Parking Cost Elasticity Study
701 B Street Suite 1220 San Diego, CA 92101 619-330-5200 619-330-5201 Fax
Albuquerque Arlington Colorado Springs Denver El Paso Fort Worth Houston Kansas City Las Cruces
Lenexa Los Angeles Omaha Panama City, Pma. Phoenix Rio Rancho Salina San Bernardino San Diego
Date: To: From: Subject:
January 23, 2006 Greg Shannon, Shea Properties, Inc. Nick Abboud, PE, Wilson & Company, Inc. Solana Beach Joint Development Project: Parking Cost Elasticity Study
In general, the objectives of transportation cost elasticity studies include estimating the impact of pricing changes for use of a transportation-related facility on the use of that facility, 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 changes are generally implemented as a revenue source to offset current or forecasted increases in operating costs, while cognizant of the potential decline in ridership levels resulting from such fee increases. The purpose of this parking cost elasticity analysis for the Solana Beach Train Station parking lot is to review available research on related cost elasticity topics and assess the availability of predictive models that would relate the changes in parking lot use (and thus train ridership) to a newly established parking fee directed at the users of the parking lot. This technical memorandum reviews available research and documentation on cost elasticity 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 of implementing parking fees at a train station has been found in the literature search, and it is likely that none has been undertaken to specifically address conditions similar to the Solana Beach Train Station. Therefore, the effort undertaken here has been to assess the full or partial transferability of other similar cost elasticity research to the particular context of the Solana Beach Train Station.
This section outlines the process and key steps which were undertaken to develop parking cost 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
b. Factors affecting elasticity results 2) Conduct research of cost elasticity applications across the United States and elsewhere. a. Direct charge versus out of pocket expense b. Vehicle trips c. Parking revenue d. Parking frequency e. Type of travel f. Mode choice g. Shift in parking site 3) Identify cross-elasticity between: a. auto travel demand and bus fares b. various forms of transit and car use, c. reported mode shift 4) Determine relevance and applicability of research findings a. Identify models that approximate the Solana Beach conditions b. Develop a model that best suits Solana Beach Train Station. 5) Provide summary of findings and recommendations
2.0 Understanding Cost Elasticity
Economists measure price sensitivity using elasticities, defined as the percentage change in consumption of a good caused by a one-percent change in its price (or other characteristics such as traffic speed or road capacity). For example, an elasticity of -0.5 for vehicle use with respect to vehicle operating expenses means that each 1% increase in these expenses results in a 0.5% reduction in vehicle mileage or trips. Similarly, transit service elasticity is defined as the percentage change in transit ridership resulting from each 1% change in transit service, such as bus-miles or frequency. A negative sign indicates that the effect operates in the opposite direction from the cause (an increase in price causes a reduction in travel). Elasticities can also be calculated based on ratios,
rather than absolute price values, such as the ratio between transit fares and automobile operating 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 sensitivity of various pricing strategies on travel and service demands. Table 1 presents a variety of examples of the impact of various pricing strategies on transportation demands and service elements. Table 1: Impacts of Different Types of Pricing on Transportation Elements Type of Impacts Vehicle ownership. Consumers change the number of vehicles they own. Vehicle type. Motorist chooses different vehicle (more fuel efficient, alternative fuel, etc.) Route Change. Traveler shifts travel route. Time Change. Motorist shifts trip to off-peak periods. Mode Shift. Traveler shifts to another mode. Destination Change. Motorist shifts trip to alternative destination. Trip Generation. People take fewer total trips (including consolidating trips). Land use changes. Changes in location decisions, such as where to live and work. Vehicle Fees X Fuel Price Fixed Congestion Parking Transit Toll Pricing Fee Fares X X
X X X X X X
(Source: Transportation Elasticities, Todd Litman, TDM Encyclopedia, 2005)
As shown in Table 1, different types of monetary charges can have a variety of impacts on 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 of vehicle used; road tolling may shift some trips to other routes and destinations; while congestion pricing (such as the managed lanes on I-15), may shift travel times and/or transportation mode and change the total number of trips. The type and extent of impacts depend on the specific type of pricing – for example, an increase in residential parking fees is most likely to affect vehicle ownership while a time-variable parking fee can affect when trips take place.
2.2 Factors affecting elasticity
Although the focus of this study is on the sensitivity of parking demand at the Solana Beach Train Station with respect to possible future parking pricing, it is important to keep in mind that there are other non-pricing related factors that affect traveler behavior and in particular parking demand, which adds to the complexity of elasticity analysis. In addition, it should be made clear that although elasticities are often reported as single point estimates, there are actually many factors that can affect the price sensitivity of a particular good. In reality, elasticities are actually functions with several possible variables, 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 of trip (commercial, commute, recreational, etc.), the type of motorist (rich, poor, young, old, etc.), travel conditions (rural, urban, peak, off-peak), and the time period being considered (short-, medium- or long-run). The following is a summary of some of these non-pricing related factors that can affect price elasticity. Type of Trip and Traveler: Sensitivity (elasticity) varies significantly with driver and trip types. For example, commuter traffic will not be as elastic as shopping or recreational traffic, weekday trips may have very different elasticities than weekend trips, and urban peak-period trips tend to be price inelastic because congestion discourages lower-value trips, leaving only higher value automobile trips. In addition, travelers with higher incomes or on business tend to be less price sensitive than lower-income travelers or those traveling for personal activities. Adequacy of Alternative Routes, Modes and Destinations: Price sensitivity tends to increase 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-tolled roadway. Driving is less price sensitive in automobile-dependent areas where transportation alternatives are inadequate (e.g., walking, cycling and transit are poor substitutes for driving).
Time Period: Transportation elasticities tend to increase over time as consumers have more opportunities to take prices into effect when making long-term decisions. For example, if consumers anticipate low automobile use prices they are more likely to choose an automobile dependent suburban home, but if they anticipate significant increases in driving costs they might place a greater premium on having alternatives, such as access to transit and shops within convenient walking distance. For this reason, it may take many years for the full effect of a price change to be felt. Table 2 summarizes transportation pricing elasticity factors as documented in research studies (Johansson & Schipper, 1997) indicating that elasticities vary by type and variable. Table 2: Estimated Long Run Transportation Elasticities
Estimated Component Car Stock (vehicle ownership) Mean Fuel Intensity (fuel efficiency) Mean Driving Distance (per car per year) Car Fuel Demand Car Travel Demand Fuel Price -0.20 to 0.0 (-0.1) -0.45 to -0.35 (-0.4) -0.35 to -0.05 (-0.2) -1.0 to -0.40 (-0.7) -0.55 to -0.05 (-0.3) Income 0.75 to 1.25 (1.0) -0.6 to 0.0 (0.0) -0.1 to 0.35 (0.2) 0.05 to 1.6 (1.2) 0.65 to 1.25 (1.2) Taxation (Other than Fuel) -0.08 to -0.04 (-0.06) -0.12 to -0.10 (-0.11) 0.04 to 0.12 (0.06) -0.16 to -0.02 (-0.11) -0.04 to 0.08 (0.0) Population Density -0.7 to -0.2 (-0.4) -0.3 to -0.1 (-0.2) -0.75 to 0.0 (-0.4) -1.75 to -0.3 (-1.0) -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 of isolating the effects of a single factor such as parking pricing. However, sensitivity to parking 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, research studies have reported that a $1.00 per trip parking charge causes the same reduction in vehicle travel as a fuel price increase of $1.50 to $2.00 per trip. The following studies addressed the effects of parking pricing on vehicle travel characteristics. • Vehicle trips: Vaca and Kuzmyak (2005) and Kuzmyak, Weinberger and Levinson (2003) found the elasticity of vehicle trips with regard to parking prices
to be typically in the -0.1 to -0.3 range, with significant variation depending on demographic, geographic, travel choice and trip characteristics. Parking frequency: Clinch and Kelly (2003) found the elasticity of parking frequency 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 they park. Parking revenues: Pratt (1999) found significantly high elasticities (-0.9 to -1.2) of parking price with regard to commercial parking gross revenues, since motorists can respond to higher prices by reducing their parking duration or changing to cheaper locations and times, as well as reducing total vehicle trips. Types of travel: TRACE (1999) provided detailed estimates of the elasticity of various types of travel (car-trips, transit travel, walking/cycling, commuting, business trips, etc.) with respect to parking price under various conditions as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Elasticity of Various Types of Travel due to Parking Pricing Purpose Car Driver Car Passenger Public Transportation +0.02 +0.01 +0.00 +0.04 +0.02 Slow Modes +0.02 +0.01 +0.00 +0.05 +0.03
Commuting -0.08 +0.02 Business -0.02 +0.01 Education -0.10 +0.00 Other -0.30 +0.04 Total -0.16 +0.03 Note: Slow Modes = Walking and Cycling •
(Source: Trace (1999)
Mode choice: Hess (2001) assessed the effect of free parking on commuter mode choice and parking demand in Portland’s (Oregon) CBD, and found that with free parking, 62% of commuters will drive alone, 16% will commute in carpools and 22% 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 resulted in 21 fewer cars driven for every 100 commuters. The use of parking price elasticity can be confusing where parking is currently free, so it is meaningless to measure a percentage increase from zero price. Table 4 summarizes the changes that occurred in commute mode at worksites that shifted from free to priced parking. Other case studies found similar impacts. As shown, shifting from free to priced parking typically reduced drive alone commuting by 10-30%, particularly when implemented with improvements in transit service and rideshare programs and other TDM strategies.
Table 4: Changes in Mode Travel Due to Parking Pricing Canadian Study Before After Change 35% 28% -20% 11% 10% +9% 42% 49% +17% 12% 13% -8% Los Angeles Study Before After Change 55% 30% -27% 13% 45% +246% 29% 22% -24% 3% 3% 0%
(Source: Feeney, 1989, cited in Pratt, 1999)
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Other •
Shift in parking site: Hensher and King (2001) modeled the price elasticity of CBD parking, and predicted how an increase in parking prices in one location will shift 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-elasticities for 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 in Public Transit trips and a 4.69% reduction in total CBD trips. This table shows how trips diverted by parking fee can vary depending on availability of alternatives.
Table 5: Parking Location Shift in CBD due to Parking Pricing Preferred CBD Less Preferred CBD Car Trip, Preferred CBD Car Trip, Less Preferred CBD Car Trip, CBD Fringe Park & Ride Ride Public Transit Forego CBD Trip -0.541 0.837 0.965 0.363 0.291 0.469 0.205 -0.015 0.286 0.136 0.104 0.150 CBD Fringe 0.035 0.043 -0.476 0.029 0.023 0.029
(Source: Hensher and King, 2001)
Cross-elasticity refers to the percentage change in the consumption of a good resulting from a price change in another related good. For example, automobile travel is complementary to vehicle parking, and a substitute for transit travel. As a result, an increase in the price of driving tends to reduce demand for parking and increase demand for transit travel and parking at transit stations. To help analyze cross-elasticities, it is useful to estimate mode substitution factors, such as the change in automobile trips
resulting from a change in transit trips. For example, of an increase in bus ridership resulting 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-motorized travel and/or ridesharing. Conversely, an automobile travel disincentive, such as parking fees 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 various incentives such as transit service improvements and parking pricing (Pratt, 1999). Lago et al. (1992) found the mean cross-elasticity of auto travel demand with respect to bus and rail fares to be 0.09 (±0.07), and 0.08 (±0.03), respectively. That is, a 10% increase in rail fare would result in a 0.8% increase in auto travel. Hensher developed a model of elasticities and cross-elasticities between various forms of transit and auto use as illustrated in Table 6. Table 6: Direct and Cross-Share Elasticities Fare Increase Train, single fare Train, ten fare Train, pass Bus, single fare Bus, ten fare Bus, pass Car Change in Train Demand Single Ten Pass Fare Fare* -0.218 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.093 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.196 0.067 0.001 0.001 0.020 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.036 0.001 0.053 0.042 0.003 Change in Bus Demand Change in car Single Ten Pass demand Fare Fare* 0.057 0.005 0.005 0.196 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.092 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.335 -0.357 0.001 0.001 0.116 0.001 -0.160 0.001 0.121 0.001 0.001 -0.098 0.020 0.066 0.016 0.003 -0.197
Source: Hensher, 1997
* Ten Fare refers to a discounted group fare sold as a group of 10 tickets.
The above table illustrates how various changes in transit fares and auto operating costs affect transit and car travel demand. For example, a 10% increase in single fare train tickets will cause a 2.18% reduction in the sale of those fares, and a 0.57% increase in single fare bus tickets. This table is referenced for illustration purposes since it is based on a survey of residents of Newcastle, a small city in Australia. Table 7 below shows the effects of transit financial subsidies for various worksite settings, taking into account location (suburban, activity center, CBD), and whether carpooling or transit are favored as alternative modes. For example, Table 7 indicates that a $1 (in 1993 U.S. dollars) per day transit subsidy provided to employees at a transitoriented 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
reduction. This table can be used to predict how transit subsidies are likely to affect commute trips. Table 7: Percent Vehicle Trips Reduced by Daily Transit Subsidy Worksite Setting Low density suburb, rideshare oriented Low density suburb, mode neutral Low density suburb, transit oriented Activity center, rideshare oriented Activity center, mode neutral Activity center, transit oriented Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented Daily Transit Subsidy $0.50 $1 $2 $4 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.9 1.5 3.3 7.9 21.7 2.0 4.2 9.9 23.2 1.1 2.4 5.8 16.5 3.4 7.3 16.4 38.7 5.2 10.9 23.5 49.7 2.2 4.7 10.9 28.3 6.2 12.9 26.9 54.3 9.1 18.1 35.5 64.0
(Source: Comsis Corporation, 1993)
5.0 Relevant Research Findings
The primary focus of this parking cost elasticity analysis is on the relationship between parking lot use (and thus train ridership) and a potential future parking fee directed at the users 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 as empirical research data on elasticity with respect to parking pricing.
5.1 Example Research Findings
A substantial body of research studies exists on the transit ridership response to cost increases. 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 highlighted the complexity of the parking demand phenomenon. It concluded that shoppers faced with higher unit cost for parking chose to shorten their parking duration; commuters tended 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 commuter mode shares (Shoup, 1990)1. This study showed that higher parking prices resulted in reduced use by single occupancy vehicles and a higher transit use in cases where employees paid for their parking.
TCRP Report 95, “Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees”, 2005
A Eugene, Oregon study (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, 1985) concluded that doubling parking fees at several garages and surface lots and increasing fines at short term metered parking, 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 permits for daily and monthly parking in a residential area for non-residents showed a reduction in 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 parking surcharge on discouraging commuter traffic parking thus leaving open spaces available for 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 parking lot occupancy (Kunze, Heramb, and Martin, 1980)1 and found a 72% decrease in number of vehicles arriving on weekdays before 9:30 AM, a 50% decrease in long term parking and up to a 50% increase in short term parking. Several other studies documented the effects of increasing parking fees on vehicle trip reduction; all of which show significant reduction in vehicle trips as a result of increased parking fees (ICF, 1997; Hess, 2001; Kuppam, Pendyala & Gollakoti, 1998).
5.2 Transferability of Research to Solana Beach Train Station
Of most relevance to the purpose of this analysis are those studies that show the effects on trip reduction by a change in parking fee. One such study is a 1993 study by Comsis Corporation2 that illustrated the relationship between incremental increases in daily parking charges and the reduction in commute trips. Table 8 presents the reduction in vehicle trips aggregated by origin (Low Density Suburb, Activity Center, and Regional CBD) as a result of incremental increases in daily parking charges ($1 through $4 in 1993 dollars). 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 $0.50 increments. The resulting trip generation reduction percentages are presented in Table 9. An added workplace setting more representative of the Solana Beach Train Station and surrounding area has been added and labeled as “Minor Activity Center”. This added
Comsis Corporation, Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org), 1993. (Available at www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html)
category is an interpolation between the “Activity Center” and “Low Density Suburb” categories, which is considered a better approximation of the Solana Beach Train Station setting. Table 8: Percent Reduction in Vehicle Trips versus Daily Parking Charges (1993 $) Worksite Setting Low Density Suburb Activity Center CBD Daily Parking Charges, $ $ 1.00 6.5% 12.3% 17.5% $ 2.00 15.1% 25.1% 31.8% $ 3.00 25.3% 37.0% 42.6% $ 4.00 36.1% 46.8% 50.0%
(Source: Comsis Corp., 1993)
Table 9. Percent Vehicle Trip Reduction versus Daily Parking Charges (in 2005 $) Worksite Setting $1.00 Low 3.6% Density Suburb Minor Activity 7% Center Activity Center CBD $1.50 7.3% 11% $2.00 Daily Parking Charges $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00
11.1% 14.9% 18.7% 22.5% 26.2% 30.0% 33.8% 15% 19% 23% 27% 31% 36% 40%
10.3% 14.7% 19.1% 23.5% 27.9% 32.3% 36.7% 41.1% 45.5%
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 the relationship between a graduated increase in parking fee and percentage of vehicle trip reduction. As apparent from Figure 1, the elasticity of parking demand with respect to parking fee is not a fixed percentage. It increases with increased parking fee. Thus, the equivalent elasticity rate for the “Minor Activity Center” is a range of values, rather than a single value. For parking fee between $1.00 and $5.00, the value of elasticity ranges from -0.08% to -0.40%. That is a 10% increase in daily parking fee would result in a reduction of 0.8% to 4% in automobile trips, depending on the value of the parking fee
prior to the increase. For example, a daily fee of $2.00 would be expected to result in 15% reduction in trips and associated parking demand. Figure 1. Vehicle Trip Reduction versus Daily Parking Fees
Vehicle Trips Reduced by Parking Fess (in 2005 $)
60.0% CBD 50.0% Minor Activity Center Estimated Reduction in Trips, Activity Center 40.0% Low Density Suburb 30.0% y = 0.0827x + 0.084 y = 0.0818x - 0.0127 20.0% y = 0.0881x + 0.0145
10.0% y = 0.0756x - 0.04 0.0% $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 Parking Fee, $ $4.00 $5.00 $6.00
5.3 Parking Diversion
The reduction of parking demand at the Solana Beach Parking lot in response to a future parking fee would be a combined result of trip diversion to other modes of transportation (not using transit), to other location (other train stations) or other , such as Encinitas or Oceanside), or to other adjacent accessible locations. Some of the later would likely include diversion into free parking in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Although difficult to quantify the exact percentage or number of vehicles potentially diverted into the adjacent neighborhoods, the following provides a basis for estimating the magnitude of the diversion. Although no particular research was found to specifically address this issue, it is generally assumed that, as a rule of thumb, a ¼ to ½ mile distance is considered a reasonable distance that most pedestrians would be willing to walk to get to their destination. Walk Sandiego, a local pedestrian advocacy group promoting walkable
communities, reports slightly higher estimates. For example, Walk Sandiego reports that 70% of the people they surveyed would walk (or bike) up to 1/2 mile for shopping or personal 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 the distances they assume pedestrians would be willing to walk to get to a transit station. Table 10. Reasonable Walking Distances to a Transit Station Source
Seattle, WA Hillsboro, OR Portland, OR Washington County, OR City of San Diego, CA
Note: LRT = Light Rail Transit
Source: Wilson & Company, Inc. January 2006
¼ mile radius from LRT station 1300 ft. radius from LRT station ¼ mile radius from LRT station ½ mile radius from LRT station; ¼ mile from primary bus routes 2,000 ft. from transit stop
In the case of the Solana Beach Train Station, there are other factors that come into play that could discourage walking. For example, Coaster riders are likely to be conscious of the strict train departure times and may not be willing to park in the adjacent neighborhood 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 riders with luggage because of the additional hardship caused by hauling the luggage to the station. Therefore, it is safe to assume that people would be less inclined to walk the distances 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 to parking pricing, the model exhibited in Figure 1 and Table 9 provides the best available estimate for predicting parking demand elasticity with respect to parking fees. Figure 1 and Table 9 provide a very preliminary basis for estimating the expected reductions in trips into the Solana Beach parking lot and associated parkers as a result of imposing a fee for daily parking. These table and figure should be used with caution and any results produced by them should be treated as a starting point for estimating parking elasticity and not be taken as firm numbers. The following restraints should be considered when applying Table 9 and Figure 1:
1. No research studies were found that specifically address the effects of parking fee increases at a transit center on transit ridership or parking demand. The closest research studies were those that addressed the effects of parking fees on parking demand, which is typically considered to discourage automobile use and shift automobile trips to transit. 2. Existing cost elasticity research deals with the incremental change in parking fee which is not useful in situations where the current parking is free, and increases from 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-transit related, and thus the argument for enacting a parking fee to discourage non-transit parkers may not be applicable. 4. The diversion of parkers into the neighboring residential areas will be minimized due 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 of free parking, and therefore, establishing a neighborhood parking management program may be necessary to minimize the appeal of residential neighborhoods as an alternative parking location.
Project Driveway Modifications Memorandum