HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080317MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colin Laird, Healthy Mountain Communities
Tim Waze, Director of Parking
SUBJECT: Pazking Policy Options
DATE: Mazch 14, 2008
Overview
This memorandum grows out of the recent Pazking Department analysis of the impacts of current
pazking policies on the commercial core and adjacent residential azeas. In this analysis, Pazking
Department Staff found that the current pazking policies in the residential neighborhoods do not
fully address the twin goals of reducing traffic levels and improving pedestrian friendliness.
Despite staff s efforts, current enforcement and policies have not been able to mitigate "the two-
hour shuffle" in the residential permit pazking azeas.l
The purpose of this memo is to offer City Council a matrix of strategies to reach the City's
Transportation Plan goals, which include:
1) To decrease traffic and pazking congestion;
2) To improve the quality of life and the quality of the guest experience; and,
3) To improve air quality.2
Through the matrix of options outlined in this memorandum, staff hopes City Council can agree
on a policy direction to address the "two-hour shuffle." Staff also hopes that Council can direct
and support future exploration into the growing strategies being effectively used in lazger urban
environments to manage pazking, traffic, and congestion.
An addendum to this memo places the City of Aspen's current parking policies within the lazger
continuum of transportation demand management policies being considered and implemented by
communities in the U.S. and selected other countries.
' Pazking department staff discussions.
s Public Involvement, Understanding and Support: Lessons Learned From The City of Aspen Transportation and
Pazking Plan - Pazking Duector Tim Waze.
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Pazking staff would like Council to consider modifications to the residential pazking program to
mitigate the "two hour shuffle."
Pazking Officers have completed the process of collecting
data on the number of vehicles pazked within afour-block
radius of the commercial core to determine the number of
cazs using residential pazking; how many of these vehicles
aze permitted; and how many drivers aze simply moving their
cazs to avoid the two-hour limit. Staff has found that despite
enforcement practices involving staggered routes and
schedules in order to create unpredictability and discourage a
shuffling of vehicles every two hours, over 50% of the
vehicles in two-hour residential pazking (roughly 300-600
vehicles) azeas aze simply moving their vehicles whenever
they aze chalked.
CITY OF ASPEN
TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS:
• Decrease traffic and parking
congestion,
• Improve the quality of life
and the quality of the guest
experience, and
• Improve air quality.
There aze a number of possible approaches to addressing this issue and probably no one solution.
Consequently, this memo evaluates six policy changes, which include:
1. Status Quo
2. Implement 2 hrs max/day in any residential zone .~
3. Establish Permit only zones adjacent to the core ~
4. Increase enforcement of existing regulations with
License Plate Recognition technology (LPR) .b
5. Expand Pazking Pricing Limited Residential ~
Metering "'
6. Pilot Road Pricing
Roading Pricing
Tolls
Paid Parking
These options exist on a continuum of demand-side ,~
options to manage pazking and traffic congestion in ,~ Restricted Pazking
communities. Each one addresses pazking and traffic
congestion at a different level -- from a downtown or ~
neighborhood to an entire city. As communities "' Transportation Education
progress through this continuum, each demand side
option requires additional infrastructure, staff and
technology to operate. This relationship seems to be a
function of using mazket based solutions to a public good or resource. The more access points a
public resource has, the lazger the effort needed to determine access and implement a pricing and
payment structure. Consequently, monitoring and ensuring payment at the Aspen Recreational
Center pool (with one entrance) is easier than monitoring and ensuring access to the Roaring
Fork River (with multiple access points along a 40 mile corridor).
The City of Aspen has been successfully managed pazking in the commercial core through paid
pazking meters and transit options. This memo offers an evaluation of how the City might best
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
approach the management of the residential parking in the three block area surrounding the
commercial core.
Parking Strategy Options Summary
1. Status Quo
This option involves no change to current paid
parking policies or program (residential permits, up
to 2 hours free at a time in a space, day passes @
$7)
3. Establish Permit-only zones
adjacent to the core
This option would allow residenUpermit only zones
surrounding the commercial core. There is a
physical limit to how far people will travel to move
their caz multiple times a day.
5. Expand Parking Pricing-Limited
Residential Metering
This option expands metered paking into
residential azea azound the commercial core.
2. Implement 2 hrs max/day in any
residential zone
This option changes the two hour pazking limit in
residential zones to a two hour maximum daily
limit. The two hour shuffle would not be allowed
in residential zones.
4. Increase enforcement of existing
regulations (LPR)
This option involves the purchase of license plate
recognition (LPR) technology to more effectively
track and enforce paking violations in the
residential permit azeas as well as throughout town.
6. Pilot Road Pricing
Road Pricing means that motorists pay directly for
driving on a patticulaz road or in a particulaz area.
Road pricing can be used to reduce traffic
congestion, and to change motorists directly for
their roadway costs, which is fairer than current
practices that result in substantial cross-subsidies s
' Todd Littman - hnp://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm52.htm
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Parking Strategy Options Analysis
1. Status Quo
No change in current policies, programs, and policies. From the start of the paid pazking
program, there has been the recognized need to ensure residential neighborhoods did not
become the long term parking option for drivers looking for ways azound paid parking in
the commercial core. Consequently, the city developed the residential permit program and
limited pazking without a permit to two hours on weekdays. However, the "two-hour
shuffle" is an indication that current policies aze not adequately managing street pazking
and is resulting in unnecessary traffic in search of a pazking space.
Staff Notes & Comments:
This option has no impact on City transportation plan goals and does nothing to address the
"two-hour" shuffle.
2. Implement 2 hrs mag/day in any residential zone
This option changes the two hour parking limit in residential zones to a two hour maximum
per day in a given zone. This policy change would prohibit the two hour shuffle and
require increased enforcement. Residents and commuters have transit options to consider
or they can purchase day passes, but this option does inconvenience visitors/tourists, who
aze less awaze of pazking policies and would then need to visit City Hall to purchase a day
permit. Initially, staff expects parking tickets to increase substantially.
Costs:
The costs associated with Option 2 involve signage changes ($50-80K) as well as
additional outreach and education.
Staff Notes & Comments:
This option is an effective, but rigid method of addressing the two-hour shuffle and
reducing traffic. However, it sacrifices visitor convenience because there aze not on-site
payment options.
3. Establish Permit only zones adjacent to the core
This option would convert certain heavily used residential permit pazking zones near the
commercial core into "pemut-only" parking. This option would also eliminate the two-hour
pazking allowance. This plan does limit pazking options and present some difficulties for
visitors/tourists who would be required to obtain a permit of some kind before pazking.
The "convenience costs" of this option aze very significant and the number of pazking
tickets issued to violators can be expected to increase.
Costs:
The costs associated with Option 3 also involve signage changes (($50-80K) as well as
additional outreach and education.
4
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Staff Notes & Comments:
This option could be welcomed by residents in the neighbors it is implemented in since the
only vehicles allowed to pazk on street would be neighbors. It is, however, the most
inflexible option in terms of accommodating visitor and commuter parking needs since
there is no payment option and could push the shuffle further out into other residential
neighborhoods. This option doesn't help Council achieve City
transportation goals effectively.
4. Increase enforcement of ezisting regulations
(License Plate Recognition/LPR)
This option focuses on enforcement and developing data to
better understand pazking issues within the City of Aspen. ,
With a License Plate Recognition System (LPR), staff can
collect data on how pazking in the City is being used by
residents, commuters, and visitors. Communities across the
country aze beginning to use LPR tools to enforce and evaluate
pazking policies and how they help achieve community
transportation goals a
License plate recognition systems use optical chazacter
recognition on images to read the license plates on vehicles. A
typical system can input hundreds of vehicles per hour through
an optical scanner mounted on a vehicle or a handheld device.
Each time the unit reads a license plate, it is matched with a
database of pazked vehicles for the day (or multiple days) and
alerts the pazking officer to a match if the vehicle is in violation
of the two hour limit or whatever policy is in place. License
plate information becomes part of a Parking Department
database that overtime, can be used to better spot trends and
challenges to pazking policies.5
This technology eliminates fire chalking as well as the ability of
the vehicle owner simply spin their wheels or rub the chalk off
their tires. The technology is faster than chalking as well. Pazki
staff can cover and monitor much lazger azeas in a much shorter
time than using the chalk method. nIn some communities, the fir
to cover a parking district has been cut by over 60%.6
° City of Seattle, Office of the City Auditor. Response to the Statement of Legislative Intent: Pazking Enforcement
Effectiveness, 2005. http://www.seattle.gov/audit/docs/2005-02%20Parking%20Enforcement%20SLI.pdf
5 What is ALPR? http://www.platescan.com/work/alpr.asp
e City of Seattle, Office of the City Auditor. 2005
CITY OF ASPEN
Costs:
The costs for a LPR system aze
roughly $70,000 depending on
the provider. There aze a
number of providers of this
technology. Maintenance and
support is roughly $15,000
annually.8
Staff Notes & Comments:
License Plate Recognition is a
powerful tool to enforce and
manage pazking. It is much more
reliable that baz code scanners
because baz codes tend to be
inside a vehicle, which can make
reading the baz code difficult due
to the curvature and tint of the
window, as well as issues with
reflection and sunlight. There do
not seem to be any cities moving
to baz code technology.9
Increasing pazking enforcement
by increasing personnel is a
challenging option and cost
prohibitive given the tight job
mazket, the high cost of housing
and long commute times. LPR
would increase the efficiency of
current pazking field staff and
help increase the understanding
of how user groups pazk in
SCM790
EdR Pla[e if required
U dale Qatabase_,,
Aspen.10 LPR is a ~,„~'"~ ~.,'~~~ i~ ,,~ ~ yrs.
complimentary technology that is `=~~'~~~ ~tri-"~~ ' t ~- .;~~%~' -y`w~~-aoosar
a crucial part implementing options 2, 3, and 6 and could become a key tool is helping the
City of Aspen achieve its transportation goals.
rJ. Expand Parking Pricing-Limited Residential Metering
' Prices vary depending on the number of camera installed on a vehicle, whether GPS is included, etc.
a City of Davis, CA. http://www.city.davis.ca.us/meetings/councilpackets/20050517/04A Auto_Find.pdf
'City of Seattle, Office of the City Auditor. 2005
10 For instance, the Pazking Department could annually run a check of the zip code/community of license plates in
the database to better understand how residents, commuters, and visitors aze pazking in Aspen.
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
City of SaeremeMO Police Depertmenl
DMe: 1l)t5/21m8
Time: 4:19 PM
Location: N3B32060 w12129637
AlertType:
CITY OF ASPEN
This option expands the current multi-
space meter paid pazking system into
the residential neighborhoods
surrounding the commercial core. The
paid pazking azea would expand
approximately three blocks in each
direction from the commercial core
and include about 1500 parking spaces
(see the blue shaded azeas in the
attached map).
The plan would prevent shuffling and
individuals could pay for multiple
hours on site. This option would
replace the current two hour pazking
restriction and could work as follows:
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
^ $1.00 per hour Monday through Friday 10:00am - S:OOpm.
^ Full day passes from the meter would be $7.00 per day
^ Residential, Guest, Lodge, Carpool and Hybrid Vehicle permits would be exempt
from payment.
^ The rest of the residential areas beyond the additional three-block radius would
remain residential permit pazking. The two hour pazking would still be allowed but
changed to reflect the following:
"Any non-permitted vehicle will be allowed to pazk for up to two hours in one zone
per 24 hour period. Once a vehicle has been registered in that zone they will be
required to move after that two hours." (see Option 2)
Option 5 provides pazking patrons with a considerable number of payment options.
Additionally, current day pass customers would no longer need to stop to buy day passes;
this payment option would be available at the residential pay stations.
Costs:
Option 5 plan has significant costs. It requires the purchase and installation of 70 - 75 pay-
and-display meters at approximately $11,000 each. The total expenditure to implement this
option would be approximately $850,000 for the 75 units. An additional $50,000 for new
signs and posts and $50,000 for delivery and installation would also be needed making the
total estimated cost to be $950,000.
While this option is intended to be in place year-round, using a very conservative revenue
calculation formula of 25% occupancy during only peak seasons at $7.00 per day, staff
estimates additional revenue of about $350,000 per yeaz from the meters and citations.
When the current revenue of about $90,000 per yeaz from day pass sales is netted out, net
new revenues from this option would be approximately $260,000 per yeaz. All start-up
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
costs would be paid off within three to four yeazs and there aze no anticipated increases in
labor necessary to implement this option.
Staff Notes & Comments:
Option 5 offers the most flexible approach to dealing with the two-hour shuffle, while
accommodating visitor use. It also expands on a familiaz and reliable system already in
place in the commercial core. Like the current paid pazking program in the commercial
core. The Meters will help manage a limited resource and reduce traffic and congestion by
reducing the incentive for people to move their vehicle every two hours. Furthermore,
prices can be reduced during specific times of the year, and like the commercial core,
people can mitigate their pazking impact on-site by the hour or for the whole day.
6. Pilot Road Pricing (Please see addendum for
more information on Road Pricing)
Given the complexity of implementing road pricing,
this option involves creating a road pricing pilot
project to better understand the challenges and
opportunities it may hold for the City Aspen.
Road pricing (commonly called congestion pricing)
means that motorists pay directly for driving on a
particulaz road or in a particulaz azea at a particulaz
time of day. Road pricing can be used to reduce
trattic congestion, and to chazge motorists directly for their
roadway costs, which is fairer than current practices that result in
substantial cross-subsidies.
This approach has been successfully implemented in a few lazger
cities in Europe and it is being seriously considered in a number of
North American cities. Such an approach could have application
for Aspen given the high vehicle traffic and limited geographic
azea to monitor.
Because the concept is new and difficult to full cost out, a pilot program approach would
help clarify both the cost and technological issues involved. How to best use license plate
recognition systems, which is critical component of the systems in London and Stockholm,
could also be tested in a pilot program.
Costs:
Costs to implement a road or congestion pricing program aze difficult to estimate for a city
the size of Aspen since all the examples are currently in much lazger cities. Purchasing the
technology, setting up the information technology (IT) systems, training staff, educating
drivers and the general public, additional signage, and developing the package of related
policies would require a significant investment over a number of yeazs to implement.
Additional expertise and increasing the capacity of transit services would also be necessary.
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
The City of London's congestion pricing program cost about $307 million (LTS$) to set up
and $150 million to operate the first yeaz. Net revenues in 2006-07 were $250 million.
The seven-month Stockholm congestion pricing trial cost $260 million to set up and $70
million to operate. The program covers its operating costs and generates approximately
$50 million in net revenue per yeaz. tt
London's experience with congestion pricing illustrates how it can be a critical tool to fund
transit service expansion. Last year, the London spent most of the net revenue generated
by congestion fees and fines ($205 Ivn to support bus services.tz
London's Five Yeaz Congestion Pricing Budget (in million US $)
Total Operating & Charge
Admin Costs Reveuues
Estimated 203 280
2006/07 183 321
How revenues were spent
Bus network operation 205
Roads and Bridges 28
Road Safety 10
Walking and cycling 6
Total $250
Revenues Net Revenue
45 122
112 250
Aspen is obviously much smaller than either London (7.5 million people) or Stockholm
(1.5 million people). Consequently, the costs and revenues of a congestion pricing would
be much smaller. Even so, the set up costs to a small city like Aspen could range between
$5-10 million depending on the scale of the program and the technology used. These
estimated costs could be recaptured rather quickly based on congestion pricing experience
in other communities, but further reseazch would be needed to better estimate set up and
operating costs as well as program revenues.
Staff Notes and Comments:
Road or congestion pricing shows great promise as a tool to manage traffic into and azound
Aspen. In cities such a London and Stockholm this approach has reduced traffic
congestion, increased the speed and efficiency of bus service, reduced through traffic on
neighborhood streets, and improved air quality and reduced C02 emissions -all goals that
are in line to the City of Aspen's transportation goals. Furthermore, for those who must
drive, commute times decreased. Road pricing or congestion pricing could become the
future of transportation demand management in Aspen, but it involves a level of
Mobility, Access and Pricing Study, San Francisco Transportation Authority.
http://www. sfcta.org/content/view/415/241 /# 12
"'Central London Congestion Chazging: Impacts and Monitoring, 2007
http://www.tfl. gov.uk/assets/downloads/fifth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2007-07-07.pdf
9
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
technological sophistication that the Pazking Departrnent would need significant support to
achieve.
To further explore the viability of this option, staff would like to develop a pilot congestion
pricing program in the commercial core. Staff is particulazly interested in exploring the
adaptability of the paid pazking meters to work with wireless monitors in vehicles. If such
a technology could work, it could drastically reduce the infrastructure for congestion
pricing in Aspen since most of the infrastructure is akeady in place.
Staff would like to request $20,000 for a congestion pricing pilot program to test wireless
technologies, engage interested volunteers, facilitate further reseazch into program design
and cost estimates. This pilot phase will help determine the best technological and policy
approach to potentially implement congestion pricing in Aspen
Congestion pricing evaluation and implementation would be useful to include in the
Departments and City's 5 yeaz planning horizon (London's program was developed and
implemented in 3 '/z yeazs.)is
"Central London Congestion Chazging, Malcolm Murry Clark.
http://www.foundation. org.uk/events/pdf/20030618_Murray-Clazk.pdf
10
Policy Options Evaluation
The series of matrices below evaluate the various policy options using different criteria. We
have grouped the criteria where possible and appropriate. Please note that although the scale is
the same in each matrix, the variable by which the policy options aze rated is different. In
general, higher positive numbers aze better that negative numbers.
OPERATIONS
nntinnc Eauioment costs Operation Costs User Price Slubtotal
1 Status uo 3 3 3 0 9
2 Z hrs mas/da 3 2 0 -3 2
3 Permit only canes 3 2 -3 -3 -1
4 license Plate -1 2 2 NA 3
5 Residential Meterin 0 3 3 3 9
6 Pilot Road Pricing -3 -3 -1 3 -`1
Rating from 3 (very favorable) to -3 (very unfavorable). "0" indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
USER IMPACTS
Oations
Residents Commuters Tourists Enforcement Subtotal
1 Status quo -1 1 -1 0 -1
2 2 hrs mas/day 3 -3 -3 0 -3
3 Permit only canes 3 -3 -3 0 -3
4 license Plate
Recognition
0
0
0
3
3
5 Residential Metering 3 3 3 3 12
6 Pilot Road Pricing 3 -1 -3 0 -1
Rating from 3 (very conveni~t) to -3 (very inconvenient). "0" indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
IMPACT ON PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION GOALS
Improve the
quality of life
Decrease trnffic and the quality
Reduce Two and partdng of the guest
Options HourShuflle congestion experience
Increase
alternative
modes Subtdal
1 Status quo -3 -3 0 0 -6
2 2 hrs max/day 3 0 0 0 3
3 Perwit only woes 3 0 0 0 3
4 License Plate
Recognition
2
0
0
0
Z
5 Residential Metering 3 1 1 2 7
6 Pilot Road Pricing 0 3 0 3 6
Rating from 3 (very effective) to -3 (very ineffective). "0" indicates no impact or mined impacts
TECHNOLOGY
Options
I Status quo 0
2 2 hrs max/day 3
3 Permit only canes 3
4 license Plate
Recognition
~ Z
5 Re~dential Metering 3
6 Pilot Road Pricing -1
Rating from 3 (very supple / offthe shelf) to -3 (vay complicated/newtechpology). "0" indicates no impact or mixed impacts
1 Status quo 2
2 2 hrs max/day 5
3 Permit only zones 2
4 license Plate
Recognition
10
5 Residential Metering 31 ..
6 Pilot Road Pricing 0
Based on these criteria, Option 5 -Residential Metering, Option 4 -License Plate Recognition,
and Option 2 - 2 hr max/day received the highest scores.
12
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Staff Recommendation
Staff believes that a combination of options, particulazly the combination of a modified Option 5
- (Residential Metering) Option 4 (License Plate Recognition) and Option 2 (2 hr max/day)
would best address the negative impacts of the two hour shuffle and advance the City's
transportation goals.
Staff believes that purchasing a License Plate Recognition would enable it to better monitor and
enforce the Option 2 - implementing a 2hr max/day in the three block residential azea around the
commercial core. To address visitor pazking, staff recommend modifying Option 5 and
purchasing only 15 pazking meters what would be programmed as on-sire daily pass only
machines. In this way, visitors and commuters that need to park for longer than 2 flours can
purchase a day pass without heading to site downtown and then back to their vehicle.
This proposed combination of options would preserve two hour free pazking in this zone around
the commercial core, prohibit the option of the two hour shuffle that contributes to needless
traffic and congestion, and enable people to purchase a day pass from a number of meters in the
neighborhood. The combination and slight modification of these options would be less
expensive that Option 5 (Residential Meters) alone.
Staff would also like Council to fund a congestion pricing pilot program. As traffic and
congestion aze projected to grow in the future in the region reseazch into how this innovative
approach could reduce traffic congestion, improve travel times, and help fund transit and road
improvements is worthwhile investment to consider.
Costs:
^ Changing the signage ($50-$80K)
^ LPR System ($70K)
^ Day Pass meters ($11,000 x15 + delivery = $200K)
^ Additional day pass meter signage ($lOK)
^ Congestion pricing pilot program = $20K
^ Estimated Total = $350,00-$380,000
Potential Revenues:
Staff conservatively estimates a 25% increase in day pass sales ($7/day) during peak season
(Dec-Mazch and June -August), which could generate over $550,000 annually.
Timeframe:
Staff recommends timing the recommended pazking policy changes to be fully implemented
after the new bus lanes open in November 2008. During this interim period, staff would like to
purchase and start using the License Plate Recognition system to better monitor and understand
current pazking patterns in the residential azeas surrounding the commercial core. LPR data will
help Pazking and RFTA staff better understand the primary users of residential pazking and better
estimate new riders from the proposed changes in pazking policy. With pazking data gathered
over a few months, Pazking staff can work with RFTA to anticipate and plan for increased bus
13
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
riders and increased use of pazk and ride facilities in the region.14 Such steps will ensure a
smoother transition to new pazking policies and mitigate for as many impacts on the local and
regional transportation system as possible.
As with the implementation of the paid pazking in the commercial core, staff recommends the
fast violation after the new policies go into effect would be free.
14 There was a 30% increase in bus ridership in between 1995 and 1995 resulting from the implementation of paid
pazking in the commercial core and the increase in bus frequency to 30-minute service between to El Jebel and
Aspen. There was also a surprising increase in pazking in downvalley communities as drivers switched to transit
neaz their home communities rather than driving to the airport intercept lot and taking transit into town as officials
had expected.
14
CITY OF ASPEN
ADDENDUM
TRANSPORTATION IN THE 21sT CENTURY
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Cities azound the world face an enormous challenge -the popularity, convenience, and the
modest operating cost of the automobile has overwhelmed the local capacity to provide road
capacity. Congestion has become so ubiquitous in the U.S., that the Texas Transportation
Institute, the largest university-affiliated transportation reseazch agency in the United States,
estimates that American city drivers lose an entire work week (40 hours) annually sitting in
traffic This lost productivity is estimated to cost more than $78 billion a yeaz.ts
Traffic and congestion trends aze expected to get worse in both lazge and small metropolitan
areas. The reality is that more Americans aze driving and driving more than ever before. The
U.S. Department of Transportation Highway Statistics show that despite the nation's road
systems increasing in capacity only 5% over the last 20 yeazs, the total number of miles driven
has increased approximately 100%16.
Increases in the number of vehicles and miles traveled and the increasing costs of new road and
highway capacity have transportation planners beginning to think differently, and more
holistically, about roads. Instead of focusing exclusively on increasing capacity (still an
important option in many circumstances) planners aze focusing more and more on operational
strategies to ensure the highest level of service on the existing infrastructure.l~
This approach is not just ahigh-minded planning theory. It has
become a practical necessity as the federal, state, and local
governments face another brutal reality about roads -projected
expenditures to maintain the condition and performance of the
current infrastructure is significantly higher than projected tax
revenues. There is not enough public money from current
sources to maintain current roads, let alone build new ones.ls
"Congestion, it turns out, is an
inevitable consequence when the
private sector produces an
unlimited number of vehicles and
expects the public sector to spend
limited resources to build an
unlimited amount of space for
them to run on."
--Gordon Price,
Transport Planner &
former City Councilor,
Vancouver
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: A SLOW
PARADIGM SHIFT
'STexas Transportation Institute, Reseazch Area: Urban Mobility.
http://tti. lama. edu/reseazch_azeas/topic. htm?p_tid=18
16 Operational Solutions to Traffic Congestion by Jeff Paniati in Public Roads, November /December 2004.
http://www.tthrc.gov/pubrds/04nov/O l .htm
'~ Ibid., Paniati.
~s The Future of Highway Financing by Jim Mazch in Public Roads, November /December 2005.
http://www.tthtc.gov/pubrds/0 Snov/02.htm
15
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Afrer a steady, 50-yeaz commitment to the building of a national highway system19, the
combination of declining gas tax revenues and increasing traffic congestion has planners and
elected officials broadening their set of tools to ensure the safe and efficient use of roads.
Instead of reflexively responding to traffic congestion with an effort to increase road capacity,
communities across the U.S. (including the City if Aspen) and azound the world are increasingly
turning to better managing roads and highway capacity as a scazce and valuable resource.
The High Cost of Free Parking
Donald. Shoup,20 a Professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) has written
one of the most comprehensive analyses of the costs associated with "free" pazking. In The High
Cost of Free Parking, he shares his reseazch and recommendations for addressing the
mismanagement of on-street pazking, which he likens to a "tragedy of the commons."
Shoup illustrates how drivers with invariably misuse and overuse an underpriced yet limited
common community resource such as on-street parking. On-street pazking is overused precisely
because it in "free" in the minds of drivers. Consequently, in the face of competition for a scazce
resource such as an on-street pazking space, drivers aze likely to pazk longer than necessary to
avoid looking for another space. This behavior results in drivers cruising longer to fmd a
pazking space since one razely will open up, which also increases traffic congestion. In fact,
Shoup's literature seazch of studies of cruising in cities such as New York, Detroit, London, and
Jerusalem found that an average of 30% of traffic was drivers seazching for an on-street pazking
space.21
Shoup highlights the City of Aspen's efforts to use paid pazking
to mitigate pazking use and encourage the use of transit
alternatives. Aspen is a perfect example of how a managed
commons (on-street parking) properly priced enables more
efficient and wider use of the resource. When downtown pazking
was free, curb occupancy during peak periods was 95-100%
capacity (i.e., fmding a space was difficult). Today, with paid
pazking, curb capacity is about 70% (i.e., fmding a pazking space
downtown is much easier) z2
Market priced curb pazking, in Shoup's analysis, is a critical step
in managing traffic, conserving .energy, improving air quality -
and generating public revenue in the process to support
pedestrian improvements and transit services. His reseazch is
turning traditional pazking on its head.
The High Cost of Freeways
"Free curb parking is an asphalt
commons: just as cattle compete in
their search for scarce grass,
drivers compete in their search for
scarce curb parking spaces.
Drivers waste time and fuel,
congest traffic, and pollute the air
while cruising for curb parking
and after finding a space they have
no incentive to economize on Low
long they park."
Donald Shoup
The High Cost of Free Parking
"The construction of the interstate highway system began in earnest with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1956 during the Eisenhower administration. http://www.tthrc.gov/pubrds/06an/Ol.htm
z° Donald Stoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, 2004, Planners Press. Chicago Il.
21 Ibid., Shoup, p. 290.
zz Ibid., Shoup, p. 391
16
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
Although Shoups' analysis focuses on on-street pazking, his azguments are not limited to where a
caz spends 98% of its time - pazked. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has become
increasingly interested in user-based chazges for drivers to use support the maintenance and
construction of the state's and nation's roads. zs
As with free curb parking, drivers aze using an almost free road resource, particularly, during
rush hour, to the point the point of gridlock. FHWA estimates that while construction costs for
new lanes in urban azeas average $10 million per lane mile, revenue from gas taxes during rush
hours amount to only $60,000 a year.24
In Colorado, the Depaztment of Transportation estimates that current revenues aze $51 billion
short just to maintain the current state transportation infrastructure over the next 25 yeazs 25 In
many ways, drivers have been over using current road infrastructure with little financial
consequence.
The in ability of the current gas tax structure to generate adequate revenue for road maintenance
and improvements and the economic and quality of life challenges presented by rush hour traffic
congestion has lead to a number of innovative user based programs, which are changing current
thinking about road capacity is managed.
The State of Oregon26
For the last several yeazs, the State of Oregon has been exploring the promise of user-based
fees to replace or supplement the current gas tax revenue available for road maintenance and
construction.
After considering 28 different funding ideas, the a state task force recommended that the
Oregon Department ofTransportation (ODOT) conduct a pilot program to study two
strategies called The Oregon Mileage Fee Concept: (1) the feasibility of replacing the gas tax
with a mileage based fee collected at fueling stations and (2) the feasibility of using this
system to collect congestion chazges. ODOT launched a 12-month pilot program in April of
2006 designed to test the technological and administrative feasibility of this concept. The
program included 285 volunteer vehicles, with 299 motorists, and two service stations in
Portland. 2~
The pilot study showed that using existing technology in new ways, a mileage fee could be
implemented while addressing privacy concerns as the motorist refuels. This implementation
23 Mileage-Based Road User Chazges by David J. Forkenbrock and Paul F. Hanley in Public Roads, Mazch April
2006. http~//www tfhrc eov/pubrds/06mar/02 htm and Congestion Pricing: A Primer, Federal Highway
Administration, December 2006. http //ops thwa dot oov/publications/coneestionpricina/index htm
24 Congestion Pricing: A Primer, Federal Highway Administration, December 2006.
httn //ops fhwa dot eov/publications/con~estionpricine/index.htm
zs Colorado Transportation Finance and Implementation Panel, A Report to Colorado, Executive Summary, January
2008. http //www Colorado eov/ overnor/blue-ribbon-transportation-panel html
ze Oregon to test mileage tax as replacement for gas tax, Eric Pyne, Seattle Times, 7/5/2004.
http //seattletimes nwsource tom/html/localnews/2001972174 mileaeetaxOSm.html
s~ State of Oregon, Road User Fee PIlot Program Results Summary.
http //v,ww oreaon eov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/dots/RUFPPsummarv.pdf
17
CITY OF ASPEN PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
of the fee is similaz to the process for collecting gas taxes. The whole measurement and
payment process is routine with no disruption to the motorist or the local business.
Furthermore, the pilot showed that the mileage fee could be phased in gradually alongside
the gas tax, allowing non-equipped vehicles to continue paying the gas tax, while equipped
vehicles could pay the mileage fee.
The study also showed that different pricing zones could be established electronically and the
assigned fees could be changed for driving in each zone, even at particulaz times of day. This
proves the mileage fee concept could support not only congestion pricing but also assessment
and collection of local revenues and other "zone-oriented" features. Furthermore, the azea
pricing strategy applied in the pilot program produced a 22 percent decline in driving during
peak periods.
While administrative costs are minimal the on vehicle costs to retrofitting vehicles at this
point appeazs expensive and difficult. Consequently, this approach is likely to require
national and state coordination with automobile manufacturers.
Central London28
The scale and scope of user-based fee
programs changed dramatically in
February 2003 when the City of London
implemented a congestion pricing plan to
address congestion in Central London,
which has 16 entrance points.
The plan involves a standazd per-day
chazge ($16) for vehicles traveling within
a zone bounded by an inner ring road. 'The
per-day congestion chazge, together with
improvements in public transit financed
with revenues from the chazging system, has led to a 18 percent reduction in traffic in central
London, with no significant displacement to local roads outside the azea, a 30% increase in
bus ridership and additional revenues for transit, road, and pedestrian improvements.
Drivers aze able to pay on a daily, weekly, monthly, or annual basis by telephone, regulaz
mail, Internet, or at retail outlets. The registration numbers of their vehicles aze entered into a
database. A network of fixed and mobile cameras observes the license plates of vehicles
entering or moving within the central zone. There aze no tollbooths, gantries or barriers.
Drivers do not have to stop. Their license plate numbers aze matched against vehicle
registration numbers of those who have paid the charge. A number of exemptions from the
chazging plan aze allowed, including a 90 percent discount for residents.
Central Stockholm29
se Ibid., Congestion Pricing: A Primer.
29 Ibid., Congestion Pricing: A Primer.
18
CITY OF ASPEN
Stockholm is the most recent lazge
international city to deploy
congestion pricing, in this case on a
test basis from January 2006 to July
2006. The "trial" results were very
favorable, with public acceptance
climbing throughout the trial, from
under 30 percent approval before the
trial to over 55 percent towazds the
end.
There was an immediate 22 percent
drop in vehicle trips, a decrease in
travel times, and a lazge shift to
publictransit -ridership on inner-
city bus routes rose 9 percent. Traffic
accidents involving injuries fell by 5 to 10 percent. Exhaust
emissions decreased by 14 percent in the inner-city and 2 to 3
percent in Stockholm County.
Residents of the City of Stockholm voted for continuation of the
system in a referendum on September 17, 2006. To date, over
400,000 commuters have installed transponders in their vehicles
for easier electronic payment so
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
New York City3t
The success of congestion pricing in London and Stockholm has New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg pushing for congestion pricing. The federal government will provide
New York City with $354 million to implement congestion pricing, if the State Legislature
acts by Mazch 2008 to put in effect the Mayor's congestion pricing program. The majority of
the funding would go to boost public transit services in the City.
The US Department of Transportation has committed $1 billion to pilot congestion pricing in
U.S. cities of the last yeaz. 32
30 Stockholm Congestion Chazge, www.roadtraffic-technology.com.
" U.S. Offers New York $354 Million for Congestion Pricing, New York Times, 8/14/2007.
http //ciriroom blo s~nvtimes coml2007/08/14/us-will-wive-new-vork-354-million-for-caneestion-nricine/
City Traffic Pricing Wins U.S. and Spitzer's Favor, New York Times, 6/8/2007.
httn'//www nvtimes com/2007/06/08/nyreoion/08con2estion html
'2 ht[p://www.sfcta.org/content/view/415/241/#13
19
CITY OF ASPEN
PARKING POLICY OPTIONS
ROAD PRICING AND TRANSIT
A key component of appropriate pricing for pazking and roads is the availability and
effectiveness of alternative modes of transportation (walking, bicycling, and transit). The
success of London's and Stockholm' s congestion pricing programs lay in part to the already
strong and since expanded public transit services available in each city. Put another way, the
entire transportation system works more efficiently when its component parts aze priced
appropriately and sending users feedback information. Without such real time information, the
system can literally grid to a halt.
The history of the City of Aspen's paid parking program also illustrates the relationship of
pricing to prevent inefficient overuse of a public good such as curbside pazking. The
introduction of paid pazking in the commercial core resulted in a bus ridership increase of 30%
during the same yeaz. With this impact, paid pazking was, and continues to be, an initial
congestion pricing measure.
Although paid pazking is not designed specifically to address traffic congestion during rush hour,
it nonetheless illustrates the power of mazket mechanisms to reduce over consumption of a
perceived "free good" and it has had a profound impact on the traffic in the City of Aspen.
The proposed changes to the parking policies in the residential pazking in Aspen will again likely
lead to an increase transit ridership.
RFTA CEO Dan Blankenship believes that larger buses (57 person) that will arrive in October
and new bus lanes coming on line in November will handle the increase in ridership likely to
result from pazking policy changes, especially if policy implementation is phased and RFTA has
abetter sense of the where additional bus riders maybe may be coming from.ss
Aspen is unique among small U.S. cities to have invested in the development of a local and
regional transit system. If Aspen's pazking and traffic management efforts do evolve into an
effective congestion/road pricing program in the future, a strong transit system will be a key
component of the programs overall success. Transit could also be a prime beneficiary of the
revenues a congestion pricing program could generate. sa
Transportation resources in the 21S` century are becoming more interconnected and multimodal
than ever before. Ironically, it is mazket thinking and pricing being applied to "free" resources
such as roads and pazking that is helping communities to manage a public good more efficiently
and effectively.
33 RFTA comments on paid pazking, February 22, 2008. Curtis Wackerle
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/rfta-comments-paid-p and personal communication.
'° London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities, 2006. Todd Litman. Victoria Transport Policy
Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf
Editorial, Mass.Transit Needs Congestion Pricing, New York Times. Mazch 5, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/OS/opinion/OSwed4.htm1
20