75D - PH- MAIN PLACE TRANSFORMATION

Home Browse Search

Experience with enforcement of residential parking permit programs shows they are reasonably successful when the undesired parking is by repeat users, such as employees working in the vicinity. On the other hand, when the undesired parking is by occasional users, enforcement of residential permit parking is frequently ineffective. There are costs of administration and enforcement associated with residential permit parking programs which would be borne by the appropriate jurisdiction. The spill -over parking problem can be dramatically reduced by the TSM parking management program previously described. The employer charges back employees in single occupant vehicles for their parking whether or not they park in the company lot. This removes the temptation to park in adjacent free area. This requires minor administration and enforcement on the employer's part to ensure the monthly cost of parking is paid by all employees who drive alone. Elimination of the "hidden parking subsidy" is but one way of encouraging ride -sharing. The advantage to the transportation system is that less traffic is generated. The advantage to the employers is that they would have to provide less parking which would save (1982 dollars) the equivalent of $10,000 per space in capital costs or about $480.00 per space per year in annual costs for maintenance, operation, and capital recovery. Parking charges can be varied not only to encourage ride -sharing but also to promote travel during other than peak periods. A For example, employees arriving and departing before or after the peak hour(s) would pay less for parking. This would not reduce the required parking spaces of the office unless employee times did not overlap. But it would distribute travel over the off-peak period since it would • provide a direct financial incentive to employees to adjust working hours. 75D i51