Res13 15305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11/18/2013 CAPCOA • • • PDT-3 Parking Policy/ Pricing PM 2.8—5.5% of running CO 2.8—5.5% of running NOx 2.8—5.5% of running SOZ 2.8—5.5% of running ROG 1.7—3.3% of total Discussion: The range of parking price increases should be a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50%. The minimum is based on Moving Cooler [1] discussions which state that a less than 25% increase would not be a sufficient amount to reduce VMT. The case study [2] looked at a 50% price increase, and thus no conclusions can be made on the elasticities above a 50% increase. This strategy may certainly be implemented at a higher price increase, but VMT reductions should be capped at results from a 50% increase to be conservative. Example: Assuming a baseline on-street parking price of$1, sample calculations are provided below: • Low Range °/a VMT Reduction (25% increase) _ ($1.25 - $1)/$1 * 0.11 = 2.8% • High Range % VMT Reduction (50% increase) _ ($1.50 - $1)/$1 * 0.11 = 5.5% Preferred Literature: • -0.11 parking demand elasticity with respect to parking prices The Clinch & Kelly study (2] of parking meters looked at the impacts of a 50% price increase in the cost of on-street parking. The case study location was a central on- street parking area with a 3-hour time limit and a mix of business and non-business uses. The study concluded the parking increases resulted in an estimated average price elasticity of demand of-0.11, while factoring in parking duration results in an elasticity of-0.2 (cost increases also affect the amount of time cars are parked). Though this study is international (Dublin, Ireland), it represents a solid study of parking meter price increases and provides a conservative estimate of elasticity compared to the alternate literature. Alternative Literature: Alternate: • -0.19 shopper parking elasticity with respect to parking price • -0.48 commuter parking elasticity with respect to parking price 215 PDT-3 9 RESO.#15305 MUFF#603