential, retail, and office space. These enhancements contribute to the property’s value and have the potential to increase ridership by increasing the number of trip generators in one location. While it is possible for transit agencies to implement TODs independently, transit agencies typically collaborate with developers and investors (through joint-development agreements and other contracting mechanisms) to implement TODs. This chapter discusses the following:  Return on investment.  Land-use and parking considerations.  TOD/joint-development participation.  Proposal processes. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS The literature review, state-of-the-practice scan, and case studies identified a wealth of information regarding a wide range of topics related to public transit park-and-ride facilities. Many procedures are accepted practices that have been in place for years without a foundation based in formal research, such as implementing shared-use parking facilities. Some issues have been developing slowly and have varying levels of research, such as addressing urbanization surrounding park-and-ride facilities through transit-oriented development. Other issues are emerging almost daily as transit agencies struggle to adapt to rapidly changing technology and customer expectations.

1-93 This research identified the following gaps in research, tools, and techniques that would benefit transit agencies that provide park-and-ride facilities for public transportation:  Total capital and operating/maintenance costs for park-and-ride as compared to the total capital and operating /maintenance costs for bus and rail transit services that include park-and-ride facilities.  Data to document the share of transit riders that use park-and-ride for access to different transit modes (local bus, commuter bus, light rail, commuter rail, etc.).  How transit agencies can enhance Title VI analysis into park-and-ride planning.  More in-depth research into factors for consideration in setting parking fees. Investigation of the use of dynamic parking charges for park-and-ride.  TOD as a generator for transit ridership. There is a lack of data on the ability for TOD adjacent to a park-and-ride to generate transit ridership.  Enhancing connectivity with non-transit shared ride services, effective coordination with ridesourcing companies.  Enhancing connectivity with local transit services (tied to changing land use patterns); for example, facilitating local bus connections, as a hub for feeder service to reduce paratransit costs, use of ridesourcing companies instead of adding parking.  Use of emerging transportation technologies to provide real-time information about the availability of parking and application of dynamic parking charges.  Use of smartphones for automated payment of a parking charge with a transit fare. Use of smartphones to reserve a parking space.  Implications of automated vehicle and connected vehicle (AV/CV) technology for the design and operation of park-and-ride facilities. How will AV/CV change the demand for park-and-ride? What are considerations for park-and-ride design for operations, safety, and capacity?

1-94 REFERENCES AASHTO. 1992. Guide for the Design of Park-and-Ride Facilities. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO. 2004. Guide for Park-and-Ride Facilities. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. AASTHO. 2014. Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation—Final Report 2015, Based on FY 2013 Data. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, 83. AECOM. 2012. State Park-and-Ride Guide. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation. Allen, D. 1979. Estimating the Service Area for Park-and-Ride Operations (Vol. 20). Dallas, TX: North Central Texas Council of Governments. APTA Standards Development Program. 2010. Recommended Practice: Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association. APTA Public Transportation Infrastructure Database. 2014. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association. APTA, Standards Development Program. 2015. Recommended Practice: Transit Parking 101. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association. Boile, M. 2004. Technical Solutions to Overcrowded Park and Ride Facilities. Piscataway, NJ: Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation. Brooks, J., Cochran, L., and Cherrington, L. 2013. Technical Memo: Park & Ride Demand Estimation for Central Houston-Fort Bend County. Houston, TX: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Burgess, J. 2008. Comparative Analysis of the Park-and-Ride/Transit-Oriented Development Tradeoff. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Master’s Thesis. Calgary Transit. 2016. A Review of Calgary Transit Park and Ride. Calgary Transit, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Callas, S. 2011. Milwaukie Park and Ride Estimates Memo. Portland, OR: TriMet. Caltrans: Division of Transportation Planning. 2013. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Park & Ride/Intermodal Strategies within the State Highway System in Southern California. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y., Arrington, G., Boroski, J., Smith-Heimer, J., Dunphy, R. 2004. TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the

1-95 United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Chatman, D., Cervero, R., Moylan, E., Carlton, I., Weissman, D., Zissman, J., Ikezoe, P. 2014. TCRP Report 167: Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Investments: Indicators of Success. 2014: Transportation Research Board. Christiansen, D., Bullard, D., and Peterson, R. 1981. Houston Park-and-Ride Facilities: An Analysis of Survey Data. Alexandria, VA: National Technical Information Service. Chu, X., Land, L., and Pendyala, R. 2001. Update of FDOT State Park & Ride Lot Program Planning Manual. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transportation Research. Cochran, L., and Brooks, J. 2014. Seamless Regional Transit from Fort Bend County to Downtown Houston. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Coffel, K., Parks, J., Semler, C., Ryus, P., Sampson, D., Kachadoorian, C., Schofer, J. 2012. TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Cox, M. 1982. Bus Park and Ride: Design Guidelines. Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Design, Construction and Rehabilitation of Public Transit Facilities (308–314). San Diego, CA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Dou, X., Guo, X., Luo, L., and Fei, Y. 2012. Study on the Hierarchical Structure of Park and Ride Facilities in Historic City. CICTP, 1493–1504. Duncan, M. and Christensen, R. 2013. An Analysis of Park-and-Ride Provision at Light Rail Station across the U.S. Transport Policy 25, 148–157. Dungca, N. and Nguyen, R. 2015. New T Parking System Debuts to Mixed Reviews. Boston Globe. Ehrlich, T. 2013. Development of a Demand Screening Tool for Expansion or Creation of New Park and Ride Facilities. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. El Dorado County Transit Authority. 2007. Park-and-Ride Facilities Master Plan. Diamond Springs, CA: EDCTA. Engel-Yan, J., Rudra, M., Livett, C., and Nagorsky, R. 2014. Strategic Station Access Planning for Commuter Rail: Balancing Park-and-Ride with Other Modes. Transportation Research Record No. 2419, 82–91. Faghri, A., Lang, A., Hamed, K., and Hench, H. 2002. Integrated Knowledge-Based Geographic Information System for Determining Optimal Location of Park-and-Ride Facilities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 18–41. Farhan, B. and Murray, A. 2005. A GIS-Based Approach for Delineating Market Areas for Park and Ride Facilities. Transactions in GIS, 91–108.

1-96 Farhan, B. and Murray, A. T. 2006. Distance Decay and Coverage in Facility Location Planning. Annals of Regional Science 40, 279–295. Farhan, B. and Murray, A. 2008. Siting Park-and-Ride Facilities using a Multi-Objective Spatial Optimization Model. Computers & Operations Research 35, 445–456. Federal Highway Administration. 2007. Advanced Parking Management Systems: A Cross-Cutting Study. Washington, D.C.: Intelligent Transportation Systems: U.S. Department of Transportation. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Federal Transit Administration. 2004. Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit- Supporting Land Use. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. 2013. An Overview of STOPS. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/STOPS.overview-web-final.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2014. Florida Department of Transportation. 2012. State Park-and-Ride Guide. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation. Galicia, L. and Cheu, R. 2009. A System Dynamics Model for Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Planning and Ridership Forecasting. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Galicia, L., Machemehl, R., and Liu, H. 2009. Bus Rapid Transit Features and Deployment Phases for U.S. Cities. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 2, 23–38. Holguin-Veras, J., Reilly, J. and Aros-Vera, F. 2012a. New York City Park and Ride Study. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: University Transportation Research Center. Holguin-Veras, J., Reilly, J., Aros-Vera, F., Yushimito, W., and Isa, J. 2012b. Park-and-Ride Facilities in New York City: Economic Analyses of Alternative Locations. Transportation Research Record 2276, 123–130. Holguin-Veras, J., Yushimito, W., Aros-Vera, F., and Reilly, J. 2012c. User Rationality and Optimal Park-and-Ride Location under Potential Demand Maximization. Transportation Research Part B 46, 949–970. Horner, M. and Groves, S. 1997. Network Flow-based Strategies for Identifying Rail Park-and- Ride Facility Locations. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 41, 255–268. Iowa Department of Transportation. 2014. Iowa Park and Ride System Plan. Ames, IA: Iowa Department of Transportation. Jacksonville Transportation Authority. 2009. Park-and-Ride Study 2009. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville Transportation Authority. Jacobson, L. and Weinberger, R. 2016. TCRP Synthesis 122, Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Keck, C. and Liou, P. 1976. Forecasting Demand for Peripheral Park and Ride Service. Transportation Research Record 563, 63–74.

1-97 Kerr, J. 2015. Katy Area Park and Ride Service Expands. Retrieved from Impact Newspaper: http://impactnews.com/houston-metro/katy/katy-area-park-and-ride-service-expands/. Kittelson & Associates Inc. 2007. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Li, Z., Lam, W., Wong, S., Zhu, D., and Huang, H. 2007. Modeling Park-and-Ride Services in a Multimodal Transport Network with Elastic Demand. Transportation Research Record No. 1994, 101–109. Los Angeles Metro. 2004. Metro to Introduce Limited Paid Permit Parking at Two San Fernando Valley Metro Red Line Subway Stations. Retrieved from Metro: http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-introduce-limited-paid-permit-parking-two-sa/ Maricopa Association of Governments. 2001. Park-and-Ride Site Selection Study. Phoenix, AZ: Maricopa Association of Governments. Martin, P. and Hurrell, W. 2012. Station Parking and Transit Oriented Design: Transit Perspective. Transportation Research Record No. 2276, 110–115. Mather, J. 1983. Guidelines and Standards for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bus Park- and-Ride Facilities. Transportation Research Record 908, 1–6. Matichich, M. 2014. Making Transit-Oriented Development Possible: How to Pay for the Infrastructure Improvements Required for Sustainable Smart Growth. Retrieved from Public Works: http://www.pwmag.com/grants/paying-for-transit-oriented- development_o.aspx?dfpzone=general Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2012. Central Minnesota Area Commuter Study. St. Paul, MN: MnDOT. Mock, A. and Thill, J. 2014. Placement of Rapid Transit Park-and-Ride Facilities. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2012. Models to Support State-Owned Park and Ride Lots and Intermodal Facilities. Research Results Digest 359, 1–45. New Jersey Transit. 2005. Route 17 Regional Rail Park-N-Ride Station: Ramsey, New Jersey. PCI Journal, 106–111. Niles, J. and Pogodzinski, J. 2016. Bus Transit Operational Efficiency Resulting from Passenger Boardings at Park-and-Ride Facilities. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, MTI Report 12-60. Proulx, F., Cavagnolo, B., and Torres-Montoya, M. 2014. Impact of Parking Prices and Transit Fares on Mode Choice at the University of California, Berkeley. Transportation Research Record No. 2469, 41–48.

1-98 Rephlo, J., Haas, R., Feast, L., and Newton, D. 2008. Evaluation of Transit Applications of Advanced Parking Management Systems. Washington, D.C.: FHWA. Rhinehart, C., and Broadsword, A. 2010. Brickyard Park and Ride Case Study: Pervious Asphalt and Integrated Site Stormwater Design. Low Impact Development 2010: Redefining Water in the City, 299–311. Sacramento Regional Transit. 1987. Design Guidelines for Bus and Light Rail Facilities. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento TDA. Shaheen, S. and Kemmerer, C. 2008. Smart Parking Linked to Transit: Lessons Learned from Field Test in San Francisco Bay Area of California. Transportation Research Record, 73-80. Shirgaokar, M. and Deakin, E. 2005. Study of Park-and-Ride Facilities and Their Use in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Transportation Research Record, 46–54. Spillar, R. 1997. Monograph 11: Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines. New York: Parsons Brinckerhoff. Syed, S., Golub, A., and Deakin, E. 2009. Response of Regional Rail Park-and-Ride Users to Parking Price Changes. Transportation Research Record, 155–162. Turnbull, K. 1995. National Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 213: Effective use of park-and-ride facilities. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Turnbull, K., Pratt, R., Evans IV, J., and Levinson, H. 2004. TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3: Park- and-Ride/Pool—Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Cooperative Research Program. Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority. 2008. PTA Park-and-Ride Reprioritization Study. Phoenix, AZ: Valley Metro RPTA. Virginia Department of Transportation. 2013. Statewide Park & Ride Program Best Practices Guide. Richmond, VA: VDOT. Wallis, I., Ballantyne, J., Lawrence, A., and Lupton, D. 2014. Economic Benefits of Park and Ride. Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Transport Agency. Willson, R. 2005. Replacement Parking for Joint Development: An Access Policy Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Bay Area Rapid Transit Departments of Planning and Real Estate. Willson, R. and Menotti, V. 2007. Commuter Parking versus Transit-Oriented Development. Transportation Research Record No. 2021, 118–125.

A-1 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY TABLE The literature review includes 72 documents with information relevant to park-and-ride facilities and services in the United States. The matrix of literature sources is alphabetical by author, with marks indicating the document’s relevancy to key topics related to park-and-rides.

A-2 A -2 Literature by Park-and-Ride Topic Literature/Topics R o l e a n d F u n c t i o n o f P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P a r k - a n d - R i d e D e m a n d E s t i m a t i o n F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n S e l e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s a n d T i m e l i n e s F u n d i n g O p t i o n s a n d F i n a n c i a l R i s k S t a k e h o l d e r s a n d C o m m u n i t y I n t e g r a t i o n L a n d - U s e P o l i c i e s w i t h P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P e d e s t r i a n / P a s s e n g e r A m e n i t i e s P r i c i n g f o r P a r k i n g a t T r a n s i t F a c i l i t i e s T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d P a r k - a n d - R i d e S e r v i c e Total 14 5 28 13 8 11 7 11 11 10 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1992). Guide for the Design of Park-and-Ride Facilities. X X AASHTO. (2004). Guide for Park-and-Ride Facilities. X AASTHO. (2014). Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation: Final Report. X AECOM (2012). State Park-and-Ride Guide. Tallahassee, Fl.: Florida Department of Transportation X Allen, D. A. (1979). Estimating the Service Area for Park-and-Ride Operations. X American Public Transportation Association (APTA). (2010). Recommended Practice: Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops. X APTA, (2014). Public Transportation Database 2014. X APTA. (2015). Transit 101. X X Boile, M. (2004). Technical Solutions to Overcrowded Park and Ride Facilities X X Brooks, J.P., Cochran, L., and Cherrington, L.K. (2013). Technical Memo: Park & Ride Demand Estimation for Central Houston-Fort Bend County X Callas, S. (2011). Milwaukie Park and Ride Estimates Memo. Portland, OR. X Caltrans: Division of Transportation Planning. (2013). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Park & Ride/Intermodal Strategies within the State Highway System in Southern California. X

A-3 A -3 Literature/Topics R o l e a n d F u n c t i o n o f P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P a r k - a n d - R i d e D e m a n d E s t i m a t i o n F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n S e l e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s a n d T i m e l i n e s F u n d i n g O p t i o n s a n d F i n a n c i a l R i s k S t a k e h o l d e r s a n d C o m m u n i t y I n t e g r a t i o n L a n d - U s e P o l i c i e s w i t h P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P e d e s t r i a n / P a s s e n g e r A m e n i t i e s P r i c i n g f o r P a r k i n g a t T r a n s i t F a c i l i t i e s T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d P a r k - a n d - R i d e S e r v i c e Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y., Arrington, G., Boroski, J., Smith-Heimer, J., Dunphy, R. (2004). TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. X X Chatman, D. G., Cervero, R., Moylan, E., Carlton, I., Weissman, D., Zissman, J., Ikezoe, P. (2014). TCRP Report 167: Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Investments: Indicators of Success. X Christiansen, D. L., Bullard, D. L., and Peterson, R. L. (1981). Houston Park- and-Ride Facilities: An Analysis of Survey Data. X Chu, X., Land, L., and Pendyala. (2001). Update of FDOT State Park & Ride Lot Program Planning Manual. X X Cochran, L. (2014). Seamless Regional Transit from Fort Bend County to Downtown Houston. X Coffel, K., Parks, J., Semler, C., Ryus, P., Sampson, D., Kachadoorian, C., Schofer, J. L. (2012). TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. X X X X X X Cox, M. (1982). Bus Park and Ride: Design Guidelines. X Dou, X., Guo, X., Luo, L., and Fei, Y. (2012). Study on the Hierarchical Structure of Park and Ride Facilities in Historic City. X X Duncan, M., and Christensen, R. K. (2013). An Analysis of Park-and-Ride Provision at Light Rail Station Across the U.S. Transport Policy 25. X X Dungca, N. and Nguyen, R. (July 6, 2015). New T Parking System Debuts to Mixed Reviews. X Ehrlich, T. (2013). Development of a Demand Screening Tool for Expansion or Creation of New Park and Ride Facilities. X El Dorado County Transit Authority. (2007). Park-and-Ride Facilities Master Plan. X X X

A-4 A -4 Literature/Topics R o l e a n d F u n c t i o n o f P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P a r k - a n d - R i d e D e m a n d E s t i m a t i o n F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n S e l e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s a n d T i m e l i n e s F u n d i n g O p t i o n s a n d F i n a n c i a l R i s k S t a k e h o l d e r s a n d C o m m u n i t y I n t e g r a t i o n L a n d - U s e P o l i c i e s w i t h P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P e d e s t r i a n / P a s s e n g e r A m e n i t i e s P r i c i n g f o r P a r k i n g a t T r a n s i t F a c i l i t i e s T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d P a r k - a n d - R i d e S e r v i c e Engel-Yan, J., Rudra, M., Livett, C., and Nagorsky, R. (2014). Strategic Station Access Planning for Commuter Rail: Balancing Park-and-Ride, Other Modes. X Faghri, A., Lang, A., Hamed, K., and Hench, H. (2002). Integrated Knowledge- Based Geographic Information System for Determining Optimal Location of Park-and-Ride Facilities. X Farhan, B., and Murray, A. (2005). A GIS-Based Approach for Delineating Market Areas for Park and Ride Facilities. X Farhan, B., and Murray, A. T. (2006). Distance Decay and Coverage in Facility Location Planning. X X Farhan, B., and Murray, A. T. (2008). Siting Park-and-Ride Facilities using a Multi-Objective Spatial Optimization Model. X Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2007). Advanced Parking Management Systems: A Cross-Cutting Study. X FHWA. (2015). Census Transportation Planning Products. X Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (2004). Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supporting Land Use. X FTA. (September 5, 2013). On Overview of STOPS. X FTA. (April 29, 2015). Simplified Trips-on-Project Software Version 1.5 User Guide. X Florida Department of Transportation. (2012). State Park-and-Ride Guide. X Galicia, L. D., and Cheu, R. L. (2009). A System Dynamics Model for Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Planning and Ridership Forecasting. X Galicia, L. D., Machemehl, R. B., and Liu, H. (2009). Bus Rapid Transit Features and Deployment Phases for U.S. Cities. X

A-5 A -5 Literature/Topics R o l e a n d F u n c t i o n o f P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P a r k - a n d - R i d e D e m a n d E s t i m a t i o n F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n S e l e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s a n d T i m e l i n e s F u n d i n g O p t i o n s a n d F i n a n c i a l R i s k S t a k e h o l d e r s a n d C o m m u n i t y I n t e g r a t i o n L a n d - U s e P o l i c i e s w i t h P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P e d e s t r i a n / P a s s e n g e r A m e n i t i e s P r i c i n g f o r P a r k i n g a t T r a n s i t F a c i l i t i e s T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d P a r k - a n d - R i d e S e r v i c e Holguin-Veras, J., Reilly, J., and Aros-Vera, F. (2012a). New York City Park and Ride Study. X X X X X X Holguin-Veras, J., Reilly, J., Aros-Vera, F., Yushimito, W., and Isa, J. (2012b). Park-and-Ride Facilities in New York City: Economic Analyses of Alternative Locations. X X X Holguin-Veras, J., Yushimito, W. F., Aros-Vera, F., and Reilly, J. (2012c). User Rationality and Optimal Park-and-Ride Location Under Potential Demand Maximization. X Horner, M. W., and Groves, S. (1997). Network Flow-Based Strategies for Identifying Rail Park-and-Ride Facility Locations. X Iowa Department of Transportation. (2014). Iowa Park and Ride System Plan. X X Jacksonville Transportation Authority. (2009). Park-and-Ride Study 2009. X X Jacobson, L. and Weinberger, R.R. (2016). TCRP Synthesis 122, Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs. X Keck, C., and Liou, P. (1976). Forecasting Demand for Peripheral Park and Ride Service. X Kerr, J (2015). Katy Area Park and Ride Service Expands. X Kittelson and Associates, Inc. (2007). TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. X X Li, Z.-C., Lam, W. H., Wong, S. C., Zhu, D.-L., and Huang, H.-J. (2007). Marketing Park-and-Ride Services in a Multimodal Transport Network with Elastic Demand. X X Los Angeles Metro. (2004, March 18). Metro to Introduce Limited Paid Permit Parking at Two San Fernando Valley Metro Red Line Subway Stations. X

A-6 A -6 Literature/Topics R o l e a n d F u n c t i o n o f P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P a r k - a n d - R i d e D e m a n d E s t i m a t i o n F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n S e l e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s a n d T i m e l i n e s F u n d i n g O p t i o n s a n d F i n a n c i a l R i s k S t a k e h o l d e r s a n d C o m m u n i t y I n t e g r a t i o n L a n d - U s e P o l i c i e s w i t h P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P e d e s t r i a n / P a s s e n g e r A m e n i t i e s P r i c i n g f o r P a r k i n g a t T r a n s i t F a c i l i t i e s T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d P a r k - a n d - R i d e S e r v i c e Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). (2001). “Station Parking and Transit Oriented Design: Transit Perspective.” X Martin, P. C., and Hurrell, W. E. (2012). Station Parking and Transit Oriented Design: Transit Perspective. X X Mather, J. (1983). Guidelines and Standards for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bus Park-and-Ride Facilities. X Matichich, M. (2014, January 7). Making Transit-Oriented Development Possible: How to Pay for the Infrastructure Improvements Required for Sustainable Smart Growth. X Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2012). Central Minnesota Area Commuter Study. X Mock, A., and Thill, J.C. (2014). Placement of Rapid Transit Park-and-Ride Facilities. X X X National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (January 2012). Models to Support State-Owned Park and Ride Lots and Intermodal Facilities, NCHRP RRP 359. X X X X X X New Jersey Transit. (September-October 2005). Route 17 Regional Rail Park-N- Ride Station: Ramsey, New Jersey. X Proulx, F. R., Cavagnolo, B., and Torres-Montoya, M. (2014). Impact of Parking Prices and Transit Fares on Mode Choice at the University of California, Berkeley. X Rephlo, J., Haas, R., Feast, L., and Newton, D. (2008). Evaluation of Transit Applications of Advanced Parking Management Systems. X X Rhinehart, C. A., and Broadsword, A. L. (2010). Brickyard Park and Ride Case Study: Pervious Asphalt and Integrated Site Stormwater Design. X Sacramento Regional Transit. (1987). Design Guidelines for Bus and Light Rail Facilities. X

A-7 A -7 Literature/Topics R o l e a n d F u n c t i o n o f P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P a r k - a n d - R i d e D e m a n d E s t i m a t i o n F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n S e l e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s a n d T i m e l i n e s F u n d i n g O p t i o n s a n d F i n a n c i a l R i s k S t a k e h o l d e r s a n d C o m m u n i t y I n t e g r a t i o n L a n d - U s e P o l i c i e s w i t h P a r k - a n d - R i d e s P e d e s t r i a n / P a s s e n g e r A m e n i t i e s P r i c i n g f o r P a r k i n g a t T r a n s i t F a c i l i t i e s T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d P a r k - a n d - R i d e S e r v i c e Shaheen, S. A., and Kemmerer, C. (2008). Smart Parking Linked to Transit: Lessons Learned from Field Test in San Francisco Bay Area of California. X Shirgaokar, M., and Deakin, E. (2005). Study of Park-and-Ride Facilities and Their Use in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. X X X Spillar, R. J. (1997). Monograph 11: Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines. X X X Syed, S., Golub, A., and Deakin, E. (2009). Response of Regional Rail Park-and- Ride Users to Parking Price Changes. X Turnbull, K. (1995). National Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 213: Effective Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities. X Turnbull, K. F., Pratt, R. H., Evans IV, J. E., and Levinson, H. S. (2004). TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3: Park-and-Ride/Pool—Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. X X X X X X Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority. (2008). PTA Park-and- Ride Reprioritization Study. X Virginia Department of Transportation. (2013). Statewide Park & Ride Program Best Practices Guide X X X Wallis, I., Ballantyne, J., Lawrence, A., and Lupton, D. (2014). Economic Benefits of Park and Ride. X Wilson, R. (2005). Replacement Parking for Joint Development: An Access Policy Methodology. X Willson, R., and Menotti, V. (2007). Commuter Parking versus Transit-Oriented Development. X Total 14 5 28 13 8 11 7 11 11 10

B-1 APPENDIX B: U.S. TRANSIT AGENCIES WITH PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Table B-1 provides transit agencies in the United States currently operating park-and-rides, listed by transit agency size and modes served. Table B-2 lists additional U.S. transit agencies with park-and-ride facilities that were not listed in the APTA report but are documented in TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3. Table B-3 lists U.S. transit agencies that are not listed in the 2014 APTA infrastructure database but that may provide park-and-ride facilities.

B-2 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities. Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported Alaska Railroad Anchorage AK X X 7 459 7 459 2014 MAT-SU Community Transit Wasilla AK X X 15 15 2008 The Wave Transit System Mobile AL X X 50 50 2006 Central Arkansas Transit Authority Little Rock AR X X 5 1 6 n/a City of Chandler A Chandler AZ X X X 460A 460 n/a City of Glendale Transit Glendale AZ X X 20 20 n/a City of Mesa A Mesa AZ X X 200 200 2008 City of Phoenix Public Transit Department Phoenix AZ X X 2,481 0 2,481 2008 City of Scottsdale Scottsdale AZ X X 1 300 1 300 2014 City of Tucson Tucson AZ X X 518 518 2008 Grand Canyon National Park Flagstaff AZ X X 1,600 1,600 n/a Valley Metro Phoenix AZ X X 2,551 2,551 n/a Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix AZ X X 3,513 3,513 2010 Alameda-Contra Costa TD Oakland CA X X 550 550 2010 Altamont Commuter Express Stockton CA X X 2,100 2,100 2006 Antelope Valley Transit Authority Lancaster CA X X 150 50 200 2008 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Oakland CA X X 2,300 2,300 2008 Chula Vista Transit San Diego CA X X X X 5 237 5 237 2006 City of Glendale Transit Glendale CA X X 0 380 380 2006 Fairfield and Suisun Transit Fairfield CA X X 635 635 2006 Foothill Transit West Covina CA X X 11 2,838 11 2,838 2010 Gold Coast Transit Oxnard CA X X 2 227 2 227 2014 Golden Gate Transit San Francisco CA X X X 4 5,829 1 1,803 5 7,632 2014 Harbor Bay Maritime San Francisco CA X X X 600 600 n/a City of Los Angeles Los Angeles CA X X X X X 0 1,898 1,898 2008 Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Livermore CA X X 5 4,300 5 4,300 2014 Los Angeles Metro Los Angeles CA X X X X X 1 8,702 30 15,609 31 24,311 2014 Modoc Transportation Agency A Alturas CA X X X 10 10 2008 Montebello Bus Lines Montebello CA X X X 78 267 345 2008 Vine Transit Napa CA X X X 3 250 3 250 2014 North County Transit District Oceanside CA X X X X 8 2,448 21 4,500 6948 6,948 2012

B-3 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities (continued). Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported OCTA Orange CA X X X 6 1,275 6 1,275 2014 Peninsula Corridor Joint-Powers Board San Carlos CA X X X 28 7,597 28 7,597 2014 Riverside Transit Agency Riverside CA X X X 3 150 3 150 2014 Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento CA X X X 3,858 3,858 n/a San Diego Metropolitan Transit System San Diego CA X X X X 6 2,083 26 5,090 32 7,173 2014 San Francisco BART Oakland CA X X 40 46,442 40 46,442 2014 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Stockton CA X X 10 2,300 10 2,300 2012 San Luis Obispo Transit San Luis Obispo CA X X 2 2 n/a Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority San Jose CA X X X 10 618 21 6,469 31 7,087 2014 Santa Clarita Transit Santa Clarita CA X X X 1 290 1 290 2014 Santa Cruz Metro Santa Cruz CA X X X 270 270 2010 Metrolink Los Angeles CA X X 54 28,590 54 28,590 2014 Unitrans Davis CA X X 1 150 1 150 2014 Ventura County Transportation Commission Ventura CA X X 6 600 6 600 2014 Visalia City Coach Visalia CA X X 1 79 1 79 2014 Eagle County Transit A Gypsum CO X X X 500 500 n/a Regional Transportation District Denver CO X X X 3 15,907 31 5,316 34 21,223 2014 Roaring Fork Transit Authority A Aspen CO X X X 8 1,100 8 1,100 2014 Collins Bus Service A Hartford CT X X 900 900 2008 Connecticut Department of Transportation New Haven CT X X 768 768 2008 Greater Hartford Transit District Hartford CT X n/a 1 192 1 192 2012 Kelley Transit Company A Torrington CT X X 20 20 n/a WMATA Washington DC X X X 0 0 36 61,792 36 61,792 2014 Delaware Transportation Corporation Dover DE X X 4,401 4,401 2008 Lynx Orlando FL X X X 6 3,216 6 3,216 2014 HART Tampa FL X X X 4 520 4 520 2014 Manatee County Area Transit Bradenton FL X X 2 23 2 23 2014 Miami-Dade County Transit Miami FL X X * X 21 1,567 3 9,772 24 11,339 2010

B-4 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities (continued). Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported Palm Tran W. Palm Beach FL X X 20 2,141 20 2,141 2014 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Clearwater FL X X X 1 50 1 50 2014 Runways Transportation Company Jacksonville FL X X * 20 20 2010 Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota FL X X X 23 23 n/a South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Pompano Beach FL X X 0 5,699 5,699 2006 Space Coast Area Transit Cocoa FL X X 150 150 2008 StarMetro Tallahassee FL X X 20 20 None University of South Florida Tampa FL X X 18,310 18,310 2006 Athens Transit System (The Bus) Athens GA X X 100 100 2008 Gwinnett County Department of Transportation Lawrenceville GA X X X 1,565 1,565 2008 MARTA Atlanta GA X X X 0 23,000 23,000 2008 City & County of Honolulu Honolulu HI X X 5 500 5 500 2014 Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) Ames IA X X 2,500 2,500 2010 Sioux City Transit System Sioux City IA X X 480 480 2006 Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Urbana IL X X 1 50 1 50 2014 Chicago Transit Authority Chicago IL X X X 0 0 17 6,642 17 6,642 2014 Go West Transit Macomb IL X X 1 33 1 33 2014 CityLink Peoria IL X X 1 5 1 5 2012 Metra Chicago IL X X X 210 89,539 210 89,539 2014 PACE Suburban Bus Arlington Heights IL X X 14 986 14 986 2014 MetroLINK Rock Island IL X X X 1 0 3 175 4 175 2014 Rockford Mass Transit District Rockford IL X X 1 181 1 181 2014 Gary Public Transportation Corporation Gary IN X X 280 280 2006 Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District Michigan City IN X X 5,478 5,478 2008 Transpo South Bend IN X X 28 28 n/a Paducah Area Transit System A Paducah KY X X 61 61 2008 Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Fort Wright KY X X 1,500 1,500 n/a Capital Area Transit System Baton Rouge LA X X 6 6 2008

B-5 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities (continued). Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported Jefferson Transit A Harahan LA X X 313 313 2008 GATRA Taunton MA X X X 2 100 2 100 2014 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Boston MA X X X X X X X 0 277 149 56,402 2 2,231 151 58,910 2014 Maryland Transit Administration Baltimore MD X X X X X X 0 10,792 51 34,248 51 45,040 2014 Montgomery County Transit Rockville MD X X 3 3,143 3 3,143 2014 Shuttle-UM College Park MD X X 1 15,206 1 15,206 2012 Maine Department of Transportation A Augusta ME X X 300 300 2006 The Ride Ann Arbor MI X X X 1 1,665 1 1,665 2014 City of Kalamazoo Kalamazoo MI X X 1 566 1 566 2014 Mass Transportation Authority Flint MI X X 135 0 135 2010 Suburban Mobility Authority Detroit MI X X 840 840 2008 Anoka County Transit A Anoka MN X X 340 340 2010 City of Shakopee Area Transit A Shakopee MN X X X 20 20 n/a Duluth Transit Authority Duluth MN X X 50 50 n/a Metro Transit Minneapolis MN X X X X 70 13,788 9 5,451 79 19,239 2010 Minnesota Valley Transit A Burnsville MN X X 4,100 4,100 2010 Plymouth Metrolink A Plymouth MN X X 465 465 2010 Southwest Metro Transit A Eden Prairie MN X X X 4 2,700 4 2,700 2014 Bi-State Development Agency Saint Louis MO X X X 4 1,509 23 11,700 27 13,209 2010 Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Kansas City MO X X X 1,200 1,200 2010 CATS Charlotte NC X X X 1 1,538 7 3,300 8 4,838 2014 Triangle Transit Research Triangle Park NC X X 1 201 1 201 2014 Winston-Salem Transit Authority Winston-Salem NC X X 250 250 2010 Wildcat Transit Durham NH X X 200 200 2008 New Jersey Transit Newark NJ X X X X X 17,200 61,200 78,400 2010 Port Authority of New York & New Jersey Jersey City NJ X X X 1 556 1 556 2014 Port Authority Transit Lindenwold NJ X X 12,692 12,692 2010 City of Albuquerque Transit Department Albuquerque NM X X 406 406 n/a New Mexico Department of Transportation Santa Fe NM X X 9 4,061 12 1,900 21 5,961 2014

B-6 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities (continued). Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported RoadRUNNER Transit Las Cruces NM X X 1 18 1 18 2014 Centro Syracuse NY X X 2 275 2 275 2014 MTA Long Island Rail Road New York NY X X 66,850 66,850 2010 MTA Metro-North Rail Road New York NY X X X X 31,000 31,000 2008 MTA New York City Transit New York NY X X X X X X 1 375 1 375 2014 New York City DOT New York NY X X X X X X 1 1,493 1 1,493 2014 Niagara Frontier Buffalo NY X X 250 1,998 2,248 2006 Central Ohio Transit Authority Columbus OH X X 2 2,354 2 2,354 2014 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Cleveland OH X X X X X 5 1,894 13 5,309 18 7,203 2014 Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority Dayton OH X X X 4 600 4 600 2014 Laketran Grand River OH X X X 581 581 2008 Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority Cincinnati OH X X 3 380 3 380 2014 Stark Area Regional Transit Authority Canton OH X X 5 5 2006 Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority Tulsa OK X X 237 237 2006 Lane Transit District Eugene OR X X X 350 350 2008 Salem-Keizer Transit Salem OR X X 1 15 1 15 2014 SMART/City of Wilsonville Wilsonville OR X X 400 400 2010 Tri-Met Portland OR X X X X 2 2,790 28 9,684 30 12,474 2014 Beaver County Transit Authority Rochester PA X X 2 277 2 277 2014 BARTA Reading PA X X 2 460 2 460 2012 County of Lebanon Transit Authority Lebanon PA X X X 75 75 2008 IndiGO A Indiana PA X X 40 40 n/a Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority Charleroi PA X X 1 30 1 30 2012 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg PA X X 11 3,444 11 3,444 2014 Port Authority of Allegheny Co Pittsburgh PA X X X 9 6,754 12 7,202 21 13,956 2014 Red Rose Transit Authority Lancaster PA X X 1 399 1 399 2012 SEPTA Philadelphia PA X X X X X X 0 0 129 28,895 129 28,895 2014 Williamsport Bureau of Transportation Williamsport PA X X 500 500 n/a

B-7 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities (continued). Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported York County Transportation Authority York PA X X X 125 125 2010 Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Providence RI X X 100 100 n/a Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority Chattanooga TN X X 1,293 200 1,493 2008 Memphis Area Transit Authority Memphis TN X X X 4 661 3 578 7 1,239 2014 Regional Transit Authority Nashville TN X X 0 0 5 944 5 944 2014 Brazos Transit District Bryan TX X X X 3,000 3,000 2010 Capital Metro Austin TX X X X X X 4 1,883 3 1,271 7 3,154 2014 Citibus Lubbock TX X X 1 10 1 10 2012 Sun Metro El Paso TX X X X 7 1,638 7 1,638 2014 CityLink Transit Abilene TX X X 18 18 2008 DART Dallas TX X X X X 9 5,043 36 18,156 45 23,199 2014 The T Fort Worth TX X X X 0 1,859 4 2,343 4 4,202 2014 Laredo Transit Management, Inc. Laredo TX X X 412 412 2006 METRO Houston TX X X X X 41 34,196 1 1,439 42 35,635 2012 Trinity Railway Express Dallas TX X X 2,942 2,942 2006 VIA Metropolitan Transit San Antonio TX X X X 7 1,750 7 1,750 2014 Waco Transit System Waco TX X X 100 100 2010 Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT X X X X X 0 5,349 39 16,031 39 21,380 2014 Fairfax County Department of Transportation Fairfax VA X X 19 10,460 19 10,460 2014 GRTC Transit System A Richmond VA X X X 1,915 1,915 2010 Hampton Roads Transit Hampton VA X X X X 100 100 2010 Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission Woodbridge VA X X X 1 126 1 126 2014 Virginia Railway Express Alexandria VA X X 8,309 8,309 2010 Ben Franklin Transit Richland WA X X 3 565 3 565 2012 Sound Transit Seattle WA X X X X X 34 16,677 11 6,626 45 23,303 2014 Link Transit Wenatchee WA X X 1 325 1 64 2 389 2012 Clallam Transit A Port Angeles WA X X 112 112 2008 Clark County Transit Vancouver WA X X X 1,985 1,985 2008 Everett Transit Everett WA X X X 500 20 520 2008 Intercity Transit Olympia WA X X 0 132 132 2006

B-8 Table B-1. U.S. Transit Agencies with Park-and-Ride Facilities (continued). Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide 2013 Modes Operated Parking Inventory Source: 2013 NTD Data Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition Bus Rail Ferry Bus Rail Ferry TOTAL V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R A l a s k a R R F B Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All- Day Parking Spaces Number of Stations and Stops with All-Day Auto Parking Number of All-Day Parking Spaces Year Data Reported King County Transit Seattle WA X X X X X X 8 25,502 8 25,502 2014 Pierce County Ferry Tacoma WA X X 103 103 2006 Pierce Transit Tacoma WA X X 30 6,584 30 6,584 2014 Community Transit/Snohomish Everett WA X X X 24 6,585 24 6,585 2014 Spokane Transit Authority Spokane WA X X 15 2,094 15 2,094 2014 Washington State Department of Transportation Olympia WA X X 3 1,964 3 1,964 2014 Madison Metro Madison WI X X 1 535 1 535 2014 Waukesha Transit Commission Waukesha WI X X 400 400 2008 Mid-Ohio Valley Transit Authority Parkersburg WV X X 130 130 2010 Tri-State Transit Authority Huntington WV X X 1,020 1,020 2008 Total 506 329,972 1,082 740,315 8,517 1,069,877 * Automated Guideway Transit. A Data per agency’s website. n/a: Data not available or present in APTA database. Mode Code Definition MB Motor Bus TB Trolley Bus CB Commuter Bus RB Rapid Bus (Bus Rapid Transit) LR Light Rail SR Streetcar Rail HR Heavy Rail CR Commuter Rail Alaska RR Alaska Rail Road FB Ferry Boat Demand Response is not included as a mode for the purpose of identifying park-and-ride. Automated Guideway/Monorail is noted by an asterisk under Streetcar.

B-9 Table B-2. Additional U.S. Transit Agencies with Documented Park-and-Ride Facilities. Agency City State Operating Environment Urbanized Area Size, Rural, or Statewide Modes Operated Source: TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3 Parking Inventory Source: TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3 Bus Rail Park Pool V e r y L a r g e L a r g e S m a l l R u r a l S t a t e w i d e M B T B C B R B L R S R H R C R P a r k - a n d - P o o l Number of Park-and- Ride Facilities Number of Parking Spaces Year D a t a L o c a t i o n i n S o u r c e * Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority Des Moines IA X X 3 n/a 1995 A Maryland State Highway Administration Baltimore MD X X X 23 5,219 2003 A X 69 5,367 2003 B Totals 351 45,877 n/a: Data not available from source. *Data locations in source ( TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3) A: p. 3-22 B: p. 3-25 Table B-3. Additional U.S. Transit Agencies that May Provide Park-and-Ride Facilities.* Lists are representative and may not include all agencies with park-and-ride facilities. Agencies reporting Commuter Bus or Bus Rapid Transit in 2013 NTD* ‐ Solano County Transit (Vallejo, CA) ‐ Georgia Regional Transportation Authority GRTA (Atlanta, GA) ‐ Regional Transportation System of Southern Nevada (Las Vegas, NV) ‐ Loudon County Commuter Bus Service (Leesburg, VA) Agencies reporting Heavy Rail in 2013 NTD* ‐ MTA Staten Island Railway (Staten Island, NY) Agencies reporting Commuter Rail (or Hybrid Rail) in 2013 NTD:* ‐ SunRail (Orlando, FL) ‐ Denton County Transportation Authority (Denton, TX) Agencies reporting Ferry Boat in 2013 NTD* ‐ Chatham Area Transit Authority (Savannah, GA) ‐ Casco Bay Island Transit District (Portland, ME) ‐ Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority (Corpus Christi, TX) ‐ King County Ferry District (Seattle, WA) *These agencies are not listed in the 2014 APTA infrastructure database.

C-1 APPENDIX C: TRANSIT AGENCIES RESPONDING TO STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SCAN Appendix C is a list of transit agencies that responded to the state-of-the-practice scan.

C-2 Transit Agencies Responding to State-of-the-Practice Scan           Transit Agency Responding to Park-and-Ride State-of-the-Practice Scan   St at e/ Pr ov in ce     R eg io n Operating Environment Parking Inventory Urbanized Area Size Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition   TOTAL   V er y La rg e La rg e   Sm al l ALL Stations w/Parking   Parking Spaces: ALL Stations City of Scottsdale—Scottsdale Trolley AZ West X     1 300 Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) CA West   X     2,100 Foothill Transit CA West X     11 2,838 Gold Coast Transit (GCT) CA West   X   2 227 Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District CA West X     5   7,632 Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) CA West   X   5   4,300 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) CA West X     31   24,311 Peninsula Corridor Joint-Powers Board (Caltrain) CA West X     28   7,597 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) CA West X     40   46,442 San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) CA West   X     565 San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) CA West X       1,268 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) CA West X     31   7,087 Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) CA West   X   1 290 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) CA West X     54   28,590 Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA) CA West   X   6   600 Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) CA West   X       N/A Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) CO West X     34   21,223 Connecticut Department of Transportation CT NE   X       768 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) DC South X     36   61,792 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) FL South X     6   3,216 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) FL South X     4   520 Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) FL South   X   2 23 Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) FL South   X     23

C-3              Transit Agency Responding to Park-and-Ride State-of-the-Practice Scan   St at e/ Pr ov in ce     R eg io n Operating Environment Parking Inventory Urbanized Area Size Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition   TOTAL   V er y La rg e La rg e   Sm al l ALL Stations w/Parking   Parking Spaces: ALL Stations City & County of Honolulu Department of Transportation HI West   X   5   500 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) IL Midwest X     17 6,642 Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) IL Midwest X     210   89,539 Pace—Suburban Bus Division (PACE) IL Midwest X     14 986 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) MA Midwest X     151   58,910 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) MI Midwest   X   1   1,665 Blue Water Area Transit MI Midwest     X 1 2 Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) MN Midwest     X   50 Metro Transit MN Midwest X     79 19,239 Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) NC South X     8 4,838 Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Auth. NC South   X   1   201 New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) NJ NE X         78,400 City of Albuquerque Transit Department (ABQ RIDE) NM West   X       406 Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County NV West   X   1   N/A Regional Transportation Commission of Southern NV NV West X     12   1,391 Broome County Department of Public Transportation NY NE     X     N/A Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (CNY Centro) NY NE   X   2   275 MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company NY NE X         31,000 MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) NY NE X     1 375 Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) OH Midwest X     2 2,354 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) OH Midwest X     18   7,203 Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) OH Midwest   X   4   600 Laketran OH Midwest X       581

C-4             Transit Agency Responding to Park-and-Ride State-of-the-Practice Scan   St at e/ Pr ov in ce     R eg io n Operating Environment Parking Inventory Urbanized Area Size Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition   TOTAL   V er y La rg e La rg e   Sm al l ALL Stations w/Parking   Parking Spaces: ALL Stations METRO Regional Transit Authority, Akron OH Midwest   X     170 Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) OH Midwest X     3   380 Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority (MTA) OK South   X       237 Salem-Keizer Transit (Cherriots) OR West   X   1 15 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet) OR West X     30   12,474 Cambria County Transit Authority (CamTran) PA NE     X     N/A Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority) PA NE X     21   13,956 South Central Transit Authority PA NE   X   581 Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) RI NE X         100 Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) TN South X     7   1,239 Metropolitan Transit Authority, Regional Transportation Authority TN South   X   5   2,395 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority TX South X     7   3,154 Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority TX South   X   8   N/A Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) TX South X     45 23,199 Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) TX South X     4   4,202 Mass Transit Department—City of El Paso (Sun Metro) TX South   X   7   1,638 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) TX South X     42   35,635 The Woodlands TX South   X     3,000 VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) TX South X     7 1,750 Utah Transit Authority (UTA) UT West X     39 21,380 Fairfax County Department of Transportation VA South X     19   10,460 Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (Hampton Roads Transit) VA South X         100

C-5 Transit Agency Responding to Park-and-Ride State-of-the-Practice Scan St at e/ Pr ov in ce R eg io n Operating Environment Parking Inventory Urbanized Area Size Source: APTA Infrastructure Database—2014 Edition TOTAL V er y La rg e La rg e Sm al l ALL Stations w/Parking Parking Spaces: ALL Stations Virginia Railway Express (VRE) VA South X 8,309 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) WA West X 45 23,303 Clark County Public Transportation (C- TRAN) WA West X 1,985 Everett Transit WA West X 520 Intercity Transit WA West X 132 King County Metro Transit Division WA West X 8 25,502 Kitsap Transit WA West X 2,517 Pierce County Transportation Benefit Area Authority WA West X 30 6,584 Snohomish County Public Transportation (Community Transit) WA West X 24 6,585 Spokane Transit Authority WA West X 15 2,094 Metro Transit System (Metro), Madison WI Midwest X 1 535 Milwaukee County Transit System WI Midwest X 2,208 Calgary Transit AB Canada X 45 16,200 TransLink BC Canada X 141 10,696 Agence metropolitaine de transport QC Canada X 15 100

D-1 APPENDIX D: RESPONSES TO THE STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SCAN Appendix D provides the responses to the full state-of-the-practice scan and the limited state-of- the-practice scan.

D-2 Results of the State‐of‐the‐Practice Scan Responses to the Full Scan 1. Does your transit agency have standard operating procedures (SOPs) or similar written policies/procedures for park‐and‐ride facilities for one or more of the following functions?  Check all that apply. Response  Yes No Unsure Management (e.g., hours of operation, rules and  regulations for use)  63.4% 45 35.2% 25  1.4%  1 Facility maintenance (e.g., cleaning, sweeping) 68.6% 48 28.6% 20  2.9%  2 Access management (e.g., restrictions when parking  lots are near capacity)  14.1% 10 81.7% 58  4.2%  3 Safety and security at park‐and‐ride facilities 59.2% 42 35.2% 25  5.6%  4 Asset management (e.g., schedule for preventive  maintenance for structures or pavement)  54.9% 39 40.8% 29  4.2%  3 Parking charges (e.g., time of day when charges apply  and how much)  17.1% 12 82.9% 58  0.0%  0 Other (write‐in) ‐ As stipulated by the State of  Washington, use of a park‐and‐ride by a private  provider(s)  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Customer Service  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Rules of Conduct  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Signage stating no overnight parking  at some park and rides  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ We have a pilot project for parking  pricing to provide some reserved spaces (not more  than 20%) in certain park‐and‐rides  1

D-3 2. Does your transit agency contract with a private vendor specifically to provide park‐and‐ ride facility management (i.e., provide multiple disciplines, including maintenance and operational services, to ensure functionality of the park‐and‐ride)? Response Percent Count Yes  21.1% 15 No  78.9% 56 Unsure 0.0% 0 Total 71 21% 79% Yes No

D-4 3. Are park‐and‐ride facilities integrated into your transit agency’s asset management plan? Response Percent Count Yes  54.9% 39 No  23.9% 17 Unsure 21.1% 15 Total 71 55% 24% 21% Yes No Unsure

D-5 4. Does your transit agency provide transit services that operate from one or more park‐ and‐ride facilities provided by entities other than your transit agency? Response  Yes No Unsure Municipalities  42.6% 29 55.9% 38  1.5%  1 Other local or regional public agencies 38.8% 26 58.2% 39  3.0%  2 State department of transportation (DOT) 46.3% 31 53.7% 36  0.0%  0 Tribal governments  3.1% 2 96.9% 62  0.0%  0 Churches or non‐profit organizations 33.3% 22 63.6% 42  3.0%  2 Private entities  43.9% 29 53.0% 35  3.0%  2 Other (write‐in) ‐ Public School parking lot 1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Universities  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Vanpool  1

D-6 5. About what percent of park‐and‐ride facilities are provided by entities other than your transit agency? Response Percent Count Less than 25% 29.6% 21 26% to 50% 14.1% 10 51%‐75% 8.5% 6 More than 75% 26.8% 19 Not applicable 21.1% 15 Total  71 30% 14% 8% 27% 21% Less than 25% 26% to 50% 51%‐75% More than 75% Not applicable

D-7 6. Does your transit agency provide park‐and‐ride facilities for public transportation using shared‐use parking lots (e.g., retail centers, theaters)? Response Percent Count Yes  66.2% 47 No  31.0% 22 Unsure 2.8% 2 Total 71 66% 31% 3% Yes No Unsure

D-8 7. Does your transit agency have a formal process to plan for park‐and‐ride facilities (e.g., to plan for new facilities or to expand existing facilities)? Response Percent Count Yes  45.7% 32 No  47.1% 33 Unsure 7.1% 6 Total 70 46% 47% 7% Yes No Unsure

D-9 8. Does your transit agency use a specific demand estimation model or structured methodology to estimate demand for park‐and‐ride facilities for public transportation? Response Percent Count Yes  26.8% 19 No  64.8% 46 Unsure 8.5% 6 Total 71 27% 65% 8% Yes No Unsure

D-10 9. Has your transit agency financially participated in a transit‐oriented development (TOD) on or adjacent to a park‐and‐ride facility for public transportation? Response Percent Count Yes 25.7% 18 No  67.1% 47 Unsure 7.1% 5 Total 70 26% 67% 7% Yes No Unsure

D-11 10. Has your transit agency participated in a public‐private partnership (P3) to develop property on or adjacent to a park‐and‐ride facility for public transportation? Response Percent Count Yes 24.3% 17 No 68.6% 48 Unsure 7.1% 5 Total 70 24% 69% 7% Yes No Unsure

D-12 11. Does your transit agency have examples of coordinating park‐and‐ride facility design/features to complement adjacent developments or neighborhoods? Response Percent Count Yes 40.6% 28 No  55.1% 38 Unsure 4.4% 3 Total 69 41% 55% 4% Yes No Unsure

D-13 12. Has your transit agency significantly modified a park‐and‐ride facility in the last five years? Response  Yes No Unsure Reduced parking spaces 10.0% 7 88.6% 62  1.4%  1 Added surface parking spaces  42.9% 30 57.1% 40  0.0%  0 Added structured/underground parking 13.4% 9 86.6% 58  0.0%  0 Modified parking facility to add or support TOD 13.0% 9 81.2% 56  5.8%  4 Eliminated a transit center  11.6% 8 88.4% 61  0.0%  0 Created a transit center  29.0% 20 66.7% 46  4.3%  3 Other (write‐in) ‐ Added a new station with parking 1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Added improved perimeter  fencing for security reasons  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Eliminated a park‐and‐ride on  private property  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Switched from one park‐and‐ride  lot to another  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Upgraded lighting, expanded  driver comfort stations, increased bus bays  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Moved to a larger park‐and‐ride,  thus increasing capacity  1

D-14 13. Does your transit agency regularly measure park‐and‐ride facility utilization (i.e., vehicles parked as a percent of total spaces available or other measure)? Response Percent Count Yes  67.1% 47 No  31.4% 22 Unsure 1.4% 1 Total 70 68% 31% 1% Yes No Unsure

D-15 14. Does your transit agency have one or more park‐and‐ride facilities where demand for parking exceeds the supply of parking spaces available on a regular basis? Response Percent Count Yes 50.7% 36 No  46.5% 33 Unsure 2.8% 2 Total 71 51%46% 3% Yes No Unsure

D-16 15. Does your transit agency have one or more park‐and‐ride facilities where vehicles parked as a percent of total spaces available is below 50 percent on a regular basis now or within the past five years? Response Percent Count Yes  62.0% 44 No  28.2% 20 Unsure 9.9% 7 Total 71 62% 28% 10% Yes No Unsure

D-17 16. Does your transit agency charge for parking at one or more park‐and‐ride facilities? Response Percent Count Yes  22.5% 16 No  77.5% 55 Unsure 0.0% 0 Total  71 23% 77% Yes No

D-18 17. What type of security does your transit agency provide at park‐and‐ride facilities? Response  All Park‐and‐ Rides  Some Park‐and‐ Rides  No  Park‐and‐ Rides  Unsure  On‐site security at all times  0.0% 0 18.5% 12 81.5% 53  0.0% 0 On‐site security at specific hours  3.0% 2 28.8% 19 68.2% 45  0.0% 0 Roaming security (i.e., spot checks)  29.0% 20 44.9% 31 24.6% 17  1.4% 1 Security cameras that are monitored  10.6% 7 40.9% 27 43.9% 29  4.5% 3 Security cameras recording and  reviewed if needed  18.2% 12 57.6% 38 22.7% 15  1.5% 1 Physical security elements (e.g.,  fences, gated entry, etc.)  6.3% 4 39.1% 25 53.1% 34  1.6% 1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Emergency Call  Buttons  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ Special events  1 Other (write‐in) – Pilot program with  security cameras in one particular lot.  1

D-19 18. What type of passenger amenities does your transit agency provide at park‐and‐ride facilities? Response  All Park‐and‐ Rides  Some Park‐and‐ Rides  No  Park‐and‐ Rides  Unsure  Covered waiting area  36.6% 26 52.1% 37 11.3% 8  0.0%  0 Enclosed waiting area (i.e., climate  controlled)  5.8% 4 34.8% 24 59.4% 41  0.0%  0 Restroom, portable/temporary  0.0% 0 16.2% 11 82.4% 56  1.4%  1 Restroom, permanent  4.3% 3 37.1% 26 58.6% 41  0.0%  0 Stations with personnel on‐site  5.7% 4 41.4% 29 52.9% 37  0.0%  0 Concessions, vending  5.8% 4 37.7% 26 55.1% 38  1.4%  1 Electric vehicle charging  1.4% 1 27.1% 19 70.0% 49  1.4%  1 Real‐time information  about transit  services or information about  available parking   4.4% 3 36.2% 25 59.4% 41  0.0%  0 Ticket vending machines or point‐of‐ sale fare media  10.1% 7 43.5% 30 44.9% 31  1.4%  1

D-20 19. What type of pedestrian or bicycle features does your transit agency provide to facilitate access into park‐and‐ride facilities? (e.g., features to allow safe access from nearby neighborhoods, such as lighting, street‐crossing infrastructure) Response  All Park‐and‐ Rides  Some Park‐and‐ Rides  No  Park‐and‐ Rides  Unsure  Sidewalk access  49.3% 35 40.8% 29 8.5% 6  1.4% 1 Bicycle access  42.9% 30 45.7% 32 8.6% 6  2.9% 2 Safety features to assist crossing  streets from nearby neighborhoods  24.3% 17 48.6% 34 21.4% 15  5.7% 4 Lighting  58.6% 41 30.0% 21 5.7% 4  5.7% 4 Other (write‐in) ‐ Grade separated  pedestrian and bike access  1

D-21 20. Does your transit agency provide space for the following uses at any of your park‐and‐ ride facilities? Response  All Park‐and‐ Rides  Some Park‐and‐ Rides  No Park‐and‐ Rides  Unsure  Kiss‐and‐ride drop‐off area  22.9% 16 54.3% 38 20.0% 14  2.9%  2 Parking to join transit agency  sponsored vanpools  24.3% 17 22.9% 16 48.6% 34  4.3%  3 Parking to join non‐transit agency  sponsored vanpools  22.9% 16 21.4% 15 45.7% 32  10.0%  7 Parking for transit riders to access a  private shuttle (e.g., employer  shuttle buses)  14.7% 10 20.6% 14 45.6% 31  19.1%  13 Parking to join carpools  29.0% 20 23.2% 16 36.2% 25  11.6%  8 Car sharing services (e.g., ZipCar®,  Enterprise®)  2.9% 2 14.3% 10 77.1% 54  5.7%  4 Informal ridesharing (i.e., slugging)  14.5% 10 15.9% 11 46.4% 32  23.2%  16 Bike parking  33.8% 24 54.9% 39 7.0% 5  4.2%  3 Lockers or enclosed parking for  bicycles  8.5% 6 45.1% 32 42.3% 30  4.2%  3 Bike sharing services  0.0% 0 8.7% 6 88.4% 61  2.9%  2 Overnight parking  21.1% 15 26.8% 19 42.3% 30  9.9%  7 Long‐term (>24 hour) parking (e.g.,  airport access)  8.5% 6 21.1% 15 63.4% 45  7.0%  5 Parking for transit riders to access  intercity bus (e.g., Greyhound®,  Mega Bus®, Bolt®)  5.7% 4 34.3% 24 57.1% 40  2.9%  2 Other (write‐in) ‐ Reserved Parking  1 Other (write‐in) ‐ To join other public  transit services  1

D-22 21. Does your transit agency have different policies for allowed uses on weekends? Response Percent Count Yes 16.9% 12 No 80.3% 57 Unsure 2.8% 2 Total 71 17% 80% 3% Yes No Unsure

D-23 22. Does your transit agency permit park‐and‐ride facilities to be used for special event parking (e.g., for occasional or regularly scheduled special events such as a sporting event or county fair)? Response Percent Count Yes  69.0% 49 No  22.5% 16 Unsure 8.5% 6 Total 71 69% 23% 8% Yes No Unsure

D-24 23. Does your transit agency permit park‐and‐ride facilities to be used as the site for a non‐ transit special event or staging for a non‐transit special event (e.g., such as a farmer’s market or other community event on the property)? Response Percent Count Yes  42.3% 30 No  45.1% 32 Unsure 12.7% 9 Total 71 42% 45% 13% Yes No Unsure

D-25 24. Do you have about five additional minutes to answer a few follow‐up questions? Response  Percent Count  Yes, I have time for follow‐up questions 88.7% 63  No, but show me how to save and continue later 0.0% 0  No, take me to the last page now 11.3% 8  Total  71  89% 11% Yes, I have time for follow‐up questions No, take me to the last page now

D-26 25. How does your transit agency manage partnerships with external partners? Select one per row. Response  All Park‐and‐ Rides  Some Park‐and‐ Rides  No Park‐and‐ Rides  Unsure  Your transit agency owns park‐and‐ ride facilities and/or parking spaces  5.0% 2 77.5% 31 17.5% 7  0.0% 0 Your transit agency enters into  rental or lease agreements for park‐ and‐ride facilities and/or parking  spaces  0.0% 0 74.4% 32 23.3% 10  2.3% 1 Your transit agency has informal,  handshake agreements for park‐and‐ ride facilities and/or parking spaces  2.3% 1 55.8% 24 32.6% 14  9.3% 4

D-27 26. Is your transit agency's model based on one or more of the following? Select all that apply. Response  Percent  Count Station Access Model in TCRP Report 153 15.8%  3 Indicator‐based Method in TCRP Report 167 0.0%  0 Simplified Trips‐on‐Project “STOPS” Model  Federal Transit Administration  5.3%  1 Travel demand model ‐ specific to your region 52.6%  10 In‐house custom model ‐ specific to your transit agency 63.2%  12 Other (please describe):  15.8%  3 Total  19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Station Access Model in TCRP Report 153 Simplified Trips‐ on‐Project  “STOPS” Model ‐ Federal Transit  Administration Travel demand model ‐ specific to your region In‐house custom model ‐ specific to your transit agency Other (please describe): Pe rc en t o f R es po ns es

D-28 27. Which strategies does your transit agency use to manage demand that exceeds parking spaces available at park‐and‐ride facilities for public transportation? Select all that apply. Response  Percent Count  Parking charges  15.4% 4  Personnel on‐site to direct traffic 11.5% 3  Optional parking locations for overflow 61.5% 16  On‐site signage indicating space availability 11.5% 3  Restricted access (e.g., permit only parking) 3.9% 1  Security to prevent street parking 3.9% 1  Pre‐arrival notifications of parking availability (e.g., social  media, transit agency app or website)  0.0% 0  Re‐stripe to increase spaces 26.9% 7  Expand surface parking capacity by adding space 46.2% 12  Add structured or underground parking 19.2% 5  Adjust or reduce transit service 19.2% 5  Other (please describe):  19.2% 5  Total  26  0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Pe rc en t o f R es po ns es

D-29 28. Which strategies has your transit agency used to encourage use at park‐and‐ride facilities with low utilization of available parking spaces? Response  Percent  Count Free parking  62.5%  20 Promotional fare  12.5%  4 Additional passenger amenities  6.3%  2 Modify transit service to encourage use of available parking spaces 37.5%  12 On‐site electronic signage indicating space availability 6.3%  2 Pre‐arrival notifications of parking availability (e.g., social media, transit  agency app, or website)  3.1%  1 Permit other uses from the parking lot (e.g., private shuttle parking) 15.6%  5 Other (please describe):  34.4%  11 Total  32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Free parkingPromotional fare Additional passenger amenities Modify transit service to encourage use of available parking spaces On‐site electronic signage indicating space availability Pre‐arrival notifications of parking availability (e.g., social media, transit agency app or website) Permit other uses from the parking lot (e.g., private shuttle parking) Other (please describe): Pe rc en t o f R es po ns es

D-30 29. Has your transit agency analyzed the impact on parking demand when parking charges are implemented or increased/decreased (i.e., parking price elasticity for parking demand)? Response Percent Count Yes  50.0% 7 No  35.7% 5 Unsure 14.3% 2 Total  14 50% 36% 14% Yes No Unsure

D-31 30. Has your transit agency analyzed the impact on parking demand when transit fares for services from a park‐and‐ride facility are increased/decreased (i.e., fare price elasticity for parking demand)? Response Percent Count Yes  14.3% 2 No  78.6% 11 Unsure 7.1% 1 Total 14 14% 79% 7% Yes No Unsure

D-32 31. What methods are used to collect parking charges? Response  Percent  Count In‐person collection on‐site  21.4%  3 Collection through an on‐site technology (e.g., card/cash kiosk,  RFID vehicle tags, license plate cameras)  71.4%  10 Mobile based payment (i.e., mobile app) 28.6%  4 Parking fee is bundled in transit fare and not charged  separately  0.0%  0 Total  14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 In‐person collection on‐site Collection through an on‐site technology (e.g., card/cash kiosk, RFID vehicle tags, license plate cameras, etc.) Mobile based payment (i.e., mobile app) Pe rc en t o f R es po ns es

D-33 Results of the State‐of‐the‐Practice Scan Responses to the Limited Scan 1. Does your transit agency have standard operating procedures (SOPs) or similar written policies/procedures for park‐and‐ride facilities for one or more of the following functions? Response  Yes No Unsure  Management (e.g., hours of operation,  rules and regulations for use, etc.)  75.0% 12 25.0% 4  0.0%  0 Facility maintenance (e.g., cleaning,  sweeping, etc.)  52.9% 9 41.2% 7  5.9%  1 Access management (e.g., restrictions  when parking lots are near capacity)  5.9% 1 88.2% 15  5.9%  1 Safety and security at park‐and‐ride  facilities  50.0% 8 31.3% 5  18.8%  3 Asset management (e.g., schedule for  preventive maintenance for structures  or pavement)  64.7% 11 29.4% 5  5.9%  1 Parking charges (e.g., time of day when  charges apply and how much)  43.8% 7 56.3% 9  0.0%  0 Other – write-in responses  100.0% 2 0.0% 0  0.0%  0

D-34 2. Does your transit agency use a specific demand estimation model or structured methodology to estimate demand for park‐and‐ride facilities for public transportation? Value Percent Count Yes 47.1% 8 No 35.3% 6 Unsure 17.7% 3 Total 17 47% 35% 18% Yes No Unsure

D-35 3. Is your model based on one or more of the following? Select all that apply. Value  Percent  Count Station Access Model in TCRP Report 153 0.0%  0 Indicator‐based Method in TCRP Report 167 0.0%  0 Simplified Trips‐on‐Project “STOPS” Model ‐ Federal Transit Administration 0.0%  0 Travel demand model ‐ specific to your region 25.0%  2 In‐house custom model ‐ specific to your transit agency 50.0%  4 Other (please describe)  25.0%  2 Total  8 25% 50% 25% Travel demand model ‐ specific to your region In‐house custom model ‐ specific to your transit agency Other (please describe)

E-1 APPENDIX E: CASE STUDY RESEARCH PROTOCOL Appendix E provides the case study research protocol used to ensure consistent data collection during case study interviews, and compliance with IRB requirements.

E-2 TCRP H-52 Case Study Protocol Template and Protocol

E-3 Table of Contents Research Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 5  Case Study Template ...................................................................................................................... 6  Protocol 1: Conversation with Senior Transit Agency Staff ..................................................... 11  Discussion with Senior Agency Staff .................................................................................... 11  Review of Mini-Case Study .................................................................................................. 11  Agency Context ..................................................................................................................... 12  Protocol 2: Conversation with Planning Staff ........................................................................... 14  Discussion with Planning Staff ............................................................................................. 14  Operating Context.................................................................................................................. 14  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ...................................................................... 15  Park-and-Ride Capital Investment......................................................................................... 17  Design Features ..................................................................................................................... 17  Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................... 18  Document Request ................................................................................................................. 18  Data Request .......................................................................................................................... 18  Protocol 3: Conversation with Operations and Maintenance Staff ........................................... 19  Discussion with Operations and Maintenance Staff .............................................................. 19  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) ................................................................................. 19  Contracted Parking Management .......................................................................................... 20  Maintenance and State-of-Good-Repair ................................................................................ 20  Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................. 21  Park-and-Ride Passenger Amenities and Security ................................................................ 21  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................................................................. 22  Innovation .............................................................................................................................. 22  Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................... 23  Protocol 4: Conversation with Finance Staff ............................................................................ 24  Discussion with Finance Staff ............................................................................................... 24  Parking Charges ..................................................................................................................... 24  Innovation .............................................................................................................................. 25  Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................... 25 

E-4 Protocol 5: Conversation with Real Estate and Development Staff .......................................... 26  Discussion with Real Estate and Development Staff ............................................................ 26  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................................................................. 26  Transit Oriented Development (TOD) .................................................................................. 27  Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................... 27  Site Visit Protocol ........................................................................................................................ 28 

E-5 Research Purpose The objective of TCRP H-52 Decision Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation is to develop a decision-making toolbox to better plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. Park-and-ride planners and managers need targeted research that will develop a single resource for improved strategies and best practices to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities.  Planning. Transit agencies and the communities they serve seek to appropriately size park-and-ride facilities. Under-sized parking facilities may discourage travelers from using public transportation or lead to spillover parking in nearby neighborhoods, resulting in complaints from residents. Over-sized parking facilities represent resources that could be better allocated elsewhere. Improved methods to estimate park-and-ride demand and establish parking capacity would help avoid these outcomes and provide important benefits to transit agencies, passengers, and local communities.  Management. There are a range of concerns regarding the management of park-and-ride facilities for public transportation that need to be addressed, as well as opportunities that should be explored for introducing new technologies and innovation. Questions often arise regarding whether and how much to charge for parking at public transportation park-and-ride facilities; how to fund park-and-ride services; whether to expand existing or build new parking or use transportation demand management (TDM) strategies; how to respond to market changes; and how to work effectively with communities and stakeholders. The utilization of available parking may be improved and customers may be served better using evolving technologies. The final product for this research will be a guidebook to serve as a single resource for best practices to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities. Planners and managers of park-and-ride services for public transportation will benefit from a research product that presents strategies and practices targeted to their needs.

E-6 Case Study Template The TCRP H-52 research team will conduct in-depth case studies in Task 6 with transit agencies approved by the TCRP H-52 Project Panel. A member of the TCRP H-52 research team will be named as the case-study leader for each of the transit agencies selected for case study research. Purpose of the Case Study The purpose of the in-depth case studies is to collect firsthand information about the following topics:  The general context for park-and-ride.  The current inventory of park-and-ride facilities.  The approach to planning park-and-ride facilities and the accuracy of different models for demand estimation.  Current best practices for managing park-and-ride facilities.  Innovative approaches for managing park-and-ride facilities.  Significant lessons learned from managing park-and-ride facilities. Case-study research will help to understand the complex issues surrounding planning and management park-and-ride facilities and make possible contextual analysis of the information and data. Researchers will build on the information gathered in Tasks 2 and 3. Researchers will use a well-defined protocol with site-visit procedures and case-study questions to help each researcher follow a similar process for data gathering and discussions, and a guide for the case-study report. The TCRP H-52 research team will follow best practices to organize and conduct the case study research successfully. The overall purpose of the case studies is to collect information and data that will contribute to the guidebook to be produced in Task 7. Approach Case study researchers are encouraged to first introduce the case study research by the introductory letter/email to the chief executive officer or appropriate senior transit agency official, requesting and confirming participation and then identify the appropriate staff for different topics. Coordinate the case study research through the appropriate point person, perhaps the transit agency planning director. Ask that individual to help identify the best persons to address the case study research topics:  Operating context  Planning and estimating demand for parking  Park-and-ride capital investment  Managing demand for parking  Shared use of park-and-ride facilities  Parking charges

E-7  Design features  Park-and-ride passenger amenities and security  Standard operating procedures (SOPs)  Contracted parking management  Maintenance and state-of-good-repair  Transit oriented development (TOD)  Innovation The following are examples of the types of staff titles that may be able to address questions about the topics identified above.   Transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to the planning of park-and-ride facilities, for example: o Manager for system planning. o Manager for service planning. o Manager for facility planning. o Park-and-ride design engineer. o Travel demand modeler.  Transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to the managing of park-and-ride facilities, for example: o Manager for transportation. o Manager for facility maintenance. o Manager for security.  Transit agency management personnel representing finance and budget, for example: o Chief financial officer or comptroller. o Budget officer.  Transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to real estate and development, for example: o Real estate officer. o Staff responsible for transit oriented development. Researchers will identify key people, prepare electronic letters of introduction (emails), establish rules for anonymity or confidentiality, and actively seek opportunities to address the set of research questions in telephone conversations. The research team expects that discussions with transit agency managers will be conducted by telephone. All persons involved in these discussions will be informed that their participation is voluntary. If a question comes up that the participant feels is sensitive, the discussant may decline to respond. Researchers are encouraged to send the letter of introduction and request for voluntary participation in the case study research, and then follow-up with the specific question appropriate for that staff member in advance of the telephone conference call. The estimate of about an hour of time may be longer with staff and/or list of questions. Provide a reasonable estimate of time when scheduling the discussion.

E-8 No Confidential Data or Documents We request only data and documents that are available to the public. We do not request any material that might be considered confidential. Case Study Schedule Purpose: Facilitate consistent information and data collection for case studies to document planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Detailed case studies will be included in a guidebook to serve as a single resource for best practices to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities. The purpose of these case studies is to develop information for the guidebook; this means that researchers should focus on what a particular case study could mean for other persons instead of creating the most extensive case study imaginable. Time Frame: April through May 2016 at a time that is convenient to the transit agency. Administration: These are recommended protocols that may need to be adjusted according to local needs and schedules. Comments This study for the TCRP is approved by the Texas A&M Institutional Research Board (IRB) for Human Subjects Research. The purpose of this project is to create a guidebook that describes best practices, innovative approaches, and lessons learned for planning and managing park-and- ride facilities. Protocols have introductory statements for participants that will provide information about the study and request agreement to participate. There is nothing of a sensitive nature anticipated during the discussions, and no personal data are being collected. Site Visits A limited budget is available for site visits (rather than telephone/email) case study research. A section at the end of this document provides a protocol for site visits.

LETTER INSERT INSERT INSERT INSERT INSERT Dear INS I am the p Transport Manage P provide g and-ride f operate p Project O twenty ye and-ride f targeted r and mana research i for public transporta Research helping to Thank yo with seve Your tran ask to talk of your tr to the pub Research partners, these part transit ag decline to in particip Sincerely Linda Ch (713) 613 OF INTR Date Name of Ch Name of Tra Street Addre City, ST Zip ERT Title (D rincipal inve ation Resear ark-and-Rid uidance to p acilities. Ou ark-and-ride bjective. Pa ars. From se acilities hav esearch that ge park-and- s to develop transportati tion planner Approach complete su u for your as ral selected t sit agency h with memb ansit agency lic. We do n Team. The Kittelson & ners will con ency staff. Y respond to ating in this , errington, Pr -9240, l-che ODUCTIO ief Executive nsit Agency ss Code r./Mr./Ms.) stigator for ch Board for e Facilities f ublic agencie r research is . rk-and-ride rving primar e undergone will develop ride facilitie a decision-m on. The final s and manag and Case St rveys that c sistance to d ransit agenc as been selec ers of your s ’s park-and-r ot request an Texas A&M Associates, a tact you reg our participa specific ques important re incipal Inves rrington@tti N Officer Last Name: a contract w the project or Public Tr s and other based, in par services and ily as parkin major transf a single reso s for public t aking toolb product for ers. udies. You m ontributed to ate in this pr ies to develo ted for one o taff, collect ide facilities y material th Transportat nd Kathryn arding sched tion in this s tions, as you search. tigator .tamu.edu E-9 ith the Trans TCRP H-52 ansportatio key stakehol t, on case stu facilities hav g lots to mor ormations. P urce for imp ransportatio ox to better p this research ay have alr the mini-ca oject. We ar p informatio f these case reports and d . We reques at might be ion Institute Coffel Consu uling teleph tudy and ans deem appro it Cooperativ Decision Ma n. We are de ders about p dy research e changed d phing into in ark-and-ride roved strate n. The objec lan and man will be a gu eady contrib se study for e now develo n for the gui studies. To c ata that will t only data an considered c (TTI) leads lting. A rep one calls or a wering ques priate. Than e Research king Toolbo veloping a g lanning and with transit ramatically vestment pr planners an gies and bes tive of the T age park-an idebook for uted to our r your transit a ping in-dep debook. omplete the provide us m d document onfidential. this research resentative o site visit to tions is volu k you for yo Texas A& 701 N. P Houston 713-613- Fax: 713 http://tti.t Program (TC x to Plan an uidebook to managing pa agencies tha over the last operties, par d manages n t practices to CRP H-52 d-ride facilit public esearch by gency (attac th case studi case study, ore underst s that are av with our f TTI or one meet with y ntary. You m ur considerat M Transporta ost Oak Rd., S , TX 77024-38 9240 -686-5396 amu.edu RP), d rk- t k- eed plan ies hed). es we will anding ailable of our ay ion tion Institute uite 430 27

E-10 EMAIL FROM CASE STUDY RESEARCHER Date Dear ______________________: The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Transportation Research Board is sponsoring research project TCRP H-52 Decision Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation. Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), Kittelson & Associates, and Kathryn Coffel Consulting are conducting the research. We are developing a guidebook to provide guidance to public agencies and other key stakeholders about planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Our research is based, in part, on case study research with public transit agencies that operate park-and-ride. Research Objective. Park-and-ride services and facilities have changed dramatically over the last twenty years. From serving primarily as parking lots to morphing into investment properties, park- and-ride facilities have undergone major transformations. Park-and-ride planners and manages need targeted research that will develop a single resource for improved strategies and best practices to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. The objective of the TCRP H-52 research is to develop a decision-making toolbox to better plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. The final product for this research will be a guidebook for public transportation planners and managers. Research Approach and Case Studies. You may have already contributed to our research by helping to complete surveys that contributed to the mini-case study for your transit agency [attached]. Thank you for your assistance to date in this project. We are now developing in-depth case studies with several selected transit agencies to develop information for the guidebook. Your transit agency has been selected for one of these case studies. Your [chief executive officer or chief operating officer] ____[name or title]________________________, identified you as someone who is knowledgeable about specific area___________ and could contribute to the case study. We believe that this study would benefit from a discussion with you by telephone [or] a site visit to meet with you. Your participation in this project is voluntary.  Interview Questions. I will send the questions we would like to discuss in advance. The discussion should take about an hour, a little longer if you have time. Our research products will not attribute specific comments to specific individuals, but if a question comes up that you feel is sensitive, you may decline to respond.  Request for Data and Documents. We request only data and documents that are available to the public. We do not request any material that might be considered confidential.  Concerns. For questions about your rights as a research participant, to provide input regarding research, or if you have questions, complaints, or concerns about the research, you may call the Texas A&M University Human Research Protection Program office by phone at 1-979-458-4067, toll free at 1-855-795-8636, or by email at irb@tamu.edu If you have specific questions about this project or this request to participate in case study research, please contact me at ________. We look forward to speaking with you and will be in touch with you shortly. Best regards, [Name of state case study leader and contact information]

E-11 Protocol 1: Conversation with Senior Transit Agency Staff Introductory Statement Thank you for being part of our TCRP H-52 project about Decision making Toolbox to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. We are developing a guidebook for public agencies and other key stakeholders about planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Our research is based, in part, on case study research. The purpose of today’s conversation is to discuss your perspective of [transit agency’s] approach to planning and managing park-and-ride. Concerns about confidentiality and sensitivity. The notes from our discussion will be used to help develop the case studies that will be included in the guidebook.  Comments from specific individuals will not be attributed to that person.  If a question comes up that you feel is sensitive, you may decline to respond.  Issues that you consider to be confidential will not be included in the case study.  My notes will not be shared with anyone other than other project team members who are working on the guidebook.  We will share the results of the case study in the draft for verification of the accuracy of the information presented. If any issues come up regarding the information that you have provided, I may want to follow up with you later. Do you have any questions before we begin? May I have your permission to ask some questions? Discussion with Senior Agency Staff Meet with senior transit agency staff responsible for providing oversight to park-and-ride: .  The case study leader will need to inquire and determine the appropriate senior staff member who is responsible for oversight of the park-and-ride program. In smaller transit agencies, this may be the chief operating officer or chief planning officer. In larger transit agencies, this may be a department director or equivalent position.  Focus the questions for senior staff on the vision for the park-and-ride program, agency policies, and the locally unique challenges and opportunities. Review of Mini-Case Study Review the mini-case study. Confirm facts, verify nuances. Probe to understand the factors that influenced policies/decisions for park-and-ride. Focus on one or more of the following topics as appropriate to the specific transit agency.  Number of parking spaces by mode (bus, rail, ferry).  Passenger amenities at park-and-ride facilities.  Security at park-and-ride facilities.  Shared use of park-and-ride facilities.  Parking charges (including the impact on transit ridership if available).

E-12  Standard operating procedures.  Contract with vendor for park-and-ride management.  Maintenance and state of good repair/asset management.  Formal planning process.  Demand estimation model or structured method to estimate demand for park-and-ride.  Park-and-ride design/features to complement adjacent developments or neighborhoods.  Transit oriented development on or adjacent to park-and-ride.  Public-private partnership to develop property on or adjacent to park-and-ride.  Transit agency specific challenges and lessons learned; best practices and innovations. Agency Context 1. What local/regional factors impact the way the transit agency manages it park-and-ride facilities/program? a. Factors might include local property values, development trends, planning, zoning, funding sources, generational/demographic shifts, corridor congestion, downtown issues, and others. b. How do these factors make the service and the management strategy unique? 2. What are the opportunities and challenges for regional coordination of planning and managing an effective park-and-ride program? 3. How does your transit agency monitor park-and-ride performance? a. Performance indictors b. Performance reports 4. How does the transit agency seek/accept feedback from park-and-ride customers? 5. What is the relationship between transit (especially park-and-ride) and transportation networks (Uber, Lyft, Bridj, etc.) for first mile/last mile? What other first mile/last mile solutions are available to the transit agency’s riders, if any? For transit agencies that charge for parking 6. What prompted the decision to charge for parking? a. Capacity issues? b. Generate revenue? c. Discourage non-transit parkers? d. Other? 7. How does the transit agency balance its ridership goals with the decision to charge for parking?

E-13 For transit agencies that do not charge for parking 8. Why does the transit agency provide free parking? a. Does the transit agency have plans to reassess this position and/or begin to charge for parking? b. If so, what is the plan for assessment or the planned fee structure? c. What are the reasons to consider a charge for parking? For transit agencies with TOD experience 9. Does the transit agency initiate TOD development or do partners initiate TOD? 10. What are the challenges associated with TOD? For transit agencies without TOD experience 11. Why does the transit agency not participate in TOD? 12. Does the transit agency plan to participate in TOD in the future? Thank you very much for your time and attention. We appreciate your insights and assistance.

E-14 Protocol 2: Conversation with Planning Staff Introductory Statement Thank you for being part of our TCRP H-52 project about Decision making Toolbox to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. We are developing a guidebook for public agencies and other key stakeholders about planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Our research is based, in part, on case study research. The purpose of today’s conversation is to discuss your perspective of [transit agency’s] approach to planning and managing park-and-ride. The notes from our discussion will be used to help develop the case studies that will be included in the guidebook. Comments from specific individuals will not be attributed to that person. If a question comes up that you feel is sensitive, you may decline to respond. Issues that you consider confidential will not be included in the case study. My notes will not be shared with anyone other than other project team members who are working on the guidebook. We will share the results of the case study in the draft for verification of the accuracy of the information presented. If any issues come up regarding the information that you have provided, I may want to follow up with you later. Do you have any questions before we begin? May I have your permission to ask some questions? Discussion with Planning Staff Meet with transit agency staff responsible for planning park-and-ride facilities: o Manager for system planning. o Manager for service planning. o Manager for facility planning. o Park-and-ride design engineer. o Travel demand modeler. Operating Context 1. What are the expenses and funding sources for park-and-ride service and the park-and- ride facility? a. Operating service b. Operating park-and-ride c. Preventive maintenance park-and-ride facility d. Capital for park-and-ride facility i. New ii. Expanded iii. State-of-good-repair 2. What local/regional factors impact the way the transit agency manages it park-and-ride facilities/program? a. Factors might include local property values, development trends, planning, zoning, funding sources, generational/demographic shifts, corridor congestion, downtown issues, and others. b. How do these factors make the service and the management strategy unique?

E-15 3. What is effective capacity to your transit agency? For example, is a park-and-ride facility at capacity when XX% of the spaces are occupied? How does your transit agency define effective capacity? What actions do you take a park-and-rid facility nears or exceeds parking capacity? 4. Has the transit agency’s ridership requested any of these “non-standard” parking facilities? a. Bicycle b. Bikeshare c. Carshare d. Carpool/vanpool e. Electric/hybrid vehicles f. Ride hailing and sharing g. Transportation network companies h. Carpool slugging i. Intercity bus, corporate shuttles, casino shuttles, etc. j. Others (please describe) 5. If yes, how is the transit agency addressing these requests? Does the transit agency have plans to implement “non-standard” parking in new or existing park-and-ride facilities? 6. How does the transit agency seek/accept feedback from park-and-ride customers? 7. What is the relationship between transit (especially park-and-ride) and transportation networks (Uber, Lyft, Bridj, etc.) for first mile/last mile? What other first mile/last mile solutions are available to the transit agency’s riders, if any? 8. Park-and-ride and transit modes a. How is the demand for parking different for different modes? Bus vs Rail; Light Rail vs Commuter Rail; Ferry, etc. b. Do specific modes have a distinct set of characteristics for customer parking? Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking 1. Has your transit agency conducted any predicted versus actual studies of park-and-ride usage? Probe for results, data. 2. When should a transit agency expand an existing park-and-ride facility, build new parking, or use transportation demand management (TDM) strategies (TDM includes facilitation/coordination of parking cash-out programs, car/ride sharing, transit benefit programs, and information and marketing), or improve other access modes to reduce parking demand? 3. What are the factors that affect the transit agency’s decision to build a surface lot, above ground garage, underground garage, or combination?

E-16 a. How do local trends in vehicle ownership, vehicle miles traveled, and land-use influence that decision? b. How does the cost of development for each lot type factor into the decision? 4. How does the transit agency consider the cost versus benefits of providing parking? What methods/metrics does the transit agency use to determine whether parking is an appropriate or cost-effective investment as compared to other potential investments? 5. How does the transit agency identify estimated demand for parking? a. What demand estimation model(s) is used? b. How does the transit agency decide which modeling/planning tool to use to estimate demand? c. Historically, how accurate have previous estimates proven? d. How does the transit agency measure the success of a planning, demand modeling process? How is success measured during park-and-ride facility development versus after operations begin and ridership builds? 6. What target horizon year is used for planning park-and-ride? Pros/cons? 7. How do you define the effective capacity of a park-and-ride facility? 8. How do characteristics of catchment areas, corridors, and commuter destinations influence which model is the most effective tool to estimate demand for park-and-ride at individual transit centers/stations and in the corridor? a. How does a transit agency’s modeled demand compare to observed ridership? b. Hypothetically, how does applying a different model compare in terms of estimated ridership versus actual observed ridership? c. Is there a difference between model performance when estimating demand for parking at one location versus multiple locations in the same service corridor (demand shed)? 9. What is the relative importance of corridor congestion, downtown parking supply and cost, and corridor tolls toward park-and-ride demand? Other key factors? 10. How do planners and decision makers use park-and-ride demand estimates? 11. What is the role of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in planning for park- and-ride capacity? a. Travel demand modeling b. Regionally coordinated planning c. Regional land use d. Environmental impact analysis e. Regional long range plan f. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) g. Other

E-17 12. Do you use these approaches for park-and-ride planning? a. Regularly review customer and/or public comments/complaints. b. Run a test or demonstration bus route to see how much park-and-ride demand is generated. c. Use Census journey-to-work flow data to get a good visual handle of the potential park-and-ride markets. d. Use Census LEHD data for similar planning purposes. e. Origin-destination surveys 13. Have you looked at parking demand holistically, for example downtown and transit parking in commute corridors? Experience downtown business partnering with transit on parking policies? 14. What is the potential to improve the state of practice? What lessons has the transit agency learned about planning and estimating demand for park-and-ride services? 15. How have planners addressed environmental justice and Title VI reviews for the following: Planning, selection of location for park-and-ride, service planning and scheduling, fare policy, other. Park-and-Ride Capital Investment 1. When to provide parking and when not to? Given the relatively high cost of land within transit service areas, the high costs of providing parking, and increasing demands for transit agencies to control costs and help meet air quality targets. 2. What experience has your transit agency had in expanding/reducing park-and-ride, either for parking capacity or as part of a TOD/joint venture a. At grade b. Structure – garage c. Structure – underground 3. Cost data – with and without real estate cost – per space. 4. Operating accommodations for structured or expanded parking? For example collecting fees or providing additional passenger pick-up for a large parking lot, etc. 5. What is the best way to manage park-and-ride resources as corridors transition from suburban to urban? Design Features According to APTA’s Transit Parking 101, “there are multiple considerations when planning for parking near transit, including the ownership, supply, location, management, and design of park- and-ride facilities.” 1. How does the transit agency account for these considerations when designing new park- and-ride facilities or redesigning/expanding existing park-and-ride facilities?

E-18 a. What is the public engagement process used? b. How does the transit agency evaluate and improve the process over time? 2. What are the transit agency’s standards for providing ADA-accessible parking spaces? Do they go above minimum requirements? If so, why? 3. How is safety incorporated into the transit agency’s design standards for park-and-ride facilities (particularly reducing risk of vehicular conflict with pedestrians/bicyclists and other vehicles)? 4. How is sustainability, energy efficiency, environmental management incorporated into the design? What savings may have resulted? For example: Solar panels, Zero maintenance landscaping Closing Thoughts 1. We would be interested in your suggested ideas for material that could be included in a guidebook about park-and-ride planning. 2. What information would you like to learn from this study? Document Request  Annual report (most recent available).  Reports specific to the transit agency’s park-and-ride program.  Standard operating procedures.  Information on transit oriented development projects on or adjacent to a park-and-ride facility.  Information on public-private partnerships for park-and-ride facilities.  Copies of agreements for shared-use park-and-ride facilities.  Copies of Title VI reviews Data Request  National Transit Database reports for fiscal 2015 (recent).  Park-and-ride demand estimates produced in planning.  Park-and-ride utilization.  Key performance indicators. o Published reports (monthly, quarterly, or annual). o Contract required reports (monthly, quarterly, or annual).  Customer satisfaction reports/customer feedback. Thank you very much for your time and attention. We appreciate your insights and assistance.

E-19 Protocol 3: Conversation with Operations and Maintenance Staff Introductory Statement Thank you for being part of our TCRP H-52 project about Decision making Toolbox to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. We are developing a guidebook for public agencies and other key stakeholders about planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Our research is based, in part, on case study research. The purpose of today’s conversation is to discuss your perspective of [transit agency’s] approach to planning and managing park-and-ride. The notes from our discussion will be used to help develop the case studies that will be included in the guidebook. Comments from specific individuals will not be attributed to that person. If a question comes up that you feel is sensitive, you may decline to respond. Issues that you consider confidential will not be included in the case study. My notes will not be shared with anyone other than other project team members who are working on the guidebook. We will share the results of the case study in the draft for verification of the accuracy of the information presented. If any issues come up regarding the information that you have provided, I may want to follow up with you later. Do you have any questions before we begin? May I have your permission to ask some questions? Discussion with Operations and Maintenance Staff Meet with transit agency staff responsible for operations and maintenance of park-and- ride facilities: o Manager for transportation. o Manager for facility maintenance. o Manager for security. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 1. What are the operational policies, maintenance procedures, fare policies, and fee strategies? 2. What are the outreach and stakeholder involvement procedures for new park-and-ride facilities, modifying existing park-and-ride facilities, and modifying fee policies? 3. How does the transit agency mitigate / plan for traffic impacts of P&Rs (e.g., increases in peak-period traffic, increased congestion at P&R ingress/egress points, potential reduction of available neighborhood parking)? 4. How does the transit agency mitigate / plan for environmental impacts of park-and-ride (e.g., run-off, emissions, noise, and light pollution)? 5. In what ways are park-and-ride considered under the transit agency’s environmental justice policies? Does the transit agency have a methodology to incorporate

E-20 environmental justice when evaluating adding park-and-ride facilities or modifying current park-and-ride facilities? 6. How are the ongoing operational costs of park-and-ride incorporated into the performance analysis of existing transit services? Are costs distributed across the entire network, regardless of relation to P&R, or are cost allocated to the specific transit lines serviced? 7. Does your transit agency centrally manage all aspects of parking? If yes, where in the transit agency organization? If no, where does the responsibility for different functions (planning, construction, operations, real estate, TOD) fall? Contracted Parking Management For transit agencies with contracted parking management 1. Why does the transit agency contract for parking management? a. What are the benefits to the transit agency? b. What are the challenges? 2. What type of contract does the transit agency require (example types here)? 3. What is the annual cost of the contract? 4. Does the contract have a clause that requires specific performance metrics be met? a. If yes, what are the metrics? b. Does the contract include a minimum financial return to the transit agency? 5. What is the length of the contract (years)? For transit agencies that manage parking in-house 1. What benefits does the transit agency derive from managing its park-and-ride facilities in-house? 2. What is the cost to manage park-and-ride facilities (staff, facilities maintenance, and other related expenses)? Maintenance and State-of-Good-Repair 1. Does the transit agency set a minimum useful life for the park-and-ride facilities prior to implementing a transit agency-owned park-and-ride facility? a. If yes, what is the minimum? b. How did the transit agency determine the minimum useful life? 2. What dollar investments has your transit agency made for SOGR for park-and-ride? 3. Changes in parking facilities over time.

E-21 Managing Demand for Parking 1. According to the transit agency’s experience, which has more of a positive impact on ridership: providing parking or providing opportunities for development of housing/jobs? o Please explain. 2. According to the transit agency’s experience, which has more of a positive impact on ridership: providing parking or providing improved access for pedestrians, bikes, local / private transit, and other modes? 3. According to APTA’s Transit Parking 101, “best practice indicates that the most effective management strategies include pricing, sharing, park-and-ride facility design and transportation demand management.” o Which of these does the transit agency use to manage existing park-and-ride facilities as an alternative to expansion? o Please describe the results. 4. What is the transit agency’s experience with TDM? o If none, does the transit agency plan/expect to begin coordinating efforts as part of TDM? 5. How does the transit agency and customers respond to market changes? 6. What is the best way to manager park-and-ride resources as corridors transition from suburban to urban? 7. Has your transit agency conducted an analysis of the quantitative relationship between providing parking and levels of transit ridership? Probe for information and data. 8. Station typologies and their catchment areas with regard to the role of parking and parking replacement, including data on individual station areas, their placement on the transit route/line, catchment areas and land use context, and how these variables should be used to manage parking supply and regulations. Park-and-Ride Passenger Amenities and Security 1. How do passenger amenities vary by mode? 2. Does the transit agency have a minimum set of amenities that it implements at all park-and-ride facilities? If so, what is always included? 3. Does the transit agency consider improving amenities and/or security when working to increase ridership? 4. Describe parking enforcement policies and practices. Insights on best practices for enforcing parking regulations?

E-22 Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities 1. Has the transit agency redesigned an existing park-and-ride facility (or worked with another park-and-ride facility owner to implement a redesign) that facilitates an improved shared use experience (e.g. re-striping to improve efficiency, integrating parking bicycles, adding amenities for users, transitioning to a garage with retail on the ground floor)? 2. How was the transit agency’s existing shared use park-and-ride facilities developed? o Did the partner or the transit agency initiate the agreement? 3. Does the transit agency plan to seek additional shared use agreements in the future? o Is this a cost-saving or a time-saving measure? Or both? Please explain. 4. How much is your transit agency willing to spend on purchase or to rent spaces as opposed to building per space? 5. What strategies does the transit agency use to work effectively with communities and stakeholders? 6. Probe for the transit agency relationship to municipally controlled park-and-ride and the community impact issues. 7. Does your transit agency have a license agreement for use of parking spaces owned by a private property owner for a fee? License agreement or verbal? 8. How much is your transit agency willing to spend on leasing spaces? Innovation 1. How can evolving technologies be used to improve the utilization of available parking and to improve customer service? 2. Does the transit agency have plans to implement new fare payment media or mobile ticketing? a. If so, please describe the system. b. Will it be capable of paying parking fees (if such fees exist)? 3. Does the transit agency have any plans to implement a real-time parking availability system? 4. Has the transit agency ever reduced initial parking supply through “proof-of-parking” practices which reserve land for other purposes until/if parking demand increases? (APTA Standards 101, §4.5.)

E-23 Closing Thoughts 1. We would be interested in your suggested ideas for material that could be included in a guidebook about managing park-and-ride. 2. What information would you like to learn from this study? Thank you very much for your time and attention. We appreciate your insights and assistance.

E-24 Protocol 4: Conversation with Finance Staff Introductory Statement Thank you for being part of our TCRP H-52 project about Decision making Toolbox to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. We are developing a guidebook for public agencies and other key stakeholders about planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Our research is based, in part, on case study research. The purpose of today’s conversation is to discuss your perspective of [transit agency’s] approach to planning and managing park-and-ride. The notes from our discussion will be used to help develop the case studies that will be included in the guidebook. Comments from specific individuals will not be attributed to that person. If a question comes up that you feel is sensitive, you may decline to respond. Issues that you consider confidential will not be included in the case study. My notes will not be shared with anyone other than other project team members who are working on the guidebook. We will share the results of the case study in the draft for verification of the accuracy of the information presented. If any issues come up regarding the information that you have provided, I may want to follow up with you later. Do you have any questions before we begin? May I have your permission to ask some questions? Discussion with Finance Staff Agency management personnel representing finance and budget, for example: o Chief financial officer or comptroller o Budget officer. Parking Charges For transit agencies that charge for parking 1. What percent of total spaces with a fee? a. Does the fee change by day of week? Time of day? b. How much? Discounts? 2. What prompted the decision to charge for parking? a. Capacity issues? b. Generate revenue? c. Discourage non-transit parkers? d. Other? 3. What fare methods are accepted? Are ticket vending machines (TVM) at park-and-ride facility? What entity is in charge of management TVM? 4. What type of pricing structure does the transit agency use? Document rates; specify day/week/month/annual/other. Document revenues fiscal 2015 a. Flat fee b. Demand-based fees

E-25 c. Premium rates for close in parking or reserved parking d. Event specific fees e. Valet services f. Other (explain) 5. Is there a minimum parking price when it costs more to collect the fees than the revenue it generates. 6. Please describe the process the transit agency undertook to determine the appropriate fee strategy. a. How frequently is the parking fee assessed? b. Does the transit agency have scheduled parking fee increased? If so, what is the schedule and how was it determined? c. Do you have data to evaluate the role of parking supply and price? Implementation, increases, decreases. Anecdotal? 7. How does the transit agency balance its ridership goals with the decision to charge for parking? 8. What is the transit agency’s outreach/public engagement/education process/strategy related to parking fees? 9. How does the transit agency consider environmental justice when evaluating and/or implementing parking fee changes? For transit agencies that do not charge for parking 10. Why does the transit agency provide free parking? a. Does the transit agency have plans to reassess this position and/or begin to charge for parking? b. If so, what is the plan for assessment or the planned fee structure? c. What are the reasons to consider a charge for parking? Innovation 1. Does the transit agency have plans to implement new fare payment media or mobile ticketing? a. If so, please describe the system. b. Will it be capable of paying parking fees (if such fees exist)? Closing Thoughts 1. We would be interested in your suggested ideas for material that could be included in a guidebook about planning or managing park-and-ride. 2. What information would you like to learn from this study? Thank you very much for your time and attention. We appreciate your insights and assistance.

E-26 Protocol 5: Conversation with Real Estate and Development Staff Introductory Statement Thank you for being part of our TCRP H-52 project about Decision making Toolbox to plan and manage park-and-ride facilities for public transportation. We are developing a guidebook for public agencies and other key stakeholders about planning and managing park-and-ride facilities. Our research is based, in part, on case study research. The purpose of today’s conversation is to discuss your perspective of [transit agency’s] approach to planning and managing park-and-ride. The notes from our discussion will be used to help develop the case studies that will be included in the guidebook. Comments from specific individuals will not be attributed to that person. If a question comes up that you feel is sensitive, you may decline to respond. Issues that you consider confidential will not be included in the case study. My notes will not be shared with anyone other than other project team members who are working on the guidebook. We will share the results of the case study in the draft for verification of the accuracy of the information presented. If any issues come up regarding the information that you have provided, I may want to follow up with you later. Do you have any questions before we begin? May I have your permission to ask some questions? Discussion with Real Estate and Development Staff Agency management personnel representing real estate, property management, and transit oriented development, for example: o Real estate officer. o Staff responsible for transit oriented development Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities 1. Has the transit agency redesigned an existing park-and-ride facility (or worked with another park-and-ride facility owner to implement a redesign) that facilitates an improved shared use experience (e.g. re-striping to improve efficiency, integrating parking bicycles, adding amenities for users, transitioning to a garage with retail on the ground floor)? 2. How was the transit agency’s existing shared use park-and-ride facilities developed? o Did the partner or the transit agency initiate the agreement? 3. Does the transit agency plan to seek additional shared use agreements in the future? o Is this a cost-saving or a time-saving measure? Or both? Please explain. 4. How much is your transit agency willing to spend on purchase or to rent spaces as opposed to building per space? 5. What strategies does the transit agency use to work effectively with communities and stakeholders?

E-27 6. Probe for the transit agency relationship to municipally controlled park-and-ride and the community impact issues. 7. Does your transit agency have a license agreement for use of parking spaces owned by a private property owner for a fee? License agreement or verbal? 8. How much is your transit agency willing to spend on leasing spaces? Transit Oriented Development (TOD) For transit agencies with TOD experience 1. How does the transit agency ensure that community parking needs and the needs of transit are both adequately provided in a TOD? 2. Does the transit agency initiate TOD development or do partners initiate TOD? o What is the process associated with TOD? o Does the transit agency accept unsolicited proposals? o If yes, what is the process/policy associated with these proposals? 3. What are the local parking replacement policies? o How do these affect TOD? 4. Please describe the financial return associated with TOD. o What is the internal capture rate of TOD? o How has that capture rate affected the required parking capacity for park-and- ride? o What other benefits does the transit agency associated with TOD? 5. What are the challenges associated with TOD? 6. Probe for financial participation. o Is your transit agency’s participation in the TOD financial? For transit agencies without TOD experience 7. Why does the transit agency not participate in TOD? 8. Does the transit agency plan to participate in TOD in the future? o If yes, please describe the plans and the policies associated with the future initiative. Closing Thoughts 1. We would be interested in your suggested ideas for material that could be included in a guidebook about park-and-ride planning. 2. What information would you like to learn from this study? Thank you very much for your time and attention. We appreciate your insights and assistance.

E-28 Site Visit Protocol This protocol applies when case study research occurs at the transit agency. Pre-Site Visit Activities 1. Contact transit agency chief executive officer or senior transit agency official, as appropriate. a. Verify willingness to have a case study developed. b. Develop overall schedule and discuss possible time frames. c. Identify possible transit agency representatives for discussions. 2. Review and become thoroughly familiar with the transit agency mini-case study. a. Identify potential questions specific to the transit agency park-and-ride program. Carefully review information collected in the mini-case study to ensure a firm understanding of the park-and-ride program. b. Highlight sections needing additional detail. Discuss which persons within the transit agency staff may be best positioned to address each question. 3. Confirm names, titles, and contact information for specific other contacts. Modify contact letter and email to each participant to inform them about the study and their role. 4. Prepare itinerary and review with other researchers. 5. Modify site visit template to meet specific needs, schedule, etc. of each potential contact. Possible List of Staff Titles Case study researchers are encouraged to first introduce the case study research by the introductory letter/email to the chief executive officer or appropriate senior transit agency official, requesting and confirming participation and then identify the appropriate staff for different topics. Coordinate the case study research through the appropriate point person, perhaps the transit agency planning director. Ask that individual to help identify the best persons to address the case study research topics:  Operating context  Planning and estimating demand for parking  Park-and-ride capital investment  Managing demand for parking  Shared use of park-and-ride facilities  Parking charges  Design features  Park-and-ride passenger amenities and security  Standard operating procedures (SOPs)

E-29  Contracted parking management  Maintenance and state-of-good-repair  Transit oriented development (TOD)  Innovation The following are examples of the types of staff titles that may be able to address questions about the topics identified above.   Agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to the planning of park-and-ride facilities, for example: o Manager for system planning. o Manager for service planning. o Manager for facility planning. o Park-and-ride design engineer. o Travel demand modeler.  Agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to the managing of park-and-ride facilities, for example: o Manager for transportation. o Manager for facility maintenance. o Manager for security.  Agency management personnel representing finance and budget, for example: o Chief financial officer or comptroller. o Budget officer.  Agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to real estate and development, for example: o Real estate officer. o Staff responsible for transit oriented development. Site visits are intended to be two-day events. Site Visit – Day One: 1. Discussion with the senior transit agency staff, as appropriate. 2. Begin discussions with personnel representing specific functions pertinent to planning park- and-ride. 3. Discussions with transit agency management personnel specific functions pertinent to managing park-and-ride. 4. Review notes and follow-up to clarify previous discussions or schedule additional meetings. 5. Schedule discussions that could not occur during the site visit for discussion by telephone, not in person. Site Visit – Day Two: 6. Continue discussions with transit agency management personnel representing specific functions pertinent to planning park-and-ride. as appropriate.

E-30 7. Discussions with transit agency management personnel responsible for finance, real estate, and development. 8. Schedule discussions that could not occur during the site visit for discussion by telephone, not in person. 9. Exit meeting with the transit agency chief executive officer or chief operating officer. 10. Travel home, or to next site visit.