|
Charging for Parking in Suburban Areas: Case Studies of Worksites in King County, Wash
Click HERE for graphic. Charging for Parking in Suburban Areas: Case Studies of Worksites in King County, Washington February 1995 Acknowledgments This document was produced by staff of the Market Development section of King County's Department of Metropolitan Services. Diana Ehrlich and Eileen Kadesh were the key staff members responsible for this project, working under the direction of William T. Roach, supervisor. The project team wishes to thank the participating employers and the Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) that took the time to answer questions for the study. Questions concerning the study or requests for additional copies of this report may be directed to Metro's Market Development section at 689-3453. Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 BACKGROUND Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Research Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ANALYSIS Context for the Implementation of a Parking Fee . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overall Trends and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 CASE STUDIES Cellular One Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Children's Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 City of Bellevue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 North Seattle Community College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Olin Aerospace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 PacifiCare of Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Sverdrup Corporation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Executive Summary An increasing number of suburban employers are implementing employee parking fees. The fees are motivated by a variety of factors, including trip reduction ordinances, parking shortages and changes in worksite location. However, very little data exists that would help a suburban employer start such a parking pricing program. To assist employers in successfully implementing an employee parking fee, Metro's Market Development section conducted a study of suburban employers in King County, Washington that currently charge employees for parking. The objectives of this study were: - To develop a source of information to assist suburban employers in implementing an employee parking fee. - To dispel misconceptions held by suburban employers regarding employee parking fees. - To outline effective strategies for implementing an employee parking fee. - To document the experiences of suburban employers that currently have an employee parking fee, with one goal being to update this information in the future. A total of seven employers participated in this study. Interviews were conducted from September, 1994 through December, 1994. Each employer's parking fee had been in place at least nine months; therefore, the full impact of the parking fees could be assessed. The following are the major findings from this study: - The range of parking fees is $5.00/month to $50.00/month, including surface, above ground and below ground parking. - Implementing a parking fee can ease parking shortages. - Only one of the three unionized employers faced strong union opposition to the parking fee. - In only one case studied did employees have a strong negative reaction to the parking fee. In three cases there was no reaction at all. - Five of the seven employers in this study have met their 1995 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) goal which mandates a reduction of their SOV rate by 15% below the 1993 SOV rate for the surrounding area. This report analyzes several issues that affect the success of a suburban employer's employee parking fee, makes recommendations for other employers considering an employee parking fee, and presents seven case studies of suburban employers that currently have an employee parking fee. 1 Recommendations 1) Implement the parking fee with ridesharing incentives to soften the blow on employees. Incentives such as a "FlexPass" program, free parking for ridesharers, a transit pass subsidy, and Home Free Guarantee are examples of incentives that can help employees accept a parking fee. 2) Provide a transportation allowance. A transportation allowance makes the choice between paying for parking and using a less expensive alternative mode of transportation a conscious one. A transportation allowance is a salary increase provided to all employees or to employees who do not drive alone. The parking fee should be high enough so that the out-of-pocket cash required to make up the difference between the transportation allowance and the parking fee serves as a disincentive to park. Employees who don't drive alone may pocket the cash. 3) Use an employee transportation committee for the development of the parking fee. Employees are more likely to accept a parking fee if they feel their interests have been represented in the process. They are also more likely to accept a bottom- up approach to the parking fee than a directive from management. 4) Support the parking fee with monitoring and enforcement. There are a number of options for tracking the use of parking by employees, including a private parking operator, building management staff, and use of an encoded key card and parking arm system. 5) Communicate with employees. Let employees know why the company had to implement the fee and point out the environmental/social benefits. Take time to explain the fee and the reason(s) for the fee as many times as necessary. Listen to employee concerns and objections. 6) Base the parking fee on the cost of providing ridesharing incentives and what is appropriate for the area in which the employer is located. If there is no market rate in the surrounding area the fee should be based on other factors, such as the cost of providing rideshare incentives and the cost of operating the parking program. In addition to recouping some of the cost of providing employee parking, the parking fee can be used to fund a more comprehensive trip reduction program. 7) Apply the fee to all employees equally. If top management is exempt from the fee, a negative message is sent to employees paying the fee and may result in equity problems. 8) Empower the ETC to go to management with the committee's ideas and be taken seriously. 3 9) Gain visible support from top management. Support from top management will make the job of the ETC much easier and the parking fee more successful. 10) If an environmental ethic or community ethic exists within the organization, use it as a vehicle to gain employee acceptance of the parking fee. 11) Use a newsletter. A newsletter helps keep employees informed and puts the program in a positive light. 4 Click HERE for graphic. Introduction Topic of Research This study is an attempt to document the experiences of suburban employers in King County, Washington that have implemented an employee parking fee. It seeks to provide suburban employers with information on what other suburban employers have done, what has been successful, and what has not. Nationwide, there are very few suburban employers with an employee parking fee; therefore, little data exists that would help a suburban employer start such a program. Suburban areas differ from central business districts (CBDs) in their parking characteristics. In the suburbs, parking subsidies are more widespread, but the value of the subsidy is usually less. Often, a market rate for parking does not exist and jurisdiction parking codes force developers to supply more parking than is demanded. For suburban sites with parking charges, spillover parking, commuters parking on-street or in other off-street facilities away from the main site, is a common problem. Additionally, transit service is usually less frequent and less accessible. In short, there are fewer alternatives available for suburban commuters and multiple incentives to drive alone.1 Implementing a parking fee in suburban areas can involve a number of obstacles. Yet, there are excellent reasons why employers need to tackle these problems and reduce or eliminate employee parking subsidies. Why is This Topic Being Addressed? CTR Law Over 500 companies in King County are affected by the Commute Trip Reduction law and are beginning to complete the second round of state surveys. Those employers that do not meet the 1995 goal of a 15% reduction in SOV rate below the 1993 SOV rate of their surrounding areas will have to make adjustments to their CTR programs. An employee parking fee is the most effective strategy an employer can use to reduce its SOV rate.2 After the results from the 1995 CTR survey are in, many employers will be considering an employee parking fee as a means of reducing their SOV rates. The Need for Employer Education In the past, employers have cited a variety of reasons to continue subsidizing employee parking. Many of these concerns, however, are based on inadequate information or a failure to explore fully the wide range of solutions available. The following are myths that are contrary to the experiences of the employers in this study3 - If employers charge for parking, employees will quit! - Charging for parking is an administrative burden. ___________________________ 1 Richard Wilson, Suburban Parking Economics and Policy: Case Studies of Office Worksites in Southern California, September 1992, p. 1. 2 Comsis Corporation, "Technical Memorandum 2: Calibration Results", July 1990, pp. 416-417. 3 Metro, "Managing Employee Parking in a Changing Market", November 1993 pp. 10-11. 5 - Employers are unable to get a parking fee into union contracts. - A parking management program would not be successful in the suburbs because there are inadequate commuting alternatives for employees. - No other suburban employers charge for parking. - Employers cannot combat the problem of employees parking for free on the street. The Cost of Providing Employee Parking Employers spend a tremendous amount of money on parking. Costs associated with parking include construction, maintenance and taxes. A surface parking stall of 320 square feet in a suburban area would cost between $960 and $2,240 per space.4 Even when parking is leased and parking costs are not separated out in the lease, these costs are accounted for in higher rental rates. Employer-subsidized parking indicates to employees that parking is free. Research has shown that free parking at work is a stronger incentive to drive alone than if employers offered free use of an automobile and free gasoline for employees' work trips5 Research Objectives This research was carried out for four primary reasons: - To give suburban employers an information resource on the implementation of an employee parking fee. - To dispel misconceptions held by suburban employers regarding employee parking fees. - To outline what strategies have worked for other suburban employers that have implemented an employee parking fee. - To document the experiences of those employers, with one goal being to update this information in the future. ___________________________ 4 Metro, "Managing Employee Parking in a Changing Market", November 1993, p. 2. 5 Don Pickrell, "Federal Tax Policy and Employer Subsidized Parking", a white paper prepared for the Commuter Parking Symposium in Seattle, Washington, December 6-7, 1990. 6 Research Development Company Selection The participants selected for this study were employers in suburban King County that currently have an employee parking fee. For the purpose of this study, a suburban employer was defined as an employer located outside a central business district (CBD) in an area without a market rate for parking. A comprehensive list of suburban employers with a parking fee was developed through the use of Metro's CTR database and inquiries with Metro's Employer Transportation Representatives. Because the sample of employers was small, all but one of the nine employers on the list were contacted.6 This group represented several types of businesses in various parts of suburban King County. Seven out of the eight original employers agreed to participate in the study. An attempt was made to include suburban employers with an employee parking fee from other places in the country in this study, in particular the Southern California and Washington, D.C. areas. Calls were made to parking experts throughout the country to locate suburban employers with an employee parking fee, with little success. The difficulty in finding additional case study examples indicates a lack of information and knowledge about suburban employers that have implemented an employee parking fee. Data Collection Three sets of questions were developed to collect the following information: - Site, employer and employee characteristics - Parking rates/parking supply/parking utilization - Motivation for instituting the parking fee - Introduction of parking fee to employees - Demand management programs accompanying the fee - Methods of administering the parking fee - Changes in commute patterns - Overall success of the parking fee from the company's perspective - Company recommendations for other suburban employers considering implementing a parking fee The first set of questions is quantitative and is related to the site's accessibility to alternate modes of transportation and commute trip reduction program. The second set of questions is an "Employer Profile" which was sent out to the ETCs. This information was collected before the in-person interview and was used to set the context in which the parking fee was implemented. The "Employer Profile" requests information on business and employee characteristics, site characteristics and parking characteristics. The last set ___________________________ 6 McCaw Cellular Communications at Carillon Point was not contacted due to internal restructuring at that time. 7 of questions directly relates to the employee parking fee and was used during a one hour, in-person interview with each company's ETC. Research Approach This study includes seven suburban employers in King County. Each employer is treated as a case study and comparative analyses are performed. The case study analysis is directed toward addressing questions in four main areas: - Employer, site, and parking characteristics that facilitate or inhibit the success of a parking fee. - Impact of parking fee on employee mode choice. - Methods of implementing a parking fee. - Employee acceptance of a parking fee. Although the sample of employers was not large enough to conduct statistical analyses, comparative analyses are performed on the following issues: - Level of parking fee - Relationship between parking shortages and parking fee - Role of unions/unionized employees in the implementation of a parking fee - Methods of monitoring employee parking - Impact of providing alternatives with a parking fee - Opportunities to recoup some of the cost of providing employee parking - Methods of administering a parking fee - Role of employee transportation committees - Employee reaction to a parking fee - Impact of parking fee on SOV rates 8 Click HERE for graphic. Context for the Implementation of a Parking Fee Parking Characteristics Given that the ultimate goal of a parking fee is to reduce the number of employees driving alone, a site's parking characteristics will have an impact on the success of an employee parking fee. Parking characteristics include: - Number of parking spaces and ratio of spaces to employees - Existence of free on-street parking close to the site - Level of parking fee - Type of parking (owned or leased) - Number of HOV reserved spaces - Total annual cost of providing employee parking The number of parking spaces, the existence of free on-street parking close to the site, level of parking fee, and number of HOV spaces will act either as an obstacle to or a facilitator of the employee parking fee. Excess parking encourages employees to drive alone, while tighter parking encourages ridesharing, walking, bicycling and transit use. Likewise, free on-street parking adjacent to the site will encourage employees to drive alone and park off-site. Strategies are discussed in the analysis section of this report to deal with this problem. The higher the parking fee, the more likely employees will respond to it by taking an alternate mode of travel to work. Finally, HOV reserved spaces will act as an incentive to rideshare, especially in cases where parking is tight. (See Table 1 for the parking characteristics of the employment sites participating in this study.) Site Characteristics Other characteristics of a worksite will also have an impact on the success of an employee parking fee. Site characteristics include: - Whether the building is owned or leased - Whether the site is a single or multi-tenant site - The length of time the employer has been at the site - The gross square footage of the site - Existence of food services on-site - Whether the site is conditioned by a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) - The distance between the site and the nearest transit stop - The number of transit routes serving the site - The quality of pedestrian and bicycle access to the site The existence of food or other services on-site reduces the need for employees to use a car during their shifts in order to eat. Having food services or other services within walking distance of the site also reduces the need for an automobile during work hours. Transportation Management Plans (TMPs) require developers to implement a trip reduction program and site design elements to reduce the number of employees that drive 9 alone. These site design elements in combination with the trip reduction program support the implementation of a parking fee. The number of transit routes serving the site and the proximity of the transit stops to the site are important indicators of the availability of transit. If a transit stop is within 1/4 mile of the site and if the site is served by at least one route during peak hours, with headways of 30 minutes or less, transit may be a reasonable alternative for employees. However, it is important that the site also have good pedestrian and bicycle access so that employees taking transit may safely walk from the transit stop to the site. The presence of transit as a commute alternative in addition to ridesharing and good pedestrian and bicycle access will support the implementation of an employee parking fee. (See Table 2 for the site characteristics of the employment sites participating in this study.) Business/Employee Characteristics Business and employee characteristics also influence the percentage of employees that drive to work alone in spite of a parking fee. Business and employee characteristics include: - Type of business - Employee workshifts - Job classifications - Percentage of employees who need their cars for work purposes - Percentage of employees that are unionized - Whether the employer is a member of an Employer Network Group or Transportation Management Association (TMA) Depending upon the type of business and employee job classifications, employees may need to use a car for work purposes. Some companies are able to provide a fleet of vehicles for employees to use for work. If not, employees may need to drive their own vehicles to work. Companies with a large number of employees in sales or professional positions may find that employees travel more than companies with a large number of employees in manufacturing or administrative support. Employee workshifts will also impact the accessibility of alternate modes in commuting to work. Some companies have shifts running 24 hours each day. Employees arriving at work or departing from work outside peak commuting hours may not feel safe waiting for the bus, walking or bicycling to work. These are additional factors which may cause employees to drive to work alone in spite of an employee parking fee. (See Table 3 for the business and employee characteristics of the companies participating in this study. 10 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 13 Overall Trends and Conclusions Level of Parking Fee Establishing the Level of Parking Fee: Because there is no market rate for parking in the suburban areas of the Puget Sound region except for downtown Bellevue and those rates established by the few sites in this study, the employers involved in this study based their parking fees on the following: - Negotiation with building management - A survey of nearby employers with a parking fee or a survey of the amount paid out-of-pocket for parking by employees in the closest central business district (CBD). - The cost of constructing employee parking. - The cost of maintaining and operating employee parking. - The cost of operating an employee transportation program. - A requirement of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) - An arbitrary rate decision. How Much Should Be Charged? The range of parking fees is $5.00/month to $50.00/month, including surface, above ground and below ground facilities. The key question is, how much is enough to cause a mode shift? What should employers charge to get employees to begin thinking about alternatives? Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to these questions. The answer depends upon: - Availability of incentives and alternatives. - Availability of free parking on adjacent streets. - Degree to which employees are accustomed to free parking at the site, and - Nature of employees' occupations. For example, Olin Aerospace Corporation has a $5.00 per month parking fee. Its SOV rate dropped from approximately 90% to 67%.11 Carpoolers receive free parking, but no other incentives have been implemented to date. However, there is no free parking on adjacent streets and employees have reacted strongly to paying for parking, regardless of the low rate. The dramatic mode shift with such a low fee may be explained by the strong environmental ethic at Olin Aerospace. Cellular One Communications charges employees $30/month for surface parking and $50/month for reserved garage parking. Since the inception of the parking fee in 1993, Cellular One's SOV rate has dropped to 71%. Cellular One has no initial SOV rate for comparison, but the ETC felt the drop was significant. Cellular One also stressed the environmental impacts of driving alone and called for employees to work together to make the transportation program work. This approach has been successful. In addition, there is only metered parking available on adjacent streets. ___________________________ 11 Olin Aerospace has based its SOV rate on the number of CTR affected employees that fill out and turn in a carpooling form. No monitoring is done to verify that these employees actually carpool. 15 The Issue of Equity The parking fee should be applied to everyone equally, regardless of position within the company. The occurrence of upper level employees driving company cars and being exempt from the parking fee sends a negative message to those paying the parking fee. This may cause equity problems. In the Sverdrup Corporation case study, lower level employees have complained about this type of policy, yet they have had no response from management. Company Commitment to the Fee An employer may choose to implement a parking fee incrementally or all at once. In either case, unless the parking fee is permanent, even if only for new employees, it will not provide the incentive needed for employees to shift to an alternate mode of commuting to work. In the example of PacifiCare, the parking fee applies to only new employees for a period of one year. PacifiCare also has the highest SOV rate of all the employers in this study. Because employees know they have to pay the fee only for one year, it has had almost no effect on mode choice. The Relationship Between Parking Shortages and Parking Fees Parking fees can help employers avoid the need to build or lease additional employee parking spaces. Three of the seven employers in this study have had to lease or build additional parking spaces for employees in the past. Two employers in this study implemented a parking fee in order to mitigate a parking shortage and avoid having to supply additional employee parking. Although the ratio of spaces to employees may indicate a parking shortage, the statistic does not factor in the number of employees taking an alternate mode of transportation to work. Since implementing their parking fees, Olin Aerospace, City of Bellevue, Sverdrup Corporation, and Cellular One Communications always have empty parking spaces. Union Issues Three employers in this study have unionized employees: Children's Hospital, City of Bellevue, and North Seattle Community College. In the case of North Seattle Community College (NSCC), the two unions did not protest the parking fee. The following describe the circumstances in which NSCC's fee was implemented: - Only 5% of employees are unionized. - Employees unionized two years after the parking fee was implemented. - Employees were not accustomed to having free parking at the site; the fee was associated with the opening of the College. - The parking fee was relatively inexpensive. - The fee was not considered a controversial issue. 16 The City of Bellevue faced strong opposition to the fee from its five unions. The following describe the circumstances in which the fee was implemented: - 48% of employees are unionized. - Employees were accustomed to free parking - The fee was not associated with a move or opening of a new site. - Unions asked for equivalent salary increases; the City turned them down. - The City held strongly to the policy that all employees pay the fee with no exceptions; the fee is now in each union's contract. - The Police Union pays the fee for all its members. Approximately 26% of Children's Hospital's employees are unionized. Because the fee was tied to the construction of employee parking, there was no union opposition. The following are suggestions for approaching unions about a parking fee: - Inform unions early about changes in parking policies. - Talk to them in advance of the issue being decided. - Educate unions about the goals of the Commute Trip Reduction law and parking management. - Appoint a union representative to the Employee Transportation Committee, if one is used. Alternatives for Monitoring Depend Upon Workshifts For daytime and early evening workshifts, the following may be options for monitoring parking lot(s): - A private parking operator. - Building management staff. - An encoded key card and parking arm system to track the use of parking by employees. If employee workshifts occur during the day and at night, a site will need an encoded key card and parking arm system in order to track the use of parking by employees. For example, Sverdrup Corporation uses a parking arm and key card that relays information to the ETC. The ETC is able to track who parks in the lot, how many times per month. Each carpool has one key card and transit users do not have a key card. Metro is currently testing debit card technology for its ability to monitor parking usage.12 Provision of Alternatives with the Parking Fee Flexibility and the availability of alternatives are important determinants of the level of impact a parking fee will have on mode choice. Most of the employers in this study offered transit and ridesharing incentives to employees at the same time they implemented ___________________________ 12 Employers interested in Metro's parking debit demonstration project may contact Bethany Whitaker at 684-1613. 17 the parking fee. In cases where no incentives were introduced with the fee, it was due to one or more of the following circumstances: - The parking fee was associated with the opening of or a move to a new site, so employees were not accustomed to free parking. - The fee was associated with the construction of an employee parking garage. - Incentives were implemented one year before the parking fee in order to get employees motivated in a positive way. - The parking fee was put in place before the Commute Trip Reduction law was passed and was not initially linked to the reduction of single-occupant vehicles. Parking fees should not be implemented in isolation, but should be included in a comprehensive trip reduction program. Without sufficient alternatives, unhappy employees will continue to drive alone to work. The parking fee should be coupled with other alternatives. For example, Cellular One Communications added the amount of the parking fee to the paychecks of its employees. This addition acted as a transportation allowance. Employees could choose to spend the money on parking or pocket it for their own personal use. One year later Cellular One raised the parking fee but not employees' paychecks, for a net fee of $10.00/month. In addition, Cellular One began the following incentives at the same time it introduced the parking fee: - Free parking for carpools/vanpools - Ferry, transit, and vanpool subsidies of $57.50/month - Ridematch services Flexibility is also important. The City of Bellevue issues coupons each quarter to employees who rideshare and need to drive their cars on an occasional basis. There are times employees may need their cars for an unusual circumstance. Allowing them to do so a limited number of times per month relieves much apprehension about committing to participate in the trip reduction program and gives them the flexibility to accommodate their individual needs. Providing Employee Parking is Expensive Of the seven employers in this study, the total annual cost of providing parking ranges from $6,000 to $248,200. The opportunity cost of subsidized parking includes the items which the company could have purchased with the funds spent on providing free parking, including on-site daycare, employee amenities, and transportation alternatives for employees. Companies that own their own sites may recoup some of the cost of maintaining lot(s) through the parking fee. Companies that lease their parking and do not pay a separate charge for parking in their leases may be able to gain more control over the number of parking spaces assigned to them by building management. This change can save a significant amount of money. For example, after the parking fee was in place, Sverdrup Corporation renegotiated the parking provisions in its lease with Skinner Development to reduce the number of spaces it leases. 18 Administration of the Parking Fee All the employees in this study administer their parking fees through computerized payroll deduction. One of the seven also gives employees the option of writing checks for parking each month. The initial effort and time spent on developing a payroll deduction system may be substantial. This includes getting the system organized and making sure employees are getting billed properly. However, after the system is in place, time and effort for administration is limited to occasional changes. Research shows that some companies believe employees are more aware of the amount they pay for parking if they are required to write separate checks each pay period or each month rather than having the fee taken out of their checks automatically. This may encourage an even greater mode shift. Regardless of the system used, ideally revenue from the parking fee should exceed the cost of administering the parking program in order to fund alternate transportation options. Employee Transportation Committees Only two of the seven employers in this study utilized employee transportation committees in developing their parking fees. However, they felt strongly that the experience was successful and should be used by employers considering a parking fee. The City of Bellevue's Employee Transportation Committee represented the various departments at the City and served the following purposes: - Provided a sounding board for management's ideas - Served as a body to generate new ideas - Provided a public relations vehicle for the transportation plan According to the City of Bellevue's ETC, the most valuable aspects of the Committee were its ideas and ability to act as a public relations body. The Employee Transportation Committee gave the City 20 employees willing to defend the parking fee. Members explained the reasoning behind the fee and the administration of the parking program to other employees. Although the City's employees opposed the parking fee, they appreciated the "bottom-up" approach of an employee committee. A smaller version of the Committee is still intact today. Olin Aerospace ETC John Knapp stated that forming the Commute Trip Reduction Planning Committee was the smartest thing he could have done for the parking program. His committee included a wide range of participants, including: - Representatives from the Facilities Department - A cost accountant with financial expertise - Representatives from management 19 - Interested employees - Company attorneys Similar to the City of Bellevue case, Olin's Committee gave Knapp employees willing to defend the parking fee and willing to act as a public relations body to get buy-off from other employees. It met once per month for a period of one year and then disbanded. The role and level of autonomy of the Employee Transportation Committee should be well defined. Is the Committee meant to be a sounding board for management's ideas or may it also generate ideas of its own? If given some autonomy, an employee committee gives employees a voice and makes them feel that their interests are being represented. In these cases, the ETC should be able to take the committee's ideas to management. Members of an Employee Transportation Committee should include the following, if possible: - A representative from each of a wide range of departments. - A representative from the department responsible for the parking facilities. - A representative with a financial/cost-accounting background. - A representative from each union. Employee Reaction Of the seven employers participating in this study, in only one case did employees have a strong negative reaction. North Seattle Community College No reaction: - Fee associated with opening of the college. - Employees not accustomed to free parking. - Fee relatively inexpensive. PacifiCare of Washington No reaction: - Fee only affected new employees. - Fee only for one year. - Free parking is an earned benefit. City of Bellevue Negative reaction: - Employees disagreed with comparison to CBD employees in totally different worksites. - Employees felt that non-CBD sites should not have to pay for parking. Sverdrup Corporation Mixed reaction, overall taken well: - Associated parking with move to new site. - Accustomed to free parking. 20 Children's Hospital No reaction: - Fee tied to cost of providing additional employee parking. Olin Aerospace Corporation Mixed reaction, overall taken well: - Small minority of employees strongly objected to the charge because it infringed on their personal rights. Cellular One Communications Mixed reaction, overall taken well: - Employees adapted to fee after initial grumbling. Steps can be taken to soften the blow of a parking fee on employees. See the Overall Recommendations section at the beginning of this document for strategies that may be used. Impact on SOV Rate Parking pricing is the most cost-effective demand management strategy to reduce trips.13 Research has shown that there is a strong relationship between the cost of parking and employee mode choice. Five of the seven employers in this study have met their 1995 CTR goal. These include: Children's Hospital, the City of Bellevue, Cellular One Communications, Sverdrup Corporation and Olin Aerospace.14 For the remaining employers, PacifiCare of Washington and North Seattle Community College, there are other reasons (a low fee, a temporary fee) that explain the fact that the employee parking fee did not have a significant impact on their SOV rates. ___________________________ 13 JHK & Associates, Cost Effectiveness Study of TSM Measures in Suburban Settings, March 1992, p. 5-2. 14 Olin Aerospace has based its SOV rate on the number of CTR affected employees who fill out and turn in a carpooling form. No monitoring is done to verify that these employees actually carpool. 21 Click HERE for graphic. Cellular One Communications Type of Business: Telecommunications 1995 SOV Mode Split: 71% Location: Seattle, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 74% Number of Employees: 321 Number of Carpools: 25 ETC: Deb Wilson Amount of Parking Fee: $50/month covered parking, $30/month uncovered parking. Year Implemented: 1993 Motivation for Program: The parking fee was implemented to meet the requirements of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law and to mitigate a shortage of parking. Level of Parking Fee: Deb Wilson, Cellular One's ETC, worked with the Facilities Manager and proposed a fee she thought would be high enough to cause a mode shift but was still reasonable. She decided upon $40 for covered, reserved parking and $30 for uncovered, unreserved parking. In 1994 when the fee was raised to its current level, Wilson looked around the Eastlake area to see what fee would be appropriate. Cellular One then raised its fee to $50 for covered parking and $30 for uncovered parking. When the initial fee was put in place, management added the amount of the parking fee to each employee's paycheck in order to soften the blow. Employees could choose to use that money for parking or pocket it if they were carpooling or taking transit. When the parking fee was raised, management did not add the amount of the increase to employees' paychecks. The net parking fee is $10 for single-occupant vehicles. Incentives Introduced With Fee: The following incentives were introduced with the parking fee: - Free parking for carpools/vanpools - Transit and vanpool subsidies of $57.50/month - Ridematch services Introduction of Parking Fee: The parking fee was introduced in a memo and implemented two months later. In the memo, employees were told what would happen, how to get an assigned space, how to receive a parking sticker, how payroll deduction would work, and that carpoolers would not be charged. Wilson wishes she could have done more promotion, but she did not have time. Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: Each employee that drives alone and has a reserved spot in the garage has a key card. The doors on the second floor of the garage have readers that read the key card and let the employees in. Carpoolers and customers park on the first floor of the garage where there is no door and parking is convenient. There is no infrastructure in the off-site lot presently. 23 Informal monitoring takes place. For example, the Facilities Manager and Wilson keep their eyes out for which employees are driving alone. Employees also act as watchdogs and tend to report anyone who claims to carpool, but actually drives alone. Some employees do park on the street, but this is not seen as a problem. There is very little on-street parking, and there are time limits. Employees generally do not want to keep running out to move their cars during the day and, thus, do not park on the street. Employee Reaction: Employees grumbled at first but did not make a big deal out of the fee. A lot of talk has occurred about the parking fee. Wilson sent out the message that Cellular One is environmentally aware, wants do to the right thing, and needs the help of employees to make a difference. She also took time to explain the CTR law to employees. Overall, the reaction was quite positive. Administration of Parking Fee: Employees pay the parking fee through payroll deduction every pay period (every two weeks). Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: Cellular One Communications started out with one or two carpools and gained 20 in the first year after the parking fee was implemented. Since the fee has been raised, a few more carpools have formed. In 1993 after the parking fee was implemented, Cellular One's SOV rate was 73%. The company has no earlier SOV rate information for comparison. Changes to the Parking Program: A Guaranteed Ride Home program has been added, and Cellular One is signing up for a FlexPass from Metro.15 ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: - Give employees all the facts first. - Don't change a lot all at one time. Implement the fee incrementally. Start low and then raise the fee after about a year when people have gotten used to the idea. - Be willing to listen to complaints. Let employees know why the company had to implement the fee and that the company knows it is painful, but also point out the environmental/social benefits. - Provide other incentives in addition to the parking fee. If seen as a package, employees can focus on the positive. - Don't let the people at the top get away with not paying the fee. Treat everyone fairly. ___________________________ 15 Metro's FlexPass is an annual transportation pass that provides all employees access to a variety of commuting options, encouraging choice and flexibility on a daily basis. Interested employers may contact Kathy Petrait at 684-1607. 24 - Market the fee in terms of doing the right thing with the entire company. Indicate that each employee is a part of the company, and the company needs everyone's help. 25 Children's Hospital Type of Business: Health Care 1995 SOV Mode Split: 60% Location: Seattle, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 74% Number of Employees: 1047 Number of Carpools: 81 ETC: Judy Bouse Amount of Parking Fee: $13/month. Year Implemented: 1985 Motivation for Program: The employee parking fee was implemented in 1985 as a condition of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for the City of Seattle Engineering Department. Level of Parking Fee: The amount of the parking fee was tied to the cost of construction of the parking garage used for employee parking. The fee was raised in 1988 when Children's TMP was updated. Incentives Introduced With Fee: A non-SOV subsidy was put in place at the same time the parking fee was introduced. The following are the components of the subsidy: --Employees carpooling, biking, or walking three times per week receive free parking, a $6 subsidy, and four tokens per month to park. - Employees carpooling, biking, or walking four times per week receive free parking, a $10 subsidy, and four tokens per month to park. - Vanpoolers receive free parking and a $50 per month subsidy. - Transit users receive a 66% transit pass subsidy. Other TDM Program Components: - Covered and uncovered bicycle parking - Showers - Flextime - Compressed work weeks - Reserved HOV parking Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: All employees have key cards to open the parking arm in the garage. A parking operations staff person monitors the parking program by ticketing cars that have parked off grounds, are parked in visitor parking, or have been seen tailgating into the garage (two vehicles using one key card). Employees pay the parking fee by payroll deduction every two weeks. Non-payroll employees are billed once per month. 26 Spillover: Some employees try to evade the parking fee by parking off-site. As part of its TMP, Children's has an agreement with its neighbors that employees will not park in the neighborhood. Therefore, parking operations staff monitor neighborhood parking and ticket employees that park off grounds. Employees have two choices: drive alone and pay the fee or use an alternative mode and receive a subsidy. Cheating is not an option. Because monitoring has been effective, Children's receives few calls from the neighborhood. A neighbor will call perhaps once a month to once every three months. Union/Employee Reaction: Children's Hospital has two unions. The unions did not protest when the parking fee was put in place and have not had any problems with the fee. In fact, there was not a strong employee reaction to the parking fee because it was tied to the construction of the employee parking garage and because non-SOV subsidies were introduced at the same time. Administration of Parking Fee: Employees pay the parking fee by payroll deduction every pay period (every two weeks). Non-payroll employees are billed once per month. Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: Based on the number of people requesting the non-SOV subsidy, the fee has resulted in a 30% drop in the SOV rate. As of October 1994, Children's SOV rate was approximately 60%. However, at that time, there was no way to know if the employees requesting a subsidy for carpooling were actually carpooling. As of November, Children's has a new means of tracking vehicles. All employees have a decal sticker on their vehicle and a parking operations staff person physically scans each one. With this new system, Children's Hospital will be able to derive SOV/HOV mode split percentages. Changes to the Parking Program: Children's is developing a new type of software that will make it easier for employees to use the transportation program. It combines the hospital's parking program with its commuter transportation program. In November, each employee registered for a commute mode. For example, employees may sign up to carpool three times per week and drive alone twice per week. They would receive scanning strips for their vehicles and $6 subsidies for carpooling. Payroll would deduct the appropriate amount for a commuter driving alone twice per week. A parking operations staff person will scan an employee's car each day of the week the car is in the garage to verify that the employee is really driving alone only twice per week. This new system allows Children's to track the commute behavior of its employees. This program is evolving in response to the need for parking spaces for patients. Children's, as part of its TMP, cannot provide more parking. Therefore, it must reduce the demand for employee parking so that it may provide parking needed by patients and visitors. 27 ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: - Eliminate loopholes - Balance the program with the parking demand; the greater the demand for parking, the higher the fee. - Set the parking fee according to the cost of the program and what is appropriate for the area in which the employer is located. - Educate employees about the elements of the program and why the program is in place. - Back up what you say with monitoring and enforcement. 28 City of Bellevue Type of Business: City Government 1993/4 SOV Mode Split: 56% Location: Bellevue, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 85% Number of Employees: 700 Number of Carpools: 151 Acting ETC: Jeanine Cardiff Amount of Parking Fee: $35/month. Year Implemented: 1989 Motivation for Program: The City of Bellevue's primary motivation for its parking fee was to prevent having to supply additional parking for employees. In 1979, management started a Fleetride Program to respond to an increase in parking demand. When growth continued and the City was again faced with a shortage of parking, the parking fee was implemented. The parking fee was also implemented to preserve parking for citizens, visitors, and library patrons and was designed to create a model transportation program. Level of Parking Fee: The City took a survey of the employers in Bellevue's CBD that charge for parking. The City then decided to charge the average amount paid by employees out-of-pocket for parking. Some employers in the CBD provide a substantial subsidy for employee parking and some do not. The average seemed appropriate to the City for a non-CBD employer. Employee Transportation Committee: An Employee Rideshare Committee, formed in 1987, has representatives from different City departments. The committee was formed for the following reasons: - To use as a sounding board for management's ideas - To generate new ideas - To solicit other employees' reactions to Committee proposals The most valuable aspects of the Committee are its ideas and its ability to act as a public relations body. The Committee has made a significant difference in the development and acceptance of the parking management program by City employees. The members of the committee understand why the parking fee was put in place. They explain these reasons to other employees because parking management has a negative connotation. Having employees explain parking management to other employees has helped with employee acceptance of the program. Incentives Introduced With Fee: No incentives were introduced with the parking fee. However, one year before the parking fee was implemented, the City started the rideshare incentives portion of the transportation program in order to motivate employees in a positive way. This was considered to be an incremental approach to introducing the 29 parking fee. The following are the components of the ridesharing program: - Carpoolers participating at least 60% of each month receive free parking. - Carpoolers participating 80% or more of each month receive free parking and a $15 subsidy. - Bicyclists, walkers, and drop-offs receive a $15 monthly subsidy. - Bus passes are fully subsidized for a two-zone peak hour trip. - Vanpools are subsidized up to $39.50 per month. Introduction of the Parking Fee: The City printed up an information booklet introducing the parking management program and conducted a series of presentations to all departments to explain how the program worked. Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: The City of Bellevue has four types of parking permits. A blue sticker is for SOVs and a red sticker is for carpools and vanpools. In addition, the City issues parking coupons on a quarterly basis to those employees who rideshare and need to drive their car on an occasional basis. Temporary passes for temporary employees and contract help are also issued. These are valid for a month and are prorated. The parking program has been enforced since the inception of the charge. Originally, the Downtown Bellevue Association monitored the parking program. Now it is monitored by AMPCO, which checks twice a day to see that every vehicle has a valid permit. Vehicles without a valid permit are issued violations. After three violations the City sends a warning letter to the owner of that vehicle and on the fourth violation the vehicle is put on a tow list. The City notifies AMPCO and on the fifth violation, the vehicle is towed. The City now has a policy that if an employee forgets to display his or her tag in the car, all the employee has to do is send the coupon with the ticket to the ETC within two weeks and that violation is deleted. Management adopted this policy in order to make the program more user friendly. At the end of the year everyone's violations are deleted, and the count starts over. Spillover: Spillover does occur, but beside the fact that this allows employees to drive to work for free, there have been no problems. One related problem is that employees are parking at the Metro Park-and-Ride lot and walking the few blocks to work. To take care of this, starting in 1996, the City will use the CTR definition for walking to work. That is, walking must be the largest portion of the employee's commute. Union/Employee Reaction: The initial employee reaction to the parking fee was very negative. Employees did not understand why they were compared to employees in the CBD area. Because the City's departments are located outside the CBD, employees felt they should not be charged for parking. The five unions at the City had strong objections to the parking fee and protested its application to their members. They asked for the equivalent amount in salary increases for 30 their members, but the City would not provide this. The parking fee is now in their contracts. Only the police guild union pays the parking fee for all of its members. Administration of Parking Fee: Employees may pay for parking through a payroll deduction or by writing checks each month. Almost all employees use payroll deduction. Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: The City has met the CTR goals for 1995 and 1997. There are 402 parking spaces for 700 employees, and there is always parking available. The City's SOV rate is down from 65% in 1989 to 56% in 1994. Changes to the Parking Program: As the average parking charge for the CBD area increases, the City's parking fee will increase. ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: - Use a transportation committee to get other employees' support for the fee. Employees need to know they have a voice. - The ETC should be in the position to have management's ear. - Implement the parking charge with other incentives to soften the blow. - Use a newsletter to keep employees informed and put the program in a positive light. It should have a human interest feel to it. For example, Bellevue's newsletter includes an article on the "Ridesharer of the Month". 31 North Seattle Community College Type of Business: State College 1995 SOV Mode Split: 86% Location: Seattle, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 74% Number of Employees: 593 Number of Carpools: 93 ETC: Joyce Lew Amount of Parking Fee: Employees <1/3 full-time $12.00/quarter; 1/3-2/3 full-time $24.00/quarter; >2/3 full-time $36.00/quarter. Students 0-5 credits $7.25/quarter; 6-10 credits $14.50/quarter; >11 credits $21.75/quarter. Year Implemented: 1971 Motivation for Program: The City of Seattle does not provide funds to North Seattle Community College (NSCC) to cover the cost of providing student and employee parking. NSCC implemented the employee and student parking fee to cover the costs of maintaining and monitoring its parking lots. Level of Parking Fee: The amount of the parking fee was based on the revenue necessary to maintain the parking lots and provide staff for monitoring and safety. Incentives Introduced With Fee: No incentives were introduced with the parking fee. However, presently NSCC's employee transportation program includes the following elements: - A transit pass subsidy - Metro's Home Free Guarantee program - A 50% subsidy for carpools and vanpools - Metro's ridematch services - Bicycle parking Promotions/Marketing: A memo was sent out to employees informing them about the employee parking fee. Students learned about the student parking fee in their class schedules. The administration did not work with employees to gain their acceptance of the parking fee because it was associated with the opening of the college and because it was relatively inexpensive. If the fee were implemented now, the administration would market and promote the parking management program and work with employees to gain acceptance of the fee. Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: Parking operations staff monitor and enforce the parking fee. Those vehicles found without a parking pass or sticker are issued a warning. The warning reminds them to purchase a parking sticker. After three warnings, the vehicle is towed. 32 The College is investigating a new traffic fine system in which a vehicle without a sticker would be ticketed with a fine and a reminder to purchase a parking sticker. Each time the vehicle is ticketed, the fine would increase. Spillover parking resulting from employees parking on adjacent streets is a significant problem. The College has 1398 parking spaces and approximately 7,000 students coming onto campus at different times. Spillover parking is the biggest complaint from the neighbors. NSCC told the neighborhood that a residential parking zone (RPZ) is needed, and the neighbors have filed a request with the Seattle Engineering Department (SED) to establish an RPZ. Union and Employee Reaction: Because the fee began when the school opened, employees were not accustomed to free parking. Also, the fee was relatively inexpensive. Therefore, there was no employee reaction to the implementation of the parking fee. However, employees complain that they pay more than students and that they want an indoor parking space. No parking is reserved but is available on a first come, first serve allocation system. Employees have not complained about the amount of the fee. Students complain about paying the fee and then not being able to find a parking space. They do not complain about the fee itself. The two unions at NSCC were not in place until two years after the parking fee was implemented. Because the parking fee was not controversial, the unions did not address it as an issue of concern. Administration of Parking Fee: Permanent employees pay the parking fee each pay period through payroll deduction and receive a permanent parking identification sticker. Non-permanent employees and students pay for parking quarterly at the cashier's office and receive a parking pass for that quarter. Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: The parking fee has not resulted in an employee mode shift. In 1993, North Seattle Community College's SOV rate was 88%. For students alone, the SOV rate is approximately 70%. The College has no earlier SOV rate information for comparison. The College is going to put a limit on the number of parking passes sold so that a parking shortage will not occur. This policy should have a significant impact on its SOV rate as those without a parking pass will have to find alternate ways to get to the College. ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: If the parking fee were to be imposed today for the first time, it would have to be done differently. It would necessitate public hearings and College-wide meetings to explain why the fee is being implemented and would necessitate research on comparable institutions to serve as a basis for the amount charged. 33 In retrospect, knowing about the CTR law and the City of Seattle's Transportation Management Plan (TMP), the College would opt to put in a facilities fee instead of a parking fee in order to raise more money to fund the employee transportation program. The college lacks the funds to expand the program and offer incentives to students because the parking fee does not bring in enough revenue. An alternate solution would be to start out with a higher parking fee. The ETC feels that it is difficult to be the only employer in the area implementing a parking fee. Employees should link the fee to a cleaner environment, traffic congestion, and taxpayer dollars spent on maintaining infrastructure. 34 Olin Aerospace Corporation Type of Business: Aerospace Industry 1993/4 SOV Mode Split: 67% Location: Redmond, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 85% Number of Employees: 520 Number of Employees Carpooling: 42 ETC: John Knapp Amount of Parking Fee: $5.00/month Year Implemented: 1994 Motivation for Program: The CTR Law was the primary motivation for implementing the parking charge. Level of Parking Fee: Olin's ETC, John Knapp, chose a $5 parking fee arbitrarily. Knapp wanted a fee that would motivate a significant employee mode shift, yet not negatively impact the lowest paid employee at the company. Employee Transportation Committee: Knapp formed a CTR Planning Committee. Nine members were selected. At the time, Olin's present site had two companies: Pacific Electro Dynamics and Rocket Research. These two companies have since merged to form Olin Aerospace Corporation. The ETC chose one manager, one representative from the facilities department, one interested employee, and the company attorney from each company. The committee met once per month for a span of a year. Management gave the committee the autonomy to design any type of transportation program it wished, as long as it worked within the constraints set forth: 1) do not spend money 2) do not change the work week. These constraints eliminated any subsidy option and the use of alternative work schedules. Initially, Knapp rejected the thought of a parking charge due to anticipated employee relations problems. However, a parking charge met both constraints, would significantly reduce the company's SOV rate and solved the financial problem of implementing a transportation program. Knapp feels that forming the CTR Planning Committee was the smartest thing he has done for the transportation program. He chaired the Committee and was there to offer support, but the committee members were given the freedom to dig into the requirements of the law and to explore effective responses. In his opinion, the following contributed to the committee's success: - A wide range of people participated. - The department responsible for parking was represented (Facilities). - A cost accountant was a member of the committee and could offer financial expertise. - There were eight other committee members who would defend the program. 35 Incentives Introduced With Fee: Employees ridesharing eight or more times per month are exempt from the parking fee. Promotions/Marketing: There was some preliminary notification for employees about the Commute Trip Reduction Law and the transportation program development process. This included information about the law, development of the transportation plan, and an indication that employees would be informed as new information became available. There was a presentation made to all employees at the company-wide annual end of the year meeting. According to Knapp, the marketing done to promote the transportation program was insufficient. He used employee bulletins, memoranda, a booth at the Quality Recognition Day fair, and the survey process to get the word out. However, he feels that memoranda and bulletins alone are insufficient tools to market a transportation program. He would like to have met with employees in small groups to do a better sales job for the fee. This includes explaining again why the parking fee is being implemented and how it works. More importantly, this includes listening to employee concerns so that employees feel they have been heard. Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: The honor system is used for the transportation program as there is no monitoring of the parking lot. Knapp does limited administrative enforcement and is trying to develop the enforcement system further. Presently, Knapp sends letters to those employees who have not given Olin Aerospace permission to deduct the parking fee from their paychecks. All he can do, however, is remind them to sign the appropriate paperwork and pay the fee. Spillover parking is not a problem as there is no nearby on-street parking and there are no neighboring businesses in the immediate vicinity. Employee Reaction: The reaction of the employees was mixed. About 20% of employees were anxious to start carpooling. They just needed to be shown what to do. Sixty to sixty-five percent of the employees didn't like the charge and didn't really want to carpool, but accepted the reality. The minority, approximately 15% of employees, strongly rejected the charge. They felt the fee infringed upon their personal rights and they didn't understand why there was anything wrong with the way they had been commuting to work by driving alone. Administration of Parking Fee: Olin chose to administer its parking fee through payroll deduction on a monthly basis. Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: Since the charge was implemented, the SOV rate of Olin's CTR affected employees has dropped from 90% to 67%.16 In this case, a $5 fee seems to have been high enough to invoke a mode shift. Knapp stated that there is a ___________________________ 16 The reduction in SOV rate is based on the number of CTR affected employees who fill out and turn in a carpooling form. No monitoring is done to verify whether these employees actually carpool. 36 strong environmental ethic at Olin Aerospace and that some employees ride bikes to work, while others have tried to take transit. There is also serious traffic congestion in the area. ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: Knapp would like to have marketed the program better. Implementing a transportation program/parking fee requires a large sales job. One needs to be able to repeatedly explain the CTR law, options within the law and why the employer chose the element(s) it chose in order to comply with the law. Administratively, employees cannot hear enough how the program works. Knapp believes that once employees understand why certain steps were taken they will accept the fee. However, employees need to have an opportunity to express themselves, even if they disagree with what they hear. The parking fee is one of the most effective ways to cause a mode shift. Knapp recommends parking fees to other employers and adds that they don't have to be exorbitant in order to work. To make the fee work: - Prepare to explain the program repeatedly and withstand the employee backlash. - Implement as simple and efficient a system as possible. - Don't feel badly about using the honor system- it's not worth the effort to chase down people for $5/month. Knapp believes most people have a sense of ethics and will not cheat the system. 37 PacifiCare of Washington Type of Business: Health Insurance 1993/4 SOV Mode Split: 81% Location: Mercer Island, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 85% Number of Employees: 195 Number of Employees Carpooling: 30 ETC: Judy Nicoud Amount of Parking Fee: $20/month for new employees only for one year. Year Implemented: Not known Motivation for Program: Parking is seen as an employee benefit at PacifiCare. After paying the parking fee for one year, employees earn a free parking space. Thus, the parking fee is used as an incentive for employees to stay with the company long-term. As of October 1994, only 35 of 195 employees were paying the $20/month parking fee. Level of Parking Fee: PacifiCare of Washington is charged $20.00/month/space by Koehler McFadden, the building's management. That fee is passed on to new employees for one year. Incentives Introduced With Fee: No incentives were introduced with the parking fee. However, in April of 1994, PacifiCare implemented a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with the following components: - A $10 subsidy for employees who use alternate modes three or more times per week. - Metro ridematch services - Metro's Home Free Guarantee program Marketing/Promotions: Prospective employees are told about the parking fee before they join the company. The fee is introduced at the time the benefits package is explained. Free parking is one element in the package of earned benefits. Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: The parking fee is enforced by building management. Management staff patrol the parking garage and check vehicles for PacifiCare's parking pass. If a vehicle located in the employee parking garage has no parking pass, it is ticketed. If an employee parks in visitor parking, the building management staff may not know immediately, but building maintenance will eventually notice. Spillover parking is not a problem. Employee Reaction: There was no reaction from employees as the fee only affects new employees and only for a period of one year. In addition, free parking is seen as a benefit that is earned, not a right. Administration of Parking Fee: During benefits orientation, employees sign up to get a parking pass. They fill out the appropriate paperwork which gives notice to Payroll to 38 deduct the parking fee from their paychecks each pay period (every two weeks). After one year, payroll deduction stops, but the employee keeps the parking pass. Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: Because only a limited number of employees pay the parking fee at any one time, the impact of the fee on PacifiCare's SOV rate has been minimal. ETC Judy Nicoud attributes employee participation in the CTR program to the other program elements. In 1993, PacifiCare's SOV rate was 81%. ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: As PacifiCare has not identified a relationship between its parking fee and employee trip reduction, Judy Nicoud, PacifiCare's ETC, did not have any recommendations for other employers considering implementing a parking fee. 39 Sverdrup Corporation Type of Business: Consulting Engineering 1993/4 SOV Mode Split: 70% Location: Kirkland, Washington Base Year (1992) Zone SOV Rate: 85% Number of Employees: 120 Number of Carpools: 13 ETC: Jane Gray Amount of Parking Fee: $35/month covered parking, $20/month uncovered parking Year Implemented: 1991 Motivation for Program: Sverdrup's parking fee was implemented when it moved to its location at Carillon Point. Sverdrup management passed the parking fee on to the employees because of the expense, the fact that they could place the responsibility on building management, and the fact that the fees are low, relative to parking fees in CBD areas. Level of Parking Fee: The amount of the fee was decided by negotiation between Skinner Development, the building's management, and Sverdrup management. Jane Gray, Sverdrup's ETC, assumes the amount of the fee had nothing to do with the cost of providing parking, but rather was one small part of the give and take of the building negotiation, including all line items. Employee Transportation Committee: The former ETC and four top managers decided upon and adopted the transportation management program, including the parking fee. This took approximately two months. Incentives Introduced With Fee: The entire transportation management program was developed with the implementation of the parking fee. The program includes: - Free HOV parking - A $15 subsidy for carpools and vanpools - Transit pass subsidy - Metro's Home Free Guarantee - Bicycle parking - Company fleet vehicles for emergencies Marketing/Promotions: The parking fee was presented at the time the move was introduced. Employees were told when and where they were moving and that parking was limited at the new site, so they would be charged. Parking Program Monitoring/Enforcement: Every employee receives a key card encoded by Skinner Development to keep track of the number of days it is used per pay period. If an employee is a transit user, his/her card is not encoded and only one person per carpool has an encoded card. If an employee's card is not encoded, the card will not 40 work in the parking arm. As part of the transportation program, an employee may drive alone one day per week by getting the parking ticket stamped. Employee Reaction: The employees' responses to the parking fee were mixed. Most simply saw the fee as an added expense they did not want. Some were angry, some were accepting, and some did not care. Overall, the fee was taken pretty well. At the time of the move, Sverdrup was a lot bigger. There were 200 employees and only 180 parking spaces available. A lottery for parking spaces was considered, but employees got together and formed carpools and began using transit. At the old site, Sverdrup had virtually no carpoolers and only one or two employees riding transit. Gray stated that paying $20 or $35 per month did serve as an impetus for some people to consider using alternate modes in their commutes to work. A few Sverdrup employees even moved closer to work so they could walk. In addition to avoiding the parking fee, they receive the $15 subsidy for walking to work. Also at the time of the move, top managers had a company vehicle and did not pay the fee. Now there is only one top manager and a smaller middle management staff. There are still a few people with company cars who do not pay the fee. Although this has been pointed out by some lower level employees, nothing has been done. Administration of Parking Fee: Sverdrup chose to administer its parking fee through automatic payroll deduction. A lot of time and effort was spent up front getting it organized and making sure employees had their proper passes and were getting billed properly. Now the system entails minimal investment in administrative time. Impact of Parking Fee on SOV Rate: Although transit service was better at Sverdrup's old site, the parking fee and new commuting incentives motivated a significant number of employees to switch to alternate modes. In 1993, Sverdrup's SOV rate was 70%, compared with an estimated SOV rate of 90% in 1992. The company now has excess parking. In fact, Sverdrup management renegotiated the company's parking agreement with Skinner Development and lowered its number of allotted parking spaces. ETC's Recommendations for Other Employers: Keys to a successful parking charge are the following: - Support from top management. - A lot of communication with employees regarding options and employee concerns. - Providing alternatives to driving alone at the inception of the parking fee. Parking should be only a small part of the transportation plan. A full scale set of transportation options for employees is crucial. 41
