Printable Version [PDF, 2MB]
You will need the Adobe Reader to read the PDF file on this page.
Contact Information: charlene.wilder@dot.gov, jane.lappin@dot.gov, john.augustine@dot.gov

---

Submitted to:

United States Department of Transportation
ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology Administration
and
Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation,
Federal Transit Administration

May 9, 2008

---

Table of Contents

Notice

Quality Assurance Statement

Technical Report Documentation Page

Abbreviations

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview
1.2 Organization of the Report

2. Chicago Project

2.1 Project Background

2.2 System Description

2.2.1 The Parking Monitoring Component
2.2.2 The Traveler Information Component

2.3 Description of Deployment Sites

2.3.1 Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station
2.3.2 Mokena / Hickory Creek Station

2.4 Evaluation Approach / Data Collection Methodologies

2.4.1 Ridership and Parking Utilization Data
2.4.2 Customer Intercept Surveys
2.4.3 Focus Group

2.5 Findings

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

2.5.1.1 Ridership based on Metra Boarding-and-Alighting Studies
2.5.1.2 Ridership based on Archived In/Out System Data
2.5.1.3 Ridership based on Parking Revenue Collected

2.5.2 Impact of the System on Mode Choice

2.5.2.1 Focus Group
2.5.2.2 Survey

2.5.3 Impact of the System on Circulation within and between Lots

2.5.3.1 System In/Out Counts
2.5.3.2 Survey

2.5.4 Customer Satisfaction with the Signs

3. Montgomery County Project

3.1 Project Background

3.2 System Description

3.3 Evaluation Approach / Data Collection Methodologies

3.3.1 Ridership and Parking Utilization Data
3.3.2 Customer Intercept Surveys

3.4 Findings

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

3.4.1.1 Parking Utilization at Norbeck
3.4.1.2 Parking Utilization at Glenmont
3.4.1.3 Ridership
3.4.1.4 Mode Share

3.4.2 Impact of the System on Awareness of Parking Alternatives
3.4.3 Impact of the System on Circulation within Glenmont Garage

3.4.4 Customer Satisfaction with the Signs

4. Institutional Issues and Lessons Learned

4.1 Deployment Lessons Learned
4.2 Technology Lessons Learned
4.3 Operations and Maintenance Lessons Learned
4.4 Contracting Lessons Learned
4.5 Institutional Lessons Learned

5. Summary and Conclusions

5.1 Summary of Findings

5.1.1 Assess the Impact of the System on Ridership and Parking Utilization
5.1.2 Assess the Impact of the System on Mode Choice
5.1.3 Assess the Impact of the System on Time Spent Searching for Spaces
5.1.4 Assess the Impact of the Systems on Customer Satisfaction

5.2 Conclusions

5.2.1 Chicago Project
5.2.2 Montgomery County Project

Appendix

List of Tables

Table 1 – Evaluation Approach for Chicago Project
Table 2 – Schedule for Rock Island Line
Table 3 – Evaluation Approach for Montgomery County Project

List of Figures

Figure 1. Area Map Showing Station Locations in Relation to Sign Locations.
Figure 2. System Map.
Figure 3. Example of Loop Detector Placement.
Figure 4. Flexible Delineators Channel Traffic into Lanes to Ensure Accurate In/Out Counts.
Figure 5. Chicago's Signs Provide Real-Time Information about the Number of Spaces Available at Two Metra Stations.
Figure 6. Rock Island Line and Deployment Sites.
Figure 7. Both Stations have an At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing.
Figure 8. Schematic of Tinley Park/80th Avenue Station.
Figure 9. Schematic of Mokena / Hickory Creek Station.
Figure 10. Average Spaces Occupied during Select Months in 2006 and 2007 after System Deployment.
Figure 11. Space Utilization at Hickory Creek Station.
Figure 12. Space Utilization at Tinley Park Station.
Figure 13. Comparison of Used Spaces Data Collected by the Village of Tinley Park and Metra.
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.
Figure 16. Reported Change in Plans from Driving To Riding Metra.
Figure 17. Influence of the Signs' Presence on Frequency of Riding Metra.
Figure 18. Influence of the Sign Information on Metra Riding Frequency.
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.
Figure 21. Alternative Plans by Tinley Park Station Respondents upon Finding No Spaces Available Prior to the Presence of Signs.
Figure 22. Influence of Signs on Finding Parking.
Figure 23. Influence of Signs on Time Spent Searching for a Space.
Figure 24. Satisfaction with Sign Location.
Figure 25. Satisfaction with Sign Accuracy.
Figure 26. Satisfaction with Commuting Experience.
Figure 27. Desire for Expansion of the Sign Program.
Figure 28. Location of Glenmont Metro Station in Relation to Metro System.
Figure 29. Map of Metro Stations and Park and Ride Lots.
Figure 30. Glenmont Metro Station Video Detection Locations and Entrances.
Figure 31. Glenmont VMS Signs.
Figure 32. VMS Locations in Montgomery County, MD.
Figure 33. Space Utilization at Glenmont on Thursdays.
Figure 34. Influence of Sign Information on Frequency of Riding Metro.
Figure 35. Influence of the Signs on Frequency of Riding Metro.
Figure 36. Influence of the Signs on Awareness of Parking Alternatives for the Red Line.
Figure 37. Reasons Respondents Parked at Norbeck.
Figure 38. Vehicles Exiting Glenmont during AM Peak (7:00-9:00AM).
Figure 39. Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Circling the Garage Looking for a Space.
Figure 40. Reported Alternate Parking Options for Glenmont Metro Station.
Figure 41. Influence of the Signs on Finding Parking.
Figure 42. Influence of Signs on Time Spent Searching for a Space.
Figure 43. Influence of the Signs on Awareness of Parking Alternatives for the Red Line.
Figure 44. Glenmont Parking Availability Sign on Norbeck Road.
Figure 45. Reported Awareness of Parking Availability Message Sign Locations.
Figure 46. Reported Satisfaction with Sign Location.
Figure 47. Reported Satisfaction with Sign Accuracy.
Figure 48. Reported Influence of the System on Satisfaction with Overall Commuting Experience.
Figure 49. Desire for Expansion of the Sign Program.
Figure 50. Camera View of Parking Garage for Monitoring Montgomery County System.

Photo credits: Supplied by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), under contract to the U.S. Department of Transportation, unless otherwise noted.