Upload
jessie-douglas
View
223
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reducing Congestion throughParking Policies
Allison Yoh
Presentation to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
February 24, 2008
A8054-b-2 11/08
Moving Los Angeles: Short-Term PolicyOptions for Improving Transportation
•Study completed in Dec 2008
•Strategies within 5 years
•Resulted in 13 strategies for managing congestion, including parking
A8054-b-3 11/08
L.A. Congestion Is the Worst in the Nation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Los AngelesAtlanta
San Francisco
DallasHouston
DetroitMiami
PhoenixBoston
ChicagoNew York
SeattlePhiladelphia
Congestion costs Los Angeles $9.2 billion annually in wasted fuel and time
Annual delay per peak-hour driver
in largest U.S. metropolitan
areas
Annual hours of delay
Washington, DC
A8054-b-4 11/08
Manage demand and
raise revenue through pricing
Improve alternative
transportation
Maximize the efficiency of existing road
capacity
Our Findings Suggest the Need for Several Policies that Complement One Another
Recommended Policy Framework
A8054-b-5 11/08
OtherModes
OtherTimes
Most Available Strategies BecomeLess Effective Over Time
OtherRoutes
Congestion
This is often called“triple convergence”
New /EnhancedCapacity
Congestion
A8054-b-6 11/08
Why Pricing Is Critical
• Pricing raises the cost of driving and discourages the over-consumption of road and parking capacity
• Pricing makes drivers pay the true cost of auto travel more efficient use of existing capacity
• Proper pricing provides a signal when it is efficient to build more parking
• Pricing raises revenue for needed investments
A8054-b-7 11/08
Parking-Related Recommendations
• Eliminate curb parking during peak hours– With active enforcement, can improve arterial
travel speed by 10 percent (Kumar 2007)
• Variable curb-parking rates– Can reduce traffic volumes in commercial and
retail districts by 30 percent on average, and by up to 90 percent in one instance (Shoup 1997)
• Parking cash-out– Can shift 15 percent of employees to alternative
modes (Shoup 1997)
A8054-b-8 11/08
Controversial, with Compelling Benefits
• Is viewed with skepticism because it is unfamiliar– But it is extremely cost-effective to implement
• May create financial difficulties for lower-income drivers who are unable to shift their travel patterns– But revenues can be used for alternatives, and– Unbundling parking can reduce housing costs
• Is difficult to justify to constituents– But can be implemented widely (equitably)– And revenues can be returned to localities
A8054-b-11 11/08
Growth in Automotive Travel Has Far Outpaced Growth in Lane Miles
U.S. Growth in Lane Miles, Population, VMT,and GDP Since 1970
A8054-b-14 11/08
RAND Developed 10 Primary Recommendations
Primary Recommendations
1 Improve signal timing and control where deficient
2 Restrict curb parking on busy thoroughfares
3 Create a network of paired one-way streets
4 Support voluntary employer trip reduction programs
5 Develop a network of HOT lanes
6 Implement variable curb parking rates
7 Enforce state’s employer parking cash-out law
8 Promote deep-discounted transit passes
9 Expand bus rapid transit with bus-only lanes
10 Implement a regionally connected bicycle network
A8054-b-27 11/08
Fuel Tax Revenue Shortfalls Limit Further Investment in New Infrastructure