National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Part 1: Research Report
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 211
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 212
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 213
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 214
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 215
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 216
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 217
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 218
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 220
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 221
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 222
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 223
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 224
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 225
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 226
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 227
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 228
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 229
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 230
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 231
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 232
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 233
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 234
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 235
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 236
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 237
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 238
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 239
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 240
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 241
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 242
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 243
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 244
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 245
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 246
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 247
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 248
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 249
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 250
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 251
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 252
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 253
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 254
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 255
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 256
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 257
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 258
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 259
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 260
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 261
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 262
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 263
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 264
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 265
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 266
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 267
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 268
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 269
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 270
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 271
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 272
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 273
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 274
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 275
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 276
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 277
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 278
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 279
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 280
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 281
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 282
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 283
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 284
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 285
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 286
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 287
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 288
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 289
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 290
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 291
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 292
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 293
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 294
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 295
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 296
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 297
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 298
Page 299
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 299
Page 300
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 300
Page 301
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 301
Page 302
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 302
Page 303
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 303
Page 304
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 304
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 305
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 306
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 307
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 308
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 309
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 310
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 311
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 312
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 313
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 314
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 315
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 316
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 317
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 318
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 319
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 320
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 321
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 322
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 323
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 324
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 325
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 326
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 327
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 328
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 329
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 330
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 331
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 332
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 333
Page 334
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 334
Page 335
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 335
Page 336
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 336
Page 337
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 337
Page 338
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 338
Page 339
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 339
Page 340
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 340
Page 341
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 341
Page 342
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 342
Page 343
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 343
Page 344
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 344
Page 345
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 345
Page 346
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 346
Page 347
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 347
Page 348
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 348
Page 349
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 349
Page 350
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 350
Page 351
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 351
Page 352
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 352
Page 353
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 353
Page 354
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 354
Page 355
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 355
Page 356
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 356
Page 357
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 357
Page 358
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 358
Page 359
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 359
Page 360
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 360
Page 361
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 361
Page 362
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 362
Page 363
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 363
Page 364
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 364
Page 365
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 365
Page 366
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 366
Page 367
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 367
Page 368
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 368
Page 369
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 369
Page 370
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 370
Page 371
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 371
Page 372
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 372
Page 373
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 373
Page 374
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 374
Page 375
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 375
Page 376
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 376
Page 377
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 377
Page 378
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 378
Page 379
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 379
Page 380
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 380
Page 381
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 381
Page 382
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 382
Page 383
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 383
Page 384
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 384
Page 385
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 385
Page 386
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 386
Page 387
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 387
Page 388
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 388
Page 389
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 389
Page 390
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 390
Page 391
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 391
Page 392
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 392
Page 393
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 393
Page 394
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 394
Page 395
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 395
Page 396
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 396
Page 397
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 397
Page 398
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 398
Page 399
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 399
Page 400
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 400
Page 401
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 401
Page 402
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 402
Page 403
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 403
Page 404
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 404
Page 405
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 405
Page 406
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 406
Page 407
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 407
Page 408
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 408
Page 409
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 409
Page 410
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 410
Page 411
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 411
Page 412
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 412
Page 413
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 413
Page 414
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 414
Page 415
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 415
Page 416
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 416
Page 417
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 417
Page 418
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 418
Page 419
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 419
Page 420
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 420
Page 421
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 421
Page 422
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 422
Page 423
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 423
Page 424
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 424
Page 425
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 425
Page 426
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 426
Page 427
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 427
Page 428
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 428
Page 429
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 429
Page 430
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 430
Page 431
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 431
Page 432
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 432
Page 433
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 433
Page 434
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 434
Page 435
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 435
Page 436
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 436
Page 437
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 437
Page 438
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 438
Page 439
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 439
Page 440
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 440
Page 441
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 441
Page 442
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 442
Page 443
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 443
Page 444
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 444
Page 445
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 445
Page 446
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 446
Page 447
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 447
Page 448
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 448
Page 449
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 449
Page 450
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 450
Page 451
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 451
Page 452
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 452
Page 453
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 453
Page 454
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 454
Page 455
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 455
Page 456
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 456
Page 457
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 457
Page 458
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 458
Page 459
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 459
Page 460
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 460
Page 461
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 461
Page 462
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 462
Page 463
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 463
Page 464
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 464
Page 465
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 465
Page 466
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 466
Page 467
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 467
Page 468
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 468
Page 469
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 469
Page 470
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 470
Page 471
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 471
Page 472
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 472
Page 473
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 473
Page 474
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 474
Page 475
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 475
Page 476
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 476
Page 477
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 477
Page 478
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 478
Page 479
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 479
Page 480
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 480
Page 481
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 481
Page 482
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 482
Page 483
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 483
Page 484
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 484
Page 485
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 485
Page 486
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 486
Page 487
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 487
Page 488
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 488
Page 489
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 489
Page 490
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 490
Page 491
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 491
Page 492
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 492
Page 493
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 493
Page 494
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 494
Page 495
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 495
Page 496
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 496
Page 497
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 497
Page 498
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 498
Page 499
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 499
Page 500
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 500
Page 501
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 501
Page 502
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 502
Page 503
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 503
Page 504
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 504
Page 505
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 505
Page 506
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 506
Page 507
Suggested Citation:"Part 2: Transit Agency Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation: Research Report and Transit Agency Case Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24820.
×
Page 507

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.

2-1 DECISION-MAKING TOOLBOX TO PLAN AND MANAGE PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PART 2: TRANSIT AGENCY CASE STUDIES

2-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 7  List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 8  Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10  BART – San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ....................................................... 11  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11  Background ............................................................................................................................... 11  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ....................................................................................... 13  Policies to Manage Demand for Parking .................................................................................. 15  Parking Programs ...................................................................................................................... 15  Innovation ................................................................................................................................. 20  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................... 21  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 21  Calgary Transit ........................................................................................................................... 22  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 22  Background ............................................................................................................................... 22  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ....................................................................................... 25  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................... 30  Charging for Parking ................................................................................................................ 31  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ......................................................................... 33  Managing Demand for Parking ................................................................................................. 36  Standard Operating Procedures ................................................................................................ 37  In-House Parking Management ................................................................................................ 37  Design Features ......................................................................................................................... 38  Park-and-Ride Capital Investment ............................................................................................ 39  Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................................................. 40  Innovation ................................................................................................................................. 42  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................... 43  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 43  ConnDOT – Connecticut Department of Transportation ....................................................... 45  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45  Background ............................................................................................................................... 45  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ......................................................................... 50  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................... 54  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 54  CTA – Chicago Transit Authority ............................................................................................. 56  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 56  Background ............................................................................................................................... 56  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ....................................................................................... 58  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................... 60  Charging for Parking ................................................................................................................ 61  Managing Demand for Parking ................................................................................................. 63  Contracted Parking Management .............................................................................................. 63 

2-3 Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................... 64  Design Features ......................................................................................................................... 65  Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................................................. 66  Innovation ................................................................................................................................. 66  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 68  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................... 68  DART – Dallas Area Rapid Transit .......................................................................................... 69  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 69  Background ............................................................................................................................... 69  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ....................................................................................... 72  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................... 76  Charging for Parking ................................................................................................................ 78  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ......................................................................... 81  Managing Demand for Parking ................................................................................................. 83  In-House Parking Management ................................................................................................ 86  Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................... 87  Park-and-Ride Capital Investment ............................................................................................ 88  Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................................................. 90  Innovation ................................................................................................................................. 92  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................... 93  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 93  Denver RTD – Regional Transportation District .................................................................... 94  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 94  Background ............................................................................................................................... 94  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ....................................................................................... 98  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 101  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 101  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 105  Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 107  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 107  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 110  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 111  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 112  GCRTA – Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority ................................................... 113  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 113  Background ............................................................................................................................. 113  Park-and-Ride Planning Process ............................................................................................. 117  Examples of Design Features from Community Feedback .................................................... 119  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 122  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 122  Houston METRO – Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County ............................. 123  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 123  Background ............................................................................................................................. 123  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 129  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 141  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 144 

2-4 Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 147  Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................. 150  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 152  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 153  Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 154  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 156  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 156  LA Metro – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ........................ 157  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 157  Background ............................................................................................................................. 157  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 159  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 160  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 163  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 164  Metra – Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation .............................. 165  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 165  Background ............................................................................................................................. 165  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 169  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 171  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 172  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 173  Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 174  Standard Operating Procedures .............................................................................................. 175  Contracted Parking Management ............................................................................................ 175  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 176  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 177  Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 177  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 178  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 178  NJ TRANSIT – New Jersey Transit ........................................................................................ 179  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 179  Background ............................................................................................................................. 179  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 182  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 188  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 190  Planning, Estimating, and Managing Demand for Parking .................................................... 193  Contracted Parking Management ............................................................................................ 195  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 196  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 197  Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 200  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 200  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 201  Port Authority of Allegheny County ....................................................................................... 202  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 202  Background ............................................................................................................................. 202  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 205 

2-5 Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 207  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 208  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 209  Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 211  Standard Operating Procedures .............................................................................................. 212  Contracted Parking Management ............................................................................................ 213  Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................. 214  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 215  Park-and-Ride Capital Investment .......................................................................................... 216  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 217  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 218  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 218  Sound Transit and King County Metro .................................................................................. 220  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 220  Background ............................................................................................................................. 220  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 227  Shared-Use Park-And-Ride Facilities ..................................................................................... 230  Reserved Parking Permit Program .......................................................................................... 231  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 234  Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 235  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 236  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 238  Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 242  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 243  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 244  TriMet – Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon .............................. 245  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 245  Background ............................................................................................................................. 245  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 250  Shared-Use Park-and-Ride Facilities ...................................................................................... 253  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 256  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 256  Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 262  Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................. 262  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 263  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 263  Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 264  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 264  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 265  UTA – Utah Transit Authority ................................................................................................ 267  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 267  Background ............................................................................................................................. 267  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 269  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 274  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 276  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 277 

2-6 Managing Demand for Parking ............................................................................................... 280  Operating Procedures and Facility Management .................................................................... 281  Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................. 281  Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 282  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 283  Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 285  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 285  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 286  WMATA – Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority .................................................... 287  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 287  Background ............................................................................................................................. 287  Operating Context for Park-and-Ride ..................................................................................... 290  Shared Use of Park-and-Ride Facilities .................................................................................. 293  Charging for Parking .............................................................................................................. 294  Planning and Estimating Demand for Parking ....................................................................... 296  Standard Operating Procedures .............................................................................................. 298  Contracted Parking Management ............................................................................................ 299  Maintenance and State of Good Repair .................................................................................. 299  Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................... 300  Summary—Notable Practices ................................................................................................. 301  Summary—Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 301  References .................................................................................................................................. 303 

2-7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. BART System Map, 2016. ............................................................................................ 12  Figure 2. BART Parking Facility Fill Times, October 2015. ....................................................... 18  Figure 3. Funding Sources for Calgary Transit. ........................................................................... 23  Figure 4. Calgary Transit Services Ridership 1996–2013. ........................................................... 28  Figure 5. Various ConnDOT Logos. ............................................................................................. 45  Figure 6. CTfastrak Service Map. ................................................................................................. 49  Figure 7. Dallas Area Rapid Transit Service Area. ...................................................................... 71  Figure 8. Denver RTD Parking Utilization, Suburban and Ex-Urban Facilities, 2016. ............. 100  Figure 9. GCRTA Rapid Transit Map. ....................................................................................... 116  Figure 10. Mounding and Sound Walls at GCRTA North Olmsted Park-n-Ride. ..................... 119  Figure 11. Mounding and Sound Walls at GCRTA North Olmsted Park-n-Ride as Seen from a Distance. .................................................................................................................. 120  Figure 12. Monument Sign at GCRTA Westlake Park-n-Ride Featuring a Local Hotel. .......... 121  Figure 13. Example of Arched Bridge with Decorative Fencing at GCRTA Westlake Park-n-Ride. ........................................................................................................................ 121  Figure 14. Houston METRO Park & Ride Routes. .................................................................... 126  Figure 15. Houston METRO Boardings by Service Category. .................................................. 127  Figure 16. Houston METRO HOT/HOV Highway Corridors. .................................................. 128  Figure 17. Houston METRO Park & Ride Locations. ................................................................ 132  Figure 18. Houston METRO Transit Centers. ............................................................................ 134  Figure 19. Houston METRO HOV Lanes. ................................................................................. 136  Figure 20. Closed Circuit TVs at Houston METRO Park & Rides. ........................................... 139  Figure 21. Houston METRO Security Incidents......................................................................... 140  Figure 22. Map of Metra Service Area. ...................................................................................... 166  Figure 23. Rendering of Morristown Transit Village in NewJersey. ......................................... 198  Figure 24. South Hills Village Garage, Pittsburgh. .................................................................... 213  Figure 25. PSRC Service District and Seattle UZA. .................................................................. 222  Figure 26. Puget Sound Region Park-and-Ride Map, 2015........................................................ 226  Figure 27. Puget Sound Regional Transit Coordination Organization Chart. ............................ 228  Figure 28. King County Metro Transit Access Improvements by Zones. .................................. 235  Figure 29. Example of Park-and-Ride Facility Description on the TriMet Website. ................. 252  Figure 30. Development Adjacent to TriMet Willow Creek / 185th Avenue Station. ............... 261  Figure 31. Locations of Park-and-Ride Facilities on the UTA Rail System. ............................. 272  Figure 32. WMATA MetroRail System Map. ............................................................................ 288 

2-8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. BART Budget and Service Area Size. ............................................................................ 12  Table 2. Key BART Operating Statistics. ..................................................................................... 13  Table 3. BART System-wide Access Targets (AM Peak). ........................................................... 15  Table 4. Calgary Transit Total Service Operating Statistics for 2014. ......................................... 24  Table 5. Calgary Transit Fares. ..................................................................................................... 24  Table 6. Calgary Transit Park-and-Ride Inventory. ...................................................................... 25  Table 7. Calgary Transit Monthly Reserved Parking Statistics for October 2015. ...................... 27  Table 8. Calgary Transit Annual Operating Costs for Parking. .................................................... 38  Table 9. Some Characteristics of a More Sustainable Community in Calgary Region. ............... 39  Table 10. Calgary Transit Park-and-Ride Capital Investment. ..................................................... 40  Table 11. ConnDOT Fares. ........................................................................................................... 47  Table 12. ConnDOT Park-and-Ride Facilities and Spaces. .......................................................... 48  Table 13. CTfastrak Parking Capacity. ......................................................................................... 50  Table 14. CTA Budget and Service Area Size. ............................................................................ 56  Table 15. Key CTA Operating Statistics by Mode. ...................................................................... 58  Table 16. CTA One-Way Fares. ................................................................................................... 58  Table 17. CTA Parking Cost and Time Limit by Facility. ........................................................... 62  Table 18. DART Budget and Service Area Size. .......................................................................... 70  Table 19. Key DART Operating Statistics by Mode. ................................................................... 71  Table 20. DART Fares. ................................................................................................................. 72  Table 21. DART Parking Statistics by Facility Type. .................................................................. 72  Table 22. DART Average Parking Utilization. ............................................................................ 84  Table 23. DART Stations Over 75 Percent Capacity, December 2015. ....................................... 84  Table 24. DART Transit Facilities by Facility Type. ................................................................... 87  Table 25. DART Maintenance Investments for Park-and-Ride Facilities. ................................... 88  Table 26. DART Capital Investments for Park-and-Ride Facility Expansion or Enhancement. ........................................................................................................................ 89  Table 27. Denver RTD Budget and Service Area Size. ................................................................ 95  Table 28. Key Denver RTD Operating Statistics by Mode. ......................................................... 97  Table 29. Denver RTD Fares. ....................................................................................................... 97  Table 30. Denver RTD Parking Utilization by Mode. .................................................................. 97  Table 31. ADA Minimum Parking Requirements. ..................................................................... 109  Table 32. Denver RTD Customer Opinions on Full Parking Facilities. ..................................... 111  Table 33. GCRTA Budget and Service Area Size. ..................................................................... 114  Table 34. GCRTA Key Operating Statistics by Mode. .............................................................. 114  Table 35. GCRTA One-Way Fares. ............................................................................................ 115  Table 36. GCRTA List of Facilities Designated as Bus Park-and-Rides. .................................. 115  Table 37. Houston METRO Budget and Service Area Size. ...................................................... 124  Table 38. Key Houston METRO Operating Statistics by Mode. ............................................... 125  Table 39. Houston METRO Parking Statistics. .......................................................................... 125  Table 40. Houston METRO Park & Ride Facilities Summary. .................................................. 133  Table 41. Houston METRO Transit Centers with Parking Summary. ....................................... 135  Table 42. Houston METRO HOV Lane Summaries. ................................................................. 136 

2-9 Table 43. Houston METRO Current Fare Structure. .................................................................. 141  Table 44. LA Metro Budget and Service Area Size. .................................................................. 157  Table 45. Key LA Metro Operating Statistics by Mode. ............................................................ 158  Table 46. LA Metro One-Way Transit Fares. ............................................................................. 158  Table 47. Metra Service Area Size and Budget. ......................................................................... 166  Table 48. Key Metra 2014 Operating Statistics . ........................................................................ 168  Table 49. NJ TRANSIT Service Area and Budget. .................................................................... 180  Table 50. Key NJ TRANSIT Operating Statistics by Mode. ...................................................... 181  Table 51. NJ TRANSIT One-Way Fares. ................................................................................... 181  Table 52. Key Population and Commuter Statistics for New Jersey Counties Served by NJ TRANSIT Commuter Rail. ........................................................................................... 183  Table 53. Sample Park-and-Ride Utilization Table from NJ TRANSIT 2015 Parking Guide for Pascack Valley Commuter Rail Line.................................................................. 185  Table 54. NJ TRANSIT Park-and-Ride Utilization by Mode. ................................................... 185  Table 55. List of NJ TRANSIT Park-and-Ride Facility Types. ................................................. 188  Table 56. Port Authority of Allegheny County Service Area and Budgets. ............................... 203  Table 57. Key Port Authority of Allegheny County Operating Statistics by Mode. .................. 204  Table 58. Port Authority of Allegheny County One-Way Fares. ............................................... 204  Table 59. Port Authority of Allegheny County Park-and-Ride Lots and Spaces by Mode 2016. .................................................................................................................................... 205  Table 60. Port Authority of Allegheny County Park-and-Ride Fees by Location. ..................... 209  Table 61. King County Metro and Sound Transit Budgets and Size of Service Areas. ............. 220  Table 62. King County Metro and Sound Transit Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service, by Mode. ............................................................................................................... 223  Table 63. Key King County Metro and Sound Transit Operating Statistics. ............................. 223  Table 64. King County Metro and Sound Transit One-Way Fares. ........................................... 223  Table 65. Puget Sound Region Parking Utilization by Facility Owner. ..................................... 224  Table 66. Puget Sound Region Parking Utilization by Facility Operator. .................................. 224  Table 67. TriMet Budget and Service Area Size. ....................................................................... 246  Table 68. Key TriMet Operating Statistics. ................................................................................ 248  Table 69. TriMet Fares. .............................................................................................................. 248  Table 70. TriMet Parking Utilization by Mode. ......................................................................... 249  Table 71. Maximum TriMet Cost for Shared-Use or Joint Development Park-and-Ride Facilities (Year 2000 US$). ................................................................................................ 254  Table 72. Maximum Cost for TriMet Park-and-Ride Facilities (Year 2000 US$). .................... 260  Table 73. UTA Service Area and Population. ............................................................................ 268  Table 74. Key UTA Operating Statistics by Mode. .................................................................... 269  Table 75. UTA One-Way Fares. ................................................................................................. 269  Table 76. WMATA Budget and Service Area Size. ................................................................... 289  Table 77. Key WMATA Operating Statistics by Mode. ............................................................ 289  Table 78. WMATA One-Way Fares. .......................................................................................... 290 

2-10 INTRODUCTION 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. TCRP Web-Only Document 69 is in two parts. Part 1 summarizes the research team’s findings from a literature review and a state-of-the-practice scan, describes the case study research methodology, and outlines the guidebook. This is Part 2 of the report, which documents the following 16 case studies in this order (alpha by acronym or popular name). BART San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Calgary Transit Calgary Transit ConnDOT Connecticut Department of Transportation CTA Chicago Transit Authority DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit Denver RTD Regional Transportation District GCRTA Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Houston METRO Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County LA Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metra Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp. NJ TRANSIT New Jersey Transit Port Authority of Allegheny County Port Authority of Allegheny County Sound Transit and King County Metro Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority andKing County Metro * TriMet Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon UTA Utah Transit Authority WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority * King County Metro was added to the Sound Transit case study due to the integrated nature of park-and-ride services in the Puget Sound region. Transit agency characteristics and parking facility statistics in the case studies may not match the statistics reported in Part 1 appendices for an inventory of park-and-ride facilities (Appendix B) and state-of-the-practice scan (Appendix C) because of the different sources of information and different reference years. The case studies include data and other information provided by each respective transit agency in 2016.

2-11 BART – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT INTRODUCTION This focused case study describes the aspects of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District’s park-and-ride program relating to managing parking demand and parking programs. Park-and-ride has been a key mode of access to BART stations. The transit agency has parking facilities at 33 of its 45 stations, with 46,735 spaces total. Long-term parking is offered at 31 of the 33 parking facilities. Population growth has caused parking to be expensive and scarce throughout the region. This has put additional pressure on the BART park-and-ride facilities, many of which are now located in the middle of dense development. Nearly all of BART’s parking facilities are at capacity every weekday, compelling the transit agency to take a variety of measures to manage parking. This case study focuses on BART’s parking demand management strategies. Case study efforts included email communication and phone interviews. BACKGROUND Brief Description of BART BART began construction of its heavy rail system in 1962 and began revenue service in 1972. Today, BART operates five heavy rail lines comprised of 45 stations and 107 miles of track (Figure 1). These lines connect Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, and serve the San Francisco Airport. In addition, an automated people mover connects the Coliseum Station to the Oakland International Airport. Construction is underway to extend the system south from Fremont to Warm Springs, where BART will connect with Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority transit service. The greater San Francisco Bay Area and BART have experienced tremendous growth in the 44 years since BART started service. When it opened in 1972, BART carried approximately 170,000 passengers per week. In 2015, on the average weekday, the two busiest stations (Embarcadero and Montgomery) accounted for over 170,000 trips, as many passengers as the full system carried in a week in 1972 (BART 2016a). The growth has put pressure on all aspects of the BART system, including transit centers, park-and-ride facilities, and bicycle storage facilities. Table 1 presents BART’s 2016 budget and 2014 (the most recent National Transit Database data) service area size. BART has one of the most well-developed station access planning programs in the United States. The program’s policy basis is the transit agency’s Access Management and Improvements Policy adopted in 2000 (BART 2000). The guidelines identify an access hierarchy prioritizing low-cost,

high-cap BART to operators to station reflect th 2014 Ser ( Source: Fe Gover A nine-m BART. B standing meetings The trans property acity modes effectively , and other s s system wi e changes in So vice Area sq. miles) 2 93 deral Transit A nance ember boar oard memb committees are availabl it agency’s tax, regiona and describ deal with th takeholders de. BART is growth of t urce: BART W Fig Table 1. 014 Service Popul 83 dministration d of director ers serve a f are generall e on-deman funding sou l bridge toll e planning p e numerous located wit in the proc he region an ebsite. ure 1. BAR BART Bud Area ation 2014 (pe 3,762 2014 and BAR s elected fro our-year ter y twice a m d through B rces include s designated 2-12 rinciples fo local jurisdi hin its servic ess of updat d the opera T System M get and Se Service Are Densit rson/sq. mile 8,96 T 2015d. m each of t m. Regular m onth. The m ART’s web fares, parki for capital r r each mode ctions, trans e area, and ing its acces ting environ ap, 2016. rvice Area a y ) Operatin 5 $84 he nine BAR eetings of eetings are s site. ng revenues enovation a . This frame it agencies, to apply a c s planning g ment. Size. FY 2016 g Budget 6,300,000 T transit di the board of treamed liv , federal fun nd expansio work allow shuttle onsistent pr uidelines to FY Capital Bu $664,70 stricts gover directors an e, and past ds, state fun n of the BA s ocess 2016 dget 0,000 ns d ds, RT

2-13 system, general obligation bonds, sales tax revenue bonds, and a dedicated $0.375 sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco. BART reported a 2015 fare recovery ratio of over 75 percent. BART’s one-way fares are based on distance traveled and can range from $1.95 to $15.70. Table 2 shows key BART operating statistics. Table 2. Key BART Operating Statistics. Service Mode Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Average Weekday Unlinked Trips Annual Unlinked Trips Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Operating Expenses (000s) Fare Revenues (000s) Heavy Rail 534 417,286 125,784,207 64,766,101 1,803,171 $533,551 $415,742 Note: Parking fee revenues are included in Other Revenues. Source: Federal Transit Administration 2014. Developed as a regional transportation network over 40 years ago, the BART system included significant parking facilities at all of its non-downtown locations. Today, 33 of the 45 stations either have structured or surface parking with a total of 46,735 parking spaces. Fees are charged at all parking facilities. The 12 stations that do not have parking are the stations at the Oakland and San Francisco airports, one station in downtown Berkeley, two stations in downtown Oakland, and seven stations in downtown San Francisco. OPERATING CONTEXT FOR PARK-AND-RIDE Factors That Impact Park-and-Ride Growth in the San Francisco Bay area has resulted in a sprawling metropolitan area with workers traveling from ever-increasing distances to work in San Francisco, the Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County), and other employment centers. Parking is limited and expensive in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and activity centers throughout the region. This creates dual pressures on BART’s parking facilities from customers who use the facilities to access the BART system and from non-transit customers who are simply looking for a place to park in order to do business in the surrounding neighborhood. Increased congestion on the transportation network has encouraged commuters to find alternative modes to work. BART’s weekday ridership increased 19 percent in the seven years from 2008 to 2015. During the same period, the number of park-and-ride spaces available is essentially the same, so almost all park-and-ride facilities are at capacity every weekday. Because park-and-ride spaces have not increased with ridership, the percentage of patrons accessing BART through park-and-ride was 39 percent in 2008 and 29 percent in 2015. In addition to pressure from increasing ridership, the park-and-ride facilities are attractive to non- transit customers who are simply looking for a place to park. BART has instituted policies to help ensure that only customers are using its facilities.

2-14 In addition to the pressures from development, perceptions of transit have changed in recent years. Residences in walkable areas near transit have become highly desirable. Homes and offices near BART stations now sell and rent at a premium compared to locations farther from transit. The land adjacent to BART stations is becoming increasingly valuable as a revenue source for BART and as an opportunity to help implement state and regional policy goals. Affordable housing goals seek to allow lower-income persons to live closer to their jobs. Transit-oriented development (TOD) where property currently used for parking is converted into residential and mixed-use development is viewed as a strategy for achieving housing goals. However, at $40,000–$60,000 per space for structured parking, the cost of replacement parking is an obstacle to providing more workforce housing near BART (BART 2015c). Eligible Access to Park-and-Ride BART parking lots and garages are restricted to use by its customers, defined as one who parks a vehicle in a BART parking facility and proceeds directly to the paid area of the adjacent BART station. There are two exceptions:  The original parking garage at the Pleasant Hill Station was built with federal highway funds. As such, the facility is not restricted to BART customers only. Anyone who pays the parking fee can park in the facility.  Caltrain commuters are allowed to the Millbrae park-and-ride facility. Carpools. Twenty-one parking facilities contain designated areas for permitted carpoolers on weekdays from 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. These permits require that at least two Carpool-to-BART registered carpoolers be in the vehicle upon parking and have carpool parking permits visible on the dashboard through the windshield of the parked and permitted vehicle. Cars pulling in with just one person are subject to citation, even if they dropped off a passenger at BART before parking. Having a carpool permit does not guarantee a parking space, and after 10:00 a.m., any open carpool space is available for general use. Permits are available by telephone, through the Regional Rideshare Program at 5-1-1. There is no charge for the permits, but customers parking in the carpool areas are still required to pay the daily fee. Taxis. The BART District’s taxi rules are intended to facilitate the orderly operation of taxis on BART District property. Rules state, in part, that taxis should be parked within the limits of the taxi stand (yellow-white-green curb) or designated taxi area. In stations without a taxi stand, the passenger zone will serve as the default taxi stand, but only one taxi can be parked to pick up customers there. When the taxi stand is full, taxis must immediately be driven off the property via the most direct route without stopping, parking, circling, or roaming (BART 2015b). Carsharing. A total of 54 park-and-ride spaces are reserved at 10 parking facilities for the carsharing services City CarShare® and ZipCar®. In addition, carsharing is encouraged by including links to carsharing websites from the individual park-and-ride facility pages on the BART website.

2-15 Bicycles. Bicycles are an essential part of BART’s access planning, with 31 of the 45 stations having some level of bicycle parking. Currently, there is capacity to park almost 4,000 bicycles, with the two largest bicycle-oriented facilities (Downtown Berkeley and Dublin/Pleasanton) each having over 300 bike parking spaces. The BART Bike Parking Capital Plan (April 2015) calls for restructuring the types of bicycle facilities and adding additional capacity for a total of 6,083 spaces. Bike parking is typically located inside or immediately outside the station and is not linked to the automobile parking facilities. POLICIES TO MANAGE DEMAND FOR PARKING BART developed an Access Management and Improvements Policy in 2000 and Station Access Guidelines in 2003 (BART 2000, 2003). The Guidelines provided mode of access targets that demonstrated the intent to shift access away from drive-alone to other modes (Table 3). A TOD policy was added to the access policy and guidelines in 2005. One goal of the TOD policy is designed to encourage walk access and reduce reliance on auto access to stations (BART 2005). Table 3. BART System-wide Access Targets (AM Peak). Access Mode 1998 Mode Share 2005 Targets 2010 Targets Walk 23.0% 24.0% 24.5% Bike 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% Transit 21.0% 21.5% 22.0% Drop-off, Carpool, Taxi 16.0% 19.0% 19.5% Drive Alone 38.0% 33.0% 31.0% Source: BART 2000. Much has changed in the years since the initial access policy in 2000. The district has experienced rapid ridership growth, implemented parking pricing, and adopted new policies, and several expansion projects have opened or are under construction. These factors present an opportunity to update the station access policy to better reflect the current context and guide station access investments, resource management, and practices through 2025. The updated access policy is currently in development (BART 2016b). PARKING PROGRAMS Until 2002, parking was free at all facilities except Lake Merritt, which had a $0.25 fee to discourage college students at the adjacent Laney College from parking there. BART now has almost 15 years of experience with using system-wide parking fees to manage parking demand. The parking permit program is contracted out to a vendor who handles all aspects of the program except for enforcement (BART n.d.).

2-16 Monthly Reserved Parking Program In 2002, the first system-wide paid parking program launched to provide an option to regular commuters. The monthly reserved parking allows passengers to purchase guaranteed parking near the entrance to a station until 10:00 a.m. on weekdays. The authorized number of spaces set aside for reserved parking could not exceed 40 percent, 25 percent for monthly parking, and the remainder for single day and airport/long-term parking. The remaining 60 percent of the spaces would be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. The program was successful, with waiting lists soon developing for the most popular facilities. In June 2016, the monthly reserved parking fees ranged from $73.50 to $105.00, and West Oakland was $210.00 per month. In 2016, all stations had a waitlist for the monthly reserved parking program, with over 33,000 persons on waitlists. Daily Reserved Parking Program In 2005, the BART Board of Directors approved several new parking programs designed to enhance revenues, including criteria-based daily weekday parking fees at selected stations. The criteria for implementing daily weekday parking fees were (a) parking at the station fills three or more days a week and at least 15 percent of the parking spaces at the station are sold as monthly reserved parking; or (b) the local government jurisdiction requested that BART implement a daily fee. The parking fees are limited to weekdays. Parking is free at all stations on weekends. Daily reserved permits are purchased online for a specific date. A maximum of 10 single-day permits may be purchased through the online system, no more than two months in advance. The permit offers a space to park in the station’s permit/reserved areas until 10:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. In February 2016, daily reserved parking fees ranged from $4.50 to $6.00, and were $11.00 at West Oakland. Airport/Long-Term Reserved Parking Program Airport and long-term parking is available at 30 parking facilities. Those excluded from the program are Glen Park, which has five-hour parking only; Coliseum, which is very close to the Oakland airport; and West Oakland, which is heavily used by commuters. This program is the only one that allows parking in excess of 24 consecutive hours, up to 30 days. The permit must be purchased online no sooner than two months in advance of the desired parking dates. For security purposes, the permit will only display the date of the first day of the permit reservation and enforcement officers will verify the permit duration electronically. The permit is valid for spaces in the permit/reserved areas or non-restricted areas. Fees are assessed daily, including weekends, except for the weekend days for those permits that begin or end on a weekend. In June 2016, the daily fees were $7.00 per day at most stations, with a few facilities charging $6.00 or $6.50 per day (including weekends).

2-17 Demand-Based Parking Program The reserved parking permit program provided an option to commuters but did not curb demand. With long waitlists to purchase monthly parking permits, BART recognized that the continuing and growing pressures on parking facilities would require moving toward a market-based fee structure. In summer 2013, BART implemented a demand-based parking program for general (non-reserved) parking (BART 2013). The purpose of the program is to (a) use limited demand- responsive pricing to recover the operating costs of providing parking at BART; (b) generate funding dedicated exclusively for station and access improvements; and (c) encourage non- parking modes of access at BART stations. The program specifies that occupancy in parking facilities be evaluated every six months. If the lot is found to be more than 95 percent occupied during the AM peak period, BART may increase the parking fee by $0.50. The maximum cost is capped at $3 per day at all stations except at West Oakland, the last station in Oakland for passengers inbound to San Francisco, which has no maximum fee. Any change in parking fees remains in effect for at least six months. All revenue raised from the fees goes to programs for improved station access, program enforcement, increased security, and station rehabilitation and modernization. Parking remains free at all stations on weekends. The reserved parking programs (daily, monthly, and airport/long term) are also subject to the demand-based parking program. The demand-based daily parking fee program was implemented with a fee of $5.00 per day at West Oakland and $1.00 per day at all other stations. A winter 2014 evaluation of the program found that the facilities were more than 95 percent full at all but two stations. Per the program specifications, occupancy rates are evaluated every six months, and fees are increased by $0.50 per day for those stations, typically in February and August. As of August 2016, 28 parking facilities were at the cap of $3.00, five were at $2.00 or $2.50, and the West Oakland parking facility was $8.50 per day. BART has not noticed a measurable impact on parking demand with the parking fee increases. These pricing changes have been implemented during a period of quickly growing ridership, so demand for parking at most BART stations continues to exceed supply. Figure 2 shows the time of day each parking facility reached capacity in October 2015 (BART 2015e). Thirteen lots filled before 8:00 a.m., with another 13 filling before 9:00 a.m. Given that most stations are already at the cap, a program change will be necessary to maintain the goal of having a demand-based fee program and encourage alternative modes of access to the stations.

2-18 Note: Glen Park is not shown—parking is not available before 10:00 a.m. Source: BART 2015e. Figure 2. BART Parking Facility Fill Times, October 2015. Payment Options To reduce the instance of persons parking at BART facilities for purposes other than to ride BART, the daily parking fee payment is only available inside the station fare gates, requiring patrons to pay a fare before they can pay the daily parking fee. Reserved parking permits are purchased online through BART’s parking permit vendor at the Select-a-Spot website (linked from the BART website). Various methods are available to pay for daily parking fees. For those who wish to pay with cash, they enter their parking stall number at an addfare/parking validation machine and retain the receipt. For those paying with a prepaid magnetic stripe BART blue ticket, the process is similar except for inserting a blue ticket for payment instead of cash. The blue ticket must have enough value to cover the cost of parking and the minimum BART fare, and must be the same ticket used to enter the fare gate. Many customers now use a smartcard called the Clipper® card. Using a Clipper card allows the customer to register for the EZ Rider Parking program. Once an account is set up with a credit/debit card and the Clipper card serial number, a hang-tag is mailed to the customer to be displayed in his or her car. To pay for parking, the customer tags his or her Clipper card at a parking validation machine after entering the fare gates, which activates the hang-tag. This deducts the daily fee charge from the customer’s EZ Rider Parking account only on the days that he or she parks and tags the validation machine. Although the Clipper card is tagged at the validation machine, parking payment is charged to the customer’s EZ Rider Parking account, not the Clipper card fare payment account. Station Fill Time Station Fill Time West Oakland 6:30 AM Concord 8:20 AM Pittsburg/Bay Point 7:00 AM Ashby 8:25 AM Lake Merritt 7:05 AM El Cerrito Plaza 8:25 AM Union City 7:25 AM El Cerrito del Norte 8:25 AM Rockridge 7:30 AM Fruitvale (c) 8:35 AM Walnut Creek 7:35 AM North Berkeley 8:40 AM Fremont 7:40 AM Colma 8:40 AM MacArthur 7:45 AM Richmond 8:40 AM Orinda 7:45 AM North Concord 8:55 AM Dublin/Pleasanton 7:45 AM Hayward 8:55 AM West Dublin/Pleasanton 7:45 AM San Bruno 9:00 AM Lafayette 7:50 AM South Hayward 9:00 AM San Leandro 7:50 AM Bay Fair 9:05 AM Castro Valley 8:10 AM Coliseum/Oak Airport 9:15 AM Daly City 8:15 AM South San Francisco 9:20 AM Pleasant Hill 8:15 AM Millbrae 11:15 AM

2-19 Revenue and Costs Parking fees are a significant source of revenue for BART. The reserved parking programs generated approximately $12 million in revenue for BART in Fiscal Year (FY) 09. By 2013, that amount had increased to $15 million. The new demand-based parking program created daily fees and also allowed for increases to the reserved parking programs. This dramatically increased parking revenues, to $36 million in 2015. The revenues from the demand-based parking program are dedicated exclusively for station and access improvements, program enforcement, and encouragement of non-parking modes of access at BART stations. Among other improvements, the transit agency has hired six additional officers to enforce the program and provide additional security in the parking facilities. Operations and maintenance of the parking facilities are handled in house. A recent cost study found that parking costs the transit agency $1.28/space per day. Parking fees are achieving the intent of the demand-based parking program to use limited demand-responsive pricing to recover the operating costs of providing parking at BART stations. Rules and Regulations In addition to parking fee programs, all facilities have additional rules and regulations that must be followed. Following is a summary of key regulations and requirements (BART 2015a). Definition of a Customer. First, BART parking lots and garages are restricted to use by its customers. A customer is defined as one who parks a vehicle in a BART parking facility, proceeds directly to the paid area of the adjacent BART station, and takes a roundtrip on BART, returning directly to his or her vehicle. Others are subject to fine and, if using a reserved parking permit, could have their permit revoked. The one exception is the original parking garage at the Pleasant Hill Station. The facility was built with federal highway funds, and as such, it must be open for anyone who pays the designated parking fee. Weekday Hours. Reserved permit parking spaces are available on a first-come, first-served basis to permit holders until 10:00 a.m., at which point they are open to anyone. Daily fees apply for parking from 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., after which parking is free for the remainder of the day. There is a 24-hour weekday time limit on parking in all BART lots unless an airport/long-term parking permit has been purchased for those days. Vehicles left in BART parking facilities for more than 24 hours are subject to fine. Some stations have designated midday parking areas. These areas do not allow vehicles to be parked prior to 10:00 a.m. This leaves spaces available for customers arriving after 10:00 a.m. Extended Weekend Parking. At all BART parking facilities, the 24-hour rule for leaving a vehicle is waived during and throughout weekends and the nine designated holidays, except for those fees that are detailed within the airport/long-term parking reservation policy. A vehicle may be left at a BART parking facility throughout the weekends, and payment of parking fees is

2-20 not required for those days. Payment is required for any normal operating days either following or preceding a BART designated holiday, Saturday, or Sunday. Carpool Parking. Many of the stations’ parking lots contain designated areas for permitted carpoolers between 4:00 and 10:00 a.m. These permits require that at least two Carpool-to- BART registered carpoolers be in the vehicle upon parking and at least two carpool parking permits be visible on the dashboard through the windshield of the parked and permitted vehicle. Permits are obtained by calling the Regional Rideshare Program at 5-1-1. There is no charge for the permits, but customers parking in the carpool areas are still required to pay for parking at those stations with requisite parking fees. Enforcement Without a strong enforcement program, the parking fee program would not be successful. Enforcement of the parking programs is the responsibility of the BART police department. In 2016, there were six full-time enforcement officers and 26 additional officers whose duties include parking enforcement. The revenue from the parking program is being used to hire an additional four full-time parking enforcement officers. Researchers anticipated that the hiring trend would continue in future years. Parking permits are issued to a specific license plate number and can only be validated by enforcement personnel if entered correctly. In addition, BART police can also use the information in the event something out of the ordinary should happen that requires them to get in contact with the vehicle owner. Title VI The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ruled that parking fees do not require a Title VI analysis. A parking fee is related to the mode of access and is separate from the transit fare. INNOVATION Parking enforcement for the reserved parking programs is based on specific license plate numbers. To facilitate monitoring, BART is procuring license plate reading technology that can rapidly scan parked cars and verify whether the vehicle is registered in a parking program. This will greatly improve the efficiency of monitoring the program, preserve the program’s integrity, and make more efficient use of resources. BART’s fare and parking technology system allows 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 allow push notices on parking availability to be sent to customers, such as through a text

2-21 message. The data will be available to the developer community, so others can create apps that customize the information for customers. SUMMARY—NOTABLE PRACTICES BART has developed policies and practices for park-and-ride that ensure the transit agency’s goals can be met efficiently and effectively. BART’s notable practices include:  Station access policies, plans, and guidelines, in place since 2000, that provide a framework for managing parking and reducing investment in new park-and-ride facilities.  A parking management strategy at all facilities that includes reserved parking permits for monthly use, daily use, carpools, and long-term/airport parking (at some facilities).  A demand-based parking fee program at all stations that applies to all reserved and unreserved parking and allows fees to be increased every six months to a cap of $3.00, except at the West Oakland station, which does not have a cap.  Strong parking enforcement procedures that ensure compliance with parking fee programs, maximizing revenue to the transit agency.  Parking fee revenue dedicated to station, parking facility and access improvements, and security and enforcement.  Determination from the FTA that parking fees are not transit fares and are exempt from Title VI analysis requirements. SUMMARY—LESSONS LEARNED The purposes of the parking fees are to (a) recover the operating costs of providing parking at BART, (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. Despite ridership continuing to climb, the flat number of parking spaces has meant that a smaller percentage of customers are park-and-riding and are finding other modes of access, helping meet the third goal of the program. However, so far the fees have not been shown to reduce the demand for parking. All but five park-and-ride facilities have reached the maximum allowed $3.00 daily maximum. The waitlists for monthly reserved parking are thousands of people long. At the same time, connecting transit services, such as San Francisco Muni and AC Transit, have adult, one-way base fares of $2.00 or more. A roundtrip fare is at least $4.00, which is more expensive than the daily parking fee. If BART wishes to use parking fees to reduce demand in parking and shift patrons to other modes of access, it will need to review the maximum fees allowed such that parking is not more attractive than other options.

2-22 CALGARY TRANSIT INTRODUCTION Calgary, a city in the Canadian province of Alberta, owns and operates Calgary Transit. The public transit agency has extensive experience operating and managing park-and-ride. For this reason, Calgary Transit was selected as a case study to represent the Canadian experience. Case study efforts for Calgary Transit included remote (email and phone) and web-based data collection. The research team coordinated with Calgary Transit to schedule phone conferences with representatives from operations, planning, forecasting, finance, and facility management departments to describe the case study effort; to gather information; and to request agency- specific documents. This case study describes the transit agency and provides detailed information about how Calgary Transit plans and manages park-and-ride service. Below is the list of research topics that this case study covers:  Operating context.  Shared use of park-and-ride facilities.  Charging for parking.  Planning and estimating demand.  Managing demand for parking.  Standard operating procedures.  In-house parking management.  Design features.  Capital investment.  Transit-oriented development.  Innovation. Calgary Transit has provided dollar figures presented in this section—sometimes in Canadian dollars and always with a U.S. dollar equivalent value. The U.S. dollar equivalent was also provided by Calgary Transit, was valid at the time of the internal document or publication, and has not been adjusted using current exchange rates. BACKGROUND Brief Description of Calgary Transit Calgary Transit has been providing transit service since 1909 when it introduced the first streetcar service in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Currently, the transit agency provides transit services to more than 110 million commuters per year on 155 bus routes and two light rail lines in a 556-square-mile service area.

Calgary T Departm respectiv of Albert governm So ransit oper ent. As show ely) are the a are the ma ent, City of urce: Calgary ates as a bus n in Figure primary sou in source of Calgary, and Transit 2013. Figure 3. iness unit w 3, fare reve rces of oper capital fund developme Funding S 2-23 ithin the Cit nue and prop ating revenu s; other sou nt industry. ources for C y of Calgary erty taxes ( es. Taxes co rces include algary Tra Transporta 51 and 49 p llected with the Canadi nsit. tion ercent, in the provi an federal nce

2-24 Governance Calgary Transit is a transit system owned and operated by the City of Calgary and has over 3,000 employees, making it the largest public business unit in Calgary. Calgary Transit works with the Calgary Regional Partnership—an organization comprised of 13 municipal members, Airdrie Transit, the Government of Alberta, and the Calgary Airport on improving connections within the light rail network (Stantec 2013). Transit Modes Calgary Transit provides service to virtually anywhere in the City of Calgary using a network of transit services including 155 bus routes, five bus rapid transit (BRT) routes, and two light rail lines (called CTrain). The CTrain system consists of 45 stations that cover 37.22 miles (59.9 km), 28 park-and-ride lots (five of which are privately owned), and a transit fleet of 1,203 active vehicles, including buses and light rail trains (Calgary Transit 2015). All park-and-ride facilities provide amenities including sidewalk access, bicycle access and parking, safety features to assist crossing streets, lighting, and drop-off areas (Calgary Transit 2016). Service operating statistics by mode were not available; however, Table 4 shows Calgary Transit’s total operating statistics for all modes combined. Table 5 documents Calgary Transit’s transit fares for fixed-route service (values are in Canadian dollars). Table 4. Calgary Transit Total Service Operating Statistics for 2014. Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Annual Unlinked Trips Annual Vehicle Revenue Kilometers Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Operating Expenses Fare Revenues System Total 839 110,461,165 56,154,956 2,524,296 $371,525,137 $175,771,109 Source: Calgary Transit from reports provided by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Table 5. Calgary Transit Fares. Service Fare 90-Minute Ticket $3.15 Day Pass $9.50 Airport $9.50 Source: Calgary Transit 2016. Park-and-Ride Calgary Transit has offered customers park-and-ride access to transit service since the mid-1970s, when the first parking service was provided for Blue Arrow bus customers. Blue Arrow was an express shuttle created to serve downtown and the suburbs during rush hour. Since then, park-and-ride lots have been expanded as the Blue Arrow bus services were extended to northeast and northwest Calgary, and these lots now serve light rail stations (Calgary Transit

2-25 2016). Currently, Calgary Transit provides park-and-ride facilities at 33 locations, with 17,524 spaces located at CTrain stations and several major bus terminals (Table 6) (Calgary Transit 2016). Park-and-ride customers represent about 15 percent of CTrain customers. Table 6. Calgary Transit Park-and-Ride Inventory. Parking Type Facilities Parking Spaces Area in Acres CTrain—Public—Surface 19 12,583 126.7 CTrain—Public—Structure 2 996 3.0 CTrain—Private—Surface 5 1,600 16.0 Bus—Public—Surface 7 2,345 23.5 Totals 33 17,524 169.2 Source: Calgary Transit 2016. OPERATING CONTEXT FOR PARK-AND-RIDE Factors That Impact Park-and-Ride Factors that impact the way Calgary Transit manages its park-and-ride facilities include (Calgary Transit 2016):  The high value of the property around CTrain stations and major bus stops, which limits the amount of land devoted to parking, limits opportunities for TOD.  Additional parking at transit stations is weighed against adjacent traffic impacts to the community.  Approximately 10 percent of park-and-ride customers come from outside Calgary and therefore benefit from park-and-ride facilities because they have no other means of accessing transit. (A review is underway to manage and coordinate with regional users.) Hence, Calgary has a downtown parking policy that restricts the quantity of parking in downtown. Calgary has residential parking programs that make it harder to park in communities, which drives demand for park-and-ride. Calgary Transit is part of the city’s Transportation Department, which makes it easier for the city council to coordinate parking policies for park- and-rides, communities, downtown, etc. Calgary is a single city of about 1.2 million people surrounded by 13 much smaller municipalities. One of the challenges for effective regional coordination of a park-and-ride program is to have consistent communication with other agencies involved in the planning and managing of park-and-rides. Currently, Calgary Transit works with the Calgary Regional Partnership and regional municipalities to integrate transit services in the city and the region. This collaboration includes providing assistance to regional partners on planning and service design, providing space at bus and CTrain terminals, coordinating with future commuter rail projects, and working toward fare integration (Calgary Transit 2013).

2-26 In 1986, a policy that provides guidelines for the rationale, quantity, and location of park-and- ride facilities was established. Calgary has been part of the discussion with other regional authorities to revise this policy to include management and planning (Calgary Transit 2016). Calgary Transit manages collection and processing of park-and-ride revenues and customer service related to parking payment (Calgary Transit 2011). In addition, the City of Calgary’s Transportation Department is made up of four business units, including CT, that plan, design, build, operate, and maintain Calgary’s transportation system and the Calgary Parking Authority, who provides parking enforcement of the spaces reserved by monthly paying members (Calgary Transit 2016). Calgary Transit evaluates park-and-ride performance using several indicators, including:  Percent of lot reserved.  Waiting list count for reserved parking by lot.  Percent of lot full before/after 10:00 a.m.  Reserved parking revenue.  Customer service requests (complaints/commendations).  Enforcement actions taken.  Reserve parking compliance. Calgary Transit issues a monthly performance report summarizing these reserve parking indicators. Table 7 shows an example of the report for October 2015. Calgary Transit also measures performance of the transit service it provides, using metrics such as service hours per person, transit trips per person, passengers per hour (of service), and net operating cost per hour (Calgary Transit 2013).

2-27 Table 7. Calgary Transit Monthly Reserved Parking Statistics for October 2015. Park-and-Ride Lot Total Lot Capacity Maximum Reserved Stalls October 2015 Reserved % of Reserved Capacity Reserved Waiting List Red Line Northwest Tuscany (Rocky Ridge) 280 107 117 109% 453 Tuscany (Tuscany) 358 179 155 87% 680 Crowfoot 1,345 672 642 96% 0 Dalhousie 740 370 289 78% 0 Brentwood 980 490 317 65% 0 Total Northwest 3,703 1,818 1,520 84% 1,133 Red Line South Somerset-Bridlewood 913 456 503 110% 1,840 Shawnessy 200 100 111 111% 741 Fish Creek-Lacombe 1,130 565 519 92% 0 Canyon Meadows 260 130 160 123% 0 Anderson 1,665 833 234 28% 0 Southland 650 325 151 46% 0 Heritage 550 275 62 23% 0 Chinook 320 160 56 35% 0 39 Avenue 279 139 29 21% 0 Total South 5,967 3,025 1,825 60% 2,587 Blue Line West 69 Street (Parkade) 737 368 443 120% 2,434 69 Street (Surface Lot) 90 45 44 98% 1,650 Sirocco 365 182 214 118% 14 Total West 1,192 595 701 118% 4,098 Blue Line Northeast Saddletowne 130 65 50 77% 0 McKnight-Westwinds 949 474 5 1% 0 Franklin 550 275 18 7% 0 Total Northeast 1,629 814 73 9% 0 Total All Lots 12,491 6,252 4,119 66% 7,818 Source: Calgary Transit 2013. Aspects of Parking Management Calgary Transit and the City of Calgary have several sections or departments that collectively manage all aspects of parking. The responsibility for different functions is shared as follows:  Planning for New Lots. New parking facility planning is usually done in conjunction with an extension of the light rail and is included in project design specifications. The City of Calgary’s Transportation Planning section manages the planning aspects of parking in conjunction with Calgary Transit.  Construction. Construction is usually done during an extension of the light rail and is managed by the City of Calgary’s Transportation Infrastructure section and Calgary Transit.  Operations. Various groups within Calgary Transit support park-and-ride operations, including service design, planning, and infrastructure maintenance.

 E  R su  T w Park-a Calgary T light rail risen con ridership Westwin trend, wi All park- 100 perce is availab nforcement. eal Estate. T pports the m OD. The Cit ith Calgary nd-Rid ransit prov have impact tinuously sin for the bus ds and Some th light rail d Source: Free Fi and-ride fac nt. Demand le in up to 5 Calgary Par he Real Est anagement y of Calgary Transit lead e Trans ides parking ed light rail ce 2001. B system. This rset-Bridlew emand exc mark 2014. gure 4. Calg ilities have v for parking 0 percent of king Autho ate Develop of real esta ’s Real Est s TOD. it Modes at both bus parking pol y mid-2007, growth wa ood. Since eeding bus d ary Transi arying amo is higher at the lot. 2-28 rity manage ment Servic te. ate Develop and light ra icies. As see light rail rid s due to exte 2009, both emand (Fre t Services R unts of free light rail st s parking en es Division ment Servic il stations; h n in Figure ership had nsions of C systems hav emark 2014 idership 1 parking ran ations; there forcement. within the C es Division owever, rid 4, light rail grown more Train servic e followed a ). 996–2013. ging from 5 fore, paid re ity of Calg in conjuncti ership trend ridership ha than the e to McKni bout the sam 0 percent to served park ary on s in s ght- e ing

2-29 Passenger Amenities All facilities provide a common set of amenities including sidewalk access, bicycle access and parking, safety features to assist crossing streets, lighting, and drop-off areas. Some facilities have additional amenities, including:  Covered or enclosed waiting areas.  Permanent restrooms.  Electric vehicle charging.  Carsharing services.  Lockers or enclosed parking for bicycles.  Parking for transit customers to access the intercity bus. None of the facilities has temporary restrooms, on-site station personnel, concessions, or vending machines. Customer Feedback Calgary Transit uses many sources of customer feedback, including several types of surveys. In November 2015, Calgary Transit conducted a survey of CTrain customers to learn more about how they access light rail transit (LRT) and their opinions on the mode they currently use, the mode they would prefer to use, and potential improvements they would like to see. This online survey received 5,550 responses. Calgary Transit also occasionally conducts park-and-ride surveys and safety, security, and cleanliness surveys in addition to an annual customer satisfaction survey. Additionally, Calgary Transit asks individuals to voice concerns/recommendations via telephone, in its offices, or online. Security and Enforcement Roaming security officers enforce parking policies and practices, and no facilities have dedicated on-site security personnel. To enforce parking regulations, Calgary Transit uses random mobile patrol, license plate recognition, and other matching technology. Eligible Access to Park-and-Ride All park-and-ride facilities have bicycle access, bicycle parking, and kiss-and-ride drop-off areas. Some facilities have carsharing services, electric vehicle charging spaces, and parking for transit customers to access the intercity bus. Carsharing companies are one option to address first-mile/last-mile connectivity. Carsharing companies available in Calgary are Student CarShare, Car2Go, and Enterprise. Calgary Transit is also currently investigating opportunities with transportation network companies.

2-30 Calgary Transit has received requests for other non-standard parking facilities such as for special events, school buses, charity clothing drop-offs, food vendors (e.g., food trucks), taxis, short- term use, and loading zones. So far, none of these options has been implemented. During station area planning, Calgary Transit conducts an assessment of needs and customer requests to see if any of these parking requests may be incorporated. Sources of Funding for Park-and-Ride Management Calgary Transit’s park-and-ride facilities require an annual operating expenditure of up to $11 million to maintain elevators, heating, cooling and fire detection, and suppression systems (Calgary Transit 2013). The primary sources of operating revenue are fare revenue and property taxes. Fare revenue covers approximately half of Calgary Transit’s operating costs, while the remaining half is covered by municipal property taxes. About 4 percent of operating funds come from advertising on vehicles, shelters, and stations. Reserved paid parking, available at some park-and-ride facilities, also contributes to operating revenue. Notable Practices Calgary Transit monitors its overall and its park-and-ride performance on a regular basis and issues a monthly performance report summarizing reserved parking statistics. Calgary Transit provides first-mile/last-mile connections and options for its customers. All park- and-ride facilities have at least bicycle access and parking. Additional options include carsharing at some facilities, and Calgary Transit is investigating transportation network companies as another alternative. Calgary Transit has a robust customer feedback program through its surveys—both annual and ad hoc. Calgary Transit targets some surveys to specific issues (e.g., safety) and customers (e.g., park-and-ride users) to gain more in-depth insights. Lessons Learned Calgary Transit now charges for reserved parking at its park-and-ride facilities because the transit agency has determined that park-and-ride is a premium service in high demand. This revenue now contributes to facility maintenance expenses. Thanks to customer feedback, Calgary Transit improved security with more frequent security patrols, resulting in a significant decrease in auto theft and vandalism (Calgary Transit 2016). SHARED USE OF PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Calgary Transit has limited experience with shared-use park-and-ride facilities at privately owned parking lots. Calgary Transit has agreements with private property owners for the use of parking spaces; however, Calgary Transit does not pay for the spaces. The private property

2-31 owner benefits from charging the customers for parking and increased business in retail shops and stores. There are current efforts to further explore opportunities of shared use of parking and optimize land use around transit stations in the Calgary region. Calgary Transit park-and-ride planners are willing to work with communities and stakeholders on activities related to shared-use park-and- ride facilities such as engagement, surveys, information sessions, and open houses. Calgary Transit and the City of Calgary have an existing shared-use arrangement for park-and- ride facilities including theaters, parks, shopping malls, churches, community centers, hotels, and restaurants. Calgary Transit works with the other city business units to respond to issues arising from park-and-ride, such as the ones faced in 2008 related to auto crime and security concerns. CHARGING FOR PARKING Charging for parking helps transit agencies regulate parking capacity and have additional funding for maintenance and security of park-and-ride facilities. A successful parking strategy requires a balance of the amount of free and paid parking and selection of an optimal parking fee. Policy to Charge for Parking Calgary Transit provides its customers with 15,179 parking spaces at 26 CTrain stations and seven lots adjacent to major bus routes. A maximum of 50 percent of these spaces may be reserved for a fee, as clarified below. Calgary Transit also teamed with several private entities (e.g., University of Calgary, Calgary Zoo, and several shopping centers) to provide an additional 2,693 parking spaces mostly for a fee. Calgary Transit has agreements with these private entities but does not pay them. The private property owner benefits from charging the park-and-ride customers directly or through increased business. There are five private lots near light rail stations and one near a bus station. Light rail lots have both free parking and reserved parking. About 50 percent of light rail parking spaces are designated as reserved parking from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on weekdays. Reserved parking spaces become free parking spaces after 10:00 a.m., on weekends, and on holidays. Reserved spaces cost $85.00 ($66.52 US) per month. If any spaces are still not taken at 10:00 a.m., they become available free of charge. Having some free parking minimizes barriers to the use of public transit and encourages people to use transit even if they need their personal vehicles for some part of their journey. The decision to charge for parking was prompted by a few factors, which included (Calgary Transit 2016):  All light rail and some BRT lots were filling up to capacity.  An additional source of revenue was required to maintain facility quality.  Auto crime was increasing in the lots.

2-32  Customers had concerns with station security, maintenance, and cleanliness. To balance ridership goals with the decision to charge for parking, Calgary Transit allows 50 percent of LRT parking spaces in each lot to be reserved during certain times of the day. Customers were requesting reserved spaces to help ensure the availability of parking, so charging for parking is beneficial for customers and for Calgary Transit. Customers have been more satisfied with the Calgary Transit system after reserved parking was made available. Moreover, some parking is free, enabling those who might ride less to continue using public transit (Calgary Transit 2016). Methods to Collect Parking Charges Payments for reserved parking may only be done online using the reservation system managed by Calgary Parking Authority, called the ParkPlus System (Calgary Transit 2016). Parking fees and transit fares are separate fees. If a space is available, the customer may reserve the space and pay month to month or for several months at one time. If a space is not available at the preferred lot, the customer may request to be placed on a waiting list. Once a space becomes available, an email will be sent to advise the customer of the available parking space (Calgary Transit 2016). Calgary Transit does not package transit fares and parking fees together and offers no discounts or special pricing programs for purchasing both transit and parking. In order to determine the appropriate fee strategy, Calgary Transit established parking fares to be competitive with downtown parking. Calgary Transit’s parking fees are assessed bi-annually in conjunction with its fare policy. Public Outreach Calgary Transit conducted an online survey on the park-and-ride reserved parking program in October 2011, six months after the reserved parking policy began (Calgary Transit 2011). The survey provided many insights into customer perceptions. The evolution of the park-and-ride service from completely free, to pay-per-use, to a reserved/free service has certainly influenced the travel patterns and opinions of many Calgary Transit customers who use light rail park-and- ride. The survey also suggested the park-and-ride system is under strain because demand exceeds supply. There is a considerable divide in values and perceptions between those respondents who felt that free parking is a right versus those respondents who liked the choice of reserving a space. The survey responses clearly showed that reserved parking respondents were generally free of stress and frustration despite a few who had suggestions to make it a better experience. On the other hand, free parking respondents typically voiced frustration and anger at their experiences since reserved parking became an option. The survey assessed which factors affected the decision of whether to purchase a reserved parking space. Cost was the main factor deterring free parking users from reserving a space.

2-33 Notable Practices Calgary Transit uses the ParkPlus System, an online reservation system managed by Calgary Parking Authority. The reservation system easily allows the management of reserved parking spaces and fee payments. Lessons Learned To balance ridership goals with the decision to charge for parking, Calgary Transit allows up to 50 percent of light rail parking spaces in each lot to be reserved during certain times of the day (from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on weekdays). PLANNING AND ESTIMATING DEMAND FOR PARKING In terms of park-and-ride demand, Calgary Transit offers between two to 15 times more parking than any other Canadian transit system including cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Ottawa (Calgary Transit 2016). This section describes the process Calgary Transit uses to plan for park-and-ride facilities. Methodology to Estimate Demand Calgary Transit planning staff uses an in-house demand model developed in 1986 to estimate demand for park-and-ride facilities. Calgary Transit parking policy guidelines are available online http://www.calgarytransit.com/calgary-transit-park-ride-policy. The policy states that “parking lots should be located beyond 5 kilometers (3.13 miles) of the downtown” and “the amount of parking at each station [should] be capable of serving between 15 and 20 percent of the estimated transit trips generated by the area served by the station.” 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 based its demand estimations on two main assumptions:  Too much parking can detract from the general goal of minimizing auto use (negatively impacting local communities, TOD, and ridership on feeder buses).  Too little parking may restrict the transit ridership in a corridor.

2-34 The provision of park-and-ride requires striking a balance between providing a service to meet demand and recognizing costs and other implications. Calgary Transit’s overall strategy is to provide 15 percent of weekday light rail users with park-and-ride services. The target horizon year Calgary Transit uses for planning park-and-ride is 30 years from the conception of a line or project, 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. Considerations When Planning a Park-and-Ride Calgary Transit considers several factors when planning park-and-ride facilities at CTrain stations and major bus stops:  Overall system park-and-ride target.  Projected station or stop ridership.  Station or stop location relative to downtown or a major attraction, which will influence the facility’s ability to intercept trips and reduce downstream traffic volumes.  Projected station or stop parking demand based on: o Is the station an attractor or generator of trips to or from the area? o What is the population within the station or stop service area? o What is the quality of the current and planned feeder bus service to the station or stop service area? o Is the station a terminal station—short term vs. long term?  Capacity of the adjacent roadway network to accommodate traffic generated by a park- and-ride lot.  Availability of land located within a five-minute walk of the station or stop.  Nature and density of adjacent land use.  Potential for TOD within the station area.  Placement of parking within the station area, considering: o Avoiding the prime TOD land. o Ensuring entrance/egress opportunities. o Enhancing pedestrian connectivity.  Appropriate parking form—surface, above grade, or below grade structure.  Opportunity for private sector to provide parking to transit customers. Benefit-Cost Analysis When considering the initial cost versus benefits of providing parking, the initial goal of Calgary Transit to provide parking for 15 to 20 percent of weekday peak-period customers appears to have been appropriate and effective for a new light rail system in its beginning stages. This ratio

2-35 may continue to be appropriate for terminal stations serving new and developing communities with limited bus service and to serve customers traveling to Calgary from outside the city limits. However, this amount of parking may not be appropriate for stations located closer to the inner city, with land use plans calling for higher density and more compact development. Also, the cost of constructing and maintaining a park-and-ride is considered an investment that can be weighed against the alternative of adding road capacity and downtown parking facilities (Calgary Transit 2016). In measuring cost performance of the transit network, the ongoing operational costs of park-and-rides are distributed across the entire network of transit services, regardless of whether the transit route serves the park-and-ride. Factors That Influence Demand 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 area 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. Predicted Versus Actual Experience All 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. Expanding Park-and-Ride Capacity Calgary Transit usually plans for expanding park-and-ride facilities when light rail service is extended. Expansion plans are also guided by long-range planning. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are ongoing and are explored when the opportunity arises. Various factors affect Calgary Transit’s decision to build the various types of parking facilities: surface lot, aboveground garage, underground garage, or a combination. Factors include 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.

2-36 The net cost of operating park-and-ride reduces the funds available to provide core bus and CTrain services. The decision for parking facility type becomes a balance of the above factors; however, cost is a significant element. Notable Practices Calgary Transit has developed a rule of thumb based on its vast experience estimating parking at each station. Between 15 and 20 percent of the estimated transit trips generated by the area served by the station will use park-and-ride facilities. Lessons Learned 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. Demand tends to be unlimited if parking is free. MANAGING DEMAND FOR PARKING Transit Parking Management Strategies TODs typically result in several times more ridership than would be generated from land devoted to parking. In this context, a park-and-ride lot next to an LRT station is not the best use of this land. Ridership is also dependent on quality of bus service to the station. According to the transit agency’s experience, the quality of bus service has more of a positive impact on ridership. Calgary Transit addresses a balance of all the different factors that influence park-and-ride demand. Transportation Demand Management The City of Calgary has a TDM working team that works closely with Calgary Transit to enhance TDM. Calgary Transit also sits on development review teams that review development applications. Ridership and service are tied to the strength of the economy. Customers who lose jobs ride less or rely on previous investments in personal automobiles for transportation. Calgary Transit has conducted an analysis of the quantitative relationship between providing parking and levels of transit ridership. The analysis revealed that there is no relationship between the supply of parking (park-and-ride) and total LRT station ridership. Unexpectedly, the 10 stations with highest ridership have parking for 7 percent of the customers boarding at these stations. As mentioned previously in this document, Calgary Transit provides parking for 15 percent of light rail customers.

2-37 Station Typologies and the Impact on Demand for Parking Calgary Transit conducts functional planning along LRT lines and works with adjacent landowners and development authorities to determine station locations (and, consequently, park- and-ride). Although the transit agency has not provided documentation on the positive impact on ridership, Calgary Transit considers that providing parking or providing improved access for pedestrians, bikes, local/private transit, and other modes has a helpful impact on ridership. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Calgary Transit does not have formally documented standard operating procedures except for a document last updated in April 2006 called the Transit Friendly Design Guide (Calgary Transit 2006). The document states Calgary Transit’s commitment to minimize environmental impacts of urban travel at the planning stage of Calgary Transit’s projects by providing a lower-cost travel option to individuals and the Calgary community. With the application of the principles and policies included in the Transit Friendly Design Guide, Calgary Transit seeks to increase the regional transit mode share, reduce private auto dependency, and be environmentally responsible. The Transit Friendly Design Guide introduces a model for new suburban communities that will be designed and developed to reduce the need to drive. Lessons Learned Calgary Transit has increased transit service without actively pursuing the community design elements laid out in the Transit Friendly Design Guide. The absence of transit-friendly design impedes Calgary Transit’s desired modal shift to transit. IN-HOUSE PARKING MANAGEMENT Calgary Transit directly manages and operates all of its 33 park-and-ride facilities except for five CTrain park-and-rides, which are privately owned. Therefore, Calgary Transit provides all of the administration, maintenance, and utilities for 28 of its facilities. The average daily operating cost per parking space is about $3.00 ($2.33 US) for surface lots and $8.00 ($6.21 US) for structured parking. Table 8 shows the average annual cost for various operating expenses.

2-38 Table 8. Calgary Transit Annual Operating Costs for Parking. Item (Annual) Surface Parking Stall Structured Parking Stall Maintenance $500 $825 Gas + Electric $75 $250 Administration $25 $25 Miscellaneous $75 $150 Depreciation $150 $825 Annual Totals $825 $2,075 Daily Equivalent $3.30/weekday $8.30/weekday Note: Canadian Dollars. Source: Calgary Transit 2016. DESIGN FEATURES Calgary Transit has established some specific design guidelines for its park-and-rides that address safety and sustainability. Design Features for Safety Calgary Transit designs its facilities to address passenger safety and security, comfort, and mobility requirements. As previously mentioned, all facilities have sidewalk access, bicycle access and parking, and safety features for street crossings, lighting, and drop-off areas. Calgary Transit follows the regulations and standards of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, the Transportation Association of Canada Standards, and the signage and road marking standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Design Features for Sustainability In 1995, the City of Calgary’s Planning and Building Department developed a document to facilitate the design of new residential communities that address fiscal, social, and environmental sustainability issues. The document contains policies for public services including park-and-ride facilities. Table 9 summarizes the characteristics that the City of Calgary pursues for the construction of more sustainable communities (including transit facilities).

2-39 Table 9. Some Characteristics of a More Sustainable Community in Calgary Region. A More Sustainable Community (including Transit Facilities) Fiscal Lower costs through: More compact urban form Better utilization of services Less infrastructure Social Strong sense of belonging to a community; vibrant community life Attractive public areas that encourage walking and socializing Most routine shopping needs met within the community Some mixed-use, including employment Reduce the need for car Environmental More efficient use of land Reduced air pollution through reduced vehicle trips Significant environmentally sensitive areas largely protected and integrated into the regional open space system Adapted from City of Calgary, Planning and Building Department (1995). Public Involvement in Features Design Calgary Transit uses public feedback during the park-and-ride design process through surveys, engagement (face-to-face and online), informational sessions, and community consultation committees. These committees consist of community representatives who provide Calgary Transit with feedback on study findings through the planning process to share neighborhood concerns. PARK-AND-RIDE CAPITAL INVESTMENT For Calgary Transit, the capital cost of constructing park-and-ride facilities is significant. The construction cost per space is about $15,000 ($11,652 US) and $50,000 ($38,839 US) for surface and structured parking, respectively (Calgary Transit 2016). Construction costs may be higher in a TOD situation or a more developed area because land costs are typically higher adjacent to an established transit hub. Calgary Transit recognizes that to provide access to a CTrain station, the capital cost of providing parking is considerably more expensive on a per-customer basis than purchasing buses to transport customers to a station (i.e., using feeder or circulator routes). Table 10 displays Calgary Transit’s typical capital costs for a 500-stall parking facility (Calgary Transit 2016).

2-40 Table 10. Calgary Transit Park-and-Ride Capital Investment. Surface Parking Structured Parking LAND COSTS 500 Stalls 5 acres$5 million 1 acre $1 million Per Stall $10,000 $2,000 CONSTRUCTION COSTS 500 Stalls $2.5 to $7.5 million $25 to $40 million Per Stall $5,000 to $15,000 $50,000 to $80,000 Note: Canadian Dollars. Source: Calgary Transit 2016. Lessons Learned At $15,000 per space for surface parking and $50,000 per space for structured parking (in Canadian dollars), the capital cost of providing parking at a CTrain station is considerably more expensive on a per-customer basis than purchasing buses to transport customers to a station. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Calgary Transit defines TOD as “a walkable, mixed-use form of development typically focused within a 600-meter radius of a Transit Station – an Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)” (City of Calgary, Land Use Planning & Policy 2005). Investment in TOD The City of Calgary City Council adopted the TOD Policy Guidelines in December 2004 (City of Calgary, Land Use Planning & Policy 2005). The purposes of these guidelines are:  To reaffirm the importance of the light rail system and stations as citywide assets and the need to optimize the use of this investment through supportive land use policies.  To establish broad, citywide policies and guidelines for the future intensification and development of lands in the vicinity of transit stations.  To create certainty in transit station areas for local communities, landowners, and developers by clarifying the city’s objectives for land use and development around stations.  To provide a framework for evaluating land use, development permits, and subdivision applications in transit station areas.  To direct policy development of station area plans for new and existing transit station areas, and the preparation of, or amendments to, area redevelopment plans and area structure plans. These guidelines assist the City of Calgary in the process of evaluating proposed developments in station planning areas. A station planning area is roughly defined as the land within a 600 m

2-41 (1,969 ft) radius of a light rail or BRT station. The TOD Policy Guidelines help to develop new land use objectives for proposed amendments to existing or new area redevelopment plans and to assess the merits of the redevelopment plans from a TOD perspective. The guidelines will respect existing, established communities but will enforce with requests for land use re- designation. The guidelines emphasize the benefit of a more comprehensive planning process that includes more than just looking at individual sites. These guidelines are also intended to supplement the evaluation criteria for subdivision and development permit applications of properties that are part of transit station areas. Parking Replacement Policies Calgary Transit’s TOD policy (City of Calgary, Land Use Planning & Policy 2005) suggests that TOD places more emphasis on developing walkable areas close to transit stations that can be used for purposes other than parking. Transit bus and private automobile circulation and parking need to be accommodated while at the same time creating a comfortable pedestrian environment. TOD, through its transit-supportive land uses, increased density, and pedestrian design, provides active mobility options and reduces automobile trips through increased transit ridership and the potential for decreased vehicle ownership. In addition to proximity to a transit station, parking policy relaxation should be considered when a site has additional location or parking management characteristics such as:  Shared parking where different uses require parking at different times of the day.  Proximity to park-and-ride lots that could be considered for parking during off-peak hours.  On-street parking within TOD station areas as part of the parking supply for a development.  Longer-term secure bike parking with shower and locker facilities. To help reduce the need for on-site parking in TOD areas, Calgary Transit recommends the following strategies:  Encouraging local shuttle service for employment or shopping centers.  Facilitating community carsharing and carpooling by providing preferential parking spots for carshare and carpool vehicles.  Promoting TDM initiatives such as flex-time hours, telecommuting, bike or walk to work programs, etc.  Working with businesses to encourage transit ridership programs for employees. Parking Placement in a TOD Placement of parking in TOD is also important to maintain desired density and pedestrian comfort within the station area. Calgary Transit ensures that major parking areas can be accessed from collector and arterial roads in the perimeter of the station areas, without impacting existing

2-42 communities or the pedestrian environment closest to the station. Direct and convenient pedestrian connections should lead from these parking areas to primary destinations such as the transit station, major office areas, high-density residential areas, etc. Parking lots should be located to the rear or side of the building along primary pedestrian routes that lead to transit stations, and parking lots should be designed and located to minimize the number of vehicle crossings over primary pedestrian routes. Notable Practices Developers in Calgary have two sources for additional guidance in TOD: the Transit Oriented Development Best Practices Handbook (January 2004) and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Guidelines (December 2005). The City of Calgary City Council adopted the TOD Policy Guidelines (City of Calgary, Land Use Planning & Policy 2005). The commitment to create great places to live led Calgary Transit to structure a TOD framework to help Calgary communities, city staff, and city council make decisions on development proposals around existing and future important transit stations. Challenges or Lessons Learned There are several challenges that make successful TODs difficult to implement. First, market demand largely drives TOD development. Not every station will work as a TOD, and having the appropriate market for different types of development in a station area is necessary to get a TOD going. In addition, timing of market demands makes it difficult. Local market demand is constantly changing, and what might work as a TOD today might not work a year from now. Last, there may also be community opposition to TOD projects. Residents and other stakeholders may be concerned about traffic impacts, changes to transit service, increases or decreases in parking, or other issues. INNOVATION Commuters reserve space at a park-and-ride facility using an online reservation and payment system. Calgary Transit enforces parking regulations using random mobile patrol, license plate recognition, and matching software. Calgary Transit is committed to environmental preservation. Calgary Transit recycles all paper products left at park-and-ride facilities, recycles water for non- potable purposes, and collects rainwater for landscaping and irrigation at its transit facilities. Calgary Transit offers two parking options: reserve or free (first-come, first-served). Parkers with reserved parking service use their designated spot on a daily basis. The transit agency is planning to use technology to have parking spots rotate so parkers do not necessarily have to use the same spot every single day. The transit agency has no other plans to implement other technologies

2-43 (e.g., new fare payment media, mobile ticketing, or a real-time parking availability system) in the near future. SUMMARY—NOTABLE PRACTICES Calgary Transit has several notable practices in place in its planning and management of park- and-ride facilities. They are itemized below:  Calgary Transit issues a monthly report summarizing performance of the reserved parking program.  Calgary Transit uses the ParkPlus System, an online parking reservation system managed by Calgary Parking Authority, to manage the demand and supply of parking spaces and to allow users to reserve and pay for their parking spaces.  The City of Calgary City Council adopted the TOD Policy Guidelines. The commitment to create great places to live led Calgary Transit to structure a TOD framework to help Calgary communities, city staff, and city council make decisions on development proposals around existing and future important transit stations.  The Transit Friendly Design Guide, along with the TOD Policy Guidelines, describes the strategies, techniques, and policies that will help create transit-supportive development and a transit-friendly design for the City of Calgary.  The Transit Friendly Design Guide seeks to introduce a model for new suburban community design and development that reduces the need to drive.  Calgary Transit developed systematic methodologies and criteria when planning park- and-ride facilities at each station and major bus stop. SUMMARY—LESSONS LEARNED In its work planning and managing park-and-ride facilities, Calgary Transit has learned some valuable lessons. They are itemized below:  Calgary Transit now charges for reserved parking at its park-and-ride facilities because the transit agency has determined that park-and-ride is a premium service in high demand. This revenue now contributes to facility maintenance expenses. Thanks to customer feedback, security improvements have been made with more frequent security patrols, resulting in a significant decrease in auto theft and vandalism.  To balance ridership goals with the decision to charge for parking, Calgary Transit allows 50 percent of LRT parking spaces in each lot to be reserved between 2:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on weekdays.  Demand tends to be unlimited if parking is free.

2-44  The capital cost of providing parking at a CTrain, BRT, or bus station is considerably more expensive on a per-customer basis than purchasing buses to transport customers to a station.  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 (weekday peak periods) access modal share for park-and- ride.  Calgary Transit has increased transit service without actively pursuing the transit- supportive community design elements described in its transit-friendly design guide. Without transit-friendly design, it will be more difficult for Calgary Transit to reach its goals for transit mode share.

INTR The Conn services i transport targeted c majority modeling Case stud park-and BACK Brief D ConnDO Database coordinat in the No ConnDO several m urban, an commute ferry, and marketin CTrides i (TDM) p connectin commute operated Hartford ConnDO in the sta spring 20 DEPA ODUCT ecticut Dep n local area ation agenci ase study d of programm of park-and y efforts inc -ride deman GROU escrip T has statew but is not th es services rtheastern U T provides m onikers (Fig d large urba r bus, bus ra vanpool; a g brand to a s a transpor rogram that g commute r rail servic by Metro-N Line (a futu T-owned pr te. CTfastra 15 on a prim CONN RTME ION artment of T s and region es both in C ue to its lon ed major tr -ride deman luded phon d and collec ND tion of C ide jurisdic e only publ with other p nited States any transit ure 5) and i n contexts. pid transit ( ll services u ppear seaml tation deman also acts as rs to relevan es and will s orth Railroa re line to be ovider of loc k is a BRT s arily separa DOT – NT OF ransportati s in Connec onnecticut a g, innovativ ansportation d with the C e-based inte tion of data onnDO tion and rep ic transporta ublic transp . services un n various ru Services inc BRT), comm se a uniform ess to custom d managem a resource f t public tran oon add ser d), Shore Li operated by al bus, com ervice in ce ted bus-onl 2-45 CONN TRA on (ConnDO ticut and co nd in adjace e history of projects sin Tfastrak B rviews with from variou T orts services tion agency ortation age der ral, small lude bus, uter rail, ers ent or sportation p vice on a thi ne East (cur a ConnDO muter bus, a ntral Connec y guideway ECTI NSPO T) provides ordinates se nt states. C including pa ce the 1970 RT line. ConnDOT s relevant w to FTA’s U in the state ncies in Con roviders. C rd line: the rently opera T contractor nd BRT in ticut; the se at high freq Source: Con Figure 5 CUT RTATI public tran rvices with o onnDOT wa rk-and-ride s and its rec staff involve ebsites. rban Nation . The transit necticut and Trail current New Haven ted by Amt ). CTtransit many locati rvice began uency. n DOT . Various C ON sportation ther public s selected a facilities in ent innovat d in modeli al Transit agency adjacent st ly owns two Line (curren rak), and is the ons and regi operation in onnDOT L s a a ive ng ates tly ons ogos.

2-46 Governance ConnDOT is a statewide agency involved in all modes of transportation. The transit agency’s Bureau of Public Transportation is ConnDOT’s lead on all matters related to public transportation services. The mission of the ConnDOT Bureau of Public Transportation is to develop, maintain, and operate a safe and efficient system of motor carrier and rail facilities for the movement of people and goods, such as bus transit, rail operations, and ridesharing programs. For ease of reading, this case study uses the term ConnDOT to specifically refer to the Bureau of Public Transportation. ConnDOT has varying levels of involvement in public transportation across the state. The transit agency serves populations and territory representing the full spectrum of rural to urban land development patterns. In some areas of the state, ConnDOT is the direct owner of public transportation services provided by contractors. In other areas, ConnDOT is indirectly involved through planning, research, and funding. There are 11 other National Transit Database (NTD) reporting agencies in Connecticut. Transit Modes ConnDOT supports various alternatives to driving alone, including express and local buses, two rail lines, and a statewide vanpool system, to reduce traffic congestion and improve mobility in Connecticut and throughout the region. ConnDOT services are provided through direct operations and through contracted services. Rail public transportation services carried about 40.3 million unlinked passenger trips in 2015 using a fleet of 405 electric cars and 68 push-pull cars. Bus ridership in FY 2015 was 31.3 million unlinked passenger trips on state-owned fixed- route urban services; 743,000 trips on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit in state-owned urban services; and about 11.5 million on other urban, rural, and ADA system trips regardless of ownership. The bus fleet as of June 2016 consisted of 557 heavy-duty transit or commuter buses and 270 body-on-chassis light-duty buses or vans. ConnDOT services are provided in or between rural areas and six wholly or partially served urbanized areas (UZAs):  Hartford, CT.  New Haven, CT.  Springfield, MA-CT.  Waterbury, CT.  Bridgeport-Stamford, CT-NY.  New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT.

2-47 The U.S. Census Bureau (Census) estimated the population of Connecticut to be 3,574,118 in 2010 and 3,590,886 in 2015. Therefore, the population increased by 16,768 (0.5 percent) in the five-year period; the population of the United States increased 4.1 percent during the same time period. Eighty-five percent of Connecticut’s population resides in urban areas; the other 15 percent is rural. The 2014 American Community Survey estimates 11 percent of the population is in poverty (much lower than national average). About 68 percent of the population age 16 and over is in the labor force. The mean travel time to work was 25.1 minutes (slightly lower than national average). Seventy-nine percent of commuters drove alone to work (slightly higher than national average), 8 percent carpooled, 5 percent used public transportation, 3 percent walked, 1 percent used other means, and 4 percent worked primarily at home. Table 11 documents ConnDOT’s fares for fixed-route transit services. Table 11. ConnDOT Fares. Service One-Way Fare Local Bus 2-Hour $1.50 Local Bus Day Pass $3.00 Hartford Express Bus Zone 2 $2.70 Zone 3 $3.50 Zone 4 $4.30 Zone 5 $5.15 I-Bus Express Bus 2-Hour $3.00 Day Pass $6.00 Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation 2016b. Park-and-Ride ConnDOT began including park-and-ride facilities in most transportation projects affecting highway intersections in the 1970s to facilitate carpool, vanpool, and transit use during periods of fuel shortage. The relative additional cost to incorporate a park-and-ride facility into programmed construction projects was generally considered low and the benefits were considered worthwhile. The transit agency continues to incorporate park-and-ride facilities where feasible. The transit agency now has 237 park-and-ride facilities with 34,021 parking spaces (Table 12). Of those facilities, 98 percent are lighted, 96 percent are paved, 30 percent have shelter(s), 26 percent receive express bus service, and 26 percent receive local bus service (Connecticut Department of Transportation 2016a). (Please note that the percent amounts are summary statistics and not mutually exclusive.)

2-48 Table 12. ConnDOT Park-and-Ride Facilities and Spaces. Stations/Lots Spaces Bus 82 10,284* Rail 61 18,410* Ferry 2 80* Other (non-transit) 92 5,247* Total 237 34,021 *May include spaces not served directly by ConnDOT services Sources: American Public Transit Association 2014 and Connecticut Department of Transportation 2016a. ConnDOT’s network of park-and-ride facilities serves transit customers and drivers alike. The 237 facilities are found in various locations across the state, but most occupy space in the right of way (ROW) adjacent to highway intersections or at leased private lots:  8 have both express and local bus service.  37 have express bus service only.  37 have local bus service only. CTfastrak Park-and-Ride The case study of ConnDOT specifically targeted information on how the transit agency estimated demand for CTfastrak BRT services. CTfastrak is the first instance of BRT in Connecticut and began operation in spring 2015. The route has 10 stations and uses a 9.4-mile separated guideway. Buses operate as frequently as every four minutes during rush hour, and travel time is under 30 minutes end-to-end. Limited surface parking is available at no cost at most stations. CTtransit local and express bus routes provide access to CTfastrak from nine park- and-ride facilities with a total capacity of 1,614 spaces. The service connects a corridor region of 10 communities (Figure 6). Parking is free of charge and first-come, first-served. In addition, ConnDOT formed an agreement with the City of New Britain allowing customers to park in a municipal parking garage for a reduced rate. Weekend parking is free in the garage. Table 13 shows available parking at CTfastrak stations and park-and-ride facilities. Researchers interviewed transit agency staff to understand the demand estimation process and how ridership and parking estimates compared to realized utilization in the first year of operation. Case study findings are presented in the following order: planning and estimating demand for parking, notable practices, and lessons learned.  

Source: Co nnecticut Department of Tra Fi nsportation 20 gure 6. CTf 2-49 16b. astrak Service Map.

2-50 Table 13. CTfastrak Parking Capacity. Community Location Parking Spaces New Britain Downtown New Britain Station Szczesny Municipal Parking Garage (weekday discounts with ticket; weekend parking free) Note: Kiss-and-ride passenger drop-off and pick-up locations on Truman Overpass/Route 71 and Main Street East Street Station 23 Corbin Park & Ride 227 Newington Newington Junction Station 27Cedar Street Station 45 West Hartford Elmwood Station 27 Flatbush Avenue Station 31 Hartford Parkville Station 9 Waterbury Waterbury/Hamilton Avenue Park & Ride 178 Cheshire Rt. 70 (Exit 26) Park & Ride 146Cheshire/Milldale Park & Ride 118 Southington Southington/Plantsville Park & Ride 102 Bristol Lake Avenue Park & Ride 143Todd Street Park & Ride 200 Manchester Spencer Street Park & Ride 245 East Hartford East Hartford Park & Ride 255CTfastrak 121 bus stop located 0.2 mile north on Main Street at the corner of Main Street and Silver Lane Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation 2016c. PLANNING AND ESTIMATING DEMAND FOR PARKING ConnDOT has decades of experience developing park-and-ride facilities for carpool, vanpool, bus transit, and rail transit use. Transportation improvements at or near highway intersections, rail transit, or BRT facilities typically include construction of park-and-ride facilities on a ROW space-available basis. However, CTfastrak BRT was a new mode entirely for ConnDOT. Connecticut is a slow-growth state, and the new busway extended through existing population centers. Station sites were constrained and parking was accommodated after other station features. This section describes how ConnDOT estimated demand for parking for CTfastrak BRT service. Methodology to Estimate Demand ConnDOT planners worked closely with Capitol Region Council of Governments planners to model ridership demand for the new BRT line and improved public transportation services. The model horizon year was 25 years out as per typical long-range transportation modeling. The modeling and planning process took place in the mid-2000s prior to many of the models now available, such as FTA’s Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS). ConnDOT will

2-51 continue using the regional travel demand model for demand estimation but also intends to implement STOPS because it will help with reporting and grant requirements. ConnDOT also used the FTA spreadsheet tool Summarize It (Summit) to analyze travel forecasts on CTfastrak BRT and to identify anticipated user-benefits of the project. The modeling process included assumptions for parking utilization. However, the model under- estimated both total ridership and utilization of parking. ConnDOT conducted site intercept surveys at park-and-rides in late 2015, about six months after service began. The model found a larger-than-anticipated portion of park-and-ride users had trip origins a significant distance away from CTfastrak stations. Users were willing to drive approximately half their trip and then park and ride CTfastrak to their destination. Higher-than-anticipated ridership resulted in excess demand for parking spaces at some park-and-ride facilities. ConnDOT has added parking spaces to accommodate excess demand in the few stations where space was available. Future major transit improvements are likely to follow the same planning and demand estimation process, but with adjusted assumptions for customer origins and access mode split. CTfastrak stations were all nearly landlocked by existing development. Surface parking was developed on a space-available basis, and kiss-and-ride, bike parking, and walkable access were modeled into each station. The modeling process revealed significantly higher potential demand for parking than ConnDOT knew could be developed with given resources and considering the balance of factors surrounding implementation of a new transit mode in an urban area that is growing slowly. Modeled demand and parking utilization estimates were compared to site constraints; as-built parking capacity is roughly 10 percent of the modeled estimate of demand at the average station. ConnDOT was not interested in using eminent domain to take property to construct larger stations, nor were funds available to construct multilevel parking structures. The transit agency did need to acquire some property to accommodate the busway and in cases where project development would result in a non-conforming adjacent land use. Amtrak sold ConnDOT a permanent easement for just over half of the double-track-width busway. ConnDOT developed the case for the new service based on modest parking and modest ridership estimates. CTfastrak BRT began operation in spring 2015. Ridership quickly outpaced estimates of first- year utilization in terms of total customers and parking utilization. The goal for year-one ridership was 11,800 one-way trips each weekday, and actual ridership was about 15,000 one- way trips. Surveys revealed that about 9,000 of the one-way boardings (60 percent) were net new one-way boardings for public transportation in central Connecticut. ConnDOT estimates that these new customers (~4,500) represent about a 20 percent growth in unique customers who most likely switched from driving alone. ConnDOT attributes the mode shift to creating a busway that increases the overall system pipeline to move people and the power of high- capacity, frequent transit to attract customers not willing to ride infrequent services with more complex schedules and transfers. ConnDOT does not have a formal definition of effective capacity for CTfastrak station parking facilities because parking is viewed as ancillary to successful BRT service.

2-52 Some CTfastrak stations will become joint rail-BRT stations in the next five years. ConnDOT has developed parking structures for heavy or commuter rail modes in the past, but BRT was developed without such capacity intentionally. The transit agency may alter development around some stations long term by developing an adjacent surface lot with the potential to transition into a TOD partnership with the private sector. For example, ConnDOT’s model found that parking demand at a particular station was for 350 spaces when the current station configuration accommodates significantly fewer spaces. The transit agency may look more closely at the situation to see if the road network could handle the increased traffic and if adjacent land has TOD potential, and ultimately consider a private-public partnership (P3) TOD. ConnDOT uses regular customer feedback to monitor how CTfastrak is performing and to consider future needs. The transit agency did not operate a demonstration BRT service to observe potential demand since no dedicated busway was available prior to the project. Planners used, and continue to use, Census journey-to-work flow data to get a good visual handle of the potential markets for additional or refined services. ConnDOT conducts periodic origin- destination surveys to inform planning for public transportation services. ConnDOT becomes aware of parking constraints through observation, customer feedback, and surveys. The transit agency has partnered with local governments, such as the City of New Britain, to provide low- cost additional park-and-ride spaces to transit customers by written agreement. ConnDOT looks forward to future opportunities to improve services and creative P3s in TOD, if such opportunities present themselves. Benefit-Cost Analysis ConnDOT deliberately chose not to employ a formal benefit-cost planning tool specific to parking capacity at BRT stations for two reasons. First, station sites were extremely space constrained by surrounding land use. Second, ConnDOT carefully managed stakeholder and public sentiment for the project and early on decided multilevel structures were high risk because they would significantly increase project costs. ConnDOT routinely balances its role as both a service planner/operator and a state agency. ConnDOT’s ability and desire to affect local politics is limited; therefore, the transit agency models demand for services and strategically communicates needs to regional and local stakeholders. Parking facility maintenance is included in the financial management of each station’s state of good repair. Parking is free of charge at CTfastrak stations. Costs to operate and maintain the park-and-rides are distributed across the entire BRT line and related local and express bus services.

2-53 Factors That Influence Demand The region around CTfastrak is by most measures a very mature transportation system with an established development pattern. Travel patterns stay fairly consistent year to year as economic growth is low, and although sprawling suburban development exists, such areas are not rapidly expanding. Developing scenarios for CTfastrak in the region’s travel demand 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 was not the primary project impetus. The modeling process included assumptions for parking utilization. However, the model under- estimated both total ridership and utilization of parking. ConnDOT has identified a larger-than- anticipated portion of park-and-ride users with trip origins a significant distance away from CTfastrak stations. These users are willing to drive approximately half their trip and then park and ride CTfastrak to their destinations. Predicted Versus Actual Experience CTfastrak ridership was estimated to be 11,800 one-way trips each weekday in year one. Actual ridership in year one was nearly 15,000 one-way trips. Most station parking facilities are highly used. ConnDOT expected parking to be in high demand since stations were space constrained, so capacity was limited compared to modeled potential demand. ConnDOT planners were challenged by modeling BRT with existing travel demand 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. ConnDOT 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). ConnDOT and Capitol Region Council of Governments planners decided to collaborate on an adapted version of the regional travel demand model. ConnDOT collected first-year survey data and now knows the regional travel demand model over-predicted demand for some population cohorts, such as suburban customers, and under-predicted for some other cohorts, such as bicyclists. Expanding Park-and-Ride Capacity Some CTfastrak stations will become joint rail-BRT stations in the next five years. ConnDOT has developed parking structures for heavy or commuter rail modes in the past, but BRT was developed without such capacity intentionally. Parking facility expansion for CTfastrak is very unlikely to occur on station sites. However, the transit agency may find ways to work with local public- and private-sector partners to develop adjacent surface lots with future TOD potential through P3s.

2-54 Environmental Justice/Title VI ConnDOT always includes environmental justice and Title VI considerations in long-range plans for public transportation service and facility development. The transit agency has placed a special emphasis on environmental justice and Title VI over the last 10 years. CTfastrak planners investigated both matters and incorporated findings into the final design and operation. SUMMARY—NOTABLE PRACTICES ConnDOT has several notable practices in planning and managing park-and-rides, including:  ConnDOT includes park-and-ride facilities in most transportation projects affecting either highway intersections or high-capacity transit services.  ConnDOT has participated in a couple of TOD proposals tied in with rail stations. The transit agency may consider other P3 TOD opportunities in the future, such as redeveloping a park-and-ride facility near a high-value highway intersection or CTfastrak BRT station.  ConnDOT provides park-and-ride facilities and related public transportation services independently but does allow shared use of facilities by local or regional public agencies, churches, and non-profit organizations.  ConnDOT understands how to adjust service development based on the nuanced difference between high-growth or high-congestion areas compared to low-growth and moderately congested areas. CTfastrak BRT serves the low-growth Hartford region, so looking 25 years into the future with 1.5 percent growth in travel demand meant the busway was needed, but in a moderate-demand way. The transit agency was careful to communicate clearly with stakeholders and the public to build reasonable expectations of what successful implementation and operations would look like and why the project was warranted. SUMMARY—LESSONS LEARNED ConnDOT has several lessons learned from its work with CTfastrak and planning and managing other park-and-ride facilities:  Planning for additional parking spaces early on in the planning of park-and-rides is easier than retrofitting additional spaces down the road, after the facility is built.  ConnDOT has numerous cameras at CTfastrak stations and parking areas and also has a pilot program studying the effectiveness of security cameras at one remote park-and-ride facility. Adequate lighting is a high priority at every park-and-ride facility.  Planning and modeling to estimate demand for park-and-ride services must consider that customer willingness to use transit may vary by mode in unanticipated ways. ConnDOT

2-55 found a larger-than-anticipated portion of park-and-ride users were willing to drive approximately half their trip and then 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.

2-56 CTA – CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is one of the three entities that operate the rail and bus systems in Chicago and northeastern Illinois under the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). CTA was chosen as a targeted case study for the guidebook because of its lessons learned in the areas of charging for parking, contracting for parking management, and using innovations for first-mile/last-mile solutions and for customer interfaces such as a regional smartphone application. Data collection for this case study was conducted by examining publically available materials online and from an interview with staff from one of the private companies that manages the management contracts for CTA’s park-and-ride facilities. CTA was unavailable to comment before the time the case study was published. BACKGROUND Brief Description of CTA CTA operates the nation’s second-largest public transportation system providing heavy rail (The L) and bus service throughout Chicago and in the 35 surrounding suburban municipalities. The rail system consists of 146 stations on eight rail lines (224.1 miles of track). Bus service is available on 128 routes (1,354 route miles) spread across a service area of 314 square miles with a population of 3.4 million. On an average weekday, approximately 1.64 million rides are taken on the CTA, accounting for over 80 percent of all transit trips taken in the six-county Chicago metropolitan region (Chicago Transit Authority 2016h). Table 14 describes the service area size, population, density, and budgets for CTA. Table 14. CTA Budget and Service Area Size. 2014 Service Area (sq. miles) 2014 Service Area Population 2014 Service Area Density (person/sq. mile) FY 2016 Operating Budget FY 2016 Capital Budget 314 3,425,958 10,910 $1,475.2 million $638 million Sources: Chicago Transit Authority 2014a and 2016g. CTA was formed in 1945 pursuant to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Act passed by the Illinois Legislature. CTA was established as an independent governmental agency to consolidate Chicago’s public and private mass transit carriers (Chicago Transit Authority 2015c). CTA began operating on October 1, 1947, after it acquired the properties of the Chicago Rapid Transit Company and the Chicago Surface Lines. On October 1, 1952, CTA became the

2-57 predominant operator of Chicago transit when it purchased the Chicago Motor Coach system (Chicago Transit Authority 2016j). The City of Chicago City Council has granted CTA the exclusive right to operate a transportation system for the transportation of passengers within the city of Chicago. CTA is a sister agency to the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad (Metra) and the Suburban Bus Division (Pace)—all three are collectively known as the Service Boards within RTA. Metra provides commuter rail service in Cook, DuPage, Will, Lake, Kane, and McHenry Counties. Pace provides bus service primarily in the suburbs around Chicago. Pace is also responsible for ADA complementary paratransit for the region. RTA lists 306 interagency transfer locations that connect two or more travel modes operated by Metra, CTA, and Pace (Regional Transportation Authority 2016). Connections to CTA are available at 192 bus transfer locations and 40 rail stations. Governance RTA is the unit of local government charged with regional financial oversight, funding, and transit planning for Metra, Pace, and CTA. The Regional Transportation Authority Act created a 16-member RTA Board of Directors as the governing body of RTA. The three Service Boards operate independently, and a board of directors governs each. The act provided for the funding of public transportation in the six-county region of Northeastern Illinois and established RTA as a regional oversight board (Chicago Transit Authority 2015c). The Chicago Transit Board governs CTA. The board consists of seven members, four appointed by the mayor of Chicago and three by the governor of Illinois (Chicago Transit Authority 2016j). The mayor’s appointees are subject to the approval of the governor and the Chicago City Council; the governor’s appointees are subject to the approval of the mayor and the Illinois State Senate (Chicago Transit Authority 2016j). Its president, who is appointed by the Chicago Transit Board, directs CTA’s daily operations. Transit Modes CTA provides service through two modes: bus and rail. Metra and Pace, both of which connect with CTA bus and rail in numerous locations, also provide regional transit services in the Chicago area. Most rides on CTA are taken by bus. The CTA bus system consists of 1,301 miles covered by 1,888 buses on 140 routes, with about 25,000 daily bus trips, and serving nearly 12,000 bus stops throughout the region (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). There are several express services provided and 24-hour service on several routes, known as Owl Service. The CTA rail system, known as The L (short for elevated), consists of train lines spanning the city and neighboring communities. CTA describes the service as heavy rail rapid transit. The L system has 1,492 rail cars operating on eight rapid transit routes and consists of 145 stations over approximately 224.1 miles of track (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). Trains make

2-58 approximately 2,276 trips per day (Chicago Transit Authority 2016j). The L operates in many different types of ROW, including above ground, in subway tunnels and tubes, at grade, and in expressway medians. Two routes, the Red and Blue Lines, operate 24 hours every day. CTA offers free transfers among all L routes at designated locations. CTA rail lines also connect to both major airports in the region, O’Hare International Airport and Midway Airport (Chicago Transit Authority 2016g). Table 15 describes key transit agency operating statistics by mode. Table 16 documents CTA’s one-way transit fares for fixed-route services. Table 15. Key CTA Operating Statistics by Mode. Service Mode Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Annual Unlinked Trips Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Operating Expenses Fare Revenues Heavy Rail 1,108 238,100,054 11,765,392 713,106 $546,181,244 $290,337,682 Bus 1,568 276,116,759 52,380,315 6,118,976 $783,315,510 $296,824,949 Source: Chicago Transit Authority 2014a. Table 16. CTA One-Way Fares. Service One-Way Fare Rail $2.25 Bus $2.00 Transfer $0.25 Day Pass $10.00 Airport $5.00 Source: Chicago Transit Authority 2014a. Park-and-Ride CTA’s park-and-ride facilities support bus and heavy rail and include street parking, surface lots, and structured parking. CTA uses 17 park-and-ride facilities with 6,642 spaces. Fifteen of these facilities are managed and operated by Standard Parking; the Village of Skokie and the Village of Wilmette each manage and operate one facility. OPERATING CONTEXT FOR PARK-AND-RIDE The following sections describe the operating context and factors that impact park-and-ride at CTA, such as managing park-and-ride facilities, transit modes served by park-and-ride, passenger amenities, customer feedback, security and enforcement, first- and last-mile connections to park-and-ride, and the environmental impact of the transit agency. Managing Park-and-Ride CTA contracts with Standard Parking, formerly CPS Parking, to manage 14 park-and-ride facilities along the Blue, Pink, Brown, Green, and Orange Lines. These facilities encompass

2-59 5,281 parking spaces. The Village of Wilmette manages the Linden park-and-ride facility along the Purple Line (328 spaces), and the Village of Skokie manages the Dempster-Skokie park-and- ride facility along the Yellow Line (441 spaces). Passenger Amenities CTA provides several passenger amenities at park-and-ride facilities. All facilities have covered and enclosed waiting areas, on-site station personnel, vending machines, and ticket machines. Restrooms and electric vehicle charging are not available at any CTA park-and-ride facilities. Security and Enforcement Standard Parking provides roaming security at all park-and-ride facilities. Some facilities have physical barriers such as fences and gated entry to provide additional security. Municipalities with park-and-ride facilities are responsible for their security and enforcement. For example, the Village of Forest Park manages the park-and-ride facilities north of the Desplaines Avenue CTA terminal. The Village of Forest Park employs parking enforcement officers who are responsible for enforcing parking laws, removing vehicles obstructing the roadway, and impounding abandoned vehicles (Village of Forest Park 2016). The Village of Forest Park also sells parking permits, processes parking tickets, collects payments, and schedules any appeals. The Village of Skokie also has a parking enforcement division responsible for parking and licensing regulations within the Village, including five park-and-ride facilities (Village of Skokie 2016). In the 2014 request for proposals (RFP) for parking management, CTA required more frequent uniformed security patrols at parking facilities to help commuters feel safer. CTA also demanded quicker turnarounds to make repairs and upgrades (Hilkevitch 2014). In the contract with Standard Parking from 2009–2014, CTA did not expressly state this as a requirement. First- and Last-Mile Connections to Park-and-Ride CTA coordinates planning efforts to link transit to other travel modes such as bicycling, bikeshare, carshare, and pedestrian access to provide first- and last-mile travel options for customers (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l). CTA established the Bike & Ride program to improve bicycle access to bus routes and rail stations (Chicago Transit Authority 2016d). Bicycle parking is available at 130 of 144 CTA rail facilities. CTA and the Chicago Department of Transportation have installed high-capacity sheltered bike parking structures at the following eight rail stations:  Damen (Blue Line)—110 spaces.  Howard (Red/Purple/Yellow Lines)—56 spaces.  Jefferson Park (Blue Line)—120 spaces.  Loyola (Red Line)—48 spaces.  Midway (Orange Line)—112 spaces.

2-60  Sox-35th (Red Line)—42 spaces.  Western (Orange Line)—18 spaces.  95th/Dan Ryan (Red Line)—32 spaces. Bicycles are permitted on CTA buses and trains throughout the year, except during weekday rush periods (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), some holidays, and some special events (Chicago Transit Authority 2015b). The Thorndale Station also has a do-it-yourself bike repair stand, the seventh installed in the city of Chicago (Chicago Transit Authority 2016d). Divvy™ is Chicago’s bikeshare system, with thousands of bikes available at 580 stations across the Chicago area (Divvy 2016). While there is not a formal agreement with CTA, many Divvy stations are located near CTA bus and train stops. A Divvy bikeshare bicycle can be checked out from and returned to any station, creating a first- or last-mile connection from CTA without having to take a bike on board a bus or train (Chicago Transit Authority 2016d). CTA has been involved with carsharing since 2004 when the transit agency approved a pilot program with I-GO Carsharing, owned and operated by Enterprise CarShare as of 2013, to park shared cars at five CTA locations (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l, IGO Carsharing 2013). In early 2009, CTA and I-GO launched the Chicago Card Plus/I-GO Card, which enabled users to ride and transition from CTA and Pace services to I-GO vehicles using one card (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l). Integrating the I-GO Card with the Ventra Card, the fare payment system used by CTA and Pace, proved to be difficult, but Enterprise CarShare is working toward a solution (Enterprise Carshare 2016). Today, ZipCar™ and Enterprise CarShare have over 700 shared cars placed at over 200 locations across the Chicago area, many of which are located near CTA bus and train stops. CTA participates in several citywide committees, such as the Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Streetscapes Advisory Committee, both developed by the mayor of Chicago to improve pedestrian access in Chicago, especially to transit facilities; to further transit-friendly development through policy development and station studies; and to integrate transit planning with corridors throughout the city (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l). SHARED USE OF PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES CTA has partnered with local or regional agencies and private entities to provide parking in locations where the transit agency does not own a facility. There are some long-term, legacy parking agreements that were put in place prior to Standard Parking becoming involved in parking management at CTA. These partnerships are typically traditional real estate leases with a 10-year term (although in some cases, longer). Upon expiration of these agreements, CTA will renew the agreement, transition the facility into the contracted parking management program, or sell the space pending a financial analysis. Beyond transit service, CTA park-and-ride facilities are available for special event parking such as the Chicago Marathon, music festivals and

2-61 concerts, and Major League Baseball games. CTA’s contracted parking management company, Standard Parking, handles agreements for special event parking. Standard Parking also lists some available Under L parking spaces on SpotHero, a website that enables customers to view and compare available parking options and reserve a parking space (SpotHero 2016).  CHARGING FOR PARKING CTA charges for parking at all park-and-ride facilities. The following section describes the rates for parking and methods to collect parking charges at CTA. Rates for Parking There are parking charges at all park-and-ride facilities in the CTA system, including those operated by municipalities. Standard Parking and CTA review parking charges on an ongoing basis based on need and demand. Different fees are set for each location based on day of week and a range of hours per day. Parking costs range from $2.00 for 12 hours to $12.00 for 18 to 24 hours (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l). Monthly parking permits are available at 14 park- and-ride facilities and range from $40–$129 per month (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l). Table 17 displays the parking cost and time limits for each park-and-ride lot. Methods to Collect Parking Charges There are several methods to collect parking charges at park-and-ride facilities in the CTA system, including mobile applications, numbered slotboxes, automated ticket machines, and monthly parking permits. CTA customers can pay for parking at 14 CTA park-and-ride facilities managed by Standard Parking along the Blue, Brown, Green, Orange, and Pink Lines using the smartphone application Parkmobile (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l, Parkmobile 2016).

2-62 Table 17. CTA Parking Cost and Time Limit by Facility. Line Station Cost and Time Limit Spaces Blue Line Rosemont $5 for 0–14 hours $8 for 14–18 hours $12 for 18–24 hours 798 Blue Line Cumberland $5 for 12 hours $6 for 12–14 hours $8 for 14–16 hours $10 for 16–18 hours $12 for 18–24 hours Each additional 24 hours (or fraction thereof): $12 Lost ticket: $36 $100 for 14-hour monthly day rate $129 for 24-hour monthly rate 1,633 Blue Line Harlem $5 for 12 hours $129 monthly 53 Blue Line Forest Park $5 for 12 hours $100 monthly 1,051 Pink Line 54th/Cermak $2 for 12 hours$40 monthly 175 Brown Line Kimball $5 (weekdays) for 12 hours $4 (weekends) for 12 hours $129 monthly 73 Green Line Ashland/63rd $2 for 12 hours$40 monthly 235 Green Line Garfield $2 for 12 hours $40 monthly 117 Orange Line Midway $5 for 12 hours $129 monthly 299 Orange Line Pulaski/51st $5 (weekdays) for 12 hours $4 (weekends) for 12 hours $129 monthly 390 Orange Line Kedzie $2 for 12 hours $40 monthly 157 Orange Line Western $4 for 12 hours $80 monthly 200 Orange Line 35th/Archer $5 (weekdays) for 12 hours $4 (weekends) for 12 hours $129 monthly 69 Orange Line Halsted $5 for 12 hours $129 monthly 31 Purple Line Linden $4 for 24 hours $80 monthly 328 Red Line Howard $5 for 12 hours with ticket validation (regular garage-set rates apply thereafter) 592 Yellow Line Dempster- Skokie $2 for 24 hours in north lot $3 for 24 hours in south lot 441 Source: Znamierowski 2012.

2-63 MANAGING DEMAND FOR PARKING CTA has changed the price for parking to manage demand at several park-and-ride facilities. In April 2012, CTA voted to increase weekday parking rates by $1.00, from $4.00 to $5.00, at four locations: Halsted and Archer, 35th and Archer, and 51st and Pulaski along the Orange Line, and at Kimball and Lawrence along the Brown Line. According to CTA officials, these lots are experiencing steady growth and more than 85 percent occupancy on average (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l, Hilkevitch 2012). At the same time, CTA voted to decrease prices from $4.00 to $2.00 at four underused park-and-ride lots: Garfield, Ashland, and 63rd along the Green Line, 54th and Cermak along the Pink Line, and 48th and Kedzie along the Orange Line. In these lots, parking occupancy is averaging 34 percent or less (Chicago Transit Authority 2016l). The pricing changes reflect an effort to better manage parking at rail stations in order to maximize revenue and ridership. Former CTA director Forrest Claypool stated that “customizing the fees and options for each marketplace will allow CTA to maximize the value of these facilities” (Chicago Transit Authority 2011b). CTA decreased prices at underused lots to increase demand and attract additional customers. In November 2011, the fees were adjusted at 13 park-and-ride lots and 11 under-L parking lots. Monthly parking was also added at some park-and-ride locations (Chicago Transit Authority 2011b). CONTRACTED PARKING MANAGEMENT CTA contracts with private vendors for parking management at 14 of 17 park-and-ride facilities. Standard Parking manages 14 park-and-ride locations; the Village of Wilmette and the Village of Skokie each own and manage one park-and-ride facility, and park-and-ride rates are provided with validation at the Howard Red Line through a partnership with the parking garage owner. CTA contracts for parking management because parking vendors have the knowledge, expertise, experience, and dedicated time to operate, maintain, and manage parking facilities. In October 2009, the Chicago Transit Board approved a five-year contract with CPS Parking, now Standard Parking, for the operation, management, and maintenance of select CTA parking facilities. Under this contract, CTA was guaranteed $1 million annually, or up to 49.5 percent of net revenue, whichever is greater, and Standard Parking is responsible for its own operating expenses (Chicago Transit Authority 2009). Additionally, CPS was contractually obligated to purchase, install, and maintain new fee collection equipment that would accept payment by credit card, mobile phone, and cash at 11 CTA park-and-ride lots, as well as maintain all under- L parking (Chicago Transit Authority 2009). In 2014, CTA released a new RFP for parking management requiring additional security patrols provided by the vendor and an investment in parking facility improvements (Hilkevitch 2014). In September 2014, CTA entered into a 10-year concessions agreement with Standard Parking with two one-year options to extend the agreement. This agreement guarantees $2,850,000 minimum

2-64 annual revenue to CTA, 57.4 percent of net revenues over $4,965,157 collected per contract year, and a one-time upfront payment of $1,400,000, and requires indemnification of CTA (Chicago Transit Authority 2014b). The contract has several specific performance measures that must be met to maintain the contractual obligations. Jones Lang LaSalle, a consultant hired by CTA to provide corporate solutions and manage its real estate portfolio, provides oversight for contract compliance by visually checking each station on a monthly basis. Status reports are provided to the parking manager, and necessary maintenance is conducted. Additionally, Standard Parking employees handle day-to-day maintenance and customer issues that may arise. After several iterations of parking management contracts, CTA has found it useful to hire a consultant with parking contract experience to draft the initial RFP and final contract for parking management. These types of contracts and concession agreements have multiple nuances and require extreme specificity in the contractual obligations. An experienced consultant has the knowledge to write a contract to the level of required specificity, which can result in a contract more advantageous to the transit agency. MAINTENANCE AND STATE OF GOOD REPAIR Since 2011, CTA has been in the process of completely overhauling its rail and bus fleet and infrastructure. CTA purchased 300 new 40-foot clean diesel buses between 2011 and 2015, and has purchased 125 more buses set to be delivered in 2016 and 2017. Once all buses are delivered, approximately 85 percent of the bus fleet will be new or overhauled (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). Furthermore, CTA completed mid-life overhauls on over 1,000 buses in 2015 to prolong their life spans and improve their efficiency (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). CTA has replaced and overhauled its rail fleet as well. In 2015, 714 new rail cars were put into service on five rail lines (Chicago Transit Authority 2015a, 2016m). Also in 2015, CTA began overhauling 250 rail cars used on the Brown and Orange Lines. The cars are over 20 years old, and the overhaul will include updating major operating systems; installing new air conditioning systems; and rebuilding the propulsion system, passenger door motors, and wheel and axle assemblies (Chicago Transit Authority 2015h, 2016m). The overhaul is scheduled to be completed in 2017. In March 2016, CTA awarded a contract to manufacture 400 more rail cars, which will replace CTA’s oldest rolling stock by 2020 (Chicago Transit Authority 2016f, 2016m). Several significant multiyear projects are underway to improve existing transit stations, track systems, and structures into a state of good repair, including the:  Red and Purple Modernization Program (Chicago Transit Authority 2011b, 2016o).  Ravenswood Connector Rehabilitation Project (Chicago Transit Authority 2015f, 2016m).

2-65  Purple Express Improvement Project (Chicago Transit Authority 2015e, 2016m). CTA does not publish specific information about the useful life of park-and-ride facilities or dollar investments made for state of good repair maintenance for park-and-rides. DESIGN FEATURES CTA has included design features in both the bus and rail systems that meet the accessibility requirements of ADA and design features for improved safety, as discussed in the following sections. Meeting Accessibility Requirements for ADA On July 15, 2015, the Chicago Transit Board adopted a resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary of ADA and acknowledging CTA’s accessibility initiatives (Chicago Transit Authority 2016a, 2016m). CTA has an ADA Advisory Committee comprised of 12 members appointed by the chair of the Chicago Transit Board. The committee meets quarterly and provides CTA with recommendations for compliance with ADA, facilitates dialogue between the transit agency and people with disabilities, and works to increase services provided for the disabled community (Chicago Transit Authority 2016b). CTA does not have a policy for providing accessible parking spaces beyond meeting the requirements in ADA. The entire CTA bus fleet is accessible to people with disabilities (Chicago Transit Authority 2016a). All of CTA’s buses provide kneeling capability and have ramps at the forward doors, priority seats, LED signage, and wheelchair securement areas. Furthermore, all CTA trains have a designated wheelchair securement area, ramps, ADA-compliant doors, Braille signage, priority seats, and interior and exterior stop and route automated voice announcements (Chicago Transit Authority 2016a). Today, 100 CTA stations are accessible by ADA-compliant elevators or ramps. All stations have gap fillers to bridge the space between the platform and the rail car and customer assistants to assist customers with disabilities available during all service hours (Chicago Transit Authority 2016a). Through existing work underway and new projects, CTA plans to improve accessibility at seven rail stations to meet current ADA guidelines (Chicago Transit Authority 2016a). Design Features for Safety CTA does not have specific design standards for incorporating safety into the design of park- and-ride facilities; however, safety features are incorporated at all CTA facilities. For example, the Loop Link transit project, completed in 2015, featured colored pavement markings and enhanced signage to clearly delineate the bus lanes. Often when facilities are renovated or newly built, CTA considers pedestrian safety by providing wider sidewalks and redirecting pedestrian traffic away from roadways (Chicago Transit Authority 2015d, 2016m). Also, the Union Station

2-66 Transit Center, opened on September 4, 2016, features off-street bus boarding to improve safety (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). CTA has security cameras system-wide to improve safety and security for passengers on every bus and train and at every transit station. There are more than 23,000 cameras in the network (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m, 2016p). Security cameras have helped police investigate crimes committed on or near CTA property, ultimately resulting in the arrest and charging of over 900 offenders since 2011 (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m, 2016p). The mayor of Chicago attributed a 25 percent reduction in crime on CTA in 2015 to the security camera network (Chicago Transit Authority 2016n). TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CTA partnered with the City of Chicago to create a transit-friendly development guide to encourage development at CTA rail stations (Chicago Transit Authority and City of Chicago n.d.). The guide classifies all CTA stations and describes appropriate development opportunities for each. In many of the station areas, CTA owns and operates large parking and bus transfer facilities. CTA needs to provide parking at these facilities to serve the commuting transit customer, but some facilities also represent a potential for creative partnerships for redevelopment. The guide provides a template for redeveloping these properties while maintaining the required level of parking for park-and-ride users. CTA works with local stakeholders to promote redevelopment and transit-friendly development around transit stations. The Morgan Green and Pink Line Station, completed in 2012, has been a catalyst for commercial and residential development. The number of business licenses issued within a 0.5-mile radius of the station has increased 13 percent, and the number of new construction and demolition permits has increased 400 percent since the station opened (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). Many proposed projects throughout the system include TOD around the station, including potential mixed-use development, in the project scope. In 2015, CTA received $1.25 million in funding from FTA to develop a TOD plan in conjunction with redevelopment plans for the first phase of the Red and Purple Modernization Project (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m, Federal Transit Administration 2016). CTA’s TOD plan for this corridor included a market analysis of the stations, site-specific development plans, and public engagement efforts to identify land use and development options (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). INNOVATION CTA uses many innovative technologies throughout its system, such as transit trackers, application programming interfaces, a multimodal trip planner, and an integrated fare payment system. The following sections discuss these innovations.

2-67 Transit Trackers CTA uses GPS devices to provide real-time information for trains and buses, and customers can get the next vehicle arrival information via text message (Chicago Transit Authority 2016q). The CTA Bus Tracker reports bus location data, enabling CTA to show the location of buses on a map in real time and estimate when they will arrive at a particular stop. By the end of 2015, a total of 420 Bus Tracker signs were expected to be installed across the system, including approximately 70 at selected rail stations (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m). Train TrackerSM provides estimated arrival times for L train service across Chicago and is available on web-enabled mobile devices (Chicago Transit Authority 2016i). The service was initially launched in 2011 but is continually tested and refined. Train Tracker also features a follow-this-train function that allows users to watch the progress of a specific train as it approaches their location, and the station farther down the route, which is useful when taking a train specifically for making a transfer at another station. Train Tracker is accessible to people with disabilities. CTA is testing the display of Train Tracker arrival times at 13 rail stations on existing LED displays, with plans to expand the pilot to additional stations and with additional features once the testing phase is complete. Application Programming Interfaces CTA provides customers with an app center that showcases applications for computers, smartphones, and tablets using data published by CTA (Chicago Transit Authority 2016c). Most of the applications are not made by CTA, and CTA does not sell or license the applications. There are no application programming interfaces (APIs) specifically related to park-and-ride facilities. Integrated Payment System and Regional App In 2013, CTA and Pace launched an integrated fare payment system, the Ventra Card, allowing customers the convenience of using one card for all transit needs. Ventra helped provide faster boarding, provide easy account management, and balance protection (Chicago Transit Authority 2013). In 2015, the Ventra mobile application was launched, enabling customers to pay for rides on all three transit systems across Chicago—CTA, Metra, and Pace—through their smartphones and mobile devices (Chicago Transit Authority 2015c, 2015g, 2016j). The app has a wide range of functionality available on customers’ smartphones, including account management, transit pass loading, and integrated mobile ticketing. The app also provides access to real-time arrival information for CTA, Metra, and Pace (Ventra 2016). The first phase of the app is fully functional; phases planned later in 2016 include additional account management features and an integrated regional trip planner with service information for CTA, Metra, and Pace that allows customers to navigate the region from using all three transit systems (Chicago Transit Authority 2016m).

2-68 Multimodal Trip Planner CTA provides links to several trip planners available in the Chicago area, including the RTA trip planner (Chicago Transit Authority 2016k). The RTA trip planner allows travelers to plan trips across the region using multiple modes, including public transit (CTA, Metra, and Pace), driving, biking, and walking (Regional Transit Authority 2016). The trip planner also allows users to incorporate park-and-ride facilities into the trip directions. SUMMARY—LESSONS LEARNED CTA has approximately 6,600 parking spaces available across 17 park-and-ride facilities, with the majority managed, operated, and maintained through a 10-year concessions agreement with the parking vendor, Standard Parking. CTA recommends hiring a consultant with contract experience to draft the initial RFP and final contract for parking management because these types of agreements require extreme specificity when outlining the contractual obligations of the vendor. SUMMARY—NOTABLE PRACTICES CTA has several notable practices, such as adjustments to the price of parking to meet demand, multimodal trip planners, regional payment mobile applications, partnerships for transit-friendly development, and access to carshare from many facilities. With approximately 6,600 parking spaces available for CTA customers across the region, some park-and-ride facilities experience more demand than others. CTA has both increased and decreased the price for parking to manage demand at several park-and-ride facilities, most recently in 2012. The ability to customize the fees and options allows CTA to maximize the value of these park-and-ride facilities. The ability to incorporate park-and-ride into trip planning through the multimodal RTA trip planner also maximizes the value of these facilities. CTA created an easy way for transit users to manage and pay their transit fare on CTA, Metra, and Pace buses and trains with the Ventra app. CTA also encourages development of additional transit applications by publishing its data publically. Partnering with the City of Chicago, the Chicago DOT, and consultants, CTA developed a TOD guidebook to establish potential development scenarios and identify nearby zoning and infrastructure assets that maximize each station as a community anchor.

2-69 DART – DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT INTRODUCTION According to previous research, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) stands out as a transit agency that proactively monitors the performance of its park-and-ride service and is willing to implement new programs and technologies to achieve better performance and provide better service. Therefore, the research team chose to pursue a detailed case study about DART to learn more about how the transit agency monitors its park-and-ride service, how it manages demand, and what lessons DART has learned. Case study efforts included in-person, remote (email and phone), and web-based data collection. The research team coordinated with DART to schedule an in-person site visit at the transit agency’s administrative offices to gather information and documentation. Over the course of the two-day visit at DART, researchers met with representatives from operations, planning, forecasting, finance, and facility management departments to discuss the case study effort and request agency-specific information. After the in-person site visit, researchers coordinated multiple data-collection phone conferences to obtain additional information about maintenance, innovation, and operating costs. This case study describes the transit agency and provides detailed information about how DART plans and manages park-and-ride service. Information that covers 10 main subjects is presented, including:  Operating context for park-and-ride.  Shared-use of park-and-ride facilities.  Charging for parking.  Planning and estimating demand.  Managing demand for parking.  In-house management of facilities.  Maintenance and state of good repair.  Park-and-ride capital investment.  Transit-oriented development.  Innovation. BACKGROUND DART has provided transit service since 1983 and operates in 13 member cities, including Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Richardson, Rowlett, Plano, and University Park. The transit agency operates bus, light rail, paratransit, and vanpool services. DART also owns and operates the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) commuter rail system in partnership with the Fort Worth Transportation

Authority tax, feder (Dallas A area was Other pu Transpor and DCT DART’s service a 2014 Ser Size (s a Source: F b Source: D (FWTA) in al grant fun rea Rapid T 2,334,880 p blic transit o tation Autho A service (s size and FY rea. vice Area q. miles)a 2 650 ederal Transi allas Area Ra Source: D Fort Worth ds, investme ransit 2016 eople (Fede perators in t rity (DCTA ometimes th 2016 opera Table 18 014 Service Popula 2,33 t Administratio pid Transit 20 allas Area Ra Figure 7. D , Texas. DA nt income, ). In 2014, th ral Transit A he DART a ). DART se rough TRE ting and cap . DART Bu Area tiona 2014 (perso 4,880 n 2014. 16. pid Transit 20 allas Area 2-70 RT is funde fare revenue e populatio dministrati rea include F rvices allow connections ital budgets dget and Se Service Area Density ns/sq. mile) 3,592 16. Rapid Tra d by a dedi , and variou n of DART on 2014). WTA and customers ). Table 18 . Figure 7 pr rvice Area a O $494 nsit Service cated one-ce s financing ’s 650-squar the Denton C to transfer to presents inf esents DAR Size. FY 2016 perating Budgetb ,940,000 Area. nt local sale packages e-mile servi ounty both FWT ormation ab T’s 13-city FY 2 Capital Bud $258,473 s ce A out 016 getb ,000

2-71 Governance DART is governed by a 15-member board of directors. Eight members represent the City of Dallas, and seven board members represent the other cities within DART’s service area. All board members are appointed by their respective city councils and serve two-year terms without a limit on the number of terms they can serve. The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the DART region and represents 16 counties. Transit Modes DART provides bus, light rail, vanpool, commuter rail (in cooperation with FWTA), demand- response, and demand-response taxi services. DART directly operates bus and light rail service in each of the transit agency’s 13 member cities. DART’s demand-response services include community connector service (DART On-Call), ADA-paratransit service, and flex-route service (FLEX). On-Call is available in select areas within DART’s service area including East Rowlett, Farmers Branch, Glenn Heights, Lake Highlands, Lakewood, North Central Plano, North Dallas, and Park Cities. ADA-paratransit service offers curb-to-curb service that begins and ends in any of DART’s 13 member cities. FLEX service is available in Downtown Irving/Heritage Crossing, Buckner, East Plano, Telecom Corridor, South Plano, and Rowlett. Vanpool service is provided in coordination with NCTCOG and vanpool trips of any length in any direction are allowed as long as the trip either originates or terminates within the DART service area. Table 19 provides summary information about DART’s transit modes. Table 20 documents DART’s transit fares for fixed-route services. Table 19. Key DART Operating Statistics by Mode. Service Mode Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Annual Unlinked Trips Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Operating Expenses Fare Revenues Commuter Rail 23 2,283,895 416,814 19,908 $25,885,728 $9,478,034 Demand Response 148 468,964 2,939,099 281,996 $23,711,788 $1,149,024 Demand Response— Taxi 79 376,174 4,144,030 $10,162,195 $921,676 Light Rail 103 29,458,289 5,115,303 255,187 $164,950,363 $27,904,801 Bus 544 37,383,043 26,785,827 2,243,977 $238,552,185 $32,564,351 Van Pool 183 892,966 3,426,983 85,675 $2,284,620 $996,424 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2014.

2-72 Table 20. DART Fares. Service Fare Local 2-hour Pass $2.50 Regional 2-hour pass $5.00 Local Day Pass $5.00 Regional Day Pass $10.00 Midday Local Pass $1.75 Midday Regional Pass $3.50 Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2016. Park-and-Ride DART provides parking for bus, light rail, and commuter rail service. DART provides parking for bus service at transit centers (seven locations) and park-and-rides (two locations). Light rail customers may park at 36 of DART’s 62 rail stations (58 percent). Parking is also available at six of the nine TRE stations. (Two TRE stations, Union and Victory, provide access to DART’s light rail and bus service but do not offer parking.) In total, parking is available at 51 transit service locations within DART’s service area. Table 21 presents the number of parking facilities by type and the number of parking spaces available at each facility. Table 21. DART Parking Statistics by Facility Type. Facility Type Number of Facilities with Parking Parking Spaces Available Kiss-n-Ride Spaces Available* Bus Transit Center 7 3,884 42 Bus Park-and-Ride 2 1,159 6 Light Rail Station 36 18,156 356 TRE Station 6 3,061 60 Total 51 26,260 464 *Some kiss-n-ride spaces are provided at locations without standard parking. Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2016. The remainder of this section describes in detail the following elements of DART’s park-and-ride program: operational context, shared use of parking, charging for parking, planning and estimating demand, demand management, management of parking facilities and operations, maintenance, capital investment, and TOD. The case study ends with a summary of DART’s notable practices and the lessons the transit agency has learned related to park-and-ride provision. OPERATING CONTEXT FOR PARK-AND-RIDE Factors That Impact Park-and-Ride DART provides service in a dynamic region with characteristics including spatially distributed populations, low-density development, and neighboring cities that do not contribute revenue for

2-73 provision of service. Residents from outside of DART’s service area challenge the transit agency by increasing transit and parking demand at outlying park-and-ride facilities. Commuters from outside of DART’s service area travel to DART’s park-and-rides to take light rail and bus service to employment centers, creating high demand for parking at some of DART’s park-and- ride facilities. Later sections in this section will discuss this challenge and will examine DART’s experience with paid parking and managing demand. In the future, DART is likely to have opportunities to grow its service and its service area— 50 percent of the residents in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area reside in locations that are, as of May 2016, not served by any public transit providers. DART works with some nearby communities to provide service under contract and to develop proposals for future service provision (either under contract, or as a DART service area city). Park-and-Ride Transit Modes DART provides parking for customers to access both bus and light rail service. Parking facilities are generally the same, regardless of the mode served; DART determines the number of spaces required by demand forecasts that ignore transit mode, and parking typology is uniform throughout the system. Passenger Amenities DART’s design standards outline basic requirements according to facility type. Passenger amenities at park-and-ride facilities vary across modes. Transit centers, which provide the majority of parking locations for bus customers, include indoor waiting areas with air conditioning, restrooms, and a station monitor (during peak hours). One transit center, at Addison, provides a ticket vending machine (TVM). Bus park-and-ride locations provide parking and a covered waiting area. The Northwest Plano park-and-ride has two TVMs. As DART grew its light rail service, many transit centers were transitioned from bus service to light rail service. As a result, these light rail stations provide the same amenities as transit centers (indoor waiting areas with air conditioning, restrooms, and a peak-hour station monitor). Light rail stations that were not previously transit centers provide seating, shade, and TVMs at some locations. DART does not typically consider improving passenger amenities as a method of increasing ridership because the transit agency regularly receives feedback from customers that asks for increased service and better service frequency, not improved amenities. Researchers are not clear if more or better amenities would increase ridership enough to warrant the cost. Anecdotally, DART has learned that some commuters choose to use DART’s express bus service instead of light rail because of the increased comfort it provides. Customers of express bus service are transported directly from the parking facility to their final destinations in downtown Dallas without stopping (compared to having multiple stops on light rail). The parking facility has air conditioning and bathrooms, and the experience on the transit vehicle is more pleasant (a guaranteed seat without people standing near you). Due to DART’s long-range plans to

2-74 implement a large light rail network, much of DART’s express bus service has been converted to light rail service. Because of the transition to light rail service in a majority of DART’s service corridors, only commuters in specific corridors have the opportunity to choose the increased comfort of express bus service. Security and Enforcement The transit agency’s police force conducts DART’s security and fare enforcement. The police department has mode-specific units for patrols. The rail unit is composed of police officers and fare enforcement officers. Fare enforcement officers ride the light rail trains daily to monitor public safety and check fares. In the past, DART tried to assign an officer to each train but found that this level of police presence was cost prohibitive. Backup officers patrol light rail stations and park-and-rides and respond to calls from train-based officers. DART’s patrol division is responsible for responding to bus problems and patrolling bus park-and-rides. Municipal police departments within DART’s service area work in cooperation with DART police and defer to DART when situations occur on DART property. DART police and city police departments cooperate through multiple memorandums of understanding. DART police regularly participate in peer-to-peer training events by hosting visiting police and transit personnel and visiting other transit agencies. Cameras augment police presence throughout DART’s service area. DART has approximately 5,000 cameras that are monitored by police dispatch. Police constantly monitor known problem areas and can view other relevant cameras during emergencies. All rail stations and all bus and rail vehicles have surveillance cameras on board. As of May 2016, only one bus park-and-ride facility had cameras installed; however, DART plans to implement cameras at all bus park-and-ride facilities as funding permits. All cameras are recorded so that the footage can be reviewed. Film footage is kept 14 days before being recorded over. According to the DART police department, a 14-day holding period for recorded surveillance is considered an industry best practice. DART does not monitor parking areas with cameras directly (although some cameras inadvertently have a view of the parking). Instead of using cameras to monitor parking, DART police regularly patrol these areas. DART’s customers may call or text message the police department to report suspicious behavior or emergencies. The ability to text instead of call has improved customers’ sense of security when reporting problems, and the program is popular with DART’s customers. However, it relies on constant marketing and education to remind customers of its existence. Crime and Crime Prevention. DART experiences very few criminal issues related to parked cars (whether vandalism, theft, or burglary). Compared to the areas surrounding most facilities, the rate of vehicle-related crime is noticeably lower for vehicles parked in DART’s park-and-ride facilities. If vehicle-related crimes begin to increase, DART’s police department launches a targeted information campaign that includes distribution of educational materials and car security

2-75 grades (police officers assess the security of each vehicle in a park-and-ride and leave a grade along with tips for improving security). Beyond targeted campaigns to reduce crime hotspots, the DART police department holds regular customer service events that include visiting with customers at DART transit facilities to answer questions and teach people about what the police department can do for them. The events take place approximately two times each month in different locations. In 2015, DART police conducted nearly 50 customer service events. DART designs and assesses the transit agency’s facilities in coordination with DART police using Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) practices. The police department’s office of emergency management and the transit planning department refer to CPTED guidelines to determine appropriate lighting levels and locations, develop safe sight lines through facilities, and minimize hiding places and other site design elements that may lead to unsafe situations. All police sergeants are trained and certified as CPTED inspectors and regularly inspect DART park-and-ride facilities to ensure continued application of CPTED practices. Every three years, facilities are reviewed and given new CPTED plans. Facilities are checked by DART police sergeants using a CPTED inspection report checklist (designed in house). Inspection reports and a memorandum documenting the findings and suggested mitigations are shared with DART’s maintenance and transportation departments so that issues can be corrected as needed. A copy of DART’s CPTED assessment checklist and example CPTED memo are available with the DART case study here: http://tti.tamu.edu/group/transit- mobility/resources/tcrp-h-52-case-studies/. Increasing Ridership by Enhancing Safety Perceptions. DART has moved from adding ridership through expansion (the planned system is nearly built out) to adding customers by convincing choice customers to ride. According to DART’s police representative, “In a personal vehicle, you get to choose who sits next to you. Not on transit.” Therefore, the police department focuses on continually increasing customers’ sense of safety at all times to reduce and eliminate perceptions of unsafe environments or service. The perception that DART is unsafe will reduce ridership and make it hard for DART to regain the trust of its customers. An example of DART’s ongoing effort to make customers feel safe is that light rail patrol officers are required to spend a large amount of their time engaging with customers through community policing. The position’s job description documents this requirement. DART finds that outreach and communication (through community policing) is very important and productive for transit security. Eligible Access to Park-and-Ride Beyond personal automobiles, there are many ways that transit customers can use DART park-and-ride facilities. DART provides bicycle parking at all locations that have vehicle parking. A three-vehicle carshare pilot, in partnership with ZipCar, is available at the Mockingbird Station. DART is currently working with Toyota to potentially develop a Toyota-based carshare at DART’s northern facilities that is intended to allow Toyota employees to access Toyota’s new U.S. headquarters at Legacy by driving carshare vehicles between

2-76 DART’s park-and-ride and the offices. In the currently proposed concept, this carshare system will use electric vehicles and include charging infrastructure at the lots that host the service. Transportation network company (TNC) drivers may pick up and drop off customers at DART park-and-rides without a special permit or additional fees. Shuttle operators (such as the Texas Instrument employee shuttle and the Choctaw Casino shuttle) and an intercity bus operator (Megabus) are allowed to access DART park-and-ride facilities through agreements with DART. Where space is available, these users are granted access to a bus bay to pick up and drop off passengers. Typically, customers that connect to either shuttle buses or intercity buses at DART park-and-ride facilities will transfer from DART’s transit service and do not leave cars in the parking lot. SHARED USE OF PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES A majority of DART’s park-and-ride facilities is owned solely by the transit agency and was developed specifically to serve transit needs. The park-and-ride facilities that DART does not own are on land owned by local municipalities or public agencies. DART has interagency agreements with the land-owning municipalities, and these agreements were developed on a case-by-case basis. This section documents DART’s experience with shared-use park-and-ride facilities. History Historically, DART has not had many opportunities to have parking at existing facilities owned by other entities due to the light-rail-centric nature of the transit agency’s long-range operational plans and its widespread low-density service area. Bus-oriented transit service can be easily adjusted to use opportunities to share existing third-party parking facilities. Light rail transit requires acquisition and development of ROW that is dedicated to transit service. A transit agency will likely not acquire ROW that aligns with existing parking facilities that present shared-use opportunities. This challenge is more apparent in areas that have not yet been developed (much of DART’s service area was undeveloped when the transit agency first began capital improvements for light rail). Influencing Factors DART built the facilities that exist on land owned by other entities in response to local development and city priorities. Typically, a developer goes to either a city or DART to initiate a conversation about where and how parking could be implemented to complement a proposed development. DART developed the parking beneath the George Bush Turnpike in response to a last-minute decision to build a previously deferred light rail station (CityLine). DART built the CityLine Station ahead of schedule in response to requests from a local developer that was building a large

2-77 office facility adjacent to the planned station. Tenants of the offices were interested in direct transit access. In this case, DART approached the North Texas Toll Authority with a request to use the area beneath the George Bush Turnpike for a parking facility and entered into an inter-agency agreement to develop the location. The City of Plano has approached DART about shifting the location of the parking at the Parker Road Station in Plano to adjacent city land in order to accommodate proposed development on DART’s existing site. In downtown Garland, DART coordinated a shared parking agreement with the city to provide additional parking during performances at a nearby theater and developed an inter-agency agreement to manage the use of the facilities. Typically, DART does not seek opportunities for shared-use parking arrangements, preferring to construct parking on DART-owned land. However, DART is open to the option of shared-use parking provision and investigates the option during planning and development of parking facilities. If parking is developed on non-DART property, as discussed above, it is in coordination with another public entity and not with a private partner (i.e., movie theaters, shopping malls, big box stores). Some of the benefits of shared-use parking developments include:  Preservation of developable land for other uses (as in the case of CityLine, with parking underneath an overpass).  Saved time (parking can be placed in locations that are convenient to DART facilities, and ridership capture can occur sooner).  Land banking (DART can use land immediately, and then the same space could be developed, or sold for development, in the future). Financial Risk for Unexpected Cost The financial risk associated with DART’s shared-use park-and-ride facilities is limited because there are only a few shared-use facilities, and those facilities are owned by other governmental entities. DART is responsible for liability in the same way the transit agency is liable for issues that arise on DART property. From an operational perspective, DART is responsible for construction and maintenance of all shared-use park-and-ride facilities; therefore, the risk related to unexpected maintenance costs is no different than the risk associated with transit-agency- owned facilities. Other Types of Shared Use In some situations, such as the ZipCar carsharing service available at DART’s Mockingbird Station, private entities lease space from DART. ZipCar leases three spaces at Mockingbird Station that were originally purposed for kiss-and-ride but have been underused. ZipCar and other private users of DART facilities function under license agreements, which have a 30-day termination clause. Because of the 30-day termination clause, DART can initiate license

2-78 agreements without board approval. Additionally, DART’s shared-use license agreements require fair market value for the parking facilities used as part of the agreement. Notable Practices DART has been successful at leveraging partnerships with other public entities to develop park-and-ride facilities on non-DART property. This coordination has catalyzed development, preserved land for future development, and used land that was otherwise unusable (e.g., the land under the George Bush Expressway overpass). By collaborating with public entities instead of private entities, DART is able to better predict the future of these facilities when compared to similar agreements with private partners because private agreements may be subject to more frequent renegotiations due to market pressures and business interests. CHARGING FOR PARKING As of May 2016, DART does not charge for parking at any park-and-ride facilities during regular service and only charges for special event service. In the past, DART pilot tested a paid parking program, called Fair Share, that was focused on regular transit customers parking at selected facilities. This section documents DART’s historical paid parking experience, the transit agency’s charging for parking during special event service, and its current policy of not charging for parking during regularly scheduled service. Paid Parking Trial DART tested a paid parking program at select park-and-ride facilities from 2012 to 2014 in an effort to account for congestion at some outlying park-and-ride locations. During the period of paid parking, DART introduced a parking fee at suburban park-and-rides to “manage park-and- ride lot capacity through pricing, address the equity issue of subsidizing transit capacity for non-service area users, and ensure positive net transit revenue” (Alliance Transportation Group 2013). DART contracted with Platinum Parking to manage the day-to-day paid parking activities and collection of fees. The paid parking trial, called Fair Share, launched at the Parker Road and North Carrollton/Frankford facilities in April 2012. Fair Share was introduced at the Northwest Plano Park and Ride in July 2011 and at Beltline Station in December 2012. Policies to Charge for Parking. Between April 2012 and April 2014, the transit agency conducted the Fair Share trial for reserved parking and paid parking at four park-and-ride lots. The concept was to provide free, reserved parking to residents of the DART service area that obtained a parking permit and to charge a parking fee to non-service-area residents. Platinum Parking administered the process associated with determining residency status (through on-site staff) and distribution of resident parking permits. Non-residents that chose to park in the lots with parking fees paid $2.00 for up to 12 hours and $5.00 for up to 24 hours.

2-79 Methods to Collect Parking Charges. When DART was trialing Fair Share, parking fees were collected by on-site electronic pay stations that accepted cash, credit, and debit cards. Pay stations were provided as rental units by DART’s parking management provider Platinum Parking and cost $2,800 each per month. Public Outreach. DART’s Fair Share parking trial originated, in part, due to feedback from customers on the use of parking. DART learned that residents of the service area were frustrated by the fact that there were so many non-residents (individuals that reside in locations outside of DART’s 13-member cities).using park-and-ride transit service to commute that residents were struggling to find parking. DART proposed the concept of charging non-residents to park at specific, heavily congested park-and-ride locations to a focus group, the transit agency’s board of directors, and the general public. Based on feedback from these stakeholders, DART proposed that the board of directors approve a change in statutes to allow the transit agency to charge for parking. After Fair Share was implemented, customers responded to a DART survey saying that parking charges caused congestion at parking lots closer to the central business district (as a result of people avoiding parking fees by driving to free parking locations) and overloaded parking for people with disabilities. Outcomes. At the end of the Fair Share trial period, DART stopped offering reserved parking at all but one park-and-ride location and discontinued parking charges at all park-and-ride facilities. DART produced a report documenting the Fair Share experience and the reasons the transit agency discontinued the paid parking program. Positively, DART found transit ridership was not diminished as a result of charging for parking, and parking demand shifted to free lots, easing congestion in the target lots. Unfortunately, as was previously mentioned, Fair Share also shifted congestion (enough people were willing to move to avoid paying that other, previously uncongested lots became congested), and parking spaces for people with disabilities became congested (likely as a result of people without disabilities using disabled parking placards illegally). DART’s revenue forecast predicted a profitable paid parking program by March 2015, if the program were left in place. However, Fair Share was not profitable during the trial period. Special Events Before the Dallas Cowboys relocated to Arlington from Irving, DART used some of its park-and-ride facilities to operate special game-day shuttles from certain park-and-ride lots in an effort to ease congestion near the stadium and on DART’s green line light rail service. As of May 2016, DART still offers this type of service, as warranted, for special events. Parking charges for special event service are included in the special event transit fares; passengers pay one fee for both parking and transit service. Paid parking and shuttle service during special events is very popular and generates positive revenue for DART.

2-80 Not Charging for Parking Prior to April 2012, and since April 2014, DART has not charged for parking at any of the transit agency’s park-and-ride facilities. DART does not charge for parking because the transit agency is concerned about possible reductions in ridership. Despite not experiencing a decline in ridership when Fair Share was in place, DART has avoided charging for parking because of a fear that ridership will decline. According to the transit agency’s research, the only situation that would not result in lost ridership due to parking charges is one in which DART operated in an environment that had exceptionally high ridership demand and few options (i.e., options were unavailable or were not cost effective). Currently, DART’s service area offers low-cost parking in destination centers, has relatively low-cost fuel prices, and has recently (as of May 2016) begun to experience congestion that is bad enough to make a majority of commutes take longer in personal autos than on light rail (bus transit also gets stuck in congestion without dedicated ROW). Therefore, DART’s current ridership is very sensitive to any changes in the total cost associated with transit use (such as parking fees) and is likely to seek other travel options if parking fees are introduced. DART’s board of directors has discussed the concept of unbundling the cost of parking from the cost of transit (i.e., for non-parkers that originate at facilities with parking, the transit fare could be lower because they are not using parking resources, but parkers could be charged the full cost of both the transit service and the cost to provide a parking space for their vehicle). However, the board concluded that parking was simply part of the transit agency’s overall package of service and, if DART needs additional revenue, a fare increase is a better method to raise funds. According to DART, additional amenities at park-and-ride facilities, such as increased security, dynamic messaging signs that display real-time counts of open parking spaces, and other convenience features, may be capable of justifying parking charges to DART constituents. However, the transit agency does not plan to investigate this concept. Notable Practices According to DART’s experience with the Fair Share paid parking trial, paid parking is useful as a targeted tool to shift parkers to facilities with less demand. By implementing parking charges at heavily congested lots, a transit agency can encourage some users to begin parking elsewhere by keeping non-congested locations free. Additionally, if the goal of the program is to generate revenue instead of shift demand, a transit agency should charge for parking at all park-and-ride locations. This may require that the transit agency accept ridership loss (and therefore fare revenue) in exchange for revenue from parking. Lessons Learned According to DART, charging a portion of a transit agency’s total parking users is exceptionally difficult. DART attempted to operate a program that charged non-service-area residents for

2-81 parking at heavily congested park-and-ride locations. While DART achieved the broad goals of shifting demand from congested parking lots and increasing non-resident contributions to DART’s revenue stream, these outcomes increased operational complexity (DART and its parking management vendor were required to manage permits and charge for parking) and disillusioned ridership (DART’s customers were confused and frustrated by the program). PLANNING AND ESTIMATING DEMAND FOR PARKING DART’s ridership continues to climb. Because of the increasing demand for transit service, the transit agency must plan services and estimate demand as accurately as possible. To determine the needs of its customers and plan service that is consistently high quality, DART frequently measures demand and is committed to assessing new concepts for demand forecasting as such techniques become available. Methodology to Estimate Demand DART uses a regional model, developed by NCTCOG, to estimate demand for transit service and parking. Per the transit agency’s agreement with NCTCOG, DART runs the travel demand model and the network code, and NCTCOG develops and modifies the model. Both DART and NCTCOG collaborate on the transit element of the model. DART is working to implement FTA’s STOPS for use in local transit forecasting tasks. However, the transit agency will still function under one regional model for regional collaboration and long-range planning. STOPS is being explored to answer questions in house as accurately and quickly as possible. DART typically approaches demand analysis using a stoplight analogy; 60 percent utilization and below is equivalent to 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 potentially expansion. Benefit-Cost Analysis DART analyzes need, opportunity, and cost before building a parking facility. However, generally, the majority of benefit-cost analyses are conducted after DART has completed a facility. In this case, DART’s real estate team tracks usage of facilities and assesses the facility to determine whether there is a better use of the land or facility (such as TOD, parking structure,

2-82 etc.). DART mainly views parking as a feeder for light rail service; therefore, as long as ridership remains at high levels, the cost of implementing park-and-ride facilities is worth the benefit of increased ridership. Factors That Influence Demand 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 customers, congestion (thought of as time by DART) is the deciding factor when choosing transit over another mode. Although DART acknowledges the fact that parking, congestion, and other variables are all influencing demand for park-and-ride services, the transit agency has not asked its customers about how these factors influence their mode-choice decisions. Predicted Versus Actual Experience DART has not compared forecasted demand to actual experience. A comparison would be difficult because the forecast model has changed frequently since DART began building the system, and apples-to-apples comparisons are now impossible to achieve. Furthermore, the model is validated at the corridor level and not at the station level. Therefore, comparisons will not specifically address expected versus actual demand at a specific park-and-ride location. Expanding Park-and-Ride Capacity Until 2006–2008, when gas prices increased sharply and the United States entered a recession, DART did not experience levels of demand for park-and-ride service that warranted analysis of parking expansion. However, from 2006 to 2008, DART experienced high demand at locations that served DART’s bus services and began to expand parking at some park-and-ride lots to accommodate the extra ridership. Light rail has never seen demand that was high enough to warrant a parking expansion. 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 approval process. Environmental Justice/Title VI DART conducts environmental justice and Title VI analyses for all new park-and-ride facilities and facility expansions. NCTCOG processes the Title VI analyses on the regional plan.

2-83 Notable Practices 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 NCTCOG. However, the transit agency has also identified an agency-specific need for rapid decision-making and on-demand forecasts related to various potential service scenarios. To meet this need, DART is implementing STOPS to allow the transit agency to model different service scenarios quickly and simply. Lessons Learned 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 challenge 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-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-line locations become mid-route stations and the demand for parking diminishes. From an external perspective, some may believe that DART has poorly planned this parking infrastructure, when in reality, the transit agency planned and constructed facilities to meet the needs at the time of construction. DART struggles to alter this method of construction because as the region grows, demand for transit service will continue to require new stations. MANAGING DEMAND FOR PARKING Throughout most of DART’s park-and-ride history, the transit agency has operated with excess parking capacity. As discussed previously, the period between 2006 and 2008 brought increased demand for service and parking—resulting in congestion at some of DART’s facilities. However, after gas prices stabilized and the economy recovered from recession, the demand for parking at DART’s parking-and-ride facilities decreased. As of 2016, most of DART’s facilities operate with excess parking capacity. Table 22 displays the number of vehicles compared to the number of spaces within DART’s parking facilities, as determined during a survey of facilities conducted by the transit agency in December 2015.

2-84 Table 22. DART Average Parking Utilization. Stations Number of Stations Vehicles Spaces % Usage Transfer Stations 7 843 3,884 22% Park-and-Rides 2 587 1,159 51% TRE 7 1,779 3,061 58% Light Rail Stations 36 8,650 18,356 47% Total 52 11,859 26,460 45% Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2015. Of the 52 facilities DART studied in 2015, 15 (29 percent) were above 50 percent capacity. Seven facilities (13 percent of the total) were operating at or over 75 percent capacity, and two facilities (4 percent) were operating at or over 95 percent capacity. The facilities operating at or over 95 percent capacity serve the Trinity Rail Express commuter rail service and are located within the FWTA’s jurisdiction. Table 23 documents DART’s high-demand facilities. Table 23. DART Stations Over 75 Percent Capacity, December 2015. Stations Station Type % Usage Richland Hills TRE 110% Texas and Pacific TRE 97% Parker Road Light Rail 83% Downtown Carrollton Light Rail 83% Downtown Rowlett Light Rail 82% Trinity Mills Light Rail 80% Lake Highlands Light Rail 76% Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2015. The remainder of this section documents DART’s efforts to manage demand for parking at facilities with excess parking demand. Managing Parking Demand Most of DART’s experience with managing parking demand relates to the transit agency’s paid parking trial (Fair Share), which was discussed in a previous section, Charging for Parking. This section documents other aspects of managing DART’s parking demand and the relationship between parking and ridership. Average demand at DART’s rail facilities is higher than the average demand at bus facilities. Exceptions to this trend include the Glenn Heights park-and-ride and the Addison Transit Center (initially planned as a rail station). DART has tried using light-up message signs to notify customers of congested parking facilities and direct them to less-congested locations, but this is not an ongoing practice. Parking for DART services is a large driver of ridership, attracting customers from beyond a station’s immediate area. Because parking is a known driver for ridership, DART actively manages parking to ensure would-be customers have space to park. DART considers expansion of parking facilities only when a facility is consistently at or over capacity. Additionally, the

2-85 transit agency typically builds as much parking as a site will allow during the first phase of construction instead of reducing the initial buildout and relying on studies and observed parking demand to warrant construction of additional parking. In one example, DART built all of a facility’s planned parking despite knowledge of low demand in the near future because of the funding sources used for construction; if construction were completed in phases, some funding would have been forfeited because it was tied to the original project phase. Parking and Ridership Beyond infrastructure, frequency of transit service is the most influential factor related to transit demand. Ridership (and therefore parking demand) increases as a direct result of increased service frequency. DART’s board of directors strives to grow ridership by serving adjacent development. Victory Station does not have parking, but there have been new apartment developments in the area in recent years. Ridership at Victory Station in 2016 is up 70 percent compared to 2015. Access to transit via non-auto modes (i.e., walking and cycling) has variable impacts on DART’s ridership. DART admits that pedestrian and bicycle accessibility could be improved at its park-and-rides. Movement for pedestrians and cyclists within DART facilities is adequate; however, connections beyond DART facilities are variable and typically underdeveloped. Transportation Demand Management This section discusses DART’s TDM-related efforts and the transit agency’s future with TDM. DART coordinates with NCTCOG to provide vanpool services (NCTCOG funds a majority of the operations and provides ride-matching services, and DART coordinates access to vehicles) and works with FWTA to operate the TRE commuter rail service. The transit agency also contracts to provide transit service in Arlington, Mesquite, and three cities in Collin County. As of May 2016, DART is working with the Best Southwest cities (12 cities in the area south of DART’s service area), Arlington, and Mesquite to develop plans for new service. Downtown Dallas Incorporated, the transportation management association in Dallas, provides funding to DART to operate the D-Link, a shuttle that connects neighborhoods in southwest Dallas with downtown. Local TDM efforts include a program called 511 DFW—a corridor management effort that deals with diversion around congested areas and provides related transportation information. For transit support, it provides notices of limited parking and other parking options. Users can view information online or call a hotline for up-to-date travel information. Currently, 511 DFW is operated by NCTCOG, but the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will take over provision of this service in 2018 (once it has been in operation for two full years). In DART’s 2040 plan (under development as of May 2016), DART acknowledges the need to look at providing bus transit service to increase connectivity across existing rail infrastructure

2-86 and provide passenger circulation throughout the service area. DART is also conducting a comprehensive operations analysis (COA) that is investigating options for modifying service to suit current demand. Part of the COA effort includes exploring a solution to provide first- and last-mile connections and replace DART’s On-Call service in some areas. Instead of providing on-call service via traditional transit models (a transit-agency-owned vehicle and a transit- agency-employed driver), DART theorizes that coordination with TNCs to provide an on-demand ride-sourcing service to its ridership could be less costly and more efficient. DART is monitoring some hotspots within DART’s service area and expects to become more directly involved with TDM in the Dallas-Fort Worth region in the near future. Large-scale development in the northwest area of DART’s service area is bringing thousands of new jobs and the potential for high numbers of reverse commuters traveling from downtown Dallas, which is an atypical commuting pattern. Some of DART’s initial TDM efforts include a study with the City of Plano, which is investigating creative solutions to Plano’s needs resulting from high-paced growth and conversations with Toyota (a new, large employer) about what alternative mode choices their future employees will have. Toyota has expressed interest in reverse commuting so that employees can live in urban areas and travel to the company’s suburban campus at Legacy. DART has discussed addressing the needs of commuters traveling from downtown to the suburbs by implementing an outbound express bus from a light rail station in Plano, coordinating with carshare services (including a proposed Toyota trial), or facilitating a corporate shuttle to connect transit with Toyota’s campus. Market changes have the potential to challenge a transit agency. DART uses vanpool services to quickly adapt to market changes. DART can implement vanpool services quickly, and vanpool services are operated by the users, do not require scheduling or service planning, and are cost effective for DART. Beyond vanpool, DART is at the early stages of figuring out the regional market and the transit agency’s role in carshare, TNCs, and reverse commute connections. In DART’s experience, customer response to market changes is direct; if people begin traveling to new destinations and transit is available, they will simply switch to new routes. However, if transit is not available, ridership could decline. IN-HOUSE PARKING MANAGEMENT DART manages all aspects of its park-and-ride facilities through vendors that contract for specific tasks. For example, contracted service providers are responsible for cleaning transit centers. DART’s amenities staff is responsible for managing shelters and platforms, and DART’s police department provides all security for park-and-ride and the rest of the transit agency’s services. The cost to manage park-and-ride facilities represents both the costs of in-house staff to manage maintenance contracts and the costs of the contracts themselves.

2-87 MAINTENANCE AND STATE OF GOOD REPAIR DART’s maintenance department is responsible for coordinating maintenance of the transit agency’s facilities, including bus stops, transfer points, and park-and-ride locations. As of 2015, DART operated 12,723 such facilities. Fifty-two of DART’s transit facilities offer parking. The transit agency’s maintenance department also manages the parking maintenance. The majority of the maintenance of DART’s facilities is executed by contracted service providers. Table 24 documents the number of DART’s transit facilities, by type of facility. Table 24. DART Transit Facilities by Facility Type. Facility Type Total FY 2015 Bus Stops 11,411 Bus Stops with Shelters 1,186 Bus Stops with Enhanced Shelters 50 Bus Transit Centers 7 Bus Transfer Centers 2 Bus Transfer Location 3 Bus Park-and-Rides 2 Light Rail At-Grade 50 Light Rail Above Grade 9 Light Rail Below Grade 2 Underground 1 Total 12,723 Total With Parking* 52 *Total includes all bus transit centers and park-and-rides, 36 of 64 light rail stations, and 4 TRE stations. Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2016. Useful Life DART has developed a minimum useful life for all transit agency assets. For paved parking areas, DART based its standards on highway standards set forth by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Some parking areas have modified standards and useful life assumptions that DART developed according to the transit agency’s experience. For example, some locations might have a shorter useful life because of higher-than-average traffic. Bus- specific parking areas, bus travel lanes (through DART park-and-ride facilities), and bus bays use a different standard for useful life and maintenance due to the extra wear and tear exerted by transit buses. DART continues to maintain facilities until the transit agency determines the facility is no longer necessary for provision of service. There are no policies that describe a rebuilding scenario (e.g., after 20 years, light rail stations must be rebuilt to current standards). Costs of Maintenance and State of Good Repair DART develops a forecasted cost to maintain existing facilities as part of the maintenance department’s 20-year financial plan. Table 25 presents the budgeted and forecasted costs for

2-88 park-and-ride related state-of-good-repair maintenance in FY 2016 and forecasted ahead to five-year and 20-year horizons. Table 25. DART Maintenance Investments for Park-and-Ride Facilities. Project Name FY 2016 5-Year Forecast 20-Year Forecast Transit Center Rehab (SGR) at Lake June $109,000 $109,000 $109,000 Passenger Amenities—Bus—SGR Reserve $0 $3,291,000 $23,384,000 Facility Maintenance—SGR Reserve $0 $1,717,000 $5,971,000 Passenger Amenities—TRE—SGR Reserve $0 $276,000 $796,000 Passenger Amenities—LRT—SGR Reserve $0 $4,621,000 $37,725,000 Total $109,000 $10,014,000 $67,985,000 Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2016. Notable Practices DART’s maintenance department develops annual budget forecasts specifically to ensure that the transit agency sets aside enough funds to cover maintenance of DART’s numerous assets. To assist with the transit agency’s future budgetary forecasts, the maintenance department uses its annual projected costs to create 20-year budgetary assumptions for maintenance and state-of-good-repair set-asides. Lessons Learned DART designs its park-and-ride facilities with community input, and each is unique. Design cues that vary with each station include landscaping (including large trees and grass) and public art installation. DART’s maintenance department is responsible for maintaining and refurbishing these investments as needed, which has proven to be costly and time consuming. PARK-AND-RIDE CAPITAL INVESTMENT Park-and-ride infrastructure is a substantial investment for a transit agency. Once in place, park-and-rides could last longer than the transit agency’s current long-range service plans. DART carefully plans the transit agency’s capital investments by accounting for market forces and future economic development opportunities. This section outlines DART’s capital investment practices and experience. Costs to Expand or Enhance Park-and-Ride Facilities DART’s FY 2016 Business Plan documents the budgeted costs for capital expansion and enhancements for 2016 and for five and 20 years into the future. Table 26 outlines these costs. DART’s entire FY 2016 list of capital projects is available with the DART case study here: http://tti.tamu.edu/group/transit-mobility/resources/tcrp-h-52-case-studies/.

2-89 Table 26. DART Capital Investments for Park-and-Ride Facility Expansion or Enhancement. Project Name FY 2016 5-Year Forecast 20-Year Forecast Passenger Facility Accessibility Modifications FY 14 $1,145,000 $1,145,000 $1,145,000 Artwork Restoration Repairs System Wide $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Transit Centers Network Upgrade $488,000 $488,000 $488,000 Station Concierge Tablet PC Replacement $185,000 $185,000 $185,000 Station Concierge Workstations at Transit Centers $135,000 $135,000 $135,000 Transit Center Services Mobile Workstation $0 $50,000 $50,000 NW Plano Park & Ride $500,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Bus Lane/Parking Lot Concrete Repair (PA FY 14) $281,000 $281,000 $281,000 WestEnd Transit Center Cameras $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 Total $3,576,000 $5,126,000 $5,126,000 Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2016. Inclusion of Parking at Transit Facilities DART does not automatically include parking when constructing rail stations and bus transfer points. To determine whether a facility would benefit from parking, DART looks at several factors in addition to their budget, including:  The station location (is it an urban, high-density site or a suburban, low-density and auto-centric location?).  Ridership (is ridership high enough to suggest that some people will have to drive to the facility to begin their transit trip?).  Available land (can parking be built on the site in question or is there additional land available adjacent?). If affordable land is available, DART always considers a parking facility. Typically, the transit agency tries to build parking facilities on at least five acres to ensure there is enough space for parking. Historically, land has been affordable enough (even in the urban/dense parts of DART’s service area) that the transit agency has never investigated building a parking structure instead of a surface parking lot. Beyond the cost of structured parking, the DART has learned that its customers prefer surface parking due to the perceived safety associated with the increased visibility. The environmental review process associated with developing transit facilities also influences transit facility use and scope (whether there is parking, how much parking is needed, and what other amenities will be included). For example, if DART proposed a facility in an area that has drainage issues, a large parking lot may be inappropriate, so the rail station or bus transfer center would be built without parking facilities.

2-90 Economic Development DART also looks at potential economic development opportunities associated with facility site selection. If an opportunity seems to be on the horizon, the transit agency purchases the land for future development opportunities. Notable Practices DART evaluates the future economic development opportunities of all park-and-ride capital investments, helping the transit agency invest strategically and to diversify revenue (via future land sales and the potential for TOD partnerships). Lessons Learned The source of a project’s funding may influence the outcome of a project. As discussed above, DART has built some facilities completely (without phasing construction to align with projected demand) because project funds were only available at the time of construction and could not be used in multiple phases. Although it is beneficial to have a diverse source of revenues, some sources can force transit agencies to build more capacity than immediate need requires and could result in the public perception that DART is wasting resources. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT According to a University of North Texas Study from January 2014, DART’s investment in transit infrastructure throughout its service area (over $5 billion when the report was published) is responsible for significant secondary investment worth over $7 billion (Clower and Weinstein 2009). Some of this substantial regional investment was in TOD. DART cooperates with developers to provide meaningful transit connections to areas of business and residential growth and, where appropriate and available, DART is open to partnerships with developers to create mixed-use facilities. This section outlines DART’s TOD experience. DART Investment in TOD A goal of DART’s TOD program is to recover costs by using underused parking space to generate revenue through development. Despite some heavily congested park-and-ride locations, the transit agency’s total capacity is 50 percent utilized. Because of the transit agency’s large parking surplus, and different parking peaks (e.g., transit parkers during the day, TOD parkers in the evening and overnight), DART has not had to differentiate the parking needs of a TOD and the parking needs of DART ridership.

2-91 TOD Development/Proposal Process Typically, the owners of property that is adjacent to DART property approach the transit agency through an unsolicited proposal process to work on a development concept that requires DART’s participation (typically in the form of selling DART-owned property). DART also issues requests for proposals (RFPs) to generate interest in TOD opportunities that the transit agency has identified as beneficial or likely to be successful. In 2005, DART had five TOD proposals out for bid; however, these projects did not proceed beyond the bidding phase. Return on Investment DART assesses all facilities and ranks them for market potential (i.e., which locations have the potential to return the greatest revenue as a result of development/sale); however, this process is challenged by politics. Beyond the financial return DART seeks when pursuing or participating in a TOD, the transit agency also strives to achieve ridership increases and outcomes related to community benefit (in the form of adjacent development and new amenities). DART seeks to create livable, walkable, and affordable places through TOD efforts that are economically productive and sustainable. Parking Replacement Regulations Cities within DART’s service area are beginning to acknowledge that there is less need for parking than previously thought or codified, but parking regulations are variable and the impact of parking policies in DART’s service is still mostly determined by zoning. Typically, TODs receive exemptions from some policies or obtain a special use permit so that developers may reduce the number of parking spaces per dwelling unit or per retail square foot. Instead of case-by-case exemptions, the City of Dallas developed a form-based code for TODs that includes significant reductions in parking. However, despite this code being available, developers typically choose to build under other regulations because form-based codes do not allow certain elements of design and construction to be modified or negotiated. Notable Practices DART is open to unsolicited proposals from developers that wish to partner on TOD efforts. This openness allows the transit agency to garner insight from the development community on potential opportunities and market trends without committing to a partnership through a formalized RFP. In addition, receiving unsolicited proposals allows DART to avoid investing time to develop TOD concepts to be included in an RFP. Additionally, DART’s practice to assess existing facilities from the perspective of market potential (i.e., estimating facility value on the open development market) helps the transit agency navigate developers’ proposals and provides unbiased data during proposal review.

2-92 Lessons Learned The area around DART’s Mockingbird Station supports TOD that includes hotels, retailers, entertainment, and apartments. The station would benefit from a parking structure (instead of the existing surface lot), but funding a structure is difficult. Private partners do not want to assume the risk, and DART’s board is hesitant to work with private developers because of a concern that the developers will shift risk to DART while allowing the developer to make the ma