T3 Webinar:

10/21/2008 — Findings and Lessons Learned from an Evaluation of Advanced Parking Management Systems for Transit

October 21, 2008

Text version of Webinar presentation:

"Automated Parking Information System Operational Test"

Description of image or images on a slide contained in brackets.

Slide 1: Advanced Parking Management Systems for Transit

By Jennifer Rephlo, Science Applications International Corporation
Mike Kinney, Maryland Department of Public Works
Gerry Tumbali, Chicago Regional Transportation Authority

Slide 2: Agenda

Overall goals of national evaluation
- Montgomery County project
- Background on parking management system
- Evaluation approach and finding
Chicago RTA / Metra project
- Background on parking management system
- Evaluation approach and findings
Lessons learned

Slide 3: Overall Goals of National Evaluation

[Two photos appear: One shows an oncoming train and the other a sign for Glenmont Station.]

Assess the impacts of real-time transit parking information
Understand how real-time transit parking information can contribute to corridor management
Document "lessons learned"

Slide 4: Glenmont Metro Station Parking Management System

[A photo of the Glenmont Metro Station sign appears.]

Evaluation Approach

Slide 5: Evaluation Objectives

Determine quantifiable system impacts
- Impact of system on:
  - Circulation / time savings
  - Transit ridership
Determine customer perception of the system
- Awareness of the system
- Understanding of the system
- Satisfaction with the system / sign placement
- Impact of the system on mode choice and parking choice

Slide 6: Evaluation Challenges

Is Norbeck a viable alternative to Glenmont?
- People may not know where it is and/or location may not be convenient
- Parking at Wheaton Station may be a better alternative to Glenmont for most
- Bus service may not be appealing because it ...
  - Does not run late enough in the evenings and/or does not offer mid-day service
  - Takes too long / is not a shuttle service
  - Is not reliable?

Slide 7: Data Collection Activities

[This slide displays two pictures of people participating in data collection activities and a parking area at the Glenmont Metro Station.]

Hourly in/out counts at Norbeck park and ride lot and Glenmont garage
- Parking utilization / circulation within garage
AM peak period boardings at Glenmont Station
- Ridership
Customer intercept surveys
- Customer feedback on system
Agency interviews
- Lessons learned

Slide 8: Glenmont Metro Station Parking Management System

[A photo of a Glenmont Station sign appears.]

Findings

Slide 9: Impact of System on Ridership and Mode Choice

Survey showed that very few people use Norbeck for Red Line access
- Norbeck not a viable option for most commuters
- 50% indicated that Wheaton Station is their alternative
No indication that weekday boardings at Glenmont have increased
Very few survey respondents indicated that the signs have affected how often they take transit

Slide 10: Impact of System on Arrival Patterns

13% drop in the number of patrons arriving at Glenmont before 8am
- Could be an indication that the system helps commuters better gauge when they need to arrive to get a space

Slide 11: Impact of the System on Circulation within Glenmont Garage

66% indicated trouble finding a parking space at Glenmont in the past
- 16% of Glenmont respondents reported that they often spent time circling the garage looking for a space
25% reported that they feel that the signs have made a difference to them
- Reduced the amount of time that they spend looking for a space
Data show a significant reduction in circulation
- 57 % fewer vehicles leaving Glenmont during peak hour

Slide 12: Impact of System on Awareness of Parking Alternatives

About 20% of respondents indicated that the signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives
- However, 50 percent felt that they were already aware of parking alternatives

Slide 13: Customer Satisfaction with Signs

Of those who were familiar with the signs, most were satisfied with the locations
Most were satisfied with sign accuracy and agreed that they would like to see similar signs at other stations
25% agreed that the signs have improved their overall commuting experience

Slide 14: Chicago RTA/Metra Parking Management Guidance System

[A photo of a train coming into a station appears.]

Evaluation Approach

Slide 15: Evaluation Objectives

Document quantifiable system impacts
- Impact of system on:
  - Transit ridership
  - Mode shift
  - Circulation in and between lots
Determine customer perception of the system
- Awareness of the system
- Understanding of the system
- Satisfaction with the system / sign placement
- Impact of the system on mode choice and parking choice
Document lessons learned

Slide 16: Evaluation Challenges

Is parking really a problem?
- Excess capacity at Tinley Park now, so parking availability is now less of an issue than it was previously
- Is there enough demand that utilization will increase at both lots?
Potential for improvements on adjacent Southwest Service Line to impact ridership on Rock Island Line
- Service frequency was increased
- Service hours were expanded

Slide 17: Data Collection Activities

[Two photos appear: one of a train station, the other of a train in the train station.]

Parking utilization / circulation
- Metra Rock Island line ridership figures (2002, 2006)
- In/out counts from system
- Parking utilization data from Villages of Mokena and Hickory Creek
Customer intercept surveys
Focus group
Interviews with project stakeholders involved in the implementation

Slide 18: Chicago RTA/Metra Parking Management Guidance System

[A photo of a train pulled in at a station appears.]

Findings

Slide 19: Impact of the System on Ridership, Parking Utilization, and Arrival Patterns

[A bar chart displays the focus group participants' level of agreement and disagreement with the statement: "The signs have not made any difference to me since I've never had trouble finding parking on the Rock Island Line." On average, 70% of the respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement.]

No focus group participants indicated that parking is a problem
70% of respondents indicated that parking is not a problem
- 20% of respondents at Tinley Park indicated problems in the past, but likely before additional spaces were added
Neither lot appears to be near capacity
- 75-80% capacity

Slide 20: Impact of the System on Ridership and Parking Utilization

Metra boarding-and-alighting data show increase
- 7% increase in ridership from Fall 2002 to Fall 2006, but could be due to any number of factors
Parking use indicates slight increase in utilization from Aug 2006 to Aug 2007
- 5.5% at Hickory Creek / 1% at Tinley Park

Slide 21: Impact of the System on Arrival Patterns

Very few boardings during mid-day and no increase in mid-day arrivals
Slightly more late morning boardings at Tinley Park
- Peak occurring about 1 hour later than previous year

Slide 22: Impact of the System on Mode Choice

[The first bar chart on this slide displays the focus group participants' level of agreement and disagreement with the statement: "I've found myself riding Metra more now that the signs provide me with information about the availability of parking spaces." Fewer than 5% of the respondents agree with the questions.]

[The second bar chart on this slide displays the percentage of respondents who report parking availability information resulted in using Metra rather than driving. On average, nearly 70% of the respondents indicated that parking availability information had no impact on their mode choice. ]

Very few respondents indicated that the signs have affected how often they take transit
- Fewer than 5% of respondents agreed with questions

Slide 23: Impact of the System on Circulation within and between Lots

[The bar chart on this slide displays the focus group participants' level of agreement and disagreement with the statement: "The signs have reduced the amount of time I spend searching for an available parking space when riding the Rock Island Line." Less than one-fifth of the respondents agree or strongly agree wit this statement.]

Because finding parking is not a problem ...
- No change in number of vehicles leaving lots during AM
- Most respondents indicated that the signs have not influenced them because finding parking is not a problem
However ...
- Some did indicate that the signs have saved them time in finding a parking space

Slide 24: Customer Satisfaction with the Signs

[The bar chart on this slide displays the focus group participants' level of agreement and disagreement with the statement: "I would like to see similar signs installed at other Metra stations." On average, nearly 20% agree or strongly agree with the statement.]

Majority of respondents satisfied with sign locations and accuracy
Few feel that the signs have improved their overall commuting experience
- However, as shown in graph, most said they would like to see similar signs at other stations
Focus group participants felt that system would be valuable in the future
- With increases in population density

Slide 25: Lessons Learned

[Two photos appear: one of a train pulled into a station and another of the Glenmont Station sign.]

Slide 26: Deployment Lessons Learned

Important to conduct a field study of communications during the design engineering phase
- Metra found that they needed repeater poles for uninterrupted communications
Plan time for permitting issues!

Slide 27: Technology Lessons Learned

Carefully consider system requirements before deciding to go with commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) or custom software
- COTS may not meet your needs
  - Montgomery County faced some limitations like being able to vary message sets by day of week
- Consider customized software if the budget can accommodate it
Be aware of the inherent limitations of the software
- Video detection has weather limitations
- Loop detectors can't anticipate spaces occupied with snow

Slide 28: Operations & Maintenance Lessons Learned

[A photo appears which is a combination of views of the Layhill Road Metro Garage.]

Staff should plan to monitor and manually update the system periodically
- Identify who (what agency and what staff) are responsible for this
- Require that the contractor provide training on the system
- Build in a monitoring system
- Clearly define a maintenance schedule

Slide 29: Contracting Lessons Learned

Cost plus fixed fee contract may be more appropriate than lump sum for this type of work
- Awarded to lowest bidder versus qualifications-based selection
- No incentive to finish the project quickly when encountering problems — payment over time provides incentive to finish
Design-build model might be more appropriate for this type of technology than design-bid-build
- No continuity between those designing it and those deploying it

Slide 30: Institutional Issues Lessons Learned

Parking management systems often integrated into urban or neighborhood environments
- Important to obtain formal endorsement from the leadership of all jurisdictions involved
- Important to involve all appropriate stakeholders in a formal and collaborative manner throughout the planning, deployment, and operations phases
  - Late-breaking or unresolved stakeholder concerns can stall the effort indefinitely
  - Active coordination among the various levels of government can help stave off unnecessary future costs and potential relocation of systems

Slide 31: Conclusions

[Two photos appear: one of a train pulled into a station and another of the Glenmont Station sign.]

Slide 32: Conclusions

Parking management systems can positively impact customer perception of transit and transportation services
- If there is a need and if the alternatives are feasible
Advertising and educating the public about the system is critical to success
Combining travel times with transit information will be key to true corridor management

Slide 33: Final Evaluation Report

[Two photos appear: one of a train pulled into a station and another of the Glenmont Station sign.]

Evaluation of Transit Applications of Advanced Parking Management Systems

available online at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/ParkingManagementEvaluationReport.pdf

Slide 34: Contact Information

Charlene Wilder, FTA
202-366-1077
charlene.wilder@dot.gov

Jennifer Rephlo, SAIC
703-676-2407
jennifer.a.rephlo@saic.com

Gerry Tumbali, Chicago RTA 312-913-3251
TumbaliG@rtachicago.org

Mike Kinney, Montgomery County DPWT
240-777-8760
Michael.Kinney@montgomerycountymd.gov