How exactly does a parking lot have greater than 100% usage?

A lot has 1000 spaces, how is metro collecting parking fees on 1200? Is it due to daily turnover on the individual spots?

Otherwise yes, Metro setting parking fees on a sliding scale based on usage is a good idea although I remember an article in the Post 5 or 6 years ago that recommended the same thing and nada...

by nookie on May 13, 2010 11:41 am • link • report

Interesting to see EFC at the top after the recent discussion here about plans to eliminate that lot.
Having used the station for years, I am not surprised at all to see it at the top. You have to get there by 7 or so to get a spot. (I haven't actually parked there in years but that is what I recall as being true.) It's such a small lot, relatively speaking that it would make sense it would be among the most heavily utilized.
Nonetheless I'm still more concerned about the possibility of some day losing the Kiss and Ride lot. This would really muck things up around there.
How do you get greater than 100% usage?

by Josh S on May 13, 2010 11:44 am • link • report

UnSuck ran a piece on abuse of parking spots by Metro workers (a tacit understanding b/t workers & transit police where workers don't pay for spots or get ticketed for parking in Kiss-n-Rides). http://preview.tinyurl.com/29yf9tf

Along with broken bus fare machines, this is one place where Metro could get more revenue fare increases by just doing their job better.

I'd like to see proof from Metro that they've cracked down on worker abuses and resultant loss of revenue before asking for more money from riders.

by D on May 13, 2010 11:45 am • link • report

Agreed. The EFC plan to cut down 250 spots looks even more silly now. The long and drawn out argument on the costs of building parking spaces isn't worth repeating and boring everyone else, but the high demand for those lots on the red and orange lines means WMATA should either look at:

1) building more lots and doing it cheaper
2) contracting out "satellite" lots in the more suburban stations.

Both could provide future revenue streams. of course, given that the orange and red lines are chock full of commuters, perhaps that is the PLAN: drive away customers.

by charlie on May 13, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

The parking numbers make a lot of sense. The least full station lots are stations that are near the end of the line but not the terminus. People who live beyond the end of the Metro use the terminus and probably don't really know that the next station in has plenty of parking.

It also makes a lot of sense that only one underused parking lot is in the Favored Quarter. In the case of the Red Line, people who live between the two Red Lines in Montgomery County, often go to the western line. I can also get why Wheaton is underused because it has parking for a terminal station (it was the terminus between 1990 and 1998) but is in a town in a place that's not really convenient to car drivers from Aspen Hill and points north in rush hour traffic. Many other people also come from Randolf Road from the east. Glenmont is right there.

If WMATA institutes performance parking in its lots, it would be wise to provide lots of signage informing parkers that the next station has plenty of cheaper parking.

by Cavan on May 13, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

EFC looks like there's a lot of demand because the lot is very small. That 121% is hundreds (actually probably thousands) *fewer* cars than the 91% at Shady Grove.

By removing a couple of hundred parking spaces at EFC, access to the station for walkers and cyclists will become more convenient, and there will be a net gain in ridership.

by BeyondDC on May 13, 2010 11:56 am • link • report

@Charlie:

If parking lots are already at or above capacity, increasing the price will probably not decrease the number of commuters rather it will swap people who pay a lower parking rate for those who pay a higher rate. At some point, obviously the price will be so high that usage will drop, but if we're at maximum usage that point is probably further down the road.

by Cullen on May 13, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report

The idea that reserved spots would be unnecessary with properly adjusted rates is intriguing. But as long as Metro wants to have reserved spots, I've thought that a "Dutch" auction would be the best way to set the price: accept bids for monthly/quarterly parking at a particular lot. When the bidding is over, sort the bids from highest to lowest, then count down however many spots there are from the highest bid. If there are n spots, the n highest bidders each pay the nth highest bid. If there are more spots than bidders for a particular station, then parking is free at that station. Then perhaps add a small premium to whatever the equivalent daily rate would be, and set that for the unreserved rate.

by thm on May 13, 2010 12:02 pm • link • report

@Cullen; I'm not arguing about the economies of increasing the price, I am talking about redevelopment plans to cut down the number of spaces at east falls church.

@BeyondDC; I'll all for transit-oriented development too, and turning parking lots into productive buildings is great. However, the demand is there: build an underground lot, and find a way to do both.

Does the federal subsidy cover parking at WMATA stations?

by charlie on May 13, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report

Nookie: Because 100% does not mean that every single space in a parking lot is full 100% of the time. 100% is a number that managers arrive at that nearly approximates the number of spaces, but takes into account the possibilty that cars will park variously, thus taking up different amounts of space at different times. I think it may also account for cars circling looking for parking.

by Michael on May 13, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report

I'm sorry. This approach is far to sophisticated and would require more dynamic management than WMATA is capable of delivering. I'm not the first to say that the parking lots and garages should be turned over to professionals.

by Joe on May 13, 2010 12:33 pm • link • report

I agree with performance parking in general, but I think more should be done to figure out why lots are over/underused.

For instance: The 4 farthest stations toward Vienna make up half of the top 8 crowded garages. Presumably many of these riders are coming from areas that would be closer to a Silver Line station, so there's a meaningful future alternative for them. But in the short term, there's no alternative place to park, since every alternative is crowded. Even for riders coming from south of the Orange Line, for whom driving to a Blue Line garage might be an option (e.g. Annandale), it's not a good alternative, since both Franconia and Van Dorn are in the top 12 most crowded, too. So if you increase the cost there, riders can't really park at a different Metro garage. Maybe there's a private garage near a station; maybe they'll carpool, take a bus, walk or bike; but maybe they'll decide it's not worth the time and hassle, and quit Metro altogether.

It's the opposite situation at the other end of Orange and Blue. In terms of driving distance, Minnesota Ave, Landover, Addison Road, Cheverly, Morgan Blvd, Largo and New Carrollton are potential substitutes for each other -- but 3 of those stations are among the least crowded and 4 are among the most crowded. Pricing might have an influence here, but my guess is information is the biggest factor. If more people knew (with some certainty) that there were spaces at Minnesota Ave and not at Cheverly, they might choose Minnesota Ave instead.

Also, for the farthest-out riders, VRE and MARC could be better options, but they're under-promoted and under-funded compared to Metro.

by Gavin on May 13, 2010 12:42 pm • link • report

Isn't Wheaton's total low because of the ongoing garage construction? (Or is that now finished?) In other words, which number is being used, the capacity of the garage without construction or that with construction (the latter, of course, would be a much lower capacity)?

by Dan on May 13, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC
Besides putting some people closer to EFC, would the development there really help walkers and cyclists? The only people who would hope to shortcut are coming from the west on Washington Blvd. And the first crosswalk is at Sycamore street, which runs straight to the Metro entrance. Of course this doesn't make the development a bad idea.

by Steven Yates on May 13, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report

@ Joe: parking lots and garages should be turned over to professionals.

What professionals are you talking about in particular? Colonial Parking?

I am all for WMATA bashing when they mess up, but I do not like blanket statements that "some unidentified other entity" should take over, because that can only be better.

On the whole, I am against dynamic pricing. If metro wants to charge more at places that are full, fine. But that should be it. I do not want a dynamic scheme that's as complicated at ye average hotel booking.

by Jasper on May 13, 2010 1:18 pm • link • report

These numbers are number of parking transactions divided by number of spaces. If a parking space empties during the day and is replaced by a new parker, the space gets counted twice. Theoretically, the percentage number could be much higher than 200% if the spaces were all used twice per day, which is unlikely.

The decisions about this program should not be terribly hard. Take the data they already collect, visually check which lots are over 90%, increase price. Visually check which lots are under 70%, decrease price. I'm not trying to say it's trivial, because it would involve work like changing signs and communications with riders, reprogramming gates and other changes, but the intent of the policy is that the decisions could be made by a shell script, with a senior manager's sign-off to act as an over-check.

And until we're collecting enough to pay for constructing new spaces, the argument to make with respect to crowded parking lots is that the prices are too low, not that there are too few spaces.

by Michael Perkins on May 13, 2010 1:20 pm • link • report

Looks to me like there is demand for the Orange Line to extend farther into VA. One way to reduce overcrowding at the Vienna/Fairfax, Dunn-Loring and Falls Church stations is to move the end of the line out until everyone who wants to ride Metro is crowding into the same few stations.

by ksu499 on May 13, 2010 5:43 pm • link • report

I should say is *not* crowding into the same few Northern VA stations.

by ksu499 on May 13, 2010 5:56 pm • link • report

Wheaton, White Flint, and PG Plaza aren't that surprising, because nobody is going to pay an arm and a leg to park in the Metro garage when there's a free mall parking lot across the street. College Park's is relatively low because they have a huge parking garage there AND a large parking lot. When I was at UMD I would drive instead of using Metro on holidays but park for free at the Metro station to avoid the insane $5/hr campus charge. Rockville's parking lot is a joke. The Metro/MARC station is at the heart of downtown, in a city with 55K+ people yet I doubt if they have 100 spaces there.

by King Terrapin on May 13, 2010 6:08 pm • link • report

"Contracting out" sattelite lots would force metro to have to aquire more property, set up additional equipment, lighting, comms lines etc... It would be too costly in the short term. The existing Metro lots are not managed by Metro. They've been contracted out to LAZ Parking and Penn Parking before that for as far back as I can remember.

K

by Kaleel on May 13, 2010 6:17 pm • link • report

@ksu99 I think we.discussed this before.

If you extend the Orange line without increasing its capacity, all you're going to do is move the point at which the trains are full further out. You'd also significantly increase metro's operating and maintenance costs while serving nearly the same amount of customers.

You'll be trading off customers who live in dense Arlington for car-dependent riders from the suburbs. All while spending more to do it.

Why does that make sense as a policy?

by Michael Perkins on May 13, 2010 6:26 pm • link • report

Do the Rockville and Rhode Island Avenue lots serve many non-Metro-riders who just want a parking space in the vicinity? Is there a Smartrip "transfer" from train to parking, by which Metro could, in effect, raise parking fees more sharply for non-riders than for riders?

by Turnip on May 13, 2010 7:04 pm • link • report

@ Turnip: That is actually a good idea. Raise parking at metro garages and give a huge discount ($4-5) when people actually go to transit.

by Jasper on May 13, 2010 8:59 pm • link • report

Isnt the Rhode Island Ave Parking lot supposed to be closed ?

That will add cars to West Hyattsville, Landover, PG Plaza, & Minnesota Ave because most cars are coming from somewhere off of Rhode Island Ave, South Dakota Ave, Ft. Lincoln, PG County

by kk on May 13, 2010 10:38 pm • link • report

@Jasper

There is already a penalty for parking in a Metro lot when not using the train. I believe the fee is $8 for parking on a Metro lot without entering the system. I dunno if this applies to bus as well as rail, but it certainly applies to rail. I also don't know if this policy is system wide, but the policy is labeled on the sign as you enter the parking lot.

K

by Kaleel on May 13, 2010 11:28 pm • link • report

Covered bicycle parking/racks would help a LOT at Vienna and Dunn Loring. Also, at Vienna they are FINALLY beginning construction on Fairlee development of the 100 acre horror-movie wasteland south of the station - this should help encourage people to walk to the station more from Fairfax Cirlcle, etc. Right now, especially for women, it's pretty scary.

Right now if one wishes to use metro to go from Vienna Metro to Union Station at lunchtime on a weekday, you pretty much cannot park at any of the orange line stations, and buses are infrequent at that time of day. Thus, by the time you wait for infrequen buses and trains, it takes almost 2 hours to get to Union Station mid-day using metro. Pretty much ensures people will drive there.

by stevek_fairfax on May 14, 2010 8:50 am • link • report

Lot turnover accounts for for use in excess of 100%. Additionally the stats say nothing about available meter parking at stations like Vienna which often has metered spaces available at $1.00 an hour. Some of the decline in parking revenue is attributable to under use of meters since higher meter rates went into effect in Jan 2008.

Several years ago Metro's internal audit found evidence of employee abuse of parking at stations. Abuse is attributable to not only WMATA but other local service provider staff. Perhaps, the policy and employee parking provisions need to realistic.

by interested on May 14, 2010 9:19 am • link • report

Personally, I would think it natural that Metro station employees would get a reserved spot or two at the Kiss and Ride lot. Especially at EFC, it really doesn't matter since the lot is never full during the day anyway (maybe on a weekend with a special event in town). And does Metro get the revenues from the parking meters in the Kiss and Ride lot there? It's an Arlington County parking ticket, so I guessed the county got the money. Or do they then just pass it through to Metro?

In general, I think development at EFC is to be welcomed. But I think it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to build an underground lot that would preserve at least some of the spaces.

In the meantime, dynamic parking is of course a good idea. At places like EFC, Metro is just walking past free money - those two hundred spaces would clearly still fill up at probably twice the rate.

by Josh S on May 14, 2010 10:57 am • link • report

The data provided lists between $250,000 and $450,000 in meter revenue for half a year from June to January, so I assume Metro gets the meter revenue.

It's a misnomer to call this "dynamic", since my recommendation is not to change it that rapidly. At most you would see the price change once per quarter, and then after a few cycles it would probably find the equilibrium and stay there for a while. The control band of 70-90% is pretty wide.

I would call something where a computer measures the parking occupancy daily or hourly and adjusts the price accordingly, to the point that you would have to read it on the LED screen as you entered, as "dynamic".

This, I would describe more as "demand responsive".

by Michael Perkins on May 14, 2010 11:14 am • link • report

One thing I've always wondered about is the severe lack of overnight parking at some of the stations. I now live in Richmond. If I am, say, going for DC for the weekend, I would much rather drive to Franconia-Springfield and leave my car there for the weekend, vs. driving into the City. Yet there is something like 10 spaces reserved for overnight parking in a gargantuan parking garage. On Thanksgiving weekend, when I drove to DC to catch a train to DE (the trains from Richmond were all sold out), I ended up parking in a non-overnight space and praying no one would notice my car was there more than one day.

I don't see what the big deal would be about setting aside more spaces for overnighters, or just removing the ban on overnight parking altogether. I suppose there is the potential for people to abuse the policy and, say, abandon stolen cars there, but a) I'm sure that happens already and b) airport parking lots must have some way of dealing with that issue.

If the goal of Metro is to take cars off the road, surely there are enough people in situations like mine where

by Marc on May 16, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report