Appendix S

Parking Cost Elasticity Study

 Albuquerque Lenexa
Arlington Los Angeles
Colorado Springs Omaha
701 B Street
Suite 1220
San Diego, CA 92101
Memo Denver
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
Panama City, Pma.
Phoenix
Rio Rancho
Salina
619-330-5200 Kansas City San Bernardino
Las Cruces San Diego
619-330-5201 Fax

Date: January 23, 2006

To: Greg Shannon, Shea Properties, Inc.

From: Nick Abboud, PE, Wilson & Company, Inc.

Subject: Solana Beach Joint Development Project: Parking Cost Elasticity Study

In general, the objectives of transportation cost elasticity studies include estimating the
impact of pricing changes for use of a transportation-related facility on the use of that
facility, and to develop a predictive model that describes the relationship between price
changes and user response to the changes. For transit agencies, pricing and fare changes
are generally implemented as a revenue source to offset current or forecasted increases in
operating costs, while cognizant of the potential decline in ridership levels resulting from
such fee increases.

The purpose of this parking cost elasticity analysis for the Solana Beach Train Station
parking lot is to review available research on related cost elasticity topics and assess the
availability of predictive models that would relate the changes in parking lot use (and
thus train ridership) to a newly established parking fee directed at the users of the parking
lot. This technical memorandum reviews available research and documentation on cost
elasticity factors and prescribes a potential application within the context of the Solana
Beach Train Station.

It should be noted upfront that no directly applicable research on the cost elasticity of
implementing parking fees at a train station has been found in the literature search, and it
is likely that none has been undertaken to specifically address conditions similar to the
Solana Beach Train Station. Therefore, the effort undertaken here has been to assess the
full or partial transferability of other similar cost elasticity research to the particular
context of the Solana Beach Train Station.

1.0 Methodology

This section outlines the process and key steps which were undertaken to develop parking
cost elasticity estimation factors for the Solana Beach Train Station.
1) Provide an understanding of cost elasticity and relevance to the current objectives,
including:
a. Purpose of cost elasticity studies
 Memo

b. Factors affecting elasticity results

2) Conduct research of cost elasticity applications across the United States and
elsewhere.
a. Direct charge versus out of pocket expense
b. Vehicle trips
c. Parking revenue
d. Parking frequency
e. Type of travel
f. Mode choice
g. Shift in parking site
3) Identify cross-elasticity between:
a. auto travel demand and bus fares
b. various forms of transit and car use,
c. reported mode shift
4) Determine relevance and applicability of research findings
a. Identify models that approximate the Solana Beach conditions
b. Develop a model that best suits Solana Beach Train Station.
5) Provide summary of findings and recommendations

2.0 Understanding Cost Elasticity

Economists measure price sensitivity using elasticities, defined as the percentage change
in consumption of a good caused by a one-percent change in its price (or other
characteristics such as traffic speed or road capacity). For example, an elasticity of -0.5
for vehicle use with respect to vehicle operating expenses means that each 1% increase in
these expenses results in a 0.5% reduction in vehicle mileage or trips. Similarly, transit
service elasticity is defined as the percentage change in transit ridership resulting from
each 1% change in transit service, such as bus-miles or frequency. A negative sign
indicates that the effect operates in the opposite direction from the cause (an increase in
price causes a reduction in travel). Elasticities can also be calculated based on ratios,

2
 Memo

rather than absolute price values, such as the ratio between transit fares and automobile
operating costs, or vehicle costs as a percentage of average income or wages.

2.1 Purpose of Cost Elasticity

Elasticity studies have been used in the transportation industry to estimate the sensitivity
of various pricing strategies on travel and service demands. Table 1 presents a variety of
examples of the impact of various pricing strategies on transportation demands and
service elements.

Table 1: Impacts of Different Types of Pricing on Transportation Elements

Vehicle Fuel Fixed Congestion Parking Transit

Type of Impacts
Fees Price Toll Pricing Fee Fares
Vehicle ownership.
Consumers change the
X X X
number of vehicles they
own.
Vehicle type. Motorist
chooses different vehicle
X X
(more fuel efficient,
alternative fuel, etc.)
Route Change. Traveler
X X X
shifts travel route.
Time Change. Motorist
shifts trip to off-peak X X
periods.
Mode Shift. Traveler shifts
X X X X X
to another mode.
Destination Change.
Motorist shifts trip to X X X X X
alternative destination.
Trip Generation. People
take fewer total trips
X X X X
(including consolidating
trips).
Land use changes. Changes
in location decisions, such X X X
as where to live and work.
(Source: Transportation Elasticities, Todd Litman, TDM Encyclopedia, 2005)

3
 Memo

As shown in Table 1, different types of monetary charges can have a variety of impacts
on travel behavior. Fixed vehicle purchase and registration fees can affect the number
and type of vehicles purchased; fuel prices and emission fees can affect the type of
vehicle used; road tolling may shift some trips to other routes and destinations; while
congestion pricing (such as the managed lanes on I-15), may shift travel times and/or
transportation mode and change the total number of trips. The type and extent of impacts
depend on the specific type of pricing – for example, an increase in residential parking
fees is most likely to affect vehicle ownership while a time-variable parking fee can
affect when trips take place.

2.2 Factors affecting elasticity

Although the focus of this study is on the sensitivity of parking demand at the Solana
Beach Train Station with respect to possible future parking pricing, it is important to keep
in mind that there are other non-pricing related factors that affect traveler behavior and in
particular parking demand, which adds to the complexity of elasticity analysis. In
addition, it should be made clear that although elasticities are often reported as single
point estimates, there are actually many factors that can affect the price sensitivity of a
particular good. In reality, elasticities are actually functions with several possible
variables, including the type of market, type of consumer and time period. For example,
although the elasticity of vehicle travel with respect to fuel price may be defined as -0.3
(a single value), the actual value will vary between -0.1 and -0.8 depending on the type of
trip (commercial, commute, recreational, etc.), the type of motorist (rich, poor, young,
old, etc.), travel conditions (rural, urban, peak, off-peak), and the time period being
considered (short-, medium- or long-run). The following is a summary of some of these
non-pricing related factors that can affect price elasticity.

Type of Trip and Traveler: Sensitivity (elasticity) varies significantly with driver and trip
types. For example, commuter traffic will not be as elastic as shopping or recreational
traffic, weekday trips may have very different elasticities than weekend trips, and urban
peak-period trips tend to be price inelastic because congestion discourages lower-value
trips, leaving only higher value automobile trips. In addition, travelers with higher
incomes or on business tend to be less price sensitive than lower-income travelers or
those traveling for personal activities.

Adequacy of Alternative Routes, Modes and Destinations: Price sensitivity tends to

increase if alternative routes, modes and destinations are of good quality and affordable.
For example, highway tolls tend to be more price-sensitive if there is a parallel un-tolled
roadway. Driving is less price sensitive in automobile-dependent areas where
transportation alternatives are inadequate (e.g., walking, cycling and transit are poor
substitutes for driving).

4
 Memo

Time Period: Transportation elasticities tend to increase over time as consumers have
more opportunities to take prices into effect when making long-term decisions. For
example, if consumers anticipate low automobile use prices they are more likely to
choose an automobile dependent suburban home, but if they anticipate significant
increases in driving costs they might place a greater premium on having alternatives, such
as access to transit and shops within convenient walking distance. For this reason, it may
take many years for the full effect of a price change to be felt.

Table 2 summarizes transportation pricing elasticity factors as documented in research

studies (Johansson & Schipper, 1997) indicating that elasticities vary by type and
variable.

Table 2: Estimated Long Run Transportation Elasticities

Estimated Taxation Population

Component Fuel Price Income (Other than Fuel) Density
Car Stock -0.20 to 0.0 0.75 to 1.25 -0.08 to -0.04 -0.7 to -0.2
(vehicle ownership) (-0.1) (1.0) (-0.06) (-0.4)
Mean Fuel Intensity -0.45 to -0.35 -0.6 to 0.0 -0.12 to -0.10 -0.3 to -0.1
(fuel efficiency) (-0.4) (0.0) (-0.11) (-0.2)
Mean Driving
-0.35 to -0.05 -0.1 to 0.35 0.04 to 0.12 -0.75 to 0.0
Distance
(-0.2) (0.2) (0.06) (-0.4)
(per car per year)
-1.0 to -0.40 0.05 to 1.6 -0.16 to -0.02 -1.75 to -0.3
Car Fuel Demand
(-0.7) (1.2) (-0.11) (-1.0)
-0.55 to -0.05 0.65 to 1.25 -0.04 to 0.08 -1.45 to -0.2
Car Travel Demand
(-0.3) (1.2) (0.0) (-0.8)
(Source: Johansson & Schipper, 1997)

3.0 Cost Elasticity Research

The effects of the factors mentioned in Section 2.2 above highlight the complexity of
isolating the effects of a single factor such as parking pricing. However, sensitivity to
parking is considered particularly high as compared to out-of-pocket expenses since it is
a direct charge, and thus its impact should be more pronounced. For example, research
studies have reported that a $1.00 per trip parking charge causes the same reduction in
vehicle travel as a fuel price increase of $1.50 to $2.00 per trip. The following studies
addressed the effects of parking pricing on vehicle travel characteristics.

• Vehicle trips: Vaca and Kuzmyak (2005) and Kuzmyak, Weinberger and
Levinson (2003) found the elasticity of vehicle trips with regard to parking prices

5
 Memo

to be typically in the -0.1 to -0.3 range, with significant variation depending on

demographic, geographic, travel choice and trip characteristics.
• Parking frequency: Clinch and Kelly (2003) found the elasticity of parking
frequency to be smaller (-0.11) than the elasticity of parking duration (-0.20),
indicating that some motorists respond to higher fees by reducing how long they
park.
• Parking revenues: Pratt (1999) found significantly high elasticities (-0.9 to -1.2)
of parking price with regard to commercial parking gross revenues, since
motorists can respond to higher prices by reducing their parking duration or
changing to cheaper locations and times, as well as reducing total vehicle trips.
• Types of travel: TRACE (1999) provided detailed estimates of the elasticity of
various types of travel (car-trips, transit travel, walking/cycling, commuting,
business trips, etc.) with respect to parking price under various conditions as
shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Elasticity of Various Types of Travel due to Parking Pricing

Purpose Car Driver Car Passenger Public Slow Modes

Transportation
Commuting -0.08 +0.02 +0.02 +0.02
Business -0.02 +0.01 +0.01 +0.01
Education -0.10 +0.00 +0.00 +0.00
Other -0.30 +0.04 +0.04 +0.05
Total -0.16 +0.03 +0.02 +0.03
Note: Slow Modes = Walking and Cycling
(Source: Trace (1999)

• Mode choice: Hess (2001) assessed the effect of free parking on commuter mode
choice and parking demand in Portland’s (Oregon) CBD, and found that with free
parking, 62% of commuters will drive alone, 16% will commute in carpools and
22% will ride transit; with a $6.00 daily parking charge 46% will drive alone, 4%
will ride in carpools and 50% will ride transit. The $6.00 parking charge resulted
in 21 fewer cars driven for every 100 commuters.

• The use of parking price elasticity can be confusing where parking is currently
free, so it is meaningless to measure a percentage increase from zero price. Table
4 summarizes the changes that occurred in commute mode at worksites that
shifted from free to priced parking. Other case studies found similar impacts. As
shown, shifting from free to priced parking typically reduced drive alone
commuting by 10-30%, particularly when implemented with improvements in
transit service and rideshare programs and other TDM strategies.

6
 Memo

Table 4: Changes in Mode Travel Due to Parking Pricing

Canadian Study Los Angeles Study

Before After Change Before After Change
Drive Alone 35% 28% -20% 55% 30% -27%
Carpool 11% 10% +9% 13% 45% +246%
Transit 42% 49% +17% 29% 22% -24%
Other 12% 13% -8% 3% 3% 0%
(Source: Feeney, 1989, cited in Pratt, 1999)

• Shift in parking site: Hensher and King (2001) modeled the price elasticity of
CBD parking, and predicted how an increase in parking prices in one location will
shift cars to park at other locations and drivers to use public transit (Table 5).
The results are presented in Table 5 which shows elasticities and cross-elasticities
for changes in parking prices at various CBD locations. For example, a 10%
increase in prices at preferred CBD parking locations will cause a 5.41%
reduction in demand, a 3.63% increase in Park & Ride trips, a 2.91% increase in
Public Transit trips and a 4.69% reduction in total CBD trips. This table shows
how trips diverted by parking fee can vary depending on availability of
alternatives.

Table 5: Parking Location Shift in CBD due to Parking Pricing

Preferred CBD Less Preferred CBD CBD Fringe

Car Trip, Preferred CBD -0.541 0.205 0.035
Car Trip, Less Preferred CBD 0.837 -0.015 0.043
Car Trip, CBD Fringe 0.965 0.286 -0.476
Park & Ride 0.363 0.136 0.029
Ride Public Transit 0.291 0.104 0.023
Forego CBD Trip 0.469 0.150 0.029
(Source: Hensher and King, 2001)

4.0 Cross Elasticity

Cross-elasticity refers to the percentage change in the consumption of a good resulting
from a price change in another related good. For example, automobile travel is
complementary to vehicle parking, and a substitute for transit travel. As a result, an
increase in the price of driving tends to reduce demand for parking and increase demand
for transit travel and parking at transit stations. To help analyze cross-elasticities, it is
useful to estimate mode substitution factors, such as the change in automobile trips

7
 Memo

resulting from a change in transit trips. For example, of an increase in bus ridership
resulting from a fare reduction, 10-50% may be the result of a shift in automobile trips.
That is a shift of one automobile trip for every 2 to 10 additional transit trips. The
remainder of the added transit trips would be the result of a shift from non-motorized
travel and/or ridesharing. Conversely, an automobile travel disincentive, such as parking
fees or road tolls, may cause a shift from automobile to transit trips of 20-60%.

Some research studies provide information on the mode shifts that result from various
incentives such as transit service improvements and parking pricing (Pratt, 1999). Lago
et al. (1992) found the mean cross-elasticity of auto travel demand with respect to bus
and rail fares to be 0.09 (±0.07), and 0.08 (±0.03), respectively. That is, a 10% increase
in rail fare would result in a 0.8% increase in auto travel. Hensher developed a model of
elasticities and cross-elasticities between various forms of transit and auto use as
illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6: Direct and Cross-Share Elasticities

Change in Train Demand Change in Bus Demand Change

Fare Increase Single Ten Pass Single Ten Pass in car
Fare Fare* Fare Fare* demand
Train, single fare -0.218 0.001 0.001 0.057 0.005 0.005 0.196
Train, ten fare 0.001 -0.093 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.092
Train, pass 0.001 0.001 -0.196 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.335
Bus, single fare 0.067 0.001 0.001 -0.357 0.001 0.001 0.116
Bus, ten fare 0.020 0.004 0.002 0.001 -0.160 0.001 0.121
Bus, pass 0.007 0.036 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.098 0.020
Car 0.053 0.042 0.003 0.066 0.016 0.003 -0.197
* Ten Fare refers to a discounted group fare sold as a group of 10 tickets.
Source: Hensher, 1997

The above table illustrates how various changes in transit fares and auto operating costs
affect transit and car travel demand. For example, a 10% increase in single fare train
tickets will cause a 2.18% reduction in the sale of those fares, and a 0.57% increase in
single fare bus tickets. This table is referenced for illustration purposes since it is based
on a survey of residents of Newcastle, a small city in Australia.

Table 7 below shows the effects of transit financial subsidies for various worksite
settings, taking into account location (suburban, activity center, CBD), and whether
carpooling or transit are favored as alternative modes. For example, Table 7 indicates that
a $1 (in 1993 U.S. dollars) per day transit subsidy provided to employees at a transit-
oriented activity center is likely to result in a 10.9% reduction in auto commute trips,
while in a rideshare-oriented CBD, the same subsidy would only cause a 4.7% trip

8
 Memo

reduction. This table can be used to predict how transit subsidies are likely to affect
commute trips.

Table 7: Percent Vehicle Trips Reduced by Daily Transit Subsidy

Daily Transit Subsidy

Worksite Setting
$0.50 $1 $2 $4
Low density suburb, rideshare oriented 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.9
Low density suburb, mode neutral 1.5 3.3 7.9 21.7
Low density suburb, transit oriented 2.0 4.2 9.9 23.2
Activity center, rideshare oriented 1.1 2.4 5.8 16.5
Activity center, mode neutral 3.4 7.3 16.4 38.7
Activity center, transit oriented 5.2 10.9 23.5 49.7
Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented 2.2 4.7 10.9 28.3
Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral 6.2 12.9 26.9 54.3
Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented 9.1 18.1 35.5 64.0
(Source: Comsis Corporation, 1993)

5.0 Relevant Research Findings

The primary focus of this parking cost elasticity analysis is on the relationship between
parking lot use (and thus train ridership) and a potential future parking fee directed at the
users of the Solana Beach Train Station parking lot. A predictive model of this
relationship needs to consider existing studies of parking demand and use, as well as
empirical research data on elasticity with respect to parking pricing.

5.1 Example Research Findings

A substantial body of research studies exists on the transit ridership response to cost
increases. A 1974 San Francisco study focused on the impact of an areawide 25%
parking tax on parking demand (Kulash, 1974)1. The findings of this study highlighted
the complexity of the parking demand phenomenon. It concluded that shoppers faced
with higher unit cost for parking chose to shorten their parking duration; commuters
tended to stop using the facility since adjusting their parking duration was not feasible.

A 1990 Los Angeles study focused on the effects of employer subsidies on commuter
mode shares (Shoup, 1990)1. This study showed that higher parking prices resulted in
reduced use by single occupancy vehicles and a higher transit use in cases where
employees paid for their parking.

1
TCRP Report 95, “Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees”, 2005

9
 Memo

A Eugene, Oregon study (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, 1985) concluded that doubling
parking fees at several garages and surface lots and increasing fines at short term metered
parking, resulted in a drop in monthly permit sales by a 1/3 (from 560 to 360) and a
switch to carpool or free shuttle by half of the former parkers.

Another Eugene, Oregon study (Dorman and Keith, 1988) established that paid permits
for daily and monthly parking in a residential area for non-residents showed a reduction
in both the number of cars parked at any given time and the duration of parking.

A 1980 Madison, Wisconsin study focused on the effects of applying AM period parking
surcharge on discouraging commuter traffic parking thus leaving open spaces available
for midday shoppers. (Charles River Associates, 1984)1. This study found a 40%
reduction in number of occupied parking spaces as a result of the peak period surcharge.
However, the change in parking behavior was mainly due to individuals choosing
alternate locations to park.

A 1980 Chicago, Illinois study examined the effect of parking rate increases on parking
lot occupancy (Kunze, Heramb, and Martin, 1980)1 and found a 72% decrease in number
of vehicles arriving on weekdays before 9:30 AM, a 50% decrease in long term parking
and up to a 50% increase in short term parking.

Several other studies documented the effects of increasing parking fees on vehicle trip
reduction; all of which show significant reduction in vehicle trips as a result of increased
parking fees (ICF, 1997; Hess, 2001; Kuppam, Pendyala & Gollakoti, 1998).

5.2 Transferability of Research to Solana Beach Train Station

Of most relevance to the purpose of this analysis are those studies that show the effects
on trip reduction by a change in parking fee. One such study is a 1993 study by Comsis
Corporation2 that illustrated the relationship between incremental increases in daily
parking charges and the reduction in commute trips. Table 8 presents the reduction in
vehicle trips aggregated by origin (Low Density Suburb, Activity Center, and Regional
CBD) as a result of incremental increases in daily parking charges ($1 through $4 in 1993
dollars).

For the purpose of this study, Table 8 has been adjusted for inflation to produce
equivalent values in 2005 U.S. dollars, and the parking fees interpolated for $0.50
increments. The resulting trip generation reduction percentages are presented in Table 9.
An added workplace setting more representative of the Solana Beach Train Station and
surrounding area has been added and labeled as “Minor Activity Center”. This added

2
Comsis Corporation, Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of
Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org),
1993. (Available at www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html)

10
 Memo

category is an interpolation between the “Activity Center” and “Low Density Suburb”
categories, which is considered a better approximation of the Solana Beach Train Station
setting.

Table 8: Percent Reduction in Vehicle Trips versus Daily Parking Charges (1993 $)

Daily Parking Charges, $

Worksite Setting
$ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 4.00
Low Density Suburb 6.5% 15.1% 25.3% 36.1%
Activity Center 12.3% 25.1% 37.0% 46.8%
CBD 17.5% 31.8% 42.6% 50.0%
(Source: Comsis Corp., 1993)

Table 9. Percent Vehicle Trip Reduction versus Daily Parking Charges (in 2005 $)

Worksite Daily Parking Charges

Setting $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00
Low
Density 3.6% 7.3% 11.1% 14.9% 18.7% 22.5% 26.2% 30.0% 33.8%
Suburb
Minor
Activity 7% 11% 15% 19% 23% 27% 31% 36% 40%
Center
Activity
10.3% 14.7% 19.1% 23.5% 27.9% 32.3% 36.7% 41.1% 45.5%
Center

CBD 16.7% 20.8% 24.9% 29.1% 33.2% 37.3% 41.5% 45.6% 49.8%

(Source: Comsis Corp., 1993, modified for inflation by Wilson & Co., 2005)

The results of Table 9 are plotted in Figure 1 to provide a graphical representation of the
relationship between a graduated increase in parking fee and percentage of vehicle trip
reduction. As apparent from Figure 1, the elasticity of parking demand with respect to
parking fee is not a fixed percentage. It increases with increased parking fee. Thus, the
equivalent elasticity rate for the “Minor Activity Center” is a range of values, rather than
a single value. For parking fee between $1.00 and $5.00, the value of elasticity ranges
from -0.08% to -0.40%. That is a 10% increase in daily parking fee would result in a
reduction of 0.8% to 4% in automobile trips, depending on the value of the parking fee

11
 Memo

prior to the increase. For example, a daily fee of $2.00 would be expected to result in
15% reduction in trips and associated parking demand.

Figure 1. Vehicle Trip Reduction versus Daily Parking Fees

Vehicle Trips Reduced by Parking Fess (in 2005 $)

60.0%

CBD
50.0%
Minor Activity Center
y = 0.0881x + 0.0145
Estimated Reduction in Trips,

Activity Center
40.0%
Low Density Suburb

30.0% y = 0.0827x + 0.084

y = 0.0818x - 0.0127
20.0%

10.0%
y = 0.0756x - 0.04

0.0%
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00
Parking Fee, $

5.3 Parking Diversion

The reduction of parking demand at the Solana Beach Parking lot in response to a future
parking fee would be a combined result of trip diversion to other modes of transportation
(not using transit), to other location (other train stations) or other , such as Encinitas or
Oceanside), or to other adjacent accessible locations. Some of the later would likely
include diversion into free parking in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Although
difficult to quantify the exact percentage or number of vehicles potentially diverted into
the adjacent neighborhoods, the following provides a basis for estimating the magnitude
of the diversion.

Although no particular research was found to specifically address this issue, it is

generally assumed that, as a rule of thumb, a ¼ to ½ mile distance is considered a
reasonable distance that most pedestrians would be willing to walk to get to their
destination. Walk Sandiego, a local pedestrian advocacy group promoting walkable

12
 Memo

communities, reports slightly higher estimates. For example, Walk Sandiego reports that
70% of the people they surveyed would walk (or bike) up to 1/2 mile for shopping or
personal business if the journey was safe and pleasant, and that 31% would walk one mile
or less to school. Table 10 lists specific jurisdictions in the western states and the
distances they assume pedestrians would be willing to walk to get to a transit station.

Table 10. Reasonable Walking Distances to a Transit Station

Source Distance
Seattle, WA ¼ mile radius from LRT station

Hillsboro, OR 1300 ft. radius from LRT station

Portland, OR ¼ mile radius from LRT station

Washington County, OR ½ mile radius from LRT station; ¼ mile from primary bus routes

City of San Diego, CA 2,000 ft. from transit stop

Note: LRT = Light Rail Transit
Source: Wilson & Company, Inc. January 2006

In the case of the Solana Beach Train Station, there are other factors that come into play
that could discourage walking. For example, Coaster riders are likely to be conscious of
the strict train departure times and may not be willing to park in the adjacent
neighborhood and walk the 1,300 to 2,000 ft. distance estimated in the table above and
chance missing their ride. Equally undesirable may be walking by many Amtrak riders
with luggage because of the additional hardship caused by hauling the luggage to the
station. Therefore, it is safe to assume that people would be less inclined to walk the
distances presented in Table 10 at this location.

5.4 Findings and Conclusions

Based on the available research in the area of parking demand elasticity with respect to
parking pricing, the model exhibited in Figure 1 and Table 9 provides the best available
estimate for predicting parking demand elasticity with respect to parking fees. Figure 1
and Table 9 provide a very preliminary basis for estimating the expected reductions in
trips into the Solana Beach parking lot and associated parkers as a result of imposing a
fee for daily parking. These table and figure should be used with caution and any results
produced by them should be treated as a starting point for estimating parking elasticity
and not be taken as firm numbers. The following restraints should be considered when
applying Table 9 and Figure 1:

13
 Memo

1. No research studies were found that specifically address the effects of parking fee
increases at a transit center on transit ridership or parking demand. The closest
research studies were those that addressed the effects of parking fees on parking
demand, which is typically considered to discourage automobile use and shift
automobile trips to transit.

2. Existing cost elasticity research deals with the incremental change in parking fee
which is not useful in situations where the current parking is free, and increases
from zero are less meaningful.

3. The results of the Solana Beach Parking Demand Study (Wilson & Company,
November 2005) showed that a small percentage of parkers are non-transit
related, and thus the argument for enacting a parking fee to discourage non-transit
parkers may not be applicable.

4. The diversion of parkers into the neighboring residential areas will be minimized
due to the inconvenience of hauling luggage or the risk of missing the train.
Nevertheless, under any scenario, there will be a number of parker desirous of
free parking, and therefore, establishing a neighborhood parking management
program may be necessary to minimize the appeal of residential neighborhoods as
an alternative parking location.

14
 Appendix T
Project Driveway Modifications Memorandum