2. Chicago Project

2.1 Project Background

In the interest of providing better and more useful information to motorists, the Chicago Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and Metra (the commuter rail system serving the Chicago Metropolitan area), decided to undertake a pilot project to test the usefulness of a real-time parking information system for two of their commuter rail stations in suburban Chicago. This system development and demonstration effort was funded by RTA and by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Priority Corridor program administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation. In total, the cost of the Metra project was approximately $1 million, which included construction of the signs as well as purchasing and installing the hardware and software. In addition to this, the cost of concept development was approximately $100,000, and the cost of the engineering design, or design specifications, was approximately $150,000.

The system, which has been in place since August 26, 2006, provides travelers with real-time information about parking availability at key decision points along the nearby Interstate and key arterials for two Metra park-and-ride lots. The system also provides riders with additional parking signage and guidance around the two transit stations, while supplying Metra with real-time information about parking utilization at these stations. In providing additional information to motorists, RTA and Metra hoped the system would improve customer satisfaction and possibly draw in new riders.

As a first step in considering a parking management project, RTA conducted a feasibility study in 1998. As part of this feasibility study, the agency surveyed 316 patrons at various Metra Commuter Rail stations during and immediately following the morning (AM) peak. The surveys, consisting of 11 core questions, focused on station parking, station signage, and the types of information that riders would like to see posted on variable message signs. The survey found that a majority (62 percent) of all transit riders felt that signage around transit stations could be improved. Further, the survey found that over three-quarters of regular transit riders (commuters) felt that parking guidance information was a significant issue.[1]

Four main corridors were originally considered for this project, with two or three stations under consideration along each corridor. Some of the key factors considered in selecting project locations included: land configuration, fill rates in the parking facilities, lot size, the presence and location of nearby arterials, and growth areas in the surrounding communities.

After careful consideration, RTA and Metra agreed to implement the pilot project at two stations along the Rock Island Line, a line that provides service from downtown Chicago to the City of Joliet, Illinois. The two stations selected are adjacent stations located near the end of the Rock Island Line: the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station and the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station. These locations were chosen because of their optimal combination of location and ridership. At the time of the feasibility study, the parking facilities at the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station were often at or near capacity, while the lots at the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station typically had excess capacity. Given the proximity of these two stations, RTA and Metra representatives expected that the real-time information provided by the system would increase parking utilization at the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station, both through new riders and through a change in utilization among existing Rock Island Line patrons (i.e., some of those who used to park at Tinley Park/80th Avenue might now begin parking at Mokena/Hickory Creek). It was expected that the system would result in an increase in parking utilization at the Hickory Creek Station while maintaining parking utilization at the Tinley Park Station, thereby translating into an increased number of transit riders on the Rock Island Line.

2.2 System Description

The RTA/Metra parking management guidance system is comprised of two main components: parking monitoring and an en-route information system. The parking monitoring component monitors the number of vehicles entering and exiting all commuter lots at the two Metra Commuter Rail Stations. The en-route information system (the dynamic message signs), communicates parking availability information to drivers along key expressways and arterials. A map of the deployment area and the approximate location of each sign are shown in Figure 1. This map illustrates the station locations with respect to the expressway (Interstate 80) and the arterials. Figure 2 presents a diagram of the message signs and the information that is presented on them. The photo inset of the communications tower in Figure 2 indicates its location at the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station.

Figure 1. Area Map Showing Station Locations in Relation to Sign Locations.[2]

Figure 2. System Map.[3]

2.2.1 The Parking Monitoring Component

The parking monitoring component includes vehicle detection devices at each of the stations' entrance and exit points.[4] The vehicle detection system utilizes two-channel loop detectors that maintain a wired connection with the cluster management server.[5] The loop detection devices beneath the pavement magnetically detect vehicles entering and leaving the parking lots. An example of detector placement is depicted in Figure 3.

As shown in Figure 4, plastic delineators channelize traffic to ensure that vehicles do not cross over into the other direction of traffic and get counted incorrectly. As vehicles are counted, this information is communicated to a central workstation that maintains a real-time space inventory.

Figure 3. Example of Loop Detector Placement.[6]

Figure 4. Flexible Delineators Channel Traffic into Lanes to Ensure Accurate In/Out Counts.[7]

The communications tower has line-of-sight contact with all of the variable message signs. Based on the number of remaining spaces, the dynamic message signs are updated from the cluster management server through the spread-spectrum radio link. Metra then monitors real-time information from two workstations in their downtown headquarters. This allows Metra system administrators to diagnose and troubleshoot any issues that arise.

2.2.2 The Traveler Information Component

The parking management guidance system is equipped with eight variable message signs (VMS). The locations of these signs were indicated in the system map shown previously in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 5, the signs involve a static element that provides positive guidance to the parking facilities at each station along with a dynamic element that presents real-time parking availability information.[8] Two signs are solar powered as electrical power was not feasible at these sign locations.

The vehicle count presented on the VMSs can be updated at an interval set by system administrators. The signs are updated approximately every 5 minutes.

Figure 5. Chicago's Signs Provide Real-Time Information about the Number of Spaces Available at Two Metra Stations.

2.3 Description of Deployment Sites

The Tinley Park/80th Avenue and Mokena/Hickory Creek Stations are situated on the Rock Island Line just off Interstate-80, approximately 30 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. The Rock Island Line offers service from downtown Chicago to the City of Joliet, Illinois. Figure 6 depicts the Rock Island Line and the location of the two transit stations.

Although the Mokena/Hickory Creek and Tinley Park/80th Avenue Stations are located relatively close to one another (approximately 5 miles apart), the Hickory Creek Station receives significantly less ridership on an average weekday. According to Metra's most recent ridership survey (conducted in November 2006),[9] the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station currently serves approximately 2,287 riders per day on weekdays, while the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station serves approximately 1,133 riders per day on weekdays.

There is anecdotal evidence that many area residents, including some current Metra riders, are unacquainted with the location of the Hickory Creek Station. Therefore, it was thought that one obstacle that could be preventing potential riders from using the Hickory Creek Station as an alternate to the Tinley Park Station is Metra's zone-based fare structure. Although parking fees are the same for both stations ($1.00 per day), and although the Hickory Creek Station is located adjacent to the Tinley Park Station, the fare is more expensive from Hickory Creek since it is located in a different zone (Hickory Creek is located in Zone F, while Tinley Park is in Zone E). As a result, some motorists may decide to park at the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station rather than the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station because the train fare is less expensive (for riders using a monthly pass, boarding at Tinley Park rather than Hickory Creek would result in a savings of $11 each month (a 10 percent savings).[10]

Figure 6. Rock Island Line and Deployment Sites.[11]

2.3.1 Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station

The Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station is situated in a high-growth area and has two parking lots, one to the north of the station and one to the south. Both lots are operated and maintained by the Village of Tinley Park. In total, the station has approximately 2,300 surface spots, 40 of which are designated as handicapped. It is important to note that prior to the addition of 300 new parking spaces in the summer of 2005, the lot was at full capacity on an average weekday. During a site visit in September 2005 it was noted that the lots were not at full capacity.

Various factors may influence a motorist's decision to park in either the north or south lot. For example, patrons who prefer the south lot may do so as it provides faster access/egress to the active-track platform (trains typically arrive and depart from the south track at this station and all pedestrian crossings are at-grade as shown in Figure 7, meaning that if a patron arrives at the platform once the train is already there, they would have to wait for the next train since they would not be able to board). Conversely, patrons who prefer the north lot may do so as it typically allows for easier access to major arterials, which can help them make a quick exit at the end of the day. As shown in Figure 8, patrons leaving from the north lot have direct access to 80th Avenue, the roadway used to exit the Tinley Park/80th Avenue station (note that 80th Avenue dead ends at the north lot). Patrons leaving the south lot must yield to heavy southbound traffic (on 80th Avenue) in order to make a left-hand turn onto southbound 80th Avenue. As a result, it often takes more time for patrons to exit the south lot.

During the site visit, it was noted that unnecessary circulation was occurring as motorists tried unsuccessfully to park in their preferred lot before resorting to the other lot. Now that the system is in place, the two VMSs located closest to the Tinley Park Station provided parking availability information for the north and south lots (as shown in the schematic in Figure 2). This additional information was expected to eliminate any unnecessary circulation between the two Tinley Park lots.

Figure 7. Both Stations have an At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing.

Figure 8. Schematic of Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station.[12]

2.3.2 Mokena / Hickory Creek Station

The Mokena/Hickory Creek Station is located one stop further away from downtown Chicago. It is operated and maintained by the Village of Mokena and consists of one lot with multiple entrances and exits onto Hickory Creek Drive as shown in Figure 9. A total of 1,300 parking spaces are currently available at this station. During the planning of the project, Metra estimated that approximately 70–80 percent of the parking spaces at this station were utilized on an average weekday.[13]

Figure 9. Schematic of Mokena / Hickory Creek Station.[14]

2.4 Evaluation Approach / Data Collection Methodologies

A set of test hypotheses was developed to assess the impacts of the system at the Tinley Park and Hickory Creek Stations. Each hypothesis was tested by collecting data before and after system deployment and by analyzing this data to determine if there is a measurable difference that can be attributed to the system. The specific test hypotheses for the evaluation were divided into two categories: key and secondary. While both sets of hypotheses are important to this evaluation, it is believed that the key hypotheses have greater value for determining the impacts of the system. The hypotheses are provided below.

Key Hypotheses:

• The system will increase parking utilization at the Mokena/Hickory Creek and the Tinley Park/ 80th Avenue Station parking lots.
• The availability of real-time information will positively affect customer satisfaction.

Secondary Hypotheses:

• The system will reduce traffic circulation between the north and south Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots.
• The system will reduce traffic circulation between the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station and the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Table 1 outlines the hypotheses for the Chicago evaluation, and for each hypothesis, identifies one or more MOEs that will be used to assess the hypothesis. The data sources and analysis approaches that will be used to compute the MOEs are also illustrated.

Table 1. Evaluation Approach for Chicago Project

Hypothesis	MOE	Data Source	Proposed Analysis
The system will increase parking utilization at the Mokena/Hickory Creek and the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots.	Parking utilization at both lots.	In and out counts at both lots via system.	Before/after comparison of parking utilization at both lots.
The system will positively affect customer satisfaction.	Rider-reported level of satisfaction with transit.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.
The system will reduce traffic circulation between the north and south Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots.	Rider-reported improvements in traffic circulation.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.
The system will reduce traffic circulation between the Tinley Park/80th Avenue station and the Mokena/Hickory Creek station.	Rider-reported improvements in traffic circulation.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.
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.	Ridership on the Rock Island District Line and ridership on the SouthWest Service Line.	Two days of ridership data collected from 5:00 AM to 12:00 PM at each of four stations: – Tinley Park / 80th Avenue – Mokena / Hickory Creek –- 153rd / Orland Park – 179th / Orland Park	Before/after comparison of ridership figures at the four stations.
	Rider-reported transit-use.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.
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.	Rider-reported transit-use.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.
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.	Number of patrons arriving during the mid-day at each of the lots.	Mid-day in/out vehicle counts at both lots via system.	Before/after comparison of number of vehicles entering/exiting both lots during mid-day.
The system will result in a reduction in circulation within the Mokena/Hickory Creek and the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station parking lots.	Number of drivers unable to find a parking space at each of the lots.	In and out counts at both lots via system.	Before/after comparison of number of vehicles exiting both lots during AM peak period.
	Rider-reported ease of finding a parking space.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.

2.4.1 Ridership and Parking Utilization Data

In order to determine if there were any changes in parking utilization at the Mokena/Hickory Creek and the Tinley Park/80th Avenue parking lots after the addition of the parking information system, the evaluation team reviewed a range of data sources.

It would seem logical to first look at Metra ridership data to see if ridership changed at either of the two stations. However, since Metra offers a wide range of ticket classes (one-way, 10-ride, monthly), and since tickets are verified through ticket-checking on the train rather than through electronic means, it is difficult to obtain an accurate measure of ridership based on ticket sales alone (e.g., a patron who typically makes more than 15 round trips on Metra each month would find it more economical to purchase a monthly pass than a series of 10-ride tickets, and there is no way to know how often they are making a trip). As a result, the only detailed ridership numbers available are those provided by a system-wide boarding-and-alighting study that Metra conducts every 4 years. The evaluation team obtained and reviewed data from the two most recent studies that were conducted in 2002 and 2006.

The team also obtained archived system data from Metra documenting hourly in/out vehicle counts. The "after" data provided by Metra to the team covered the time period August 29, 2006–August 20, 2007. To obtain comparable data on parking utilization at the two stations before the addition of the system, RTA and Metra agreed to leave the system turned "off" to motorists for two weeks in August 2006 after the counting and recording mechanism was in place and operating properly to the best of their knowledge. The "before" data provided by Metra to the team covered the time period August 14, 2006–August 28, 2006.

Another source of data that provides some insight into ridership is parking usage as recorded based on parking sales at the two stations. Patrons are required to pay one dollar each time they park, and these funds are collected through an honor system. These funds are collected and recorded on a daily basis by the jurisdiction responsible for the station (in the case of the Tinley Park Station, the Village of Tinley Park maintains the lot and collects the fees). The evaluation team obtained data from the Village of Tinley Park and the Village of Mokena and compared these data with data archived by the system to get a sense for the accuracy of the data.

2.4.2 Customer Intercept Surveys

The primary method used to obtain customer reactions to the system was through an intercept survey of transit riders. Surveys were administered at the Hickory Creek and Tinley Park stations over a two-day period in March 2007. The surveys were designed to address the following hypotheses:

• The availability of real-time parking information will positively affect customer satisfaction.
• The accuracy of real-time parking information will reduce driver frustration.
• The availability of parking information will help drivers determine when to exit the freeway.
• The system will increase parking utilization at the two lots.
• Metra ridership and mode share will increase as parking utilization increases.
• Circulation will be reduced within the lots at both stations.
• Circulation will be reduced between the two lots at the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station.

The survey instruments can be found in the Appendix. The survey is comprised primarily of multiple choice questions to ensure that it could be completed in less than 5 minutes so that it would not intrude upon the riders' daily commute.

The survey team consisted of four members of the evaluation team who distributed surveys, as well as two staff from RTA who supported the effort by collecting surveys from patrons as they exited the train at the LaSalle station downtown. The team distributed and collected surveys at the Hickory Creek Station on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 and at the Tinley Park Station on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.[15] Surveys were distributed throughout the entire duration of the morning at both stations, beginning with the first departing train at 5:22 AM / 5:26 AM, and ending with the last train of the morning departing at 10:41 AM / 10:44 AM (see the train schedule shown in Table 2).

Surveyors intercepted patrons as they arrived on the platform, explaining the purpose of the survey and asking that they take a few minutes to complete the survey either while waiting for the train or while riding the train, explaining that there would be survey collectors at the LaSalle Station downtown). If the respondent agreed to take the survey, they were then provided a hard copy of the survey (printed front-to-back on heavy cardstock) along with a golf-sized pencil.

Surveyors screened for patrons meeting the following three criteria:

• They drove and parked at the station that day (or they typically drive and park at the station). The rationale behind this criterion was that since the system does not benefit those who walk or bike to the station or those who use the kiss-and-ride facility, it is only useful to gather inputs from those who drive.
• They have seen the new signs. In order to gather sufficient information regarding customer's perceptions of the signs, it was important to survey patrons who had seen the signs and would therefore be able to provide insightful responses. Note that this criterion did not limit the sample since nearly every individual approached indicated that they had seen the signs.
• They will be alighting the train at the LaSalle Station. Due to the way in which the surveys were collected, only those alighting at LaSalle could complete the survey. As expected based on Metra's knowledge of ridership patterns, this criterion did not limit the sample at all since every patron approached by the survey team met this criteria.

To determine a target sample size, the evaluation team looked to the most recent ridership numbers that were available at the time of the survey collection (those collected by Metra in the fall of 2002).[16] The total number of daily boardings at the two stations in 2002 was 3,193. Given these ridership figures, the surveyors' goal was to collect 625 surveys in total between the two stations, or approximately 20 percent of the total estimated boardings. Given that the numbers indicated that ridership was higher at the Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station (approximately twice that of the Hickory Creek Station), the goal was to obtain at least 425 surveys at the Tinley Park Station, and at least 200 surveys at the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station.

The evaluation team collected 578 surveys at Tinley Park (exceeding the target of 425 surveys), and 324 surveys at the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station (again exceeding the target of 200 surveys), for a total of 902 responses. This sample accounts for approximately 28 percent of total boardings at the two Rock Island Line stations. The response rate at both stations was high: 64 percent at Hickory Creek and 56 percent at Tinley Park.

Table 2. Schedule for Rock Island Line

Mokena / Hickory Creek	Tinley Park – 80th Ave	Chicago (LaSalle St.)
5:22 AM	5:26 AM	6:14 AM
5:51 AM	5:56 AM	6:45 AM
6:10 AM	6:15 AM	7:02 AM
6:32 AM	6:37 AM	7:27 AM
6:49 AM	6:54 AM	7:44 AM
7:08 AM	7:13 AM	8:01 AM
7:23 AM	7:28 AM	8:12 AM
7:38 AM	7:43 AM	8:27 AM
7:56 AM	8:01 AM	8:48 AM
8:41 AM	8:44 AM	9:45 AM
9:41 AM	9:44 AM	10:45 AM
10:41 AM	10:44 AM	11:45 AM

2.4.3 Focus Group

In order to better understand how users and potential users of the Metra Rock Island District commuter train line feel about and respond to the several message signs that convey parking availability at the Mokena/Hickory Creek and Tinley Park/80th Avenue locations, the evaluation team conducted a focus group in October 2007. The focus group was designed to address the following topic areas:

• Commuting Patterns and Options
• Mode Choices
• Driving Conditions/Use of Pre-Trip Traveler Information
• Perceptions of the Parking Information Signs

The 90-minute focus group was conducted at a professional focus group facility in Mokena, Illinois and was led by a professional facilitator. Two members of the evaluation team observed the group. Participants were informed that the study team would be observing their responses to the questions but they were not in any way affiliated with the local or State Departments of Transportation, or with Metra or RTA.

The focus group facilitator screened for a mix of participants. All participants indicated that they commute to downtown Chicago at least 3 times each week during the morning rush hour and that the beginning of their commute is along I-80. The facilitator then screened to ensure that the group contained a mix of those who:

• Typically commute via the Rock Island Line, but just started riding within the last year (with the idea that those who began riding Metra within the past year may have made the switch due to the signs).
• Typically do not ride the Rock Island Line but say they would definitely consider riding.
• Typically do not ride the Rock Island Line but say they might consider riding.

Ten people were selected to participate in the focus group. Six selected were males and four were females. All had been in the area for at least 2 years with three people living in the area for more than 20 years. Four of the people indicated that they currently use Metra as their primary means for commuting, and of the remaining six (who all typically commute by car), half indicated that they would definitely consider riding Metra and the other half indicated that they might consider riding Metra. The participants had a mix of education levels with seven of the ten having completed at least some college or having a college degree.

2.5 Findings

2.5.1 Impact of the System on Ridership, Parking Utilization, & Arrival Patterns

The project stakeholders and evaluation team expected that use of the two stations might increase as a whole due to the system since it was thought that lack of parking at stations along the Rock Island Line might be a perceived barrier to riding Metra.

2.5.1.1 Ridership based on Metra Boarding-and-Alighting Studies

As discussed previously, it would seem logical to first look at Metra ridership data to see if ridership changed at either of the two stations. However, since Metra offers a wide range of ticket classes (one-way, 10-ride, monthly), and since tickets are verified through ticket-checking on the train rather than through electronic means, it is difficult to obtain an accurate measure of ridership based on ticket sales alone (e.g., a patron who typically makes more than 15 round trips on Metra each month would find it more economical to purchase a monthly pass than a series of 10-ride tickets, and there is no way to know how many trips monthly passholders make each month) As a result, the only detailed ridership numbers available are those provided by a system-wide boarding-and-alighting study that Metra conducts every 4 years.

The two most recent studies (conducted in 2002 and 2006) show that there were 1,133 weekday boardings at the Hickory Creek Station in 2002,[17] and that the boardings increased to 1,224 in 2006[18] (an 8.9 percent increase over 2002). At the Tinley Park Station the numbers climbed from 2,287 weekday boardings in 2002, to 2,448 boardings in 2006 (a 7.1 percent increase). The parking management system was turned on to motorists in August 2006, so it is possible that some portion of this increase could be due to the system. However, any increases in ridership resulting from the system could be masked by decreases in ridership that were expected to result from riders being drawn over to the adjacent SouthWest Service Line due to service improvements.[19] In addition, any number of factors such as population increases or rising gas prices could have caused a portion of the 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.

2.5.1.2 Ridership based on Archived In/Out System Data

A better indicator of whether the system caused an increase in ridership would be the number of vehicles parking at the station before and after the addition of the parking management system (with the assumption that most vehicles parking in the lot are single occupancy vehicles). This eliminates those who walk/bike or use kiss-and-ride. The evaluation team looked at the archived system data (in/out counts at parking lots at the two stations) to determine if any difference in parking utilization or arrival patterns were evident in the data. After reviewing the data archived for the time period August 14, 2006 – August 20, 2007, the evaluation team selected two dates to use for determining trends in lot usage. The original intent had been to compare the entire 2 weeks of "before" data to the same 2 weeks of "after" data from the following year – or to at least compare one full week of data from each year – but unfortunately there was not one week for which the data was complete in both 2006 and 2007 that could be used for comparison. The data contained numerous inconsistencies, which made comparing dates/days more difficult than had been anticipated.

The two dates selected for comparison purposes were August 17, 2006 (before the system), and August 9, 2007 (after the system). Note that both dates are Thursdays to ensure a meaningful comparison. These dates are used for comparison throughout the report, and for matters of simplification they are referred to by month and year only. Note that the system does not archive in/out counts directly; rather it records the number of vehicles entering and exiting the lot during each 10-minute period as well as the number of "free" spaces as determined by the system algorithms. Therefore, the evaluation team determined the number of spaces occupied by subtracting the number of "free" spaces from the total number of spaces,[20] and by then calculating the entrances and exits for each 10 minute increment based on changes in space availability.

Figure 10 shows parking utilization at the two lots throughout select months during 2006 and 2007 (note that the system was turned on to the public in August 2006, so this graphic represents utilization after the system was in place). Data from January 2007 and September 2008 were missing significant pieces of data and were therefore not included in this comparison. The average number of occupied spaces by month for Hickory Creek ranged from 802–958 with the greatest number of occupied spaces registering in March and the lowest in December 2006. Tinley Park had a bit more fluctuation, with space utilization ranging from 1,607–1,878. The greatest number of occupied spaces was recorded in October 2006 and the lowest number was recorded in November 2006. It is not surprising that the numbers were lowest in November and December due to the holiday season.

However, November 2007 data showed a significant increase in usage from 2006 to 2007. In November 2006 an average of 806 spaces were used in Hickory Creek with that number jumping to 931 in November 2007 (an increase of 15.6 percent). At Tinley Park the result was the same. In November 2006 an average of 1,607 spaces were used and in November 2007 that number rose to 1,808 (a 12.5 percent increase). Data for October 2006 and 2007 showed a slight decrease in average usage with a 1 percent decline at Hickory Creek and a 3 percent decline at Tinley Park. December 2006 and 2007 showed a slight increase in usage with a 7.1 percent increase at Hickory Creek and 2.1 percent increase at Tinley Park.

Surprisingly, neither station appears to be at or near capacity (even at its peak, Tinley Park was only at 82 percent capacity and Hickory Creek was at 74 percent capacity).

Figure 10. Average Spaces Occupied during Select Months in 2006 and 2007 after System Deployment

Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the space utilization at the Hickory Creek Station and the Tinley Park Station before and after the addition of the parking information system. Recall that the August 2006 data points reflect data collected during the 2-week test phase that occurred before the system was turned on to the public, while the August 2007 data points reflect data collected a year after the system was turned on to motorists.

As can be seen in the graphs, peak daily utilization at Hickory Creek was 5.5 percent higher in August 2007 as compared to August 2006 (923 as compared to 875), while it was only 1 percent higher at Tinley Park (1,820 as compared to 1,802). Again it is impossible to know whether the system directly caused either of these increases or whether they were simply caused by factors such as population increases or rising gas prices.

In terms of utilization throughout the day, there was no change at Hickory Creek (the utilization level off starting around 8:00 AM, and later finally peaked between 12:30 and 1:00 PM in both years) but the peak utilization did change somewhat at Tinley Park. As with Hickory Creek, the utilization began leveling off around 8:00AM in both years, but the time that it finally reached its peak was between 11:40 AM and 12:30 PM in 2006, and at 1:40 PM in 2007.

Figure 11. Space Utilization at Hickory Creek Station.

Figure 12. Space Utilization at Tinley Park Station.

2.5.1.3 Ridership based on Parking Revenue Collected

Another source of data that provides some insight into ridership is parking usage as recorded based on parking sales at the two stations. Patrons are required to pay one dollar each time they park, and these funds are collected through an honor system (before leaving the lot, patrons place a dollar in a slot assigned to their parking space). These funds are collected and recorded on a daily basis by the jurisdiction responsible for the station (the Village of Tinley Park maintains the lot and collects the fees at the Tinley Park Station; the Village of Mokena maintains the lot at the Hickory Creek Station). The evaluation team obtained data from the Village of Tinley Park for the period of time August 2006 to September 2007, and compared these data with data archived by the system to get some sense for the accuracy of the data. For simplification purposes, Figure 13 shows a small slice of this comparison for a period of 8 business days in November 2007. As can be seen in the graph, the Metra data follows the same pattern as the Village data with only small discrepancies between the two data sets (2.5 percent or less). This small discrepancy is likely due to either lack of payment by some patrons or due to some small inaccuracies in the system.

The evaluation team also obtained data from the Village of Mokena for August 2006 and 2007 and compared these data with in/out data archived by the system. Discrepancies between these data sets were a little larger, ranging from 2.7 percent to 7.6 percent. However, as with Tinley Park, the numbers from the archived system data were slightly but consistently higher than those from the parking payment data. From a customer perspective it is better to under-report than over-report the number of spaces available.

Figure 13. Comparison of Used Spaces Data Collected by the Village of Tinley Park and Metra.

It was expected that the system might result in an increase in arrivals during mid-day hours in particular, as those departing later in the morning might have previously avoided taking Metra, thinking that the parking lot would be full. Therefore when looking at patterns in arrival rates, the team focused in particular on the mid-day period. The data show that there are very few arrivals during the mid-day, and that the system did not cause a significant increase in mid-day arrivals at either lot. As shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, at Hickory Creek there were a total of 10 mid-day arrivals in August 2006 (defined as those arriving between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM), and 15 in August 2007. At Tinley Park there were a total of 31 mid-day arrivals in August 2006, and 18 in August 2007. The low number of mid-day arrivals is not surprising considering that the train departs these stations only every hour beginning around 9:00 AM.

Figure 14. Vehicle Entrances during Mid-Day (11:00 AM-2:00 PM) at Hickory Creek.

Figure 15. Vehicle Entrances during Mid-Day (11:00-2:00 PM) at Tinley Park.

2.5.2 Impact of the System on Mode Choice

Since it was thought that lack of parking at Metra Stations along the Rock Island Line might be a perceived barrier to riding Metra, 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). To assess this directly from respondents, respondents were asked a number of questions on the survey related to mode choice; a portion of the focus group focused on issues related to mode choice as well.

2.5.2.1 Focus Group

For the focus group, the screener ensured that one-third of the group was comprised of individuals who indicated that they began riding Metra regularly within the past year (i.e., since the signs were installed), with the idea that it would be interesting to learn whether the signs played any role in their decision. However, as it turned out, most of these individuals who recently made the switch to Metra attributed their decision to a change in their job where travel to downtown Chicago became necessary and the Metra Rock Island commuter train option became a feasible option. One participant indicated that he takes Metra whenever possible, but that he often has to drive since he needs access to his car. This particular individual attributed his choice to ride Metra as a constant trade-off to be made between the cost of traveling by car (with the cost of parking being a significant factor) versus by train. No one, however, mentioned concerns about parking availability at Metra Stations as a factor in their decision.

It should be noted that the focus group members who regularly use the Tinley Park and Hickory Creek Stations clearly did not perceive parking to be a problem. Aside from only one mention of a 4-day "carnival" festival held on a "good portion" of the parking lot at the Hickory Creek station every year during the summer (which a group member remarked was announced in advance to Metra users), no one had any recollection of the parking lot ever being full when they personally wanted to park and use Metra. Furthermore, and most probably due to personal experiences, no one had any fear of not being able to find a parking space when they needed one. When probed directly, people replied that they were confident in being able to find parking spots when they needed to use the train.

While the focus group participants indicated that they do not currently rely on the signs, nearly all saw value to having the signs at some time in the future when circumstances make the signs relevant and useful. Circumstances that participants mentioned included roadway construction and inclement weather conditions, both of which were cited as factors that can add to the frustrations of driving. However, the single factor that focus group members saw as having the largest contribution to the signs being used and relied upon more often was the increase in commuting demand for Metra that would naturally be expected with population growth as the suburbs surrounding the stations become more completely developed and populated (note that data show that the parking lots at these two stations are only at 85 percent capacity on even the busiest weekdays).

2.5.2.2 Survey

On the survey, respondents were first asked whether the parking space information displayed on the new signs has ever caused them to take Metra when they were originally planning to drive to their final destination. This question did not apply to approximately one-quarter of the respondents (26 percent on average between the two stations) since they reported that they almost always use Metra (approximately 84 percent of respondents reported that they use Metra four to five times per week). Of the remaining respondents, only 2 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 (see Figure 16).

Figure 16. Reported Change in Plans from Driving To Riding Metra.

Next respondents were asked if they feel that the signs have caused them to ride Metra more often. Figure 17 shows that only 4 percent of Hickory Creek respondents and 5 percent of Tinley Park respondents indicated that they feel the signs have led them to ride Metra more frequently (those answering disagree or strongly disagree) while over half of the respondents at both stations (54 percent at Hickory Creek and 56 percent at Tinley Park) indicated that the signs have not affected how often they ride Metra (those answering disagree or strongly disagree). A number of respondents answered "N/A" to this question, and the evaluation team believes that many of these respondents are those who do not benefit from the system since they typically arrive at the station early in the morning when there is still sufficient parking.

Figure 17. Influence of the Signs' Presence on Frequency of Riding Metra.

Finally respondents were asked whether they agree that the information on the signs has not affected how often they rode Metra. As shown in Figure 18, a strong majority at respondents at both stations (79 and 76 percent at the Hickory Creek Station and Tinley Park Stations, respectively) agreed or strongly agreed that the signs have not affected how often they ride Metra. Only 7 percent of Hickory Creek respondents and 9 percent of Tinley Park respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, indicating that these respondents feel that they now ride Metra more frequently because of the signs.

Figure 18. Influence of the Sign Information on Metra Riding Frequency.

2.5.3 Impact of the System on Circulation within and between Lots

As previously discussed, when this project was in its planning stages, unnecessary circulation was occurring between the two lots at the Tinley Park station as many motorists were attempting to park in their "preferred" lot first before resorting to the other lot when finding that the first lot was full. The system was expected to eliminate this unnecessary circulation between the two Tinley Park lots.

As previously discussed, in looking at the data, it does not appear that lack of parking was an issue at the time the system was installed.[21] However, despite the fact that the lots never reached full capacity, patrons may have still felt that the signs saved them time in knowing which lot had availability. In order to determine whether this is the case, the evaluation team examined the in/out counts collected by the system at the two stations. In addition, respondents were asked about circulation on the survey.

2.5.3.1 System In/Out Counts

To determine whether unnecessary circulation remained an issue at the time that the system was deployed[22] and, if so, whether the system remedied this situation, the evaluation team looked to the archived system data. The specific focus was on the number of vehicles exiting the lot during the AM peak period before and after system implementation with the thought that patrons would only be leaving the lot during the AM peak period if they could not find parking. One constraint that should be noted in this analysis is that vehicles dropping off passengers at the "kiss-and-ride" area use the same entry/exit point as those entering the lot to park. As a result, kiss-and-ride vehicles entering and exiting the lot are counted by the system along with vehicles entering the lot to park. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the number of kiss-and-ride vehicles did not change as a result of the system, so any change in vehicles leaving the lot after not finding parking should be apparent.

As with the parking utilization analysis, the evaluation team compared the "before" data that was collected by the system during the 2-week period when it was turned "off" to motorists, to the "after" data archived by the system. From the data, it does not appear that any of the lots reached capacity during the timeframe of the study (whether before or after). As a result, it appears that no vehicles were leaving the lot during the AM peak period other than those using the kiss-and-ride facility.

2.5.3.2 Survey

To determine if parking was a problem at these stations prior to the addition of the signs, and if it is a problem now, survey respondents were asked to report whether they have ever arrived at a station only to find that there were no spaces available. Figure 19 shows responses regarding space availability prior to the parking availability signs being put in operation and Figure 20 shows responses regarding space availability since the parking availability signs were put in operation.

It does not appear that the information has helped patrons at Hickory Creek. Hickory Creek respondents' answers were relatively unchanged, with 94 and 96 percent, respectively, reporting that they were always able to find a space before and after the addition of the system. At Tinley Park, however, it appears that the system has made a difference. Only 83 percent of respondents indicated that they had previously always been able to find a space, while 96 percent reported that they have always been able to find a space since the system was in place. The reason for this jump, however, could be due to the fact that Metra added 300 new spaces to the Tinley Park lot in the summer of 2005 (one year prior to when the system was turned on to the public in August 2006), and respondents could have recalled incorrectly when responding to this question.

Figure 19. Percentage of Respondents Reporting They Found No Spaces Available Prior to the Parking Availability Signs.

Figure 20. Percentage of Respondents Reporting They Found No Spaces since the Addition of the Parking Availability Signs.

When asked, "What did you do when you found that there was no parking [prior to the addition of the signs]?" Tinley Park respondents provided responses shown in Figure 21. Note that some respondents selected more than one alternative, resulting in a total of 118 responses. Although there was a fairly even split between the five response choices provided, the three most frequent responses were: (1) Parked at the Mokena/Hickory Creek Station, 28 percent; (2) Drove to my final destination instead of taking Metra, 26 percent; and (3) Other, 23 percent. Of the 27 respondents who answered "Other," some common responses included: parked illegally, parked elsewhere, stayed home, or arrived late at destination.

Figure 21. Alternative Plans by Tinley Park Station Respondents upon Finding No Spaces Available Prior to the Presence of Signs.

Respondents were also asked if they feel that the signs have not made any difference to them because they have never had trouble finding parking. Figure 22 shows that 73 percent of all respondents on average agreed or strongly agreed that the signs have not influenced them because they have never experienced difficulty finding parking. This is consistent with responses to the earlier questions related to parking availability.

Figure 22. Influence of Signs on Finding Parking.

Figure 23 shows respondents' perceptions of whether or not the signs have reduced the amount of time that they spend searching for available spaces. There was no marked difference in responses between those parking at Hickory Creek versus Tinley Park. Only 14 percent of respondents on average indicated that they feel that the signs have saved them time in finding a parking space. Approximately 42 percent of respondents indicated that the signs do not reduce the amount of time they spend searching for a space (answering disagree or strongly disagree), with the remaining respondents indicating that they felt neutral on this topic or that they felt that this question did not apply to them.

Figure 23. Influence of Signs on Time Spent Searching for a Space.

2.5.4 Customer Satisfaction with the Signs

Several questions on the survey and in the focus group addressed customer satisfaction with the signs. As for the focus group, it should first be noted that all focus group participants had awareness of and familiarity with the signs. In fact, early in the session, a group member brought up the existence of one of those signs before any mention of the signs was made by the facilitator (this was during a discussion of typical commute patterns).

During the focus group discussion, the focus group members discussed and were subsequently probed about the reliability of the signs. Most members indicated that they trust the information displayed on the signs. Participants indicated that they considered the updates to be accurate, and some even mentioned having personally seen the numbers on the signs change, reflecting either a reduction or increase in the number of available parking spaces.

Interestingly, a brief discussion unfolded at one point by a group member surrounding what he would do if he saw only a small number of available spaces displayed on the signs (such as "50"), and he indicated it was likely he would drive rather than risk losing time searching and not finding a parking space (others in the group seemed to agree with this assessment). Another interesting finding of the focus group was that only about half of the group thought the signs were updated in an automated way. Other respondents thought that the signs were updated by lot attendants conducting periodic visual assessments of how many spaces remained.

Survey results indicate that both Hickory Creek and Tinley Park respondents were satisfied with the sign locations and accuracy and would like to see similar signs at other Metro locations. Respondents from both locations disagreed or strongly disagreed, however, that the information of the signs had improved their overall commuting experience.

First respondents were asked if they feel that the signs are appropriately located along their morning commute so that they are able to make important decisions about their trip. Figure 24 shows that commuters at both stations seem to be generally satisfied with the locations of the signs. Nearly half (46 percent) of respondents at Hickory Creek and 41 percent of respondents at Tinley Park responded positively (agreed or strongly agreed) that they were satisfied with the location of the signs.

Figure 24. Satisfaction with Sign Location.

Next respondents were asked for their impression of the accuracy of the signs. As shown in Figure 25, on average, 51 percent of respondents indicated that they believe that the sign information is accurate (answering agree or strongly agree). Only 5 percent of respondents indicated that they feel that the information on the signs is not accurate (answering disagree or strongly disagree). Note that many selected the "neutral" response to this question.

Respondents were also asked if they felt that the information on the signs had improved their overall commuting experience. Figure 26 shows that very few respondents agreed with the statement that the parking signs have improved their overall commuting experience. Only 18 percent of respondents at the Hickory Creek Station answered agree or strongly agree, and only 19 percent of respondents at the Tinley Park Station answered agree or strongly agree. Thirty-five percent of all respondents said they were neutral and 31 percent said they disagreed or strongly disagreed that the signs have improved their overall commuting experience.

Figure 25. Satisfaction with Sign Accuracy.

Figure 26. Satisfaction with Commuting Experience.

Finally, respondents were asked whether they would like to see similar signs installed at other Metra stations. Consistent with some of the earlier survey questions related to customer satisfaction, the responses were fairly evenly split between neutral and agree, with only 10 and 16 percent of respondents at Hickory Creek and Tinley, respectively, reporting that they would not like to see similar signs at other stations. Approximately one-third (38 percent) of all the responses were neutral, and approximately one-third reported that they would like to see more signs (39 percent of Hickory Creek respondents and 35 percent of Tinley Park respondents).

Figure 27. Desire for Expansion of the Sign Program.

Previous | Next

ITS Home | US DOT Home | Privacy | Feedback

United States Department of Transportation - ITS