parking cost elasticity study

8/8/2019 Parking Cost Elasticity Study

1/18

Appendix S

Parking Cost Elasticity Study


2/18


3/18

701 B StreetSuite 1220San Diego, CA 92101619-330-5200619-330-5201 Fax

Memo

AlbuquerqueArlingtonColorado SpringsDenverEl PasoFort WorthHoustonKansas CityLas Cruces

LenexaLos AngelesOmahaPanama City, Pma.PhoenixRio RanchoSalinaSan BernardinoSan Diego

Date: January 23, 2006

To: Greg Shannon, Shea Properties, Inc.

From: Nick Abboud, PE, Wilson & Company, Inc.

Subject: Solana Beach Joint Development Project: Parking Cost Elasticity Study

In general, the objectives of transportation cost elasticity studies include estimating theimpact of pricing changes for use of a transportation-related facility on the use of thatfacility, and to develop a predictive model that describes the relationship between price

changes and user response to the changes. For transit agencies, pricing and fare changesare generally implemented as a revenue source to offset current or forecasted increases inoperating costs, while cognizant of the potential decline in ridership levels resulting fromsuch fee increases.

The purpose of this parking cost elasticity analysis for the Solana Beach Train Stationparking lot is to review available research on related cost elasticity topics and assess theavailability of predictive models that would relate the changes in parking lot use (andthus train ridership) to a newly established parking fee directed at the users of the parkinglot. This technical memorandum reviews available research and documentation on costelasticity factors and prescribes a potential application within the context of the Solana

Beach Train Station.

It should be noted upfront that no directly applicable research on the cost elasticity ofimplementing parking fees at a train station has been found in the literature search, and itis likely that none has been undertaken to specifically address conditions similar to theSolana Beach Train Station. Therefore, the effort undertaken here has been to assess thefull or partial transferability of other similar cost elasticity research to the particularcontext of the Solana Beach Train Station.

1.0 Methodology

This section outlines the process and key steps which were undertaken to develop parkingcost elasticity estimation factors for the Solana Beach Train Station.

1) Provide an understanding of cost elasticity and relevance to the current objectives,including:

a. Purpose of cost elasticity studies


4/18

Memo

2

b. Factors affecting elasticity results2) Conduct research of cost elasticity applications across the United States and

elsewhere.

a. Direct charge versus out of pocket expenseb. Vehicle tripsc. Parking revenued. Parking frequencye. Type of travelf. Mode choiceg. Shift in parking site

3) Identify cross-elasticity between:a. auto travel demand and bus faresb. various forms of transit and car use,c. reported mode shift

4) Determine relevance and applicability of research findingsa. Identify models that approximate the Solana Beach conditionsb. Develop a model that best suits Solana Beach Train Station.

5) Provide summary of findings and recommendations2.0 Understanding Cost Elasticity

Economists measure price sensitivity using elasticities, defined as the percentage changein consumption of a good caused by a one-percent change in its price (or othercharacteristics such as traffic speed or road capacity). For example, an elasticity of -0.5for vehicle use with respect to vehicle operating expenses means that each 1% increase inthese expenses results in a 0.5% reduction in vehicle mileage or trips. Similarly, transitservice elasticity is defined as the percentage change in transit ridership resulting fromeach 1% change in transit service, such as bus-miles or frequency. A negative signindicates that the effect operates in the opposite direction from the cause (an increase inprice causes a reduction in travel). Elasticities can also be calculated based on ratios,


5/18

Memo

3

rather than absolute price values, such as the ratio between transit fares and automobileoperating costs, or vehicle costs as a percentage of average income or wages.

2.1 Purpose of Cost Elasticity

Elasticity studies have been used in the transportation industry to estimate the sensitivityof various pricing strategies on travel and service demands. Table 1 presents a variety ofexamples of the impact of various pricing strategies on transportation demands andservice elements.

Table 1: Impacts of Different Types of Pricing on Tr anspor tation Elements

Type of Impacts VehicleFees FuelPrice FixedToll CongestionPricing ParkingFee TransitFares

Vehicle owner ship.Consumers change thenumber of vehicles theyown.

X X X

Vehicle type. Motoristchooses different vehicle(more fuel efficient,alternative fuel, etc.)

X X

Route Change. Traveler

shifts travel route.

X X X

Time Change. Motoristshifts trip to off-peakperiods.

X X

Mode Shift. Traveler shiftsto another mode.

X X X X X

Destinat ion Change.Motorist shifts trip toalternative destination.

X X X X X

Tr ip Generation. Peopletake fewer total trips

(including consolidatingtrips).

X X X X

Land use changes. Changesin location decisions, suchas where to live and work.

X X X

(Source: Transportation Elasticities, Todd Litman, TDM Encyclopedia, 2005)


6/18

Memo

4

As shown in Table 1, different types of monetary charges can have a variety of impactson travel behavior. Fixed vehicle purchase and registration fees can affect the number

and type of vehicles purchased; fuel prices and emission fees can affect the type ofvehicle used; road tolling may shift some trips to other routes and destinations; whilecongestion pricing (such as the managed lanes on I-15), may shift travel times and/ortransportation mode and change the total number of trips. The type and extent of impactsdepend on the specific type of pricing for example, an increase in residential parkingfees is most likely to affect vehicle ownership while a time-variable parking fee canaffect when trips take place.

2.2 Factors affecting elasticity

Although the focus of this study is on the sensitivity of parking demand at the SolanaBeach Train Station with respect to possible future parking pricing, it is important to keepin mind that there are other non-pricing related factors that affect traveler behavior and inparticular parking demand, which adds to the complexity of elasticity analysis. Inaddition, it should be made clear that although elasticities are often reported as singlepoint estimates, there are actually many factors that can affect the price sensitivity of aparticular good. In reality, elasticities are actually functions with several possiblevariables, including the type of market, type of consumer and time period. For example,although the elasticity of vehicle travel with respect to fuel price may be defined as -0.3(a single value), the actual value will vary between -0.1 and -0.8 depending on the type oftrip (commercial, commute, recreational, etc.), the type of motorist (rich, poor, young,

old, etc.), travel conditions (rural, urban, peak, off-peak), and the time period beingconsidered (short-, medium- or long-run). The following is a summary of some of thesenon-pricing related factors that can affect price elasticity.

Type of Trip and Traveler: Sensitivity (elasticity) varies significantly with driver and triptypes. For example, commuter traffic will not be as elastic as shopping or recreationaltraffic, weekday trips may have very different elasticities than weekend trips, and urbanpeak-period trips tend to be price inelastic because congestion discourages lower-valuetrips, leaving only higher value automobile trips. In addition, travelers with higherincomes or on business tend to be less price sensitive than lower-income travelers orthose traveling for personal activities.

Adequacy of Alternative Routes, Modes and Destinations: Price sensitivity tends toincrease if alternative routes, modes and destinations are of good quality and affordable.For example, highway tolls tend to be more price-sensitive if there is a parallel un-tolledroadway. Driving is less price sensitive in automobile-dependent areas wheretransportation alternatives are inadequate (e.g., walking, cycling and transit are poorsubstitutes for driving).


7/18

Memo

5

Time Period: Transportation elasticities tend to increase over time as consumers havemore opportunities to take prices into effect when making long-term decisions. For

example, if consumers anticipate low automobile use prices they are more likely tochoose an automobile dependent suburban home, but if they anticipate significantincreases in driving costs they might place a greater premium on having alternatives, suchas access to transit and shops within convenient walking distance. For this reason, it maytake many years for the full effect of a price change to be felt.

Table 2 summarizes transportation pricing elasticity factors as documented in researchstudies (Johansson & Schipper, 1997) indicating that elasticities vary by type andvariable.

Table 2: Estimated Long Run Tr anspor tat ion Elasticities

EstimatedComponent Fuel Pr ice Income

Taxation(Other than Fuel)

PopulationDensity

Car Stock(vehicle ownership)

-0.20 to 0.0(-0.1)

0.75 to 1.25(1.0)

-0.08 to -0.04(-0.06)

-0.7 to -0.2(-0.4)

Mean Fuel Intensity(fuel efficiency)

-0.45 to -0.35(-0.4)

-0.6 to 0.0(0.0)

-0.12 to -0.10(-0.11)

-0.3 to -0.1(-0.2)

Mean DrivingDistance(per car per year)

-0.35 to -0.05(-0.2)

-0.1 to 0.35(0.2)

0.04 to 0.12(0.06)

-0.75 to 0.0(-0.4)

Car Fuel Demand-1.0 to -0.40

(-0.7)

0.05 to 1.6

(1.2)

-0.16 to -0.02

(-0.11)

-1.75 to -0.3

(-1.0)Car Travel Demand

-0.55 to -0.05(-0.3)

0.65 to 1.25(1.2)

-0.04 to 0.08(0.0)

-1.45 to -0.2(-0.8)

(Source: Johansson & Schipper, 1997)

3.0 Cost Elasticity Research

The effects of the factors mentioned in Section 2.2 above highlight the complexity ofisolating the effects of a single factor such as parking pricing. However, sensitivity toparking is considered particularly high as compared to out-of-pocket expenses since it is

a direct charge, and thus its impact should be more pronounced. For example, researchstudies have reported that a $1.00 per trip parking charge causes the same reduction invehicle travel as a fuel price increase of $1.50 to $2.00 per trip. The following studiesaddressed the effects of parking pricing on vehicle travel characteristics.

Vehicle trips: Vaca and Kuzmyak (2005) and Kuzmyak, Weinberger andLevinson (2003) found the elasticity of vehicle trips with regard to parking prices


8/18

Memo

6

to be typically in the -0.1 to -0.3 range, with significant variation depending ondemographic, geographic, travel choice and trip characteristics.

Parking frequency: Clinch and Kelly (2003) found the elasticity of parkingfrequency to be smaller (-0.11) than the elasticity of parking duration (-0.20),indicating that some motorists respond to higher fees by reducing how long theypark.

Parking revenues: Pratt (1999) found significantly high elasticities (-0.9 to -1.2)of parking price with regard to commercial parking gross revenues, sincemotorists can respond to higher prices by reducing their parking duration orchanging to cheaper locations and times, as well as reducing total vehicle trips.

Types of travel: TRACE (1999) provided detailed estimates of the elasticity ofvarious types of travel (car-trips, transit travel, walking/cycling, commuting,business trips, etc.) with respect to parking price under various conditions asshown in Table 3.

Table 3: Elasticity of Var ious Types of Tr avel due to Par king Pr icing

Pur pose Car Driver Car Passenger PublicTransportation

Slow Modes

Commuting -0.08 +0.02 +0.02 +0.02

Business -0.02 +0.01 +0.01 +0.01

Education -0.10 +0.00 +0.00 +0.00

Other -0.30 +0.04 +0.04 +0.05

Total -0.16 +0.03 +0.02 +0.03

Note: Slow Modes = Walking and Cycling(Source: Trace (1999)

Mode choice: Hess (2001) assessed the effect of free parking on commuter modechoice and parking demand in Portlands (Oregon) CBD, and found that with freeparking, 62% of commuters will drive alone, 16% will commute in carpools and22% will ride transit; with a $6.00 daily parking charge 46% will drive alone, 4%will ride in carpools and 50% will ride transit. The $6.00 parking charge resultedin 21 fewer cars driven for every 100 commuters.

The use of parking price elasticity can be confusing where parking is currentlyfree, so it is meaningless to measure a percentage increase from zero price. Table4 summarizes the changes that occurred in commute mode at worksites thatshifted from free to priced parking. Other case studies found similar impacts. Asshown, shifting from free to priced parking typically reduced drive alonecommuting by 10-30%, particularly when implemented with improvements intransit service and rideshare programs and other TDM strategies.


9/18

Memo

7

Table 4: Changes in Mode Travel Due to Parking Pr icing

Canadian Study Los Angeles Study

Before After Change Before After Change

Drive Alone 35% 28% -20% 55% 30% -27%

Carpool 11% 10% +9% 13% 45% +246%

Transit 42% 49% +17% 29% 22% -24%

Other 12% 13% -8% 3% 3% 0%(Source: Feeney, 1989, cited in Pratt, 1999)

Shift in parking site: Hensher and King (2001) modeled the price elasticity ofCBD parking, and predicted how an increase in parking prices in one location willshift cars to park at other locations and drivers to use public transit (Table 5).The results are presented in Table 5 which shows elasticities and cross-elasticitiesfor changes in parking prices at various CBD locations. For example, a 10%increase in prices at preferred CBD parking locations will cause a 5.41%reduction in demand, a 3.63% increase in Park & Ride trips, a 2.91% increase inPublic Transit trips and a 4.69% reduction in total CBD trips. This table showshow trips diverted by parking fee can vary depending on availability ofalternatives.

Table 5: Par king Location Shift in CBD due to Parking Pricing

Preferr ed CBD Less Preferr ed CBD CBD FringeCar Trip, Preferred CBD -0.541 0.205 0.035

Car Trip, Less Preferred CBD 0.837 -0.015 0.043

Car Trip, CBD Fringe 0.965 0.286 -0.476

Park & Ride 0.363 0.136 0.029

Ride Public Transit 0.291 0.104 0.023

Forego CBD Trip 0.469 0.150 0.029

(Source: Hensher and King, 2001)

4.0 Cr oss Elasticity

Cross-elasticity refers to the percentage change in the consumption of a good resultingfrom a price change in another related good. For example, automobile travel iscomplementary to vehicle parking, and a substitute for transit travel. As a result, anincrease in the price of driving tends to reduce demand for parking and increase demandfor transit travel and parking at transit stations. To help analyze cross-elasticities, it isuseful to estimate mode substitution factors, such as the change in automobile trips


10/18

Memo

8

resulting from a change in transit trips. For example, of an increase in bus ridershipresulting from a fare reduction, 10-50% may be the result of a shift in automobile trips.That is a shift of one automobile trip for every 2 to 10 additional transit trips. The

remainder of the added transit trips would be the result of a shift from non-motorizedtravel and/or ridesharing. Conversely, an automobile travel disincentive, such as parkingfees or road tolls, may cause a shift from automobile to transit trips of 20-60%.

Some research studies provide information on the mode shifts that result from variousincentives such as transit service improvements and parking pricing (Pratt, 1999). Lagoet al. (1992) found the mean cross-elasticity of auto travel demand with respect to busand rail fares to be 0.09 (0.07), and 0.08 (0.03), respectively. That is, a 10% increasein rail fare would result in a 0.8% increase in auto travel. Hensher developed a model ofelasticities and cross-elasticities between various forms of transit and auto use asillustrated in Table 6.

Table 6: Direct and Cr oss-Shar e Elasticities

Change in Train Demand Change in Bus DemandFar e Increase Single

FareTen

Fare*Pass Single

FareTen

Fare*Pass

Changein car

demand

Train, single fare -0.218 0.001 0.001 0.057 0.005 0.005 0.196

Train, ten fare 0.001 -0.093 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.092

Train, pass 0.001 0.001 -0.196 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.335

Bus, single fare 0.067 0.001 0.001 -0.357 0.001 0.001 0.116

Bus, ten fare 0.020 0.004 0.002 0.001 -0.160 0.001 0.121Bus, pass 0.007 0.036 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.098 0.020

Car 0.053 0.042 0.003 0.066 0.016 0.003 -0.197* Ten Fare refers to a discounted group fare sold as a group of 10 tickets.

Source: Hensher, 1997

The above table illustrates how various changes in transit fares and auto operating costsaffect transit and car travel demand. For example, a 10% increase in single fare traintickets will cause a 2.18% reduction in the sale of those fares, and a 0.57% increase insingle fare bus tickets. This table is referenced for illustration purposes since it is basedon a survey of residents of Newcastle, a small city in Australia.

Table 7 below shows the effects of transit financial subsidies for various worksitesettings, taking into account location (suburban, activity center, CBD), and whethercarpooling or transit are favored as alternative modes. For example, Table 7 indicates thata $1 (in 1993 U.S. dollars) per day transit subsidy provided to employees at a transit-oriented activity center is likely to result in a 10.9% reduction in auto commute trips,while in a rideshare-oriented CBD, the same subsidy would only cause a 4.7% trip


11/18

Memo

9

reduction. This table can be used to predict how transit subsidies are likely to affectcommute trips.

Table 7: Percent Vehicle Trips Reduced by Daily Transit Subsidy

Daily Tr ansit SubsidyWorksite Setting

$0.50 $1 $2 $4

Low density suburb, rideshare oriented 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.9

Low density suburb, mode neutral 1.5 3.3 7.9 21.7

Low density suburb, transit oriented 2.0 4.2 9.9 23.2

Activity center, rideshare oriented 1.1 2.4 5.8 16.5

Activity center, mode neutral 3.4 7.3 16.4 38.7

Activity center, transit oriented 5.2 10.9 23.5 49.7Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented 2.2 4.7 10.9 28.3

Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral 6.2 12.9 26.9 54.3

Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented 9.1 18.1 35.5 64.0(Source: Comsis Corporation, 1993)

5.0 Relevant Resear ch Findings

The primary focus of this parking cost elasticity analysis is on the relationship betweenparking lot use (and thus train ridership) and a potential future parking fee directed at theusers of the Solana Beach Train Station parking lot. A predictive model of this

relationship needs to consider existing studies of parking demand and use, as well asempirical research data on elasticity with respect to parking pricing.

5.1 Example Resear ch Findings

A substantial body of research studies exists on the transit ridership response to costincreases. A 1974 San Francisco study focused on the impact of an areawide 25%parking tax on parking demand (Kulash, 1974)1. The findings of this study highlightedthe complexity of the parking demand phenomenon. It concluded that shoppers facedwith higher unit cost for parking chose to shorten their parking duration; commuterstended to stop using the facility since adjusting their parking duration was not feasible.

A 1990 Los Angeles study focused on the effects of employer subsidies on commutermode shares (Shoup, 1990)1. This study showed that higher parking prices resulted inreduced use by single occupancy vehicles and a higher transit use in cases whereemployees paid for their parking.

1 TCRP Report 95, Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees, 2005


12/18

Memo

10

A Eugene, Oregon study (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, 1985) concluded that doublingparking fees at several garages and surface lots and increasing fines at short term meteredparking, resulted in a drop in monthly permit sales by a 1/3 (from 560 to 360) and a

switch to carpool or free shuttle by half of the former parkers.

Another Eugene, Oregon study (Dorman and Keith, 1988) established that paid permitsfor daily and monthly parking in a residential area for non-residents showed a reductionin both the number of cars parked at any given time and the duration of parking.

A 1980 Madison, Wisconsin study focused on the effects of applying AM period parkingsurcharge on discouraging commuter traffic parking thus leaving open spaces availablefor midday shoppers. (Charles River Associates, 1984)1. This study found a 40%reduction in number of occupied parking spaces as a result of the peak period surcharge.However, the change in parking behavior was mainly due to individuals choosing

alternate locations to park.

A 1980 Chicago, Illinois study examined the effect of parking rate increases on parkinglot occupancy (Kunze, Heramb, and Martin, 1980)1 and found a 72% decrease in numberof vehicles arriving on weekdays before 9:30 AM, a 50% decrease in long term parkingand up to a 50% increase in short term parking.

Several other studies documented the effects of increasing parking fees on vehicle tripreduction; all of which show significant reduction in vehicle trips as a result of increasedparking fees (ICF, 1997; Hess, 2001; Kuppam, Pendyala & Gollakoti, 1998).

5.2 Tr ansferability of Resear ch to Solana Beach Train Station

Of most relevance to the purpose of this analysis are those studies that show the effectson trip reduction by a change in parking fee. One such study is a 1993 study by ComsisCorporation2 that illustrated the relationship between incremental increases in dailyparking charges and the reduction in commute trips. Table 8 presents the reduction invehicle trips aggregated by origin (Low Density Suburb, Activity Center, and RegionalCBD) as a result of incremental increases in daily parking charges ($1 through $4 in 1993dollars).

For the purpose of this study, Table 8 has been adjusted for inflation to produce

equivalent values in 2005 U.S. dollars, and the parking fees interpolated for $0.50increments. The resulting trip generation reduction percentages are presented in Table 9.An added workplace setting more representative of the Solana Beach Train Station andsurrounding area has been added and labeled as Minor Activity Center. This added

2 Comsis Corporation,Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory ofMeasures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org),1993. (Available at www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html)


13/18

Memo

11

category is an interpolation between the Activity Center and Low Density Suburbcategories, which is considered a better approximation of the Solana Beach Train Stationsetting.

Table 8: Percent Reduction in Vehicle Tr ips versus Daily Parking Char ges (1993 $)

Daily Par king Char ges, $Worksite Setting

$ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 4.00

Low Density Suburb 6.5% 15.1% 25.3% 36.1%

Activity Center 12.3% 25.1% 37.0% 46.8%

CBD 17.5% 31.8% 42.6% 50.0%

(Source: Comsis Corp., 1993)

Table 9. Percent Vehicle Trip Reduction versus Daily Parking Charges (in 2005 $)

Daily Parking ChargesWorksiteSetting $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00

LowDensitySuburb

3.6% 7.3% 11.1% 14.9% 18.7% 22.5% 26.2% 30.0% 33.8%

Minor

ActivityCenter

7% 11% 15% 19% 23% 27% 31% 36% 40%

ActivityCenter

10.3% 14.7% 19.1% 23.5% 27.9% 32.3% 36.7% 41.1% 45.5%

CBD 16.7% 20.8% 24.9% 29.1% 33.2% 37.3% 41.5% 45.6% 49.8%

(Source: Comsis Corp., 1993, modified for inflation by Wilson & Co., 2005)

The results of Table 9 are plotted in Figure 1 to provide a graphical representation of therelationship between a graduated increase in parking fee and percentage of vehicle tripreduction. As apparent from Figure 1, the elasticity of parking demand with respect toparking fee is not a fixed percentage. It increases with increased parking fee. Thus, theequivalent elasticity rate for the Minor Activity Center is a range of values, rather thana single value. For parking fee between $1.00 and $5.00, the value of elasticity rangesfrom -0.08% to -0.40%. That is a 10% increase in daily parking fee would result in areduction of 0.8% to 4% in automobile trips, depending on the value of the parking fee


14/18


15/18

Memo

13

communities, reports slightly higher estimates. For example, Walk Sandiego reports that70% of the people they surveyed would walk (or bike) up to 1/2 mile for shopping orpersonal business if the journey was safe and pleasant, and that 31% would walk one mile

or less to school. Table 10 lists specific jurisdictions in the western states and thedistances they assume pedestrians would be willing to walk to get to a transit station.

Table 10. Reasonable Walking Distances to a Tr ansit Station

Source Distance

Seattle, WA mile radius from LRT station

Hillsboro, OR 1300 ft. radius from LRT station

Portland, OR mile radius from LRT station

Washington County, OR mile radius from LRT station; mile from primary bus routes

City of San Diego, CA 2,000 ft. from transit stop

Note: LRT = Light Rail Transit

Source: Wilson & Company, Inc. January 2006

In the case of the Solana Beach Train Station, there are other factors that come into playthat could discourage walking. For example, Coaster riders are likely to be conscious ofthe strict train departure times and may not be willing to park in the adjacentneighborhood and walk the 1,300 to 2,000 ft. distance estimated in the table above and

chance missing their ride. Equally undesirable may be walking by many Amtrak riderswith luggage because of the additional hardship caused by hauling the luggage to thestation. Therefore, it is safe to assume that people would be less inclined to walk thedistances presented in Table 10 at this location.

5.4 Findings and Conclusions

Based on the available research in the area of parking demand elasticity with respect toparking pricing, the model exhibited in Figure 1 and Table 9 provides the best availableestimate for predicting parking demand elasticity with respect to parking fees. Figure 1and Table 9 provide a very preliminary basis for estimating the expected reductions intrips into the Solana Beach parking lot and associated parkers as a result of imposing afee for daily parking. These table and figure should be used with caution and any resultsproduced by them should be treated as a starting point for estimating parking elasticityand not be taken as firm numbers. The following restraints should be considered whenapplying Table 9 and Figure 1:


16/18

Memo

14

1. No research studies were found that specifically address the effects of parking feeincreases at a transit center on transit ridership or parking demand. The closestresearch studies were those that addressed the effects of parking fees on parking

demand, which is typically considered to discourage automobile use and shiftautomobile trips to transit.

2. Existing cost elasticity research deals with the incremental change in parking feewhich is not useful in situations where the current parking is free, and increasesfrom zero are less meaningful.

3. The results of the Solana Beach Parking Demand Study (Wilson & Company,November 2005) showed that a small percentage of parkers are non-transitrelated, and thus the argument for enacting a parking fee to discourage non-transitparkers may not be applicable.

4. The diversion of parkers into the neighboring residential areas will be minimizeddue to the inconvenience of hauling luggage or the risk of missing the train.Nevertheless, under any scenario, there will be a number of parker desirous offree parking, and therefore, establishing a neighborhood parking managementprogram may be necessary to minimize the appeal of residential neighborhoods asan alternative parking location.


17/18

Appendix T

Project Driveway Modifications Memorandum


18/18

parking cost elasticity study

Documents