Since downtown parking has not been considered a public responsibility in the Washington area up to now, this part of the equation has been set at zero. Finally, we are concerned with the third component of the basic cost equation, i. e., the cost of providing fringe parking. Here, we have the equation: TCPF (OCPF + LCPF + CCPF)/ Z where: TCPF is the total annual cost per space as before OCPF, LCPF, AND CCPF are the annual per space Z is a proportion of fringe parkers who formerly drove downtown As mentioned previously, this cost equation assumes full utilization of the fringe lot. Modification to consider vacancies requires division of the total cost by the proportion of spaces in use, e. g., .8, .9, or some other number. Other assumptions that need re-statement are: 1) No off-setting revenues are obtained from parking fees; and 2) All capital and operating costs of the bus service itself, including costs for incremental highway capacity, are provided through bus fares and/or excise taxes on gasoline, oil and tires used by the bus. Fringe lot development and operating costs are assumed at $300 per year and $15 per year per space as described in section 4.1. Land costs for fringe parking lots are the costs that are most likely subject to variation depending on where the lot is precisely located. Annual land costs per space for varying prices of land are summarized in Table 4-7 below. Total costs of fringe parking lots on an annual per space basis We can assume that, for final comparison of highway and fringe parking costs, approximately 60% of the parkers arrive during the peak period. (1.25 hrs.) Analysis of the limited data available indi cates the large majority of fringe lot users formerly parked on the street. Indeed, these data indicate that only 25-30% of the lot users are new transit customers. Thus, accounting for both of these factors indicates the above figures should be multiplied by 6. 7 for comparative purposes. The final portion of the analysis is to combine the different costs of the basic equation as described above to obtain an estimate on the annual net savings. This has been done and the estimated annual savings on a per car basis are shown in Table 4-9 below. Care should be exercised in interpreting the results of this analysis. The relevance and the stringency of the assumptions limit the precision of the results. However, the data indicate that there is not necessarily a direct economic advantage to a public agency in providing fringe parking in areas near to downtown where land must be purchased at high cost. Note that these equations assume no public cost for downtown parking if fringe parking is not established. This means that the values shown are weighted somewhat against fringe parking. It also must be observed that a public agency could decide as a policy matter, that the non-market advantages of reducing the number of cars in the downtown area are sufficient to make fringe parking a wise choice even under circumstances which would allow provision of additional highways as a cheaper alternative. 5. FRINGE PARKING - SITE SELECTION CRITERIA A first step in beginning a fringe parking program, is the establishment of standards for the selection of fringe parking sites. These standards should promote the larger community transportation objectives: to improve mobility and convenience for travelers, promote desirable land use development, minimize direct public expenditures for transportation and minimize adverse impact on local communities and neighborhoods. Material presented in previous sections of this report provide valuable guidance in the development of site selection criteria which take into account these community objectives as well as the realities of need to promote usage and minimize costs. These criteria can be grouped for discussion purposes into four major categories, (1) Factors related to maximizing usage, (2) Factors which bear on public costs, (3) Impact on adjacent areas and (4) Compatability with future plans. 5.1. Factors related to maximizing usage: It is obvious that the one essential ingredient of a successful park and ride facility is that it attract usage. Observance of the habits of fringe parkers both here and in other cities allow some specific conclusions regarding factors which affect usage of fringe facilities. 5.1.1. Proximity to downtown: Both theoretical and empirical considera tions presented in this report point definitely to the conclusion that the |