**The Dynamics of On-Street Parking in Large Central Cities**

December 2002

by

Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D., Co-Director

Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management

New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service

**[Acknowledgements]{.smallcaps}**

On behalf of the NYU-Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy &
Management, I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the many individuals
who provided their time, suggestions, data, and references toward the
completion of this report. In particular, I would like to thank Tom
Kadzis and Don Grabowski, who not only attended the peer-to-peer
session, but spent many an hour on the phone reviewing and commenting
upon various drafts of the questionnaire that was distributed to the
central cities once finalized. I would especially like to acknowledge
the following individuals who also gave their time to attend the one-day
peer-to-peer exchange session in Boston: John Girardi, Peter Muntaner,
Rick Rybeck, and Judy Steele.

While not everyone could attend the peer-to-peer session, many
individuals provided data by completing the questionnaire for the study,
and were available for follow up queries, including Larry Brown, Mike
Cynecki, Keith Ehrensing, David Harris, Bea Hickey, Gerald Robbins, Jon
Rose, Victor Rosen, Charles Ukegbu, and Chuck Whalen. Donald Shoup was
also gracious enough to provide additional background information and
reports on on-street parking.

Special thanks are owed to Andrea d'Amato, President of the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), for hosting the
peer-to-peer session in Boston, and all those from the Boston Department
of Transportation who participated at various points during the day, as
well as Frances Banerjee and Elliot Sander who were instrumental in
laying out the framework for the study.

Finally, the Rudin Center acknowledges the Federal Highway
Administration, which provided the funding for this study as part of its
Metropolitan Capacity Building Program.

**[Executive Summary]{.smallcaps}**

Parking is a critical component of transportation policy and management
for any locale, but especially for the large central cities. The
policies and management practices affecting parking lead to outcomes
that, in turn, can affect land use, air quality, traffic congestion,
travel behavior, safety, and economic development, not to mention
revenue lines. Yet, effectively managing parking is an ongoing battle
for the large central cities as they face competing, and sometimes
contradictory, objectives along with an ever-increasing demand for
space.

As important as parking is, however, there are relatively few serious
analyses and assessments of parking, and even fewer of "on-street" or
"curb" parking, which is of particular interest to central cities.
Recognizing the need to enhance both the body of literature and an
ongoing peer-to-peer exchange about on-street parking, the Federal
Highway Administration under its Metropolitan Capacity Building Program,
provided the funding for this study.

The purpose of the study was four-fold: (1) to identify and review
comprehensively "on-street" parking policies and management practices in
large cities; (2) to determine, to the degree possible, the impact that
on-street parking has on transportation, development, and land-use; (3)
to recommend best practice strategies for on-street parking in large
cities; and, (4) to facilitate a practical exchange between cities of
knowledge and problem-solving information to improve on-street parking
management.

This report is the culmination of the year-long study, which included an
extensive literature review, one-on-one discussions with city parking
officials, a peer-to-peer exchange session in Boston, and a detailed
questionnaire to which 9 U.S. cities responded (5 of which are among the
10 most populous U.S. cities, with the remainder in the top 25).[^1]

**Why On-Street Parking is Important**

On-street parking is a key factor in promoting businesses in cities,
particularly within central business districts. As a type of shared
parking, on-street parking is an efficient means for allowing multiple
users to reach multiple destinations. On-street parking utilizes less
land per space than off-street parking and provides easy access to
businesses located on city streets. For pedestrians, on-street parking
creates a buffer between moving traffic and individuals walking on the
sidewalks, providing a measure of safety and reducing the level of
perceived noise. Further, depending upon how on-street parking is
situated on a street, it can also serve as a traffic calming device,
thereby slowing vehicles and potentially reducing the number and
severity of accidents.

However, on-street parking is not without trade-offs. The same barrier
between moving traffic and individuals on the sidewalks can also create
visual obstructions for both pedestrians trying to cross intersections
and vehicles moving along a street, thus increasing accidents. On-street
parking also competes with other uses of roadways, including additional
lanes for traffic flow, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. Further, as
drivers search for open spaces, congestion on roadways is increased.
Finally, on-street parking, like all forms of parking, attracts
vehicles, which generates more traffic.

There is a shared belief among transportation policymakers and parking
officials alike that, when managed properly, the benefits of on-street
parking outweigh the negative trade-offs. However, the key is finding
methods of effective management and maintenance that maximize
opportunities and minimize difficulties associated with on-street
parking. This report identifies some of these methods.

**Framework for the Report**

Section 1 begins with some background information on the project, the
cities involved, the importance of on-street parking, and broad issues
of concern. While recognizing the limits of the current body of
literature specific to on-street parking, Section 2 places on-street
parking within the larger framework of parking issues. Based in the
wider body of literature related to off-street parking, Section 2
reviews how parking relates to land use, economic development, and
travel behavior. Drawing heavily on the peer-to-peer exchange session
and the responses to the questionnaire, Section 3 provides a
comprehensive review of on-street policy, planning, management, and
operations, all of which supply a foundation upon which to base further
discussion and assessment about on-street parking. Touching upon a
variety of topics, including pricing, curb management, meter
technologies, and enforcement, Section 3 identifies areas of difficulty,
gaps in information, and effective practices utilized in a number of
cities. Section 4 highlights lessons learned, offers some suggestions
for further study or analysis, and identifies several best practices
with respect to on-street parking.

**Findings and Recommendations**

There were several lessons learned as a result of this study, but chief
among them are the following:

-   ***To effectively manage, one must know what it is he/she is
    managing.*** In terms of on-street parking, this translates into the
    need for having basic information on assets and regulations in an
    accessible format that can be updated and easily shared across
    departments and agencies. Many cities lack this basic capability.

-   ***Integrating and coordinating among agencies and divisions is
    critical.*** Multiple agencies and divisions within those agencies
    are responsible for various aspects of on-street parking. While they
    are all connected, they are not always effectively integrated.

-   ***Further research is necessary.*** One can discern the techniques
    or approaches used by different cities for various elements of
    on-street parking, but analyses of whether the various measures are
    effective are meager and rarely provide data over extended periods
    of time.

-   ***Ongoing peer-to-peer exchange on on-street parking is
    important.*** Because the literature about on-street parking is
    sparse and because there is little communication among parking
    officials from city to city, providing a continuous and regular
    means for exchanging information is particularly important.

Further study and assessment is recommended for several items, as
follows:

-   ***Ban on cars in the Central Business District between 9am and
    5pm***. Recognizing the political hurdles involved, several cities
    still expressed interest in banning cars in the central business
    districts during weekdays. Further assessment of the benefits and
    risks of this approach is needed.

-   ***Better collaboration with suburban areas***. Cities expressed a
    desire for suburban residents and businesses to better understand
    the costs of auto use. While there is an understanding that suburban
    areas rely more on cars because transit is not as available, the
    policies in place in areas outside the city do have an impact, often
    negative.

-   ***Database management systems.*** One of the lessons learned was
    that there is a need for having basic information on assets and
    regulations easily accessible and updatable. Most of the cities do
    not have such systems in place, but what system would best work is
    uncertain.

-   ***Integration is the key.*** While integration among divisions and
    agencies responsible for on-street parking policy, management,
    enforcement, and adjudication is important, how best to achieve this
    is worthy of review.

-   ***Meters that enforce themselves.*** Technologies already exist
    that allow meters to enforce themselves (automatically generating
    tickets, recognizing when a vehicle has left so the meter is set
    back to 0, or recognizing when a vehicle has exceeded the time limit
    so the meter cannot be fed, for example). Additional analysis and
    assessments are needed to determine whether they should be
    implemented and how best to roll them out. However, there are other
    technologies, like pay by phone and in-vehicle meters (see best
    practices), which are less expensive and likely to provide a more
    optimal approach.

-   ***Sliding scale fee/Use of Personal Data Assistants (PDAs) to
    determine validity of parking permits for persons with disabilities
    (ADA parking permits).*** Dealing with abuses of ADA parking permits
    was cited by almost all the cities. How best to mitigate the problem
    is unclear. However, these two possibilities warrant further review.

-   ***Variable message boards for on-street parking.*** More research
    is needed on the efficacy of signage in general. However, to deal
    with the problem of multiple regulations on signs or at spaces, one
    might make use of variable message boards which could be changed
    centrally at the press of a button. The technology for this already
    exists, and further study might be taken to determine its
    applicability for on-street parking.

Among the best practices identified are:

-   ***Congestion/Value Pricing -- New York City's Program for
    Commercial Parking***

> New York City's congestion pricing program for commercial parking has
> the makings of a best practice for the industry. The City began an
> incentive program in midtown to deal with commercial vehicles in
> October 2000. The program is win-win. For the businesses, if they
> receive a ticket for parking, it is a business loss; but if they have
> to pay for parking, they can deduct it as an expense. Also, the city
> sells debit cards with chips (smart cards) to the companies, which in
> turn give them to their drivers. The business can then track the
> drivers if they choose, and the drivers need not carry cash. For the
> City, enforcement is much easier and streamlined, summons rates have
> dropped significantly, and revenues have more than equaled the
> investment.

-   ***Meter Technologies -- Free Flow Parking, Smart Cards, In-Vehicle
    Meters, Pay by Phone***

> Many cities are moving toward free flow parking meters and/or smart
> cards, and with good reason. Cities that have begun using free flow
> parking or pay/display meters already see benefits in terms of
> revenues, maximizing the number of spaces on a given street, and
> streamlining ticketing. Combined with smart cards, they are a powerful
> tool.
>
> For cities looking to integrate smart cards for on-street parking with
> other transportation modes, they will eventually offer a one-stop card
> for the consumer, helping to make transportation seamless from one
> mode to another. The potential for smart card technology is tremendous
> if one thinks about standardizing systems so that transportation could
> provide a sense of seamlessness from city to city across the country.
>
> Pay by phone and in-vehicle meter technologies offer additional
> benefits, including lower costs since cities need not pay for meters
> on the curb and the potential to utilize the same system in different
> cities across the country. The pay by phone technology, which allows
> customers to call a toll-free number when they are about to park and
> to call again when they are finished, is already being used in Seattle
> and Vancouver for off-street parking and is utilized for on-street
> parking in several European countries. In-vehicle meters, also used in
> many European cities as well as in Aspen and Arlington in the United
> States, work together with a pre-paid smart card and allow drivers to
> start their meter with the card and turn it off when they return.

-   ***Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration -- Chicago's Traffic
    Management Task Force***

> Chicago has a *Mayor's Traffic Management Task Force* that meets
> weekly to review traffic concerns related to daily operations. This
> consistent interaction enables greater coordination of operations.

-   ***Community Outreach -- Boston's Program to Involve Merchants in
    Turn-Over Studies***

> Boston has an educational program that involves the merchants in
> conducting turn-over studies. By letting merchants track the turn-over
> in front of their businesses they begin to better understand the
> importance of encouraging it.

**[Table of Contents]{.smallcaps}**

**1. Introduction 1**

1.1 The Importance of On-Street Parking 1

1.2 Background on the Cities Participating in the Study 2

1.3 Broad Issues and Concerns 3

**2. The Dynamics of Parking in Urban Areas: Land Use, Economic
Development, and**

**Travel Behavior 5**

2.1 A Brief History of Parking, Planning, and Regulation 5

Land Use and Off-Street Parking 6

2.2 It's All in the Pricing...Though for On-Street Parking, Availability
is Also Key 7

Parking and Economic Development. 8

Parking and Travel Behavior 9

2.3 Summary 9

**3. On-Street Parking Policy, Planning, Managing, and Operations in
Select Cities 11**

3.1 Managing On-Street Parking 11

Integration and Coordination Issues 12

3.2 Curb Loading 13

3.3 Preferential Parking 13

ADA Parking Permits 14

Government Parking Permits 15

Residential Parking Permits 15

3.4 Metered Parking 16

Meter Technologies 16

Collection, Enforcement, and Maintenance 17

Value/Congestion Pricing 19

3.5 Signage and Communicating with the Public 19

3.6 Summary 21

**4. Findings and Recommendations 22**

4.1 Lessons Learned 22

4.2 Areas in Need of Further Study 23

4.3 Best Practices 24

**References 27**

**Appendices**

Appendix A: Questionnaire on On-Street Parking Policy, Planning, and
Operations

Appendix B: Selected Tables of Responses to the Questionnaire

**[1. Introduction]{.smallcaps}**

Parking is a critical component of transportation policy and management
for any locale, but especially for the large central cities. The
policies and management practices affecting parking lead to outcomes
that, in turn, can affect land use, air quality, traffic congestion,
travel behavior, safety, and economic development, not to mention
revenue lines. For example, policies that provide large amounts of
unpriced parking may encourage automobile use, thereby increasing
congestion. Effectively managing parking is an ongoing battle for the
large central cities as they face competing, and sometimes
contradictory, objectives along with an ever-increasing demand for
space.

As important as parking is, however, there are relatively few serious
analyses and assessments of parking, and even fewer of "on-street" or
"curb" parking. Worse, because the interplay between on-street parking
and other objectives (such as land use or economic development) is not
well understood, policies are sometimes misguided or opportunities are
missed to utilize parking in ways that could have positive impacts.
Recognizing the need to develop both a body of literature and an ongoing
peer-to-peer exchange about on-street parking, the Federal Highway
Administration under its Metropolitan Capacity Building Program,
provided the funding for this study.

The purpose of this report is three-fold: (1) to determine, to the
degree possible, the impact that on-street parking has on
transportation, development, and land-use; (2) to identify and review
comprehensively "on-street" parking policies and management practices in
large cities; and, (3) to recommend best practice strategies for
on-street parking in large cities.

This report is the culmination of the year-long study, which included an
extensive literature review, one-on-one discussions with city parking
officials, a peer-to-peer exchange session in Boston, and a detailed
questionnaire to which 9 U.S. cities responded (5 of which are among the
10 most populous U.S. cities, with the remainder in the top 25).[^2]

**1.1 The Importance of On-Street Parking**

On-street parking is a key factor in promoting businesses in cities,
particularly within central business districts. As a type of shared
parking, on-street parking is an efficient means for allowing multiple
users to utilize the same space at different times to reach multiple
destinations. On-street parking provides easy access to businesses
located on city streets and occupies less land per space than off-street
parking which requires access lanes in addition to parking spaces. For
pedestrians, on-street parking creates a barrier between moving traffic
and individuals walking on the sidewalks, providing a measure of safety
and reducing the level of perceived noise. Further, depending upon how
on-street parking is situated on a street, it can also serve as a
traffic calming device, thereby reducing accidents or at least making
them less severe.[^3]

However, on-street parking is not without trade-offs. The same barrier
between moving traffic and individuals on the sidewalks can also create
visual obstructions for both pedestrians trying to cross intersections
and vehicles moving along a street, thus increasing accidents. On-street
parking also competes with other uses of roadways, including additional
lanes for traffic flow, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. Further, as
drivers search for open spaces, congestion on roadways is increased.
Finally, on-street parking, like all forms of parking, attracts
vehicles, which generates more traffic. In fact, for large cities trying
to increase transit ridership, availability and pricing of on-street
parking become critical tools.

**1.2 Background on the Cities Participating in the Study**

Some background information on the nine cities that participated in the
study is of use before continuing. Resident populations in the cities,
based on the 2000 Census, range from a low of 529,121 (Portland) to over
8 million (New York City).[^4] In terms of area, the smallest city
represented is Boston (50 square miles) and the largest is Phoenix (485
square miles).[^5] Downtown areas ranged from 1.5 square miles (Dallas)
to 8.5 square miles (New York City). Dallas has the lowest population
density of the cities represented, with 3,095 individuals per square
mile, while New York City's population density is just over 8 times that
of Dallas.

In terms of transit, all of the cities that participated have bus
service, though to varying degrees. 7 of the 9 have commuter rail; 5
have light rail; 6 have subways; and 4 make use of other alternatives,
including water shuttles or taxis (Boston, Chicago, New York City),
ferries (New York City), street cars (Portland), and trolleys (Chicago).
New York City also has a tramway to Roosevelt Island and will soon have
the air trains as well. With respect to the percentage of daily trips
into the central cities utilizing public transit as the main mode of
travel, New York City reported 65%, closely followed by San Francisco at
61%. Chicago reported that one-half of the trips utilize public transit,
with Boston just beneath that at 46%. Dallas and Washington, DC both
report about one-third while those commuting into the cities of Phoenix
and Portland rely on transit much less (20% and 15%, respectively).[^6]

**1.3 Broad Issues and Concerns**

On-street parking has many interrelated, though not always integrated,
elements, both in the policy and operations areas. How on-street parking
is related to broader issues of land use, economic development, and
travel behavior is still not well understood. Further, how best to
accomplish every-day management and enforcement tasks has rarely been
covered in the literature. Indeed, much of the literature dealing with
operations uses a case study approach, often detailing just one case.
There are few surveys that identify operations or policy across several
cities.[^7] Thus, while cities can often point to areas of difficulty,
finding solutions is not simple.

To give a sense of the breadth of issues being dealt with in terms of
on-street parking, the cities in the study were asked to list their
three most critical on-street parking problems. Among the answers were:

-   *Lack of availability of parking spaces*. While the most common
    statement was something like that of New York City -- "too many
    vehicles, not enough spaces," -- others, like Dallas, noted problems
    with downtown spaces, and some, like Los Angeles, pointed to a lack
    of residential spaces, in particular.

-   *Juggling multiple interests*. Residents, visitors, businesses, and
    other groups all have different needs and desires when it comes to
    on-street parking. Determining the best mix for serving these
    interests is critical, but not easily accomplished.

-   *Abuse of permits for disabled persons (ADA parking permits)*. There
    are many instances of persons without disabilities making use of
    reserved spaces as well as misusing ADA permits. For several cities
    there are state mandated requirements that also lead to difficulties
    with legitimate ADA permits being used for long-term metered
    on-street parking, thus limiting turn-over. For example, Oregon
    state law mandates all-day free on-street parking for persons with
    disabilities.

-   *High levels of idling with resulting emissions*. With on-street
    parking in high demand and insufficient spaces, many drivers wait
    for spaces to become available.

-   *Replacing obsolete technologies*. There are many new technologies
    available for on-street parking, but there are also financial and
    political hurdles that must be overcome.

-   *Misuse of commercial loading spaces*. Misuse is cited both in terms
    of non-commercial vehicles using the spaces and commercial vehicles
    utilizing the spaces inappropriately.

The following chapters touch on a number of these issues and more.
Recognizing the limits of the literature, but seeking to move beyond,
much of the information is derived from discussions with parking
officials or from the questionnaire that was filled out by them. As
such, the information detailed in the remainder of this report serves as
an important foundation for further study and analysis specific to
on-street parking planning and operations.

**2. The Dynamics of Parking in Urban Areas: Land Use, Economic
Development,**

**and Travel Behavior**[^8]

Parking is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As Richard Voith
writes in a 1998 *Business Review* article, parking "simply allows
people access to the places where they want to shop, play, or work. The
demand for parking in the CBD \[central business district\] thus depends
on how many people want to drive to the CBD to do any one of those
things."[^9] While true to a degree, this statement is an
over-simplification of a complex and dynamic relationship between
parking and land use, economic development, and travel behavior. Indeed,
in a 1997 article, "The High Cost of Free Parking," Donald Shoup
suggested that "parking is the unstudied link between transportation and
land use."[^10]

Decisions on how to manage parking can exert tremendous influence on a
number of other areas. A Cambridge, England study by Ben Still and David
Simmonds, for example, identifies three direct effects that parking has
on urban development: (1) changes in the provision of parking and its
cost affect the overall cost of travel; (2) changes in parking can alter
urban density levels (since parking requires land that could otherwise
be used for residential or commercial buildings); and, (3) parking can
directly generate revenue as an economic activity. Further, as a result
of the impact on cost of travel, there are a number of indirect effects
as well, including changes in the levels of congestion, air quality, and
changes in travel behavior.[^11]

The following discussion provides a framework within which to think
about parking. Touching on the relationship between parking and economic
development, land use, congestion and capacity, and travel behavior, it
helps provide the context within which decisions related to parking are
made, highlights the multiple dimensions of parking, and aids in
identifying gaps in the on-street parking literature.

**2.1 A Brief History of Parking Planning and Regulation**

To fully appreciate the context within which decisions on parking are
made, it is helpful to have an understanding of how the concepts of
parking planning and regulation developed for both off-street and
on-street parking. Thus, the following paragraphs trace the history of
parking planning and regulation in the United States.

***Land Use and Off-Street Parking***

Where cars and other vehicles flow, parking is needed. Indeed, the
concept of the parking garage was originally developed in 1920, during a
period in which cars were becoming more affordable and their use more
widespread.[^12] Though the initial intent was to protect personal
vehicles from the negative effects of the weather, business leaders and
policymakers saw a link between off-street parking and economic
development, believing that ensuring access for customers and employees
would help business grow. Further, in a time when congestion was already
a problem in crowded downtown areas, off-street parking was seen as a
solution to getting the cars off the streets when not in use.

Columbus, OH was the first municipality to establish off-street parking
requirements in its zoning codes (1923), followed by Fresno, CA (1939).
While others were slower to implement similar zoning codes (New York
City did not have off-street parking requirements until 1950, for
example), by the late 1940s and early 1950s, requirements for adequate
off-street parking had become a regular feature of municipal planning
and zoning in a number of cities.

In terms of on-street parking, there is very little written regarding
the history of regulation. However, as off-street parking became more
common, on-street parking did go through some changes. Prior to the
first off-street parking facilities, on-street parking had, of course,
been present for some time, but nowhere was it regulated. With the
advent of off-street parking, many larger cities like Chicago, Detroit,
and Philadelphia began eliminating on-street parking to improve traffic
flow.[^13] Others, however, took a different approach: in 1935, Oklahoma
City was the first city to regulate on-street parking using meters.

Following World War II, the key focus of transportation policy in most
parts of the country was building more roads to accommodate the rapid
growth in the number of cars and the corresponding rise in congestion.
In 1956, Congress responded by passing the Interstate Highway Act, which
provided long-term federal support for road and highway construction,
and had tremendous implications for land use and development. Highways
decreased the cost of transportation within and between cities, and
allowed people to move away from their places of employment. Retail
businesses followed the workers, moving out from the urban centers. Land
use policies during the period encouraged this pattern, developing
regulations that required easy access by cars as well as sufficient (and
often, more than sufficient) parking.[^14]

Taking their cue from the same set of circumstances, organizations like
the American Automobile Association and the American Planning
Association began recommending minimum off-street parking ratios for
various forms of land use, including industrial areas, shopping centers,
and residential developments. At a time of prosperity, relatively low
land costs, and little understanding of the negative effects of motor
vehicles, off-street parking requirements were often set at levels which
would accommodate peak demand. As more than one study has noted, this
often meant planning for demand during the weeks immediately prior to
Christmas. During the rest of the year, in many cases, a large number of
parking spaces remained vacant.

Responding to the continuing and projected growth in the number of cars,
more and more municipalities began to plan for off-street parking. In
many cases, they either adopted the recommended off-street parking
requirements, which were assumed to be accurate and rational, or used
the same ratios utilized by neighboring communities. However, parking
demand varies from one location to another, and there are many factors
important in determining exactly how much off-street parking is needed
(e.g., type and intensity of land use, location, accessibility,
availability of alternate modes of transportation) so minimum parking
requirements are not easily transferable from lone locale to
another.[^15] Thus, either method often led municipalities to embrace
requirements that were inappropriate for their own circumstances. The
result was excessive amounts of parking, with many spaces left unused,
and increased rather than decreased levels of traffic congestion.[^16]

**2.2 It's All in the Pricing...Though for On-Street Parking,
Availability is Also Key**

The fallacy of solely relying on handbooks or surveys of neighboring
cities for parking requirements was first described by Donald Shoup and
Don Pickrell in their 1978 article, "Problems with Parking Requirements
in Zoning Ordinances."[^17] A 1983 study by Thomas Smith, *Flexible
Parking Requirements*, outlined how municipalities could build
flexibility into their zoning to avoid some of the above pitfalls.[^18]
However, a 1996 survey of 144 cities, showed that the two most
frequently cited means for setting off-street parking requirements
continued to be surveying nearby cities and relying on handbooks of
parking generation data produced by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers-ITE.[^19] For urban areas, the drawbacks of relying on the
latter method are compounded by the fact that the ITE handbooks utilize
data from suburban areas with little transit and are thus, not
applicable to large cities.[^20]

In the 1978 article and in more recent studies, Shoup and others have
made a powerful argument for bringing basic economic precepts of supply
and demand to parking. The costs of parking are high -- they include the
costs for purchasing properties, building, and maintaining facilities.
There are also numerous opportunity costs associated with parking since
the space utilized could be used for other purposes, such as additional
lanes for traffic flow and sidewalks (in the case of on-street parking)
or for building other types of facilities or providing open spaces (in
the case of off-street parking). Yet, parking is often provided to the
users free or at low prices. As a result, market distortions occur, with
those who use parking spaces paying less than they are worth, while
others share in the cost (in terms of higher taxes, rents, or retail
goods, as well as environmental degradation) even when they do not use
the spaces.[^21]

Instead of continuing to focusing on building more off-street parking,
Shoup argues that "pricing curb parking rather than requiring off-street
parking will improve urban design, reduce traffic congestion, \[and\]
restrain urban sprawl..."[^22] More specifically, Shoup stresses the
need to price on-street parking in response to demand (i.e. value or
congestion pricing[^23]).

***Parking and Economic Development***

According to Still and Simmonds, there is a clear and generally positive
association between parking and retail growth. In fact, off-street
parking requirements were seen as a means to promote economic growth in
central business districts as early as the 1930s.[^24] In *The
Dimensions of Parking*, for example, Smith explains that the adequacy of
parking can influence economic return on public and private sector
investments, and affect property values.[^25] In an earlier study,
one-third of respondents to a survey of central business district
retailers, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and the
Philadelphia Center City District, noted that improving parking would be
the most important change to improve their business.[^26] While much of
the research on the relationship between parking and economic
development focuses on off-street parking, this sentiment was echoed at
the June 12, 2002 peer-to-peer exchange session on on-street parking.
One parking official noted that parking, and in particular, on-street
parking, "...is one of the best ways to help promote businesses in the
central business district."[^27]

Thus, there is a broadly shared belief that parking is good for central
business districts, but there is also a tendency among business owners
to press for free parking, believing that it is more attractive for
consumers. Several cities, including Boston, are trying to educate
business owners about the importance of charging for on-street parking
in order to generate turnover and, thus, more potential customers.
However, as Hartmutt Topp cautions in his 1995 article, "The Role of
Parking in Traffic Calming," there needs to be a careful balance since
increased turnover can also increase traffic.[^28]

***Parking and Travel Behavior***

Increasing transit ridership is a key objective of many policymakers and
planners, especially since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Yet, in
1999, 87.7% of the U.S. population used a car as the primary means for
transportation to work, and of these, only 10.7% carpooled.[^29] Several
models have been developed that demonstrate the impact parking can have
on transit ridership. As with land use and economic development, Martha
Bianco, et al., point out, "a key connection between parking and transit
ridership lies in the supply and price of parking."[^30] Indeed, the
Bianco study was based in part on a 1996 report she co-authored that
found:

> Cities with both a relatively high degree of public intervention in
> parking policy and high transit service levels -- particularly in
> terms of frequency -- are more likely to have high transit ridership
> levels than cities with less public involvement in parking policy and
> a lower degree of transit service.[^31]

The report examines eight parking strategies and finds that there is no
single strategy that works best. Many strategies can have unintended
negative consequences. A 1999 study of midtown Atlanta by Erik Ferguson
notes, for example, that "spillover parking is a much more likely
commuter response to parking pricing than is alternative mode
use...."[^32] This is especially true in areas heavily dependent upon
automobiles for the primary mode of transport. With respect to the
cities that participated in the current study, this would suggest that
consumers in cities like Phoenix and Portland would be the least likely
to shift their mode of travel in response to parking pricing.

**2.3 Summary**

Transportation affects land use by providing access, which allows the
possibility of developing higher density development. According to Terry
Moore and Paul Thorsnes, "no single force has had a greater impact on
the pattern of land development in American cities in \[the 20^th^\]
century than highways."[^33] As highways were built to respond to
increased number of automobiles, they in turn encouraged automobile use,
and planners were quick to accommodate these cars in a number of ways,
including parking.

Shoup and others have pointed out, however, that many of the premises on
which parking is based are not valid, or at least need more careful
analysis. Further, though studies exist on off-street parking,
literature about on-street parking is scarce. Nevertheless, what does
exist points to a real link between on-street parking, land use,
economic development, and travel behavior. A better understanding of the
nature of these links is critical for effectively planning and managing
on-street parking.

**[3. On-Street Parking Policy, Planning, Managing, and Operations in
Select Cities]{.smallcaps}**

Section 2 dealt with broad issues concerning the relationship between
parking and broader goals of economic development, land use, and travel
behavior. However, on an every day basis, on-street parking planners and
managers need to deal with policy and planning, management and
operations. While the problems are similar from city to city, the
approaches taken to address them are varied.

To aid in broadening the understanding of how on-street parking is dealt
with in different urban areas, and to foster a discussion among and
between cities, this section details the various difficulties involved
with and approaches taken by the nine cities that participated in the
study when dealing with particular facets of on-street parking. Where
appropriate, and where literature was available, approaches from other
cities are also discussed. Given the limited state of research on
on-street parking, much of the information described serves as a
foundation for future analyses; nevertheless, where possible,
correlations are shown and conclusions drawn.

**3.1 Managing On-Street Parking**

It has been said that the key to on-street parking is effective planning
and management. However, to plan and manage effectively, one must know
not only who needs the space and when, but what spaces are available and
where. On the first set of tasks, most cities perform well; however, if
the results from the questionnaire are indicative, many are unable to
effectively track their assets. When asked, for example to provide the
number of on-street parking spaces available for the entire city and for
the downtown area, only 2 cities out of 9 (Chicago and Dallas) could
provide figures for both, and 2 cities (Los Angles and Phoenix) could
not provide information for either. Similarly, when asked how many
on-street parking spaces were lost either in the city as a whole or in
the downtown area as a result of September 11 and ensuring security
measures, only 4 of the 9 cities could provide figures.[^34] In
contrast, for off-street parking spaces, every city but one (Phoenix)
provided figures. Similarly, when asked to provide the number of
parking-related signs throughout their cities, only 6 of the 9 cities
could provide an estimate, and of these only 2 (Boston and New York
City) could provide an estimated number of how many signs are on the
streets in the downtown areas.[^35]

In a related set of questions, cities were asked what kinds of
information related to on-street parking are readily available and in
what forms. While 6 of the 9 cities reported having information related
to the location and description of regulations on their streets, only 4
could provide information on the location and description of their asset
inventory, and one of these could only provide this information for
meters. The degree of confidence in the information ranged broadly, but
more significant perhaps, is that the majority of the cities rely
primarily on paper files; only 2 (Chicago and New York City) make use of
some form of database management system, and 1 (Boston) utilizes a
virtual video system -- GeoVista -- to catalogue information.[^36]

For large cities where multiple agencies and divisions are responsible
for various aspects of on-street parking, having basic information on
assets and regulations in an accessible format that can be updated and
easily shared across departments and agencies is vital. Determining how
best to do this is a topic in need of further discussion and assessment.

***Integration and Coordination Issues***

The reason data could not be provided was not always because it was
unavailable; in some cases, it was just difficult to find or resided in
an agency different than that which was filling out the questionnaire.
In fact, in all of the cities multiple agencies and/or divisions with
Departments of Transportation or Public Works are involved with parking.
Just looking at 4 key areas related to on-street parking -- issuance,
enforcement, maintenance, and purchasing -- for example, no city had
fewer than 3 agencies and/or divisions sharing some portion of the
responsibility. Add in the parties who deal with macro- and micro-
policy decisions and planning, and the number of divisions sharing
responsibility rises further. This separation of responsibility is both
inevitable and, in many cases, purposeful -- inevitable, because there
are specialized job requirements for the various tasks related to
on-street parking; purposeful because in certain cases firewalls are
required for sound audit principles (e.g. having separate authority for
issuance and adjudication).[^37] Thus, the risk of a silo effect were
each group remains isolated in its policies and information is inherent
Yet, integrating or at least coordinating policy, management,
enforcement, and even adjudication is critical since each relates to the
others.

To address this, several cities have meetings with various agency
members to deal with on-street parking. While some are conducted on an
ad hoc basis (for example, Portland holds sessions with the Association
for Portland Progress Transportation Committee and with various
community associations), others are held on a formal and regular basis.
New York City has a monthly session with multiple Department of
Transportation units and the New York Police Department. Of the nine
cities involved in the study, Chicago's *Mayor's Traffic Management Task
Force*, provides the highest level of consistent and formalized
interaction among various agencies and divisions dealing with on-street
parking operations. Meetings are held weekly to review concerns related
to daily traffic operations. Ongoing attendees include the Department of
Transportation, traffic police, Streets and Sand (they put up/take down
barricades, cones, and message boards), Sewer and Water, the museums,
campuses, and trolley operators. Any agency, organization, company, or
other group related to major project that may affect traffic patterns is
also invited to the sessions when appropriate.

**3.2 Curb Loading**

Each of the cities was asked to respond to a number of questions related
to different types of curb loading, including cabs, commercial vehicles,
tour buses, and valets. While there are some variations in the hours of
operation, length of time a space can be used, and how spaces are
marked, the variations are not considered to be significantly different
from one city to another. For example, various types of curb loading
zones are marked by signs in all of the 9 cities, though 5 (Dallas, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, and San Francisco), also use some form of
street or curb marking.[^38]

Dealing with cabs and with commercial vehicles present the most
difficulties across the board, with 6 of the 9 cities reporting
difficulties dealing with cabs and 7 of the 9 reporting problems with
commercial loading spaces. In the former, double parking and overflow
beyond marked zones is the most common complaint; in the latter, the two
most common problems are use of the spaces by noncommercial vehicles and
overtime abuse. Problems with tour buses were cited by 5 of the 9
cities, and ranged from excessive idling and difficulties in finding
locations to underutilization of designated spaces.[^39]

The cities generally rely on fines (which can range anywhere from \$20 -
\$100 for violations related to cabs or commercial vehicle loading
zones) to deal with the misuse of spaces, overflow, and double parking.
Noting that half the vehicles found double parked are commercial
vehicles, Chicago goes a step further in dealing with double parking.
The ticket issued for this violation is associated with "obstruction of
traffic" and counts as a moving violation. When deemed appropriate,
vehicles may also be towed in Chicago for double parking.[^40]

New York City has implemented a program for commercial parking in
midtown that has, among other goals, reduced the number of violations
related to overtime abuse by commercial vehicles in loading zones. In
fact, surveys prior to the program showed average parking time for
loading/unloading at 4-6 hours; average parking time now is reported to
be about 90 minutes. (See Section 4.3 -- Best Practices for a detailed
description.)

**3.3 Preferential Parking**

There are numerous provisions for preferential parking in cities and
multiple problems associated with them. Among the most difficult areas
to deal with, both in terms of policy and operations are government and
ADA permits.

***ADA Parking Permits***

Providing on-street parking for persons with disabilities represents a
challenge for most cities, and how they deal with ADA parking on-street
varies significantly. Only 1 of the 9 cities reported that it requires
individuals with ADA permits to pay meters (Phoenix) for on-street
parking (though several others require it for use of off-street spaces).
Washington, DC has a relatively complex set of regulations that allows
persons with disabilities to remain for double the allotted time for
free, but then requires that they pay the regular meter rate if they
stay parked beyond that period.[^41]

The agency responsible for issuing ADA permits also varies from city to
city. In New York City, the City Department of Transportation is
responsible; in Boston, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, permits are issued
by the Department of Motor Vehicles; and in Chicago, the state issues
the permits. New York City is the only city that does not recognize ADA
permits issued by other locales. Fines for violations related to ADA
parking range from a low of \$40 (Phoenix) all the way to \$450
(Portland, which has a graduated set of fines based on the number of
offenses). Taken as a percentage of median household income in each
city, Phoenix still has one of the lower rates at only 0.10%, with Los
Angeles and Portland on the higher end (0.93% and 0.49-1.16%,
respectively).[^42]

While a number of problems associated with ADA parking are noted
(dubious spots, loose regulations at the state level, misuse of ADA
parking for long-term parking, loss of revenues), by far the greatest
difficulty cited is abuse of permits. Countering the use of ADA permits
by individuals without disabilities is extremely difficult since not all
disabilities are readily apparent, and a person who appears fine may
have a legitimate disability. Further, in Boston and to some degree
Chicago, there is an additional problem that results from the way spaces
are allocated. In both cities, there are ADA reserved spaces for
on-street parking; in the case of Boston, many of these spaces are
requested in front of private homes. However, there is no systematic
review of the spaces so over time, even if the space is no longer
required, it often remains to be used by individuals without
disabilities.

No city that participated in this study has found a way to deal with
such abuses, but several possibilities were discussed. As technology is
further integrated into parking operations, a system might be
established that would allow parking enforcement personnel to download
information to their PDAs (personal digital assistant, e.g. Palm Pilot,
Blackberry) identifying legitimate ADA permits. (This would necessitate
linking more than one driver's license or license plate to a permit so
that a person could change cars without being ticketed. New York City
can currently place multiple license plates on a permit.) In most cases,
ADA permits are free. A suggestion was made to implement a sliding scale
fee system that would not only generate some revenues, but might also
reduce abuse by adding a cost.

***Government Parking Permits***

All cities issue permits for city, state, and federal government
officials, for multiple city agencies, as well as for foreign diplomats,
and all cities cite abuses of these permits to varying degrees. As a way
to avoid or counter some of the abuse related to city, state, and
federal government as well as city agency permits, cities like Boston
and Washington, DC do not allow permits to be used in private vehicles.
Los Angeles makes an allowance if a vehicle is being clocked for mileage
by the city. New York City has similar rules, but as with many cities,
enforcement is the weak point.

To gain more control over these types of permits, Los Angeles recently
took back their placards and reissued them. Similarly, in May 2002, New
York City began reducing the numbers of authorized permits for the New
York Police Department and the City's Department of Transportation. By
the end of 2002, the number of authorized permits is expected to be
14,501, down from 19,722 at the end of 2001.[^43] Whether these two
measures help reduce abuse of the permits remains to be seen.

***Residential Parking Permits***

A 1996 study of 20 central cities noted that spillover parking into
residential areas often resulted from raising prices of parking in the
central business districts.[^44] Issuing residential parking permits is
a common method for limiting or preventing non-residents from parking
their cars on neighborhood streets. Several quality of life benefits
have been associated with residential parking permits, including: (1)
improving the ability of residents to find parking on their street if
needed; (2) enhancing a sense of community and neighborhood identity in
the midst of an urban area; (3) mitigating the perception that
neighborhood streets are being used as parking lots; and, (4) helping
achieve a balance between local and non-local residents.[^45] Seven of
the 9 cities issue permits for residential parking (New York City and
Portland do not). They are commonly issued in areas near clubs,
restaurants, stadiums, and other facilities that attract many
non-residents who have parking needs. With respect to how decisions are
made to determine whether a neighborhood is eligible for such
preferential provisions, most of the cities report that the process is
neighborhood driven, that is the first step is a petition or other type
of application. Fees for residential permits either do not exist
(Boston) or are very low (\$10-\$35/year); fines for violations related
to residential permits are also relatively low, ranging from \$16 to
\$50.[^46]

**3.4 Metered Parking**

The value of pricing on-street parking was described in Section 2; how
cities price their metered parking, maintain their systems, collect
fees, and enforce parking is discussed in the following paragraphs. By
way of background, there are a few interesting figures that bear
mentioning. The standard length of an on-street meter space is, not
surprisingly, similar from city to city, with 6 of the 9 cities set at
20 feet. Dallas is a touch higher with 21 feet. Phoenix's standard is 22
feet for interior spaces, with the first and last stalls in rows of
multiple meters set at 17 feet. New York City's standard length for a
metered space also ranges from 19-22 feet.[^47] Standard time limits for
on-street parking are usually 1 or 2 hours, but other time limits range
anywhere from 15 minutes to 48 hours.[^48] With respect to days and
hours of operation, most cities' meters operate either Monday-Friday or
Monday-Saturday. Portland, however, also has hours of operation on
Sunday (1pm -- 10pm). The cities reported hours of operation usually
beginning between 6am and 9am and ending anywhere from 5pm to 11pm. Many
of the cities have multiple hours of operation or days of operation
depending upon location.[^49]

***Meter Technologies***

With respect to types of meters, all the cities make use of more than
one type since not all types of meters are efficient for all types of
uses. The vast majority of meters are still either mechanical or
electronic, with several cities moving toward "pay/display" or "free
flow parking" meters, which are already common in European cities. These
latter types are particularly helpful in large density areas where one
can add up to 15% more parking using a multi-space system. Those cities
that have begun using these meters (Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York
City) note that the public likes these meters because if they receive an
erroneous summons, they can just send in the voucher without coming to
court. The cities like the systems because if one box is broken, a
driver can find another and revenues can still be collected. (Portland
is slated to install 150 of these meters in summer 2002. It expects to
replace 80% of its single space meters over the next 2-3 years.) These
meters also have additional versatility. Since they have keypads,
license plates can be entered, allowing further streamlining of
ticketing. While New York City and Chicago are not currently making use
of this particular application, they are moving in that direction.[^50]

Many of the cities are also looking toward smart card technologies for
on-street parking; in fact, 8 of the 9 cities reported that they have
either already deployed the technologies or are in the planning stages.
(Los Angeles is not looking toward smart card for on-street parking,
though their regional transit authority is looking to integrate regional
subway, bus, and commuter rail systems with parking on their lots.)
Chicago is looking for a city-wide card that could be used not only for
parking, but on buses and trains as well.[^51]

Other technologies do exist. Participants mentioned systems that make
use of sonar or laser to determine when a vehicle has left a space so
the meter can be automatically reset to 0. There are also similar
systems that determine whether a vehicle has remained past the time
limit so the meter cannot be refilled. Vancouver and Seattle have been
testing a system that utilizes mobile phones to pay for parking. Drivers
who register for the system call an automated toll-free number to begin
service. The driver enters a unique number that designates his/her area
location so the correct rate is charged, and enforcement personnel are
equipped with PDAs that provide them with instant access to information
to determine whether cars are parked validly. When finished parking, the
driver again calls to "unpark" by phone. Customers like the ease of this
method -- the calls take about 10 seconds each; one does not need to
know ahead of time how much time will be needed; and they avoid parking
violations. Further, the system ensures that each person pays exactly
for the time they spent in the space. Currently, the system is being
utilized for off-street parking, but it has on-street applications.[^52]
In fact, cities in Holland and Sweden are already using this technology
at the curb.

Another technology common in European cities, and being used in Aspen,
CO and Arlington, VA in the United States is the personal in-vehicle
meter. Similar in size to a pocket calculator, these meters are used in
conjunction with a smart card. Like the mobile phone parking described
above, numbers are allotted to specific parking zones. When a driver
parks along a curb where there is a price for parking, he/she punches in
the number of the designated parking zone, inserts the smart card and
turns on the meter, then hangs the meter inside the windshield. The
timer debits the pre-paid account until the driver switches off the
meter.[^53] The advantages are similar to those described for the mobile
phone technologies. In both cases, it is also worth pointing out that
these technologies are mobile -- the same system can be used in multiple
cities -- and they are lower in cost than are conventional meters. With
the in-vehicle meters, there is an additional benefit for the city since
revenues are collected in advance and interest can be earned on the
unused balances.[^54]

***Collection, Enforcement, and Maintenance***

On-street parking generates significant revenues for cities, both
through regular fare collection and fines. The nine cities participating
reported annual revenues from on-street parking anywhere from \$2.9M
(Dallas) to \$75M (New York City) each year.[^55] Of the 7 cities that
reported annual revenues from fines, Portland and Dallas were on the
lower end of the scale at \$2.5-\$3M and \$5.4M, respectively, while Los
Angeles and Chicago were at the higher end of the spectrum, reporting
\$92.7M and \$112M, respectively.[^56] Revenues from fines are placed in
general funds in half of the cities surveyed, but in Portland they are
directed toward the Office of Transportation, in San Francisco, they are
used for the municipal railway, and in Washington, DC, a portion is used
to subsidize transit.

Enforcement of meters is as likely to be carried out by departments of
transportation or public works as by police departments. Error rates
were most often reported as between 0-2%, though Boston reported 2.1-4%
and New York City reported 4.1-6%.[^57] When asked about collection
rates for tickets, defined as the percentage of tickets paid within 2
years of issuance, most cities reported either 60% or 70%, though San
Francisco was a touch higher, reporting 75-80%. Boston was significantly
higher, reporting a collection rate of 90%.[^58] Among other things,
this is attributed to a combination of good management, sound auditing
and control principles, favorable laws, and overall efficiency in
enforcement, collection, and adjudication.[^59]

Maintenance of meters is carried out by the cities in 8 of the 9 cases;
Washington, DC contracts it out. While most cities reported routine
maintenance on a weekly basis, Dallas does routine maintenance on a
quarterly basis, and Portland annually. San Francisco reported that
routine maintenance occurs every fourth day. There was no correlation
between the frequency of routine maintenance and the reports of the
percentage of meters working at a given time. In terms of the latter,
figures ranged from a low of 75% (Boston) to a high of 97%
(Dallas).[^60]

Cities report a number of difficulties associated with meters. The most
frequently citied problems were power supply problems (4), coins jamming
or not registering (4), problems with software functionality or lack of
continued support (3), and vandalism (3). Other issues cited included
theft, problems with reliability, and lack of spare parts. All of the
cities have some form of system in place to alert the proper authorities
when there is a problem with a meter. Beyond regular inspections, 7 of
the 9 cities employ consumer call-in lines, and Boston monitors parking
ticket appeals.

When asked *specifically* whether vandalism and theft had ever been a
problem (as opposed to the open ended question from which the data above
is drawn), all but Dallas reported problems with vandalism and 6 of the
9 cities reported problems with theft. In fact, when asked about the
degree of the problem, several cities, including Boston, Los Angeles,
and New York City, reported very high rates of meters compromised by
vandalism. Information related to theft was less available, but when
asked to identify the primary culprits, 5 cities noted the public, 4
cities noted that city staff have been involved, and 3 cities noted
contracted staff.[^61]

***Congestion/Value Pricing***

The cost per minute associated with meter parking is nominal in most
cities, often costing less than \$0.01/minute. Six of the nine central
cities responding to the questionnaire make use of some form of
value/congestion pricing. For the most part, this takes the form of
making parking cheaper in spaces further away from the high demand
areas. However, Los Angeles also has an area (Venice Beach) where the
rates on the meters change depending upon the time of day. New York City
has a congestion pricing program for commercial parking that involves a
graduated fee depending upon how long the vehicle remains parked (See
Section 3.2 for a brief description and Section 4.3 for a more detailed
description).

**3.5 Signage and Communicating with the Public**

When it comes to communicating with the public about on-street parking,
signs are, of course, the first line of communication. However, the
cities represented in the peer-to-peer session all expressed
dissatisfaction with signage, saying that consumers often find signs
confusing (especially where there are multiple regulations) or fail to
see them. Indeed, the number of different sign codes (i.e. types of
signs) just for parking, in many cases was quite high: Boston reported
approximately 300 separate codes; Chicago 270; New York City 200;
Portland 450, San Francisco more than 100, and Washington, DC reported
over 600 separate codes.[^62] In terms of making the signs easy to see,
average lettering ranged from 1 inch to close to 2.75 inches, with the
minimum size lettering reported as small as .25 inches (Boston) and as
high as 1.5 inches (Chicago and Phoenix). While it is clear that larger
letters are easier to see, whether the size of the lettering correlates
to the number of violations is unknown.

The total number of signs in the cities ranged from about 80,000
(Portland) to 600,000 (New York City). Since many of the cities could
not provide information about exact sign locations, it is difficult to
determine exactly how many signs are present per square mile. However,
just to provide a sense of the differences in concentration, the average
number of signs per square mile, ranged from as low as 230 (Dallas) to
as high as 4,000 (Boston).[^63] Again, whether the concentration of
signs has any impact on violations is unknown.

All of the cities make use of color coding for their signs, and in
Autumn 2001, Boston began a program that color codes meter caps to help
consumers identify areas with multiple regulations. Yellow caps are used
to designate loading zones and red caps denote rush hour zones where
spaces may not be used for parking at specific times during the day.
Currently, the loading spaces are free when used for loading during
designated periods, but Boston is reviewing plans for charging. Another
feature of the new meters is that they carry stickers that note if a
meter is not functioning the space has a 1-hour time limit. This aids in
maintaining turn-over rates.

Five of the 9 cities make use of both pictures and words on the signs to
make the message clear. In terms of providing positive or negative
messages, 6 of the 9 cities use signs that generally denote what cannot
be done (e.g. No Parking, 7-9am), while Portland relies on signs that
denote what can be done (e.g. Parking before 7am and after 9am).
Washington, DC makes use of both methods. During the peer-to-peer
exchange session, several participants noted that perhaps using only
pictures and symbols as is done in Europe might work better. However, a
cautionary note was made since there is little data from Europe that
demonstrates for certain that the signs are more effective with pictures
and symbols than they would be with words.

Formal public outreach is also important, and all of the cities are
involved in outreach to the public at various levels, often passing out
flyers prior to major changes and attending or holding sessions with
community groups. Involving the public is critical; there are many cases
of cities having to roll back plans as a result of public complaints. In
late spring 2002, Denver, for example, has held off on a plan to enforce
all meters in the city until 11pm. Currently, most meters in the city
run from 8am to either 6pm or 10pm and cost between \$0.20/hour to
\$1/hour. Responding to complaints about the different rates and hours
of operation, the city announced its plan in January 2002. However, it
was met with resistance by a number of business and community
groups.[^64] Similarly, Houston recently halted a project, pending
review with business owners, to install new meters in an area of the
city that previously had none.[^65] Thus, it would seem that involving
the public prior to making major changes in on-street parking is
critical. On the other hand, several parking officials noted that even
when sessions are held, once they move to implement changes, there is
sometimes controversy since not everyone attends public meetings.
Finding more successful ways to conduct public outreach is an area for
further exploration.

All of the cities have websites that provide various levels of
description related to parking regulations, permits, and fines. A quick
review shows that some are more user-friendly and/or navigable than
others.[^66] Boston goes a step further with an educational program it
has in place that involves merchants in conducting turn-over studies.
Doing this helps business owners learn about the importance of using
meters and facilitating turn-over.

**3.6 Summary**

This section touched on several facets of on-street parking policy,
planning, management, and operations. Describing how the various cities
approach the various components helps demonstrate the diversity that
exists, and highlights the various challenges that are faced by those
trying to effectively manage on-street parking. While it is easy to
pinpoint the problem areas, determining how to best solve them is much
more difficult, and many areas would benefit from further study and
discourse.

**[4. Findings and Recommendations]{.smallcaps}**

The literature review along with the June 12, 2002 peer-to-peer exchange
session in Boston identified several areas in need of further study as
well as a number of best practice and "potential" best practice
strategies being employed in various cities. The word "potential" is
utilized for several strategies that have been recently implemented and
for which the data have not been formally published. Nevertheless, they
are worth monitoring.

**4.1 Lessons Learned**

There were several lessons learned as a result of this study, but chief
among them are the following:

-   ***To effectively manage, one must know what it is he/she is
    managing.*** In terms of on-street parking, this translates into the
    need for having basic information on assets and regulations in an
    accessible format that can be updated and easily shared across
    departments and agencies. Most of the cities currently lack this
    capacity.

-   ***Integrating and coordinating among agencies and divisions is
    critical.*** Multiple agencies and divisions within those agencies
    are responsible for various aspects of on-street parking. While they
    are all connected, they are not always effectively integrated. Thus,
    even if one aspect of on-street parking is managed well, if there is
    a lack of coordination, the overall result may be inefficiency.

-   ***Further research is necessary.*** One can find out what
    techniques or approaches are used by different cities for various
    elements of on-street parking, but often cannot easily find analyses
    of whether the various measures are effective. As was described in
    Section 2, many of the assumptions that parking is based upon, be it
    off-street or on-street are at best more complex than they appear,
    and at worse are false. There is reason to believe that on-street
    parking does have an effect on, and is affected by, larger goals of
    land use, economic development, and travel behavior. However, the
    extent of the impact and what this means in terms of effective
    planning needs to be studied much more extensively. In particular,
    time trends would be helpful since much of the literature relies on
    a "snap shot" approach.

-   ***Ongoing peer-to-peer exchange on on-street parking is
    important.*** Because the literature about on-street parking is
    sparse and because there is little communication among parking
    officials from city to city, providing a continuous and regular
    means for exchanging information is particularly important. Many
    cities begin and end pilot projects and never share the information
    outside their borders so others cannot learn what works and what
    does not.

**4.2 Areas in Need of Further Study**

When asked what types of policies, technologies, or practices would help
make on-street parking more efficient or easier to manage, the officials
represented at the peer-to-peer exchange session provided a number of
suggestions. In each case, there was agreement that these may be
valuable approaches, but that more needs to be done to assess either
their potential or the means for implementation.

-   ***Ban on cars in the Central Business District between 9am and
    5pm***. Recognizing the political hurdles involved, several cities
    still expressed interest in banning cars in the central business
    districts during weekdays. Further assessment of the risks and
    benefits of this approach is needed.

-   ***Better collaboration with suburban areas***. Cities expressed a
    desire for suburban residents and businesses to better understand
    the costs of subsidizing auto use. They also mentioned the
    possibility that implementing similar fee structures for parking in
    the cities and in outlying areas might be beneficial. While there is
    an understanding that suburban areas rely more on cars because
    transit is not as available, the policies in place in areas outside
    the city do have an impact. City officials felt that better
    collaboration with their suburban counterparts might be the key.

-   ***Database management systems.*** One of the lessons learned was
    that there is a need for having basic information on assets and
    regulations easily accessible and updatable. Most of the cities do
    not have such systems in place, but what system would best work is
    uncertain.

-   ***Integration is the key.*** While integration among divisions and
    agencies responsible for on-street parking policy, management,
    enforcement, and adjudication is important, how best to achieve this
    is unclear and requires further discussion.

-   ***Meters that enforce themselves.*** As described in Section 3.4,
    technologies to do this already exist. However, additional analysis
    and assessments are needed to determine whether they should be
    implemented and how best to roll them out. Further, other
    technologies, like pay by phone or in-vehicle meters are likely to
    prove more optimal.

-   ***Sliding scale fee/Use of PDAs for ADA permits.*** Dealing with
    abuses of ADA permits was cited by almost all the cities and how
    best to mitigate the problem is unclear. However, the two
    possibilities mentioned in Section 3.3 warrant further review.

-   ***Variable message boards for on-street parking.*** More research
    is needed on the efficacy of signage. However, to deal with the
    problem of multiple regulations on signs or at spaces, one might
    make use of variable message boards which could be changed centrally
    at the press of a button. The technology for this already exists,
    and further study might be taken to determine its applicability for
    on-street parking.

**4.3 Best Practices**

During the peer-to-peer exchange session, several best practices were
identified.

-   ***Congestion/Value Pricing -- New York City's Program for
    Commercial Parking***

> New York City's congestion pricing program for commercial parking has
> the makings of a best practice for the industry, not just in terms of
> what it is achieving but also with respect to the process by which the
> program was developed.
>
> The City began its incentive program in midtown to deal with
> commercial vehicles in October 2000. There were several thoughts
> behind it. First, was the question, "why should commercial vehicles
> have free parking when the public has to pay?" Second, there was a
> sense that the city was losing out on a key revenue source. However,
> beyond the financial concerns, the goal was to minimize tickets and
> get trucks to turn over the spaces.
>
> The program initially covered the area from 42^nd^ Street to 57^th^
> Street, running north-south, and from 3^rd^ Ave. to 8^th^ Ave.,
> running east-west. The program works as follows: There is a 3-hour
> time limit. To park for one hour costs \$1, two hours costs \$3, and
> three hours costs \$6; the costs are not cumulative. Multi-space
> meters (pay/display) are utilized and spaces are clearly marked with
> signs. (The machines, made by SchlumbergerSema,[^67] have keypads and
> contain the internal technology for entering license plate numbers.
> Once the policy decision is made to apply this technology, New York
> City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) is prepared to move quickly
> to implement it.)
>
> In terms of acceptance, NYCDOT began by determining the companies with
> the highest rates of abuse (e.g. Poland Spring, Nabisco, Coca-Cola,
> UPS) and then setting up discussions with each of them. The program is
> win-win. For the businesses, if they receive a ticket for parking, it
> is a business loss; but if they have to pay for parking, they can
> deduct it as an expense. Also, the city sells debit cards with chips
> (smart cards) to the companies, which in turn give them to their
> drivers. The business can then track the drivers if they choose, and
> the drivers need not carry cash. For the City, enforcement is much
> easier and streamlined, summons rates have dropped significantly, and
> revenues have more than equaled the investment. (Initially,
> approximately \$300,000 was invested in R&D and purchasing; this has
> been made up and the net FY05 projection is \$10M.)[^68]
>
> The program is already a tremendous success and is being expanded to
> south to 34^th^ Street and north to 59^th^ Street, as well as East to
> Second Avenue and West to 9^th^ Avenue.[^69] Occupancy rates were 125%
> prior to the program and have been reduced to approximately 85% so
> there are many more places to park. Surveys prior to the program
> showed average parking time for loading/unloading was 4-6 hours;
> average parking time has now been reduced to about 90 minutes. The
> only problems that has been encountered is that the opposite side of
> the streets in the program area are still marked with "No Standing,
> 7am-7pm," so NYCDOT is finding ongoing misuse and double parked
> vehicles in those areas. The City is currently looking to expand the
> program and is exploring options to modify pricing dependent upon the
> size of the vehicle. They are also looking into implementing different
> hours of operation for different areas in the city, with downtown, for
> example potentially working on a 24-hour basis.

-   ***Meter Technologies -- Free Flow Parking, Smart Cards, In-Vehicle
    Meters, Pay by Phone***

> Many cities are moving toward free flow parking and smart card
> technologies, and with good reason. Cities that have begun using free
> flow parking or pay/display meters already see benefits in terms of
> maintaining revenues (since a customer can use another box if the
> closest one is broken), maximizing the number of spaces on a given
> street, and streamlining ticketing. Since keypads are available,
> additional functions can be built in to further streamline ticketing
> or to better monitor utilization of the spaces. Coupled with smart
> card technologies, such meters are a powerful tool.
>
> For those cities looking to integrate smart cards for parking and
> other types of transportation modes, they will eventually offer a
> one-stop card for the consumer, helping to make transportation
> seamless as a person moves from one mode to another. The potential for
> smart card technology is tremendous if one thinks about standardizing
> systems so that transportation could provide a sense of seamlessness
> not just for people moving within a city or from suburbs to city, but
> also from one side of the country to another.[^70]
>
> Pay by phone and in-vehicle meter technologies offer additional
> benefits, including lower costs since cities need not pay for meters
> on the curb and the potential to utilize the same system in different
> cities across the country. The pay by phone technology, which allows
> customers to call a toll-free number when they are about to park and
> to call again when they are finished, is already being used in Seattle
> and Vancouver for off-street parking and is utilized for on-street
> parking in several European countries. In-vehicle meters, also used in
> many European cities as well as in Aspen and Arlington in the United
> States, work together with a pre-paid smart card and allow drivers to
> start their meter with the card and turn it off when they return.

-   ***Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration -- Chicago's Traffic
    Management Task Force***

> Chicago has a *Mayor's Traffic Management Task Force* that meets
> weekly to go over traffic concerns related to daily operations.
> Ongoing attendees include: Department of Transportation, traffic
> police, "streets and sand" (they put up/take down barricades, cones,
> message boards), sewer and water, museums and campuses, trolleys, etc.
> Additionally, any agency, organization, company, or other group
> related to major projects that affect traffic patterns is invited to
> the sessions when appropriate.

-   ***Public Outreach -- Boston's Program to Involve Merchants in
    Turn-Over Studies***

> Boston has an educational program that involves the merchants in
> conducting turn-over studies. By letting them track the turn-over in
> front of their businesses they begin to better understand the
> importance of encouraging it.

**[References]{.smallcaps}**

Angotti, Tom. "Land Use." *GothamGazette.com* (October 2001).
<http://www.gothamgazette.com/landuse/oct.01.shtml>.

Andrews, James H. "Don't Park Here." *Planning* (October 2002): 20-23.

Bianco, Martha J., Kenneth J. Dueker, and James G. Strathman. "Parking
Strategies to Attract Auto Users to Transit." Presented at the
Transportation Research Board, 77^th^ Annual Meeting. Washington, DC
(January 11-15, 1998).

Box, Paul C. "Angle Parking Issues Revisited, 2001." *ITE Journal* 72, 3
(March 2002): 36-47.

Calthrop, Edward, Stef Proost, and Kurt van Dender. "Parking Policies
and Road Pricing." *Urban Studies* 37, 1 (2000): 63-76.

"Denver's Unloved Parking Meter Plan Expires." *Parking Today* 7, 5 (May
2002): 30.

Department for Transport, Local Governments, and Regions (UK).
"Accommodating Parking." In *Better Places to Live By Design: A
Companion Guide to PPG 3*, ch. 5, sec. 4.
[www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/betrplac/pdf/chap5_4.pdf](http://www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/betrplac/pdf/chap5_4.pdf).

Edwards, John D. "Changing On-Street Parallel Parking to Angle Parking."
*ITE Journal* 72, 2 (February 2002): 28-33.

Ferguson, Erik. "Office Development, Parking Management, and Travel
Behavior: The Case of Midtown Atlanta." *Journal of Transportation
Statistics* (May 1999): 93-107.

Glazer, Amihai, and Esko Niskanen. "Parking Fees and Congestion."
*Regional Science and Urban Economics* 22 (1992): 123-132.

Halifax Regional Municipality. Engineering and Transportation Services.
"On Street Parking Policy for Residential Streets." Draft Document
(February 2001).
[www.region.halifax.ns.ca/traffic/Reports/ONSTREET.pdf](http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/traffic/Reports/ONSTREET.pdf)

Hess, Daniel Baldwin. "Effect of Free Parking on Commuter Mode Choice:
Evidence from Travel Diary Data." *Transportation Research Record* 1753,
Paper No. 01-0448 (2001): 35-42.

"History of Parking in the U.S." *Parking Today* (April 1996):16-17.

Ho, Cheeying. "Smart Growth." *Local Motion* 12, 3 (Fall/Winter 2001).
<http://www.icbc.com/Library/recovery/volume12/number3/articles/smart_pr.html>.

Litman, Todd. "Pavement Busters Guide: Why and How to Reduce the Amount
of Land Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities." Victoria Transport
Policy Institute (January 2000). <http://www.vtpi.org/pav-bust.pdf>.

Luz, Christian R., and Mary S. Smith. "Parking Geometrics." In *The
Dimensions of Parking*, 4^th^ edition, Urban Land Institute (ULI), ed.,
43-48. Washington, DC: ULI, 2000.

Mildner, Gerard C.S., James G. Strathman, and Martha J. Bianco. "Travel
and Parking Behavior in the United States." *Center for Urban Design
Studies*, Discussion Paper No. DP96-7 (December 1996).
<http://www.architect.org/livablecities/parkingus.pdf>.

Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. *The Transportation/Land Use
Connection*. Planning Advisory Service Report, 448-449 (Chicago:
American Planning Organization, 1994).

"New York City Cuts Parking Pass Perks for City Officials." *Parking
Today* 7, 5 (May 2002): 18.

"Parking Meters Cause Flap in Houston." *Parking Today* 7, 5 (May 2002):
41.

Podmore, Neal. "Pay to Park with Your Mobile Phone." *Parking Today* 7,
5 (May 2002): 26-27.

"Sacramento Plan Stirs Controversy." *Parking Today* 7, 5 (May 2002):
36.

Salzman, Gerald, and Jean M. Keneipp. "Parking Demand." In *The
Dimensions of Parking*, 4^th^ edition, Urban Land Institute (ULI), ed.,
11-15. Washington, DC: ULI, 2000.

Schaffner, Bob. "Meters Solve Problems." *The Parking Professional*
(September 1998): 26-30.

Shoup, Donald C. "Buying Time at the Curb." In *The Half-Life of Policy
Rationales: How New Technology Affects Old Policy Issues*. Fred E.
Foldvary and Daniel B. Kahn, eds. (NY: NYU Press, *forthcoming*) --
draft.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "Cashing in on Curb Parking." *Access* (Spring
1994): 20-26.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "The High Cost of Free Parking." *Journal of
Planning Research* 17, 1 (Fall 1997): 3-20.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_."The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements."
*Victoria Transport Policy Institute* (1999).
<http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf>.

Shoup, Donald C., and Don H. Pickrell. \"Problems with Parking
Requirements in Zoning Ordinances.\" *Traffic Quarterly* (October 1978):
545-563.

Smith, Mary S. "Parking Studies." In *The Dimensions of Parking*, 4^th^
edition, Urban Land Institute (ULI), ed., 7-10. Washington, DC: ULI,
2000.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "Zoning Requirements." In *The Dimensions of
Parking*, 4^th^ edition, Urban Land Institute (ULI), ed., 25-31.
Washington, DC: ULI, 2000.

Smith, Thomas P. *Flexible Parking Requirements*. Planning Advisory
Service Report \# 377. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1983.

Starf, James E. "Introduction." In *The Dimensions of Parking*, 4^th^
edition, Urban Land Institute (ULI), ed., 1-5. Washington, DC: ULI,
2000.

Still, Ben, and David Simmonds. "Parking Restraint Policy and Urban
Vitality." Prepared by David Simmonds Consultancy. Cambridge, England.
Also published in *Transport Reviews* 20 (2000): 291-316.
<http://www.ccip.fr/etudes/arch/pdf99/lem9905a.pdf>.

Topp, Hartmut H. "The Role of Parking in Traffic Calming." *World
Transport Policy & Practice* 1, 3 (1995): 17-22.

Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A. "Parking Fare Thresholds: A Policy Tool."
*Transport Policy* 8, 2 (April 2001): 115-124.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
*National Transportation Statistics 2001*.
<http://www.bts.gov/publications/pocketguide/2002/html>.

Vickrey, William. "Principles of Efficient Congestion Pricing."
http://www.vtpi.org/vickrey.htm.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VPTI). "Transportation Cost and
Benefit Analysis -- Parking Costs."
<http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. *Online TDM Encyclopedia*. "Parking Policy
Evaluation." <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm73.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "Parking Management."
<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm28.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "Parking Pricing."
<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm26.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "Parking Solutions."
<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm>.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. "Smart Growth."
<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm38.htm>.

Voith, Richard. "The Downtown Parking Syndrome: Does Curing the Illness
Kill the Patient?" *Business Review* 1 (1998): 3-14.
<http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brjf98dv.pdf>.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WashDOT). Commute Trip
Reduction. "Local Government Parking Policy and Commute Trip Reduction,
1999 Review."
<http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tdm/tripreduction/download/1999_parking_policy_review.pdf>.

**Appendix A. Questionnaire on On-Street Parking Policy, Planning, and
Operations**[^71]

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **[Name and Title of                **[Contact Point for Respondent(s)
  Respondent(s)]{.underline}**        (tel, fax, email)]{.underline}**

  **[Organization and City of         **[Date Survey
  Respondent(s)]{.underline}**        Completed]{.underline}**
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Section A. Base Questions**

**1. Demographics**

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
  a\. What is the resident population of your      [     ]{.underline}
  city?                                            

  b\. What is the daytime (weekday) population of  [     ]{.underline}
  your city?                                       

  c\. How many square miles is your city?          [     ]{.underline}
                                                   mi^2^

  d\. How many square miles is your downtown?[^72] [     ]{.underline}
                                                   mi^2^
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

e\. Please define the geographic boundaries of your downtown. [provide
street limits (north, south, east, west)]{.underline}

f\. By what types of public transit is your city served? (check all that
apply)

commuter rail light rail subways buses other (define)

g\. What percentage of daily trips into the central city utilize public
transit as the main mode of

transport?[     ]{.underline}%

**2. Comparative Data**

  -------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  a\. What is the average fee/fare per day to park off-street in \$[     ]{.underline}
  the downtown area of your city?                                

  b\. What is the average fee/fare for a trip to the downtown    \$[     ]{.underline}
  via transit from other points within the central city?         

  c\. What is the average fee/fare for a trip to the downtown    \$[     ]{.underline}
  via transit from outside the city?                             
  -------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

**3. General Parking Data**

a\. What is the standard length of an on-street meter parking space (in
feet)? [     ]{.underline} ft.

b\. What agency (-ies) and division(s) oversee each of the following
with respect to **on-street** parking?

-   Enforcement [     ]{.underline}

-   Collections [     ]{.underline}

-   Purchasing of Signs and Meters [     ]{.underline}

-   Maintenance of Signs and Meters [     ]{.underline}

c\. What agency (-ies) and division(s) oversee each of the following
with respect to **off-street** parking?

-   Enforcement [     ]{.underline}

-   Collections [     ]{.underline}

-   Purchasing of Signs and Meters [     ]{.underline}

-   Maintenance of Signs and Meters [     ]{.underline}

d\. Please fill in the following grid related to number and type of
parking spaces (if the answer to any category is *insufficient data* or
*not applicable*, please note this specifically).

  ---------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  **Type of Parking      **Number of               **Number of  
  Space**                On-Street                 Off-Street   
                         Spaces**                  Spaces**     

                         City-wide    Down-town    City-wide    Down-town

  **Total Number of                                                  
  Spaces**                                                      

                                                                

  Short-Term Metered                                                 

  Long-Term Metered                                                  

  Commercial Loading                                                 
  Zone                                                          

  Handicapped                                                        

  Residential                                                        
  Preferential                                                  

  Other Non-Metered, but                                             
  Regulated                                                     

  Unregulated                                                        

  Other                                                              
  ---------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

**Section B. On-Street Parking Signs and Technologies**

**1. Signage -- Communication**

a\. What is the main mode of communication utilized for your city's
on-street parking signs?

b\. Do on-street parking-related signs in your city generally
communicate to the individual what **can** or **cannot** be done (e.g.
***No parking 8am*** ***-- 11am*** v. ***Parking 11am -- 5pm***)?

c\. Does your city employ on-street parking signs that show multiple
regulations (i.e. different sign codes) on one sign? Yes No

d\. Does your city employ color coordinated signs for on-street parking?
Yes No

**2. Signage -- Statistics**

a\. What is the total number of signs (excluding traffic regulatory and
traffic warning signs) city-wide? [     ]{.underline}

b\. What is the total number of signs (excluding traffic regulatory and
traffic warning signs) downtown?[     ]{.underline}

c\. How many types of parking signs (i.e. sign codes) does your city
maintain? [     ]{.underline}

d\. What is the average size lettering on on-street parking-related
signs (in inches)? [     ]{.underline} in.

e\. What is the minimum size lettering on on-street parking-related
signs (in inches)? [     ]{.underline} in.

**3. Meters -- Statistics**

a\. Does your city use meters for on-street parking? Yes No

If yes, please fill out the table below. (If no, skip to question 5)

b\. What is the standard meter fee per unit of time (e.g. 25¢ for 15
minutes)? [     ]{.underline}

c\. What are the hours and days of operation of standard meters?
[     ]{.underline}

d\. What is the annual revenue collection from meters (not including
fines)? \$[     ]{.underline}

e\. What is the fine for a meter parking violation? (specify all that
apply) \$[     ]{.underline}

f\. What kinds of problems (if any) have you encountered with the types
of meters currently in use? [     ]{.underline}

g\. How and by whom are the sites of meters determined?
[     ]{.underline}

h\. From where does the funding come for purchasing on-street meters?
[     ]{.underline}

**4. Meters -- Maintenance**

a\. Is maintenance carried out by the city or is it under contract?

b\. Does your city perform routine maintenance/inspections of meters?
Yes No

If yes, how often is each meter routinely visited (excluding
collections)?

c\. How many technicians maintain on-street meters in your city
(excluding collections)?

d\. On average, what percent of your city's meters are working at a
given time? [     ]{.underline}%

How do you measure the accuracy/reliability of the figure above?
[     ]{.underline}

e\. What systems/procedures, if any, do you have in place to alert you
to a problem meter? [     ]{.underline}

f\. Has vandalism ever been a problem in your city? Yes No

If yes, please characterize the following: (If no, skip to question g)

-   What has been the degree of the problem?

-   What types of measures are currently in place or are planned?
    [     ]{.underline}

-   To what degree are current measures helpful?

g\. Has theft of meter revenues ever been a problem in your city? Yes No

If yes, please address the following: (if no, skip to question 5)

-   By whom? general public city staff contracted staff other

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What has been the degree of the problem?

-   What types of measures are currently in place or are planned?
    [     ]{.underline}

-   To what degree are current measures helpful?

**5. Non-Meter Technologies**

a\. What technologies, other than meters, are you aware of that fulfill
functions typically provided by meters? (if none, skip to question 6)
[     ]{.underline}

b\. If your city makes use of any of these technologies, please describe
how and where. [     ]{.underline}

**C. On-Street Curb Management**

**1. General Management Questions**

a\. Does your city make use of value/congestion pricing for on-street
parking? (e.g. changing fee for meters based on time of day; making
meters closer to the downtown more expensive) Yes No

If yes, please describe how and where it is implemented. (if no, skip to
question 2) [     ]{.underline}

b\. What is the standard time limit to park at the curb in your city?

c\. Are there other time limits beyond the standard ones? Yes No

> If yes, for each, please fill in following table: (if no, skip to
> question 4)

**2. Preferential Parking Provisions**

a\. Does your city have residential preferential provisions for
on-street parking? Yes No

If yes, please characterize the following: (if no, skip to question b)

-   What is the fee for use of such spaces? \$[     ]{.underline}

-   How many permits are issued on an annual basis? [     ]{.underline}

-   Where are the spaces located? [     ]{.underline}

-   What is the process for getting such spaces designated and who makes
    the decisions? [     ]{.underline}

-   How are these spaces marked on the street? [     ]{.underline}

-   What is the fine for a parking violation? \$[     ]{.underline}

b\. On-Street Handicap access

-   Do you require individuals with handicap placards/license plates to
    pay meters? Yes No

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Do you recognize handicap placards/license plates from other
    locales? Yes No

-   Do you have specific marked zones along curbs for handicap parking?
    Yes No

-   How are handicap locations determined? [     ]{.underline}

-   What is the fine for a parking violation of a handicap access space?
    \$[     ]{.underline}

-   Please describe any problems with these spaces.[     ]{.underline}

c\. Please fill out the following table on curb loading management
policies for each type that applies to your city.

  ------------------ ------------- -------------- ------------ ------------
                     **Cabs**      **Commercial   **Tour       **Valets**
                                   Loading**      Buses**      

  How long can one                                                  
  use the space?                                               

  What are the hours                                                
  of operation?                                                

  What is the fee                                                   
  for use of the                                               
  space, if any?                                               

  How are the zones                                                 
  marked on the                                                
  street?                                                      

  How are sites                                                     
  determined and who                                           
  decides?                                                     

  What is the fine                                                  
  for a parking                                                
  violation?                                                   

  What problems, if                                                 
  any, are                                                     
  associated with                                              
  these zones?                                                 
  ------------------ ------------- -------------- ------------ ------------

d\. Does your city employ any other types of on-street parking not
previously described? Yes No

If yes, please characterize the following: (If no, proceed to Section C)

-   What are the different type(s) of parking? [     ]{.underline}

-   How many spaces are allocated for each type noted above?
    [     ]{.underline}

-   Where are each of these types used? [     ]{.underline}

-   Why are each of these types used? [     ]{.underline}

**D. Enforcement and Fines**

1\. Please address the following with respect to the division of
responsibilities for enforcement:

-   Is enforcement carried out by the city or is it under contract?

-   Who determines the number of enforcement personnel covering various
    districts? [     ]{.underline}

-   How many people are responsible for writing tickets for on-street
    parking on a given day? [     ]{.underline}

-   What is the ratio of supervisory staff (whom do not write tickets)
    to those writing tickets? [     ]{.underline}

-   What is the average size of a ticketing route (in city blocks)? city
    blocks

-   What is the estimated error rate of ticketing?[^73]

-   How is enforcement carried out? (check all that apply)

> tickets towing boots other (specify) [     ]{.underline}

-   Who tows? [     ]{.underline}

-   Are there different levels of enforcement depending upon the day of
    the week? Yes No

If yes, why?

2\. Please address the following with respect to fine structures.

-   What are the annual revenues collected through on-street parking
    fines? \$[     ]{.underline}

-   What is the collection rate for tickets? (Collection rate defined
    as: For all tickets issued, what is the percentage paid within a
    two-year period?) [     ]{.underline}

-   What regulatory systems/procedures/ordinances are there to increase
    collection rates? [     ]{.underline}

-   How and by whom are the fines determined? [     ]{.underline}

-   How are revenues collected from fines used? [     ]{.underline}

**Section E. Institutional Frameworks and Systems**

1\. Do you meet on a regular basis with a specific well-defined group to
discuss matters related to on-street parking? Yes No

If yes, please describe the following: (if no, skip to question 2)

-   Who (i.e. what agencies, institutions, etc.) is represented in this
    group? [     ]{.underline}

-   How frequent are the interactions?

-   Is the process formalized or does it occur on an ad hoc or
    project-oriented basis?

2\. Which of the following types of information related to on-street
parking does your city have readily available? (if none, proceed to
Section F)

location/description of regulations location/description of asset
inventory other (specify [     ]{.underline})

3\. What form (system type) does the above information take? (check all
that apply)

word processing files spreadsheets paper files

GIS/coordinate database database management system (specify software
platform [     ]{.underline})

other (specify [     ]{.underline})

4\. How frequent are updates performed to the information contained in
the system(s) above?

5\. What degree of confidence do you have in the accuracy of the data
supplied through the system(s) above?

**F. Broad Issues and Trends Associated with On-Street Parking**

1\. Have there been streets in your city where previously
**unregulated** parking was then **regulated**? Yes No

If yes, please address the following: (If no, skip to question 2)

-   When was this done? [     ]{.underline}

-   Why was this done? [     ]{.underline}

-   What was the effect? [     ]{.underline}

-   Was the public informed prior to the changes? [     ]{.underline}

-   What was the public response? [     ]{.underline}

2\. Have there been streets in your city where previously **regulated**
parking was then **unregulated**? Yes No

If yes, please address the following: (If no, skip to question 3)

-   When was this done? [     ]{.underline}

-   Why was this done? [     ]{.underline}

-   What was the effect? [     ]{.underline}

-   Was the public informed prior to the changes? [     ]{.underline}

-   What was the public response? [     ]{.underline}

3\. Please characterize the interplay of on-street parking and land-use
principles and practices in your city.

[     ]{.underline}

4\. Has there been thought given to integrating smart card or similar
technologies so they can be utilized for parking as well as for other
modes of transit? Yes No

If yes, please describe the process and goal. [     ]{.underline}

5\. As a result of September 11, 2001, how many on-street parking spaces
have been lost in your

downtown due to security concerns? [     ]{.underline} How many spaces
lost in your city as a whole? [     ]{.underline}

6\. Please describe what you perceive to be the three most critical
parking problems in your city, providing geographic boundaries where
appropriate. [     ]{.underline}

Thank you.

**Appendix B. Selected Tables of Responses to the Questionnaire**

Note: When reviewing the tables, a / or blank spot denotes lack of
response to a question; i.d. means the city noted insufficient data; and
n.a. means that a particular question is not applicable to that city.

[^1]: ^^ Responding cities included: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los
    Angeles, New York City, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, and
    Washington, DC. See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.

[^2]: [www.census.gov](http://www.census.gov/). Responding cities
    included: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City,
    Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. See the
    Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.

[^3]: Based upon one-on-one discussions with several of the cities that
    participated in this study, a decision was made not to review
    parking geometry (e.g., angle parking, parallel parking,
    perpendicular parking) here. Many of the large central cities have
    streets that have widths too small to consider angle or
    perpendicular parking. Furthermore, since whether angle parking can
    effectively replace parallel parking is very much case specific,
    there was a sense that the cities would not benefit from sharing
    their experiences to the degree that they benefit from discussions
    of other on-street parking-related areas. Should one want to review
    the debates around angle parking, see John D. Edwards, "Changing
    On-Street Parallel Parking to Angle Parking," *ITE Journal* 72,2
    (February 2002): 28-33; and Paul C. Box, "Angle Parking Issues
    Revisited, 2001," *ITE Journal* 73, 3 (March 2002): 36-47. Also,
    Department for Transport, Local Governments, and Regions, *Better
    Places to Live By Design: A Companion Guide to PPG3*, ch. 5, section
    4, <http://www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/betrplac/pdf/cha5_4.pdf>.

[^4]: According to the 2000 Census,
    [www.census.gov](http://www.census.gov/), resident populations in
    the nine cities are: Boston (589,141); Chicago (2,896,016); Dallas
    (1,188,580); Los Angeles (3,694,820); New York City (8,008,278);
    Phoenix (1,321,045); Portland (529,121); San Francisco (776,773);
    and Washington, DC (571,822).

[^5]: Boston (50 mi^2^); Chicago (228 mi^2^); Dallas (384 mi^2^); Los
    Angeles (472 mi^2^); New York City (322 mi^2^); Phoenix (485 mi^2^);
    Portland (145 mi^2^); San Francisco (47 mi^2^); and Washington, DC
    (61 mi^2^).

[^6]: See Appendix B, p. B-1.

[^7]: One study that does provide comparison across cities is Gerard
    C.S. Mildner, James G. Strathman, and Martha J. Bianco," Travel and
    Parking Behavior in the United States," Discussion Paper No. DP96-7,
    Center for Urban Studies (December 1996),
    <http://www.architect.org/liveablecities/parkingus.pdf>. The study
    surveyed 20 central cities, 7 of which are included in the current
    study as well.

[^8]: Given the paucity of literature related directly to on-street
    parking, the following section draws heavily upon the more extensive
    body of literature related to off-street parking.

[^9]: Richard Voith, "The Downtown Parking Syndrome: Does Curing the
    Illness Kill the Patient?" *Business Review* (January/February
    1998): 4.

[^10]: Donald C. Shoup, "The High Cost of Free Parking," *Journal of
    Planning Research* 17, 1 (Fall 1997),
    <http://docs.vircomnet.com/mobility/parking_vc/1.htm>, p. 1.

[^11]: Ben Still and David Simmonds, "Parking Restraint Policy and Urban
    Vitality," Prepared by David Simmonds Consultancy, (Cambridge,
    England), p. 2. Also published in *Transport Reviews* 20 (2000):
    291-316, <http://www.ccip.fr/etudes/arch/pdf99/lem9905a.pdf>. For
    further discussion on how changes in transportation costs affect
    travel behavior, land use, and development, see Terry Moore and Paul
    Thorsnes, *The Transportation/Land Use Connection*, Planning
    Advisory Service Report #449/449 (Chicago: American Planning
    Association, 1994).

[^12]: For a descriptive history of the evolution of the garage concept
    and design, see James E. Starf, "Introduction," In *The Dimensions
    of Parking*, 4^th^ edition (Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute,
    2000), pp. 1-5.

[^13]: Washington State Department of Transportation (WashDOT), Commute
    Trip Reduction, "Local Government Parking Policy and Commute Trip
    Reduction, 1999 Review," p. 4.
    <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tdm/tripreduction/download/1999_parking_policy_review.pdf>.

[^14]: Moore and Thorsnes, *The Transportation/Land Use Connection*,
    chapter 1.

[^15]: See Mary S. Smith, "Zoning Requirements," in *The Dimensions of
    Parking*, pp. 25-31, for a discussion on the inability to transfer
    local off-street parking regulations from one locale to another. For
    a discussion of the factors involved in determining the appropriate
    ratio for off-street parking, see Thomas P. Smith, *Flexible Parking
    Requirements*, Planning Advisory Service Report #377 (Chicago: APA,
    1983), especially chapters 1-3. Also see . Also see Todd Litman,
    "Pavement Busters Guide: Why and How to Reduce the Amount of Land
    Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities," Victoria Transport Policy
    Institute (January 2000), <http://www.vtpi.org/pav-bust.pdf>, and
    Gerald Salzman and Jean M. Keneipp, "Parking Demand," in *The
    Dimensions of Parking*, pp. 11-15.

[^16]: See Smith, *Flexible Parking Requirements*, especially chapter 1;
    also, WashDOT, "Local Government Parking Policy and Commute Trip
    Reduction," p. 5.

[^17]: Donald C. Shoup and Don H. Pickrell, \"Problems with Parking
    Requirements in Zoning Ordinances,\" *Traffic Quarterly* (October
    1978): 545-563.

[^18]: Smith, *Flexible Parking Requirements*.

[^19]: Donald C. Shoup, "The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements,"
    Victoria Transport Policy Institute (1999), p. 1,
    <http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf>; Shoup, "The High Cost of Free
    Parking."

[^20]: Shoup, "The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements" and "The
    High Cost of Free Parking." Also see Litman, "Pavement Busters
    Guide."

[^21]: See Shoup, "The High Cost of Free Parking," and Litman, "Pavement
    Busters Guide," p. 7.

[^22]: Shoup, "The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements," p. 23.

[^23]: Both types of variable pricing, these terms are often
    interchanged, but have slightly different meanings. Value pricing
    means charging for something of additional worth; congestion pricing
    means charging to reduce the number of vehicles. While some variable
    pricing programs have aspects of both congestion and value pricing,
    they are distinct. For more, see C. Kenneth Orski, "Charging for the
    Use of Roads," *Transportation Quarterly* 56, 3 (Summer 2002):
    33-35.

[^24]: WashDOT, "Local Government Parking Policy and Commute Trip
    Reduction," p. 4.

[^25]: Mary S. Smith, "Parking Studies," In *The Dimensions of Parking*,
    p. 7.

[^26]: Voith, "The Downtown Parking Syndrome.

[^27]: Peer-to-peer exchange session on on-street parking, facilitated
    by the Rudin Center, and held in Boston, MA, 12 June 2002.

[^28]: Hartmutt H. Topp, "The Role of Parking in Traffic Calming,"
    *World Transport Policy & Practice* 1, 3 (1995): 17-18.

[^29]: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Principal Means of
    Transportation to Work,"
    [www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts.ch1-web/1-32.htm](http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts.ch1-web/1-32.htm).

[^30]: Martha J. Bianco, Kenneth J. Dueker, and James G. Strathman,
    "Parking Strategies to Attract Auto Users to Transit," Presented at
    the Transportation Research Board, 77^th^ Annual Meeting,
    Washington, DC (January 11-15, 1998), p. 1.

[^31]: Mildner, et al., "Travel and Parking Behavior in the United
    States," p. 11.

[^32]: Erik Ferguson, "Office Development, Parking Management, and
    Travel Behavior: The Case of Midtown Atlanta," *Journal of
    Transportation and Statistics* (May 1999): 1.

[^33]: Moore and Thorsnes, *The Transportation/Land Use Connection*, p.
    2.

[^34]: Appendix B, p. B-18.

[^35]: Ibid., p. B-3 and B-4.

[^36]: Appendix B, p. B-16 and B-17.

[^37]: Personal Communication, Thomas Kadzis, 11 December 2002.

[^38]: Appendix B, pp. B-10, B11, B-12.

[^39]: Ibid., pp. B-10 and B-11, and personal communications.

[^40]: Based on the discussion during the peer-to-peer exchange session,
    Boston, MA, June 12, 2002.

[^41]: Based on the discussion during the peer-to-peer exchange session,
    Boston, MA, June 12, 2002.

[^42]: Appendix B, p. B-9.

[^43]: "New York City Cuts Parking Pass Perks for City Officials,"
    *Parking Today* 7, 5 (May 2002): 18.

[^44]: Mildner, et al., Travel and Parking Behavior in the United
    States."

[^45]: Halifax Regional Municipality, Engineering and Transportation
    Services, "On Street Parking Policy for Residential Streets," Draft
    Document (February 2001),
    [www.region.halifax.ns.ca/traffic/Reports/ONSTREET.pdf](http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/traffic/Reports/ONSTREET.pdf).

[^46]: See Appendix B, p. B-9.

[^47]: Appendix B, p. B-2.

[^48]: Ibid., p. B-8.

[^49]: Ibid., p. B-4.

[^50]: Ibid. Also based on the discussion during the peer-to-peer
    exchange session, Boston, MA, June 12, 2002

[^51]: Ibid., p. B-20.

[^52]: Neal Podmore, "Pay to Park With Your Mobile Phone," *Parking
    Today* 7, 5 (May 2002): 26-27. The company that developed this
    technology is Verrus, Vancouver, BC, Canada. See
    <http://canes.verrus.com/default.asp?ctState=prMain> for more
    information.

[^53]: Shoup, "Buying Time at the Curb," In *The Half-Life of Policy
    Rationales: How New Technology Affects Old Policy Issues*, eds. Fred
    E. Foldvary and Daniel B. Klein (NY: NYU Press, *forthcoming*), pp.
    10-11. A draft of the article was used for this report.

[^54]: Ibid.

[^55]: Appendix B, p. B-4.

[^56]: Appendix B, p. B-14.

[^57]: Ibid., p. B-13. Errors occur for a number of reasons, including
    entering incorrect information about location, vehicle, date or time
    on the ticket or writing illegibly, for example.

[^58]: Appendix B, p. B-14.

[^59]: Personal Communication, Thomas Kadzis, 6 August 2002.

[^60]: Ibid., p. B-5.

[^61]: Appendix B, p. B-6.

[^62]: Ibid., p. B-4.

[^63]: Appendix B, p. B-4.

[^64]: "Denver's Unloved Parking Meter Plan Expires," *Parking Today* 7,
    5 (May 2002): 30.

[^65]: "Parking Meters Cause Flap in Houston," *Parking Today* 7, 5 (May
    2002): 41.

[^66]: For examples of some of the more navigable sites that have a good
    deal of information, see <http://nyc.gov/html/dof/html/parknyc.html>
    for New York City; <http://www.lacity-parking.org/> for Los Angeles,
    [http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Revenue/Parking/Parking.html](http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Revenue/Parking/ParkingFAQ.html)
    for Chicago; and
    <http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/parking.asp> for Boston.

[^67]: See <http://www.slb.com/Hub/Docs/SchlumbergerSema/> for
    information on the company.

[^68]: Based on the discussion during the peer-to-peer exchange session,
    Boston, mA, June 12, 2002.

[^69]: Personal communication, John Girardi, 12 December 2002.

[^70]: During July 23-24, 2002, the Federal Highway Administration held
    the session, "Linking Planning and Management and Operations in
    Metropolitan Areas," in Chicago, IL. The topic of smart cards was
    discussed and there was genuine concern among the participants
    (drawn from city and state department of transportation or public
    works and from the local metropolitan planning organizations) that
    some standard be developed soon so as not to preclude the
    possibility of integrating transportation across the country.

[^71]: ^●^ ***Note that where a double underline appears, the
    participants were provided with a drop down box with choices.***

[^72]: ^\*^ For the purposes of this document, "downtown" is defined as
    the area of your city that includes the Central Business District as
    well as high-density commercial, institutional, retail, and
    residential development.

[^73]: ^\*^ For the purposes of this document, "error rate" is defined
    as the number of tickets for which legally-required data fields have
    incomplete, incorrect, or illegible data.