Cross-Cutting Findings
"Customer satisfaction became the major factor in the decision to expand from a test of several thousand spaces to deployment across all hourly and daily garage facilities at BWI."
–Harry Zeigler, Assistant Manager, Maryland Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation and Terminal Services, BWI Airport
This section presents the benefits, costs and lessons learned findings from the three sites visited. These findings, as well as additional benefits, costs, lessons learned, and extent of deployment of advanced parking management systems are available on the ITS Applications Overview website http://www.itsoverview.its.dot.gov and search for "parking management."
Benefits
The benefits of APMS are specific to the stakeholders involved:
- Travelers: easier access, reduced time spent looking for parking, and reduced frustration
- Venue operators: increase in accessibility and associated increase in patronage and customer satisfaction
- Parking operators: increased space occupancy and associated increase in revenue
- The jurisdiction and nearby neighborhoods: reduction in the number of patrons circulating through the street network looking for a parking space and fewer vehicles parked illegally on local streets.
Specific benefits found in visits to APMS sites are cited below.
Ease of Access
An October 2003 survey of BWI travelers found that most have a positive impression of parking at BWI Airport. Of the 63 travelers surveyed, 81 percent answered that they "strongly agree" or "agree" that parking is easier at BWI than at the other airports they frequented. Similarly, 68 percent responded that they "strongly agree" or "agree" that parking is faster at BWI than at the other airports they frequented. Figure 14 shows a graph of the survey results.
Figure 14. Customer Satisfaction Survey Responses at BWI
Reduced Frustration
Direct BWI customer feedback gathered by the Maryland Aviation Authority indicates that customers felt the system "saved them aggravation" leading to very high levels of customer satisfaction with the BWI parking experience. Harry Zeigler, Assistant Manager for the Maryland Department of Transportation's Office of Transportation and Terminal Services at BWI Airport, stated: "Customer satisfaction became the major factor in the decision to expand from a test of several thousand spaces to deployment across all hourly and daily garage facilities at BWI."
Increased Venue Accessibility
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, several business improvement districts have embarked on an ambitious plan to improve parking in the downtown area, and survey results indicate that the city's efforts have been successful. In recent years, the city has installed better signage at parking facilities and launched a Web-based pre-trip parking information service. A survey conducted in 2003 of metropolitan area residents found that there was a 10 percent decrease (as compared with the previous year) in the number of respondents who felt that parking availability prevented them from visiting downtown Milwaukee.[16] The same survey revealed that a larger portion of citizens (68 percent in 2003 compared with 54 percent in 2002) felt that the Milwaukee downtown area is improving as a place to visit.
Increased Facility Occupancy
In February 2004, a downtown St. Paul, Minnesota parking survey was conducted to determine the city's ability to accommodate Winter Carnival visitors. The survey district included an area served by 42 parking facilities—17 of which are participants in the downtown St. Paul advanced parking management system. The vacancy rate at the facilities participating in the system was much lower—17 percent versus 38 percent.[17]
Improved Traffic Flow
The system in St. Paul connects 10 parking facilities in the downtown area. Fifty-six (56) signs provide information on parking availability: 10 of these are dynamic message signs providing parking availability, while 46 are static signs which guide drivers to facilities.
A study of the traffic flow impacts of the APMS was conducted in St. Paul as part of the system's 1997 field operational test. The impacts on travel time and intersection performance were measured in the vicinity of the West 7th Street and Kellogg Boulevard. Travel time on a street in the CBD area was measured before and after activation of the system during periods of equivalent demand. Over the measured course, travel times were reduced by 9 percent and the stopped time delay over the course decreased by 4 percent. At the signalized intersection itself, individual vehicle delay was reduced by 10 percent even as intersection volume increased by 15 percent.
Costs
Advanced parking management systems can range widely in cost, depending on several factors including the following:
- Type and level of accuracy of the information provided
- Degree of complexity in installation of the sensors
- Availability of communications channels
- Availability of power supplies for remote components
- Signage required to convey the information at appropriate decision points.
This study has found that advanced parking management systems cost between $250 and $800 per space, depending on the factors listed above. At BWI, the unit cost of the equipment was approximately $450 per parking space. BWI stakeholders estimate that the system would have been more expensive if an existing garage had been retrofitted with the system's equipment. The advanced parking management system was estimated to cost between 2 and 5 percent of the overall construction cost of the new parking structure, excluding land costs.
In the case of Seattle Center, the cost per space varied widely based on the facility type (garage or surface). The overall cost was driven to a significant degree by the cost of getting the signs installed and linked to the central computer and to local power supplies.
For the Chicago Metra project, Metra will have a two-year warranty period that will begin when the system becomes operational. During that time, Metra will document operational costs such as staff time and materials. Metra expects the electrical costs to be approximately $20 per month for each electrical sign. There are seven electrical signs in the Metra system; an eighth sign is solar-powered. Metra expects the annual electrical costs to be $1,680. The cities in which the project is taking place have offered to pay these electrical costs, and Metra expects to take them up on their offer.
"Positive aspects of coordination among the various levels of government helped stave off unnecessary future costs and potential relocation of systems."
–Barry Resnick, Planner, Department of Planning and Real Estate Development, Metra
The costs for an advanced parking management system are typically split between the parking facility operators and the local jurisdictions. These life cycle costs cover all of the system's functional requirements. These costs can be divided into several categories: system design, equipment, installation, communications, operations, and maintenance. System design, equipment, installation, communications, operations, and maintenance costs can themselves be divided into categories:
- Sensors
- Integration and operating software
- Display systems
- Electronic payment systems
- Power supplies.
Communications costs can be divided into the following categories:
- System interface terminals
- Line charges for twisted wire, fiber optic, T-1, or wireless services, depending on the configuration of the system
- Web-based services.
Lessons Learned
This section summarizes specific lessons reported by the sites visited. The lessons were common across all three sites, and are presented in terms of policy and planning, design and deployment, and management and operations.
Policy and Planning
- Involve all appropriate stakeholders in a formal and collaborative manner throughout the planning, deployment, and operations phases. Advanced parking management systems will impact many stakeholders, both public and private, including travelers, parking operators, venue operators, nearby neighborhoods, and the local jurisdiction itself. To be successful, the needs and concerns of all stakeholder groups must be addressed. For those APMS projects that involve very diverse groups, including those located in CBDs and transit park-and-ride facilities, stakeholders need to consider forming a formal organization and writing a memorandum of understanding that outlines the short- and long-term roles of each member.
Barry Resnick, Planner for the Department of Planning and Real Estate Development at Metra, cites government coordination as a key aspect of the deployment's success: "Positive aspects of coordination among the various levels of government helped stave off unnecessary future costs and potential relocation of systems."
"One lesson that can be learned is to never start a project like this unless there is a signed public agency agreement outlining roles and responsibilities that is approved at the highest levels within a city."
–Eldon Jacobson, Advanced Technology Engineer, Washington Department of Transportation
- Ensure that the stakeholder group works from a formal charter that binds the member organizations to the effort, provides a forum for resolution of issues, and ensures a consistent advocacy message. APMS deployments, with the exception of airports, are often integrated into urban or neighborhood environments and, as such, take time and involve a very diverse group of stakeholders. Late-breaking or unresolved stakeholder concerns can stall the effort indefinitely. To prevent stalling, the stakeholder group should obtain formal endorsement from the leadership of the jurisdiction involved. The mayor or county executive should seek city or county council endorsement and should designate a staff member or a specific public agency as "champion" of the system. The champion should exercise executive leadership within the stakeholder group and represent the project in public policy discussions and funding requests.
As Eldon Jacobson, Advanced Technology Engineer for the Washington Department of Transportation, noted regarding the challenges encountered during the Seattle Center APMS deployment, "One lesson that can be learned is to never start a project like this unless there is a signed public agency agreement outlining roles and responsibilities that is approved at the highest levels within a city."
- Integrate the APMS project into a larger regional ITS architecture. An important consideration in the design phase is to link the APMS project to a regional ITS architecture. In doing so, it may be possible to leverage existing resources, such as communications channels and traveler information media, that are funded under larger regional efforts. Several of the APMS projects examined during the course of this study suffered delays and cost overruns because of uncertainties with stand-alone communications, power, and design and placement of the signs. Linking with a regional ITS architecture reduces the potential for these technical surprises that delay implementation and increase costs. In addition, connection to a regional ITS architecture provides opportunities to seek Federal and state funding associated with ITS-based traveler information systems, congestion management, and clean air attainment programs.
Design and Deployment
- For systems that use entry/exit counting systems, consider the sensor's detection zone in design of entrance or exit driveways. Wide driveways and narrow detection zones can lead to missed counts. In addition, when there is significant transient traffic that shares the entrance with the parking facility, (e.g., vehicles going to "kiss and ride" drop-off zones) the system count refresh rate needs to by fairly high to ensure that transient or circulatory traffic is not counted against the number of spaces available.
- Research the availability of communications lines and power supplies thoroughly and get the permit process going early; check availability in the field before committing to a design. APMS devices, although small and mostly self-sufficient, require access to communications channels and power supplies. Solving connectivity issues is a major activity with in the system design and installation process.
- Involve those that have authority and influence in the approval of sign appearance and location early in the design process. Throughout the design process, records of approvals and changes should be kept. A final sign design must be formally agreed upon. Sign appearance and locations can become a significant source of delay and increased costs, as they must often be approved by architectural control boards and historical preservation organizations. In addition, APMS signs may conflict with local commercial property signs that are planned or already in place. Late changes in sign appearance and location can be catastrophic to progress, as they often require redesign and re-permitting for new communications infrastructure and power access. In two of the three sites visited, changes to signage in the latter part of the deployment introduced significant costs and delays.
Management and Operations
- For systems that use space occupancy counting systems, confirm detector operation periodically. In the case of the LED light system employed at BWI, attendants conduct periodic drive-through inspections to ensure all the detectors accurately reflect the space status.
- Identify the roles and responsibilities of each agency for system operations and maintenance early in the planning process. Failure to maintain the systems will reduce credibility and public acceptance will be negatively impacted. At one of the sites visited, the effort was delayed for nearly a year as the stakeholder group resolved the debate over who would pay for operations and maintenance.
- Milwaukee Downtown (2003). Status of the Downtown Milwaukee Brand in Southeastern Wisconsin. http://www.milwaukeedowntown.com/pdf/whitepaper.pdf.
- St. Paul Transportation Management Organization (2004). Event Parking Empty Space Report.
You will need the Adobe
Reader to view the PDFs on this page.