Executive Summary
Throughout the United States, transportation agencies have begun implementing advanced parking information systems to increase customer satisfaction and to improve traffic operations. Through the use of variable message signs, these systems provide motorists with real-time information about parking availability at appropriate decision points on their route so that they can make an informed decision about where to park. These systems are being deployed in a variety of environments, including central business districts, airports, and transit park-and-ride lots. The goals in deploying such a system can vary depending on the operating environment. When deployed in a transit environment, goals can include improved user satisfaction, increased parking utilization at a lot that is currently under-utilized and increased transit ridership.
As the exact benefits of deploying a parking management system in a transit environment have yet to be determined, the United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) ITS Joint Program Office and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) elected to pursue a national evaluation of this technology. The USDOT selected an independent evaluation team to assess the impacts of two recent deployments: one in Chicago, Illinois and the other in Montgomery County, Maryland. The evaluation team worked closely with the project participants to obtain the data required to conduct a successful evaluation of these two deployments.
This report documents the findings of this independent evaluation. The study documents quantifiable system impacts in terms of parking utilization, transit ridership, traffic circulation, and customer satisfaction. This report also includes institutional issues and lessons learned by the project stakeholders throughout deployment and operation of these systems. The four core objectives of the evaluation were as follows:
- Assess the impact of the systems on ridership and parking utilization
- Assess the impact of the systems on mode choice
- Assess the impact of the systems on time spent searching for spaces (circulation within and between lots)
- Assess the impact of the systems on customer satisfaction
The evaluation involved the following data collection and analysis activities:
- Before/after analysis of transit ridership numbers.
- Before/after analysis of transit station parking utilization based on archived system in/out counts, manual in/out counts, and parking revenue data.
- Analysis of customer intercept surveys and of a focus group.
Summary of Findings
The results of the analyses are summarized here according to each of the four core evaluation objectives:
- Assess the Impact of the System on Ridership and Parking Utilization.
- Assess the Impact of the System on Mode Choice.
- Assess the Impact of the System on Time Spent Searching for Spaces (Circulation within and between lots).
- Assess the Impact of the System on Customer Satisfaction.
Assess the Impact of the System on Ridership and Parking Utilization
The evaluation team looked at a variety of data sources to determine the impact of the system on parking utilization. Additionally patrons were surveyed about the impact of the system on their commute patterns.
For the Chicago site, the stations did have slightly higher utilization after the system was in place (1 to 5.5 percent higher). In terms of utilization throughout the day, there was no change at Hickory Creek, and only a slight change in utilization at Tinley Park (slightly more people boarded the late morning trains causing the peak to occur approximately one hour later than in the previous year). In terms of mid-day utilization specifically, in general, there are very few people boarding trains during the mid-day and the system did not cause a significant increase in mid-day arrivals. This is not surprising considering that neither station was at or near capacity during the timeframe of the study (the Tinley Park Station reached a maximum of 82 percent capacity, and Hickory Creek reached 74 percent capacity). Additionally, no focus group participants reported that the parking lot has ever been full when they personally wanted to park and use Metra.
In the case of the Montgomery County project, it was expected that the system would result in a change in parking utilization throughout the day at Glenmont (rather than an increase in peak utilization, since it was known that the garage is already at capacity on a typical weekday). The data show that there was a 20 percent drop in the number of patrons arriving at Glenmont before 8:00AM, but that the garage now fills at a faster rate. This could be an indication that commuters no longer feel the need to arrive early in order to get a parking space, and that they now go directly to Glenmont [when the signs tell them that there is availability] instead of bypassing Glenmont as they might have done previously, thinking that it was full.
For the Norbeck lot it was thought that the system might increase awareness, and thereby, utilization of the lot. It was found that, in fact, very few people use the Norbeck lot for the purposes of boarding the Metro at Glenmont. This appears to be due to the fact that Norbeck does not serve as a viable option for most commuters. Some feel that it adds too much time to their commute and others do not park there since they are unfamiliar with the Norbeck bus schedules.
Assess the Impact of the System on Mode Choice
Since it was thought that lack of parking might be a perceived barrier to transit, it was hypothesized that some motorists might be encouraged to switch modes to transit after seeing a sign indicating that there is in fact parking available (in particular on days of heavy traffic). Surveys provided insight into this at both sites. In both cases very few respondents indicated that the signs have affected how often they take transit. In Montgomery County however, many indicated that the signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives for the Red Line. In fact, one-third of those surveyed at Norbeck indicated that they were not aware of the lot before the signs were installed.
Assess the Impact of the System on Time Spent Searching for Spaces
It was also thought that the system would save time for commuters. Again surveys provided insight. For the Chicago project, most respondents indicated that the signs have not influenced them because they have never experienced difficulty finding parking. However, some did indicate that the signs have saved them time in finding a parking space, particularly at Tinley Park where there are multiple lots.
For the Montgomery County project, responses were different as expected since the Glenmont garage is typically at capacity on weekdays and parking is more of a challenge. Most survey respondents indicated that there has been at least one time that they have been unable to find a space at Glenmont, and nearly one-fifth reported that they often spent time circling the garage looking for a space before the system was installed. About a quarter of respondents reported that they feel that the signs have made a difference to them and that the signs have reduced the amount of time that they spend looking for a space. Although the team was not able to obtain a statistically significant sample size, the data that the team was able to obtain show that circulation appears to have reduced significantly. It appears that 57 percent fewer vehicles left the Glenmont Garage during the peak hour after the system was installed as compared to before the system was installed. The environmental impact associated with 46 fewer vehicles circulating through the garage each day is equivalent to an emissions savings of 10.490 tons of carbon dioxide (or 20,980 lbs) over the course of a year.
Assess the Impact of the Systems on Customer Satisfaction
In general, for both projects, survey results indicate that commuters are satisfied with the sign locations and accuracy and that they would like to see similar signs at other locations. Although few respondents agree that the signs have improved their overall commuting experience, when asked whether they would like to see similar signs installed at other stations, many reported that they would.
Conclusions
The following is a summary of the conclusions regarding the hypotheses developed for this evaluation:
Chicago Project
- Hypothesis: The system will increase parking utilization at the Mokena/Hickory Creek and the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots. The hypothesis is inconclusive. Although both stations did have slightly higher utilization after the system was in place (1 percent higher at Tinley Park and 5.5 percent higher at Hickory Creek), it is unclear whether these increases can be attributed to the system. Any number of factors such as population increases or rising gas prices could have caused a portion of this ridership increase. Furthermore, the system only benefits those who drive to the station (rather than those who walk/bike or use kiss-and-ride), and some of this ridership increase could in fact be comprised of individuals who walk or bike to the station, or who use the kiss-and-ride facility. Finally, on the converse, any ridership increases that did result from the system could have been masked by decreases in ridership that were expected to result from riders being drawn over to any adjacent Metra line due to service improvements.
- Hypothesis: The system will positively affect customer satisfaction. This hypothesis is supported by the customer intercept surveys. Survey results indicate that commuters are satisfied with the sign locations and accuracy and that they would like to see similar signs at other locations. Although few respondents agree that the signs have improved their overall commuting experience, when asked whether they would like to see similar signs installed at other stations, many reported that they would.
- Hypothesis: The system will reduce traffic circulation between the north and south Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots. This hypothesis is inconclusive based on the archived system data and the customer intercept surveys. Although unnecessary circulation between the lots was thought to be a problem, it does not appear that any patrons left the lot during the AM peak period indicating that all vehicles entering the lot were able to find a parking space. The primary reason for this is that the Tinley Park Station never reached capacity during the timeframe of the study (even at its peak, the lots at this station were only at 82 percent capacity). However, the survey results provide some indication the system has helped commuters. Ninety-six percent of respondents there indicated that they have always been able to find a parking space since the system was added, while only 83 percent indicated that they were previously able to find a space.
- Hypothesis: The system will reduce traffic circulation between the Tinley Park/80th Avenue station and the Mokena/Hickory Creek station. This hypothesis is inconclusive based on the archived system data and the customer intercept surveys. Although unnecessary circulation between these two stations was thought to be a problem, it does not appear that any patrons left either of the lots during the AM peak period, indicating that all vehicles entering the lot were able to find a parking space. The primary reason for this is that neither stations reached capacity during the timeframe of the study (even at its peak, Tinley Park only reached 82 percent capacity and Hickory Creek only reached 74 percent capacity).
- Hypothesis: The system will result in an increase in ridership on the Rock Island District Line as parking utilization increases at the Tinley Park/80th Avenue and Mokena / Hickory Creek Stations. This hypothesis is inconclusive. Although both stations did have slightly higher ridership after the system was in place (an 8.9 percent increase at Hickory Creek and a 7.1 percent increase at Tinley Park when comparing 2006 data to 2002 data), it is unclear whether these increases can be attributed to the system. Any number of factors such as population increases or rising gas prices could have caused a portion of this ridership increase. Furthermore, the system only benefits those who drive to the station (rather than those who walk/bike or use kiss-and-ride), and some of this ridership increase could in fact be comprised of individuals who walk or bike to the station, or who use the kiss-and-ride facility. Finally, on the converse, any ridership increases that did result from the system could have been masked by decreases in ridership that were expected to result from riders being drawn over to any adjacent Metra line due to service improvements.
- Hypothesis: The system will result in an increase in transit mode share among commuters whose origins lie near the Mokena/Hickory Creek and Tinley Park/80th Avenue Stations. This hypothesis is supported by the customer intercept surveys. Though not many, a few respondents did indicate that the signs have affected how often they take transit. Two percent of Hickory Creek Station respondents and 4 percent of Tinley Park Station respondents reported that the parking availability information has caused them to take Metra instead of driving.
- Hypothesis: The system will result in an increase in mid-day arrivals at the Mokena/Hickory Creek and the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots. This hypothesis is not supported by the data. There was no change in utilization at Hickory Creek, and only a slight change in utilization at Tinley Park (slightly more people boarded the late morning trains causing the peak to occur approximately one hour later than in the previous year). In terms of mid-day utilization specifically, in general, there are very few people boarding trains during the mid-day and the system did not cause a significant increase in mid-day arrivals. This is not surprising considering that neither station was at or near capacity during the timeframe of the study (the Tinley Park Station reached a maximum of 82 percent capacity, and Hickory Creek reached 74 percent capacity; additionally, no focus group participants reported that the parking lot has ever been full when they personally wanted to park and use Metra).
Montgomery County Project
- Hypothesis: The system will increase driver awareness of parking alternatives when riding the Red Line in Montgomery County. This hypothesis is supported by the customer intercept surveys. Approximately one quarter of respondents (27 percent at Norbeck and 17 percent at Glenmont) indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that the signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives for the Red Line. Furthermore, one-third of respondents parking at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot indicated that they did not know about the lot prior to the signs.
- Hypothesis: The system will positively affect customer satisfaction. This hypothesis is supported by the customer intercept surveys. Survey results indicate that commuters are satisfied with the sign locations and accuracy and that they would like to see similar signs at other locations. Although few respondents agree that the signs have improved their overall commuting experience, when asked whether they would like to see similar signs installed at other stations, many reported that they would.
- Hypothesis: The system will reduce circulation within the Glenmont Garage. This hypothesis is supported by the customer intercept surveys. Most survey respondents indicated that there has been at least one time that they have been unable to find a space at Glenmont, and nearly one-fifth reported that they often spent time circling the garage looking for a space before the system was installed. About a quarter of respondents reported that they feel that the signs have made a difference to them and that the signs have reduced the amount of time that they spend looking for a space. The data show that circulation has been reduced significantly – it appears that nearly 43 percent fewer vehicles are now leaving the Glenmont Garage in the morning hours, and this could equate to an emissions savings of 69,556 pounds of carbon dioxide over the course of a year.
- Hypothesis: The system will increase parking utilization at the Norbeck park-and-ride Lot while maintaining the current parking utilization at the Glenmont Metro Station. This hypothesis is inconclusive. It was impossible to ascertain from the data whether utilization of the Norbeck lot increased among commuters using Glenmont. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that very few people use the lot for the purposes of boarding the Metro at Glenmont. When surveying patrons at this lot, the evaluation team inquired about how full the lot is on a typical day, and on both days the team was told by survey respondents and by the shuttle bus operator that the lot typically contains only 30 cars. The parking utilization at the Glenmont Garage has not changed since the system was added.
- Hypothesis: The system will increase transit ridership on the Red Line as the parking utilization at the Norbeck park-and-ride lot increases. This hypothesis is not supported by the data. In looking at monthly weekday boardings at the Glenmont and Wheaton Stations over the past 3 years, there is no indication that ridership has increased at either station since the signs were installed. Furthermore, since usage of the Norbeck lot does not appear to have increased since the signs were installed, it does not seem reasonable that any increase in ridership at Glenmont would have been the result of the system.
- Hypothesis: The system will result in an increase in transit mode share among commuters whose origins lie near the Glenmont Station. This hypothesis is supported by the customer intercept surveys. Though not many, a few respondents did indicate that the signs have affected how often they take transit. Four to 13 percent of respondents at Glenmont and 9–18 percent of respondents at Norbeck gave responses that would indicate that they feel the signs have affected how often they ride Metro.