SMART PARKING LINKED TO TRANSIT:
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA FIELD TEST
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D. and Charlene Kemmerer
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D.
Honda Distinguished Scholar in Transportation, University of California, Davis &
Research Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street, Bldg 190; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3483 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); sashaheen@ path. berkeley. edu; sashaheen@ ucdavis. edu
and
Charlene Kemmerer
Research Associate, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street, Bldg 190; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3545 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); ckemmerer@ path. berkeley. edu
August 1, 2007
Submitted to Transportation Research Board
Word Count: 7,096 words and 1 table
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 2
ABSTRACT
Rising demand for parking at suburban transit stations, such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit
( BART) District in California, necessitates strategies to manage traveler demand. To better
manage parking supply, researchers implemented a smart parking field test at the Rockridge
BART station from 2004 to 2006 to evaluate the effects of smart parking technologies
( changeable message signs ( CMSs), Internet reservations and billing, mobile phone and personal
digital assistant communications, and a wireless parking lot counting system) on transit ridership
and response to service pricing. Researchers employed expert interviews, Internet surveys, focus
groups, and parking reservation data to conduct this analysis. Survey data indicated that the field
test increased BART trips and resulted in 9.7 fewer miles per participant per month on average.
Key lessons learned include that it would have been beneficial to anticipate additional time for
project scoping and permitting, and fixed wayfinding signs were beneficial in both directing
vehicles from the highway to the smart parking lot and addressing resident concerns about
increased traffic. Additionally, the majority of participants continued to use the service when
fees were implemented. However, the CMSs were not widely employed in users’ decision-making
processes in this application. Finally, the wireless counting system worked well, with the
exception of the in- ground sensors, which were prone to miscounts. This paper provides an
overview of the project and key literature, behavioral effects of the field test, and lessons learned.
Key Words: Smart parking, parking management, field test, institutional understanding, lessons
learned
INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Bay Area has a higher share of transit commuters than the U. S. national
average of 4.7%. In 2005, both San Francisco ( 32.7% of commuters 16 years of age or older) and
Oakland ( 16.5%) ranked highly in a U. S. Census Bureau survey of commute modes ( 1). The Bay
Area Rapid Transit ( BART) District is a rail agency serving this area, with 43 stations and
approximately 46,000 parking spaces at 31 of the stations ( Linton Johnson, unpublished data).
Many of these stations have a parking shortage, especially during peak commute hours, and it is
often difficult to secure land and funding for additional spaces ( 2).
The Rockridge, Oakland BART station in the East Bay has a high demand for parking
and 862 total spaces. BART launched reserved parking in 2002 to guarantee commuters a space
during peak hours at stations with high parking demand. At popular stations, there can be a
substantial waitlist for monthly spots. Furthermore, if monthly subscribers do not take transit
everyday, there can be under use of reserved spaces ( even with a 10% over subscription rate).
Thus, a daily smart parking service ( peak period) could complement a monthly reserved program
by providing daily flexibility during the AM commute to those who do not use transit everyday.
Maximizing parking efficiency has additional benefits; searching for parking has negative
effects on the environment through wasted fuel and increased air pollution. Shoup ( 2005) found
that motorists within a 15- block commercial district in Los Angeles wasted an average of
945,000 miles, 100,000 hours, and 47,000 gallons of gasoline annually searching for curb
parking ( 3).
To test the daily smart parking concept during peak commute times, researchers helped to
implement a smart parking field test at the Rockridge BART station from December 2004 to
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 3
April 2006. Researchers evaluated the behavioral impacts of the smart parking system on transit
ridership and the response to pricing when fees were implemented in October 2005. The project
integrated several advanced technologies to maximize parking efficiency and traveler
convenience. The service included changeable message signs ( CMSs), located on the highway,
that displayed dynamically updated parking availability information for motorists; a wireless
counting system in the BART parking lot to provide data for these updates; and parking
reservations facilitated through the Internet and an interactive voice response ( IVR) system. This
paper examines the institutional, user perspective, and operational lessons learned from the smart
parking field test. The authors first provide an overview of the smart parking field test model,
methodology, and a literature review of past and current projects using smart parking
technologies. Second, travel behavior impacts are examined. Next, institutional, user, and
operational lessons learned are discussed. Finally, the authors summarize key findings.
SMART PARKING FIELD TEST AND RESEARCH OVERVIEW
The smart parking field test was a partnership among the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans); California PATH of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the
University of California, Berkeley; the BART District; ParkingCarma, Inc.; and Quixote
Corporation, with technology donations from Microsoft and Intel Corporations. Researchers
evaluated the following project elements: 1) effectiveness of an advanced smart parking system
in managing a parking resource, 2) impacts of smart parking management on transit ridership, 3)
behavioral response to parking information and reservations, and 4) lessons learned from the
smart parking field test.
The term “ smart parking” is broadly defined as the integration of technologies to
streamline the parking process  from dynamic space availability information to simplified
payment methods. Smart parking user interfaces include CMSs, mobile phones, personal digital
assistants ( PDAs), and the Internet.
Brief Overview of Smart Parking Model Tested
To study the daily smart parking service, BART provided 50 of the 862 total parking spaces at
the Rockridge station for the smart parking field test  35 for drive- in reservations and 15 for
advanced reservations, with a five- space buffer. Before the smart parking field test, these spaces
were reserved for use after 10: 00 AM. The service operated during the peak commute hours of
7: 30 to 10: 00 AM, Monday through Friday. Advanced reservations could be made from two
weeks up to the same day ( if available); researchers limited the number of advanced reservations
to a maximum of three every two weeks to encourage new users. BART security personnel
received a daily log of vehicle license plate numbers registered to use the service each day, and
they ticketed vehicles without reservations. Officers also used PDAs, beginning in January 2006,
to access license plate numbers of vehicles with reservations. The project involved three key
technologies: 1) in- ground sensors, located at the BART station parking lot, to count the number
of vehicles entering and exiting the smart parking lot; 2) a computer reservation system that
facilitated a real- time online user interface and telephone IVR service; and 3) two solar- powered
CMSs, located on Highway 24 near the exit for the Rockridge BART station. The CMSs
provided motorists with real- time space availability information. Fees were introduced ten
months after the field test launch to evaluate the effects of pricing on user behavior.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 4
The smart parking wireless counting system was comprised of six in- ground sensors; two
local base units ( LBUs); and a master base unit ( MBU) installed in the Rockridge BART station
smart parking lot; and a computer server situated at ParkingCarma, Inc. Sensors were located at
each entrance and exit of the smart parking lot to track vehicle entrance and egress. They
wirelessly communicated parking count information to the solar- powered LBUs, which
transmitted data to the MBU. From there, data were transmitted to the ParkingCarma, Inc. central
computer through the Internet. Once data reached the central computer, parking availability
information was updated on the three user interfaces ( CMSs, IVR system, and the reservation
website) ( 4).
Methodology
Researchers evaluated the smart parking field test using results from two focus groups, a before
and after Internet- based user survey, reservation data from the ParkingCarma, Inc. central
computer, and expert interviews with project partners and the smart parking field test manager.
The two focus groups were held in May 2005 and included a combined total of 23 participants.
Over 400 responses were collected during the initial field test survey in December 2004, and
there were 177 responses for the final survey in early 2006. Reservation data were collected by
ParkingCarma, Inc. and included all parking reservations made during the field test. Expert
interviews with project partners were held in early- to mid- 2007. A literature review on past and
current smart parking projects is provided in the following section.
BACKGROUND
The last decade has seen an increase in the prevalence and variety of parking information and
payment services available to travelers searching for parking. CMSs can be used to inform
travelers of available parking and provide directions to the closest parking lot with vacancies.
Mobile phone and Internet services can be employed to provide parking availability information
and facilitate parking payment. CMS, mobile phone, and Internet technologies have been
integrated to enable smart parking in areas with high parking demand.
CMSs can be used to display a range of parking information for travelers. In Edinburgh,
Scotland, for example, CMSs formerly displayed messages indicating if car parks were “ full,”
“ nearly full,” or available with “ spaces” ( 5). Twenty radio- controlled CMSs throughout the city
now display the exact number of available parking spaces for city parking garages ( 6; Michael
Gallagher, unpublished data). In Cologne, Germany, the city uses CMSs at 90 locations to
display dynamically updated parking information ( 7). Some signs at the city boundary indicate
the parking availability rate for the downtown area ( e. g., 70% full); at more than 90% capacity,
the signs recommend travelers use nearby park- and- ride lots. Others closer to the city center
display the number of remaining spaces in a group of parking garages or even the closest
approaching garage ( Hartmut Sorich, unpublished data). Leicester, England employs over 30
CMSs to display city parking space information using color classifications ( 8).
To encourage transit ridership, CMSs also have been used to display information for
park- and- ride lots. The Chicago Metra line, for example, provides parking availability
information for two station park- and- ride lots using eight CMSs placed on highways and arterial
streets as part of a two- year demonstration project launched in Summer 2006 ( Patrick Waldron,
unpublished data). Detectors at the parking lot entrances and exits communicate vacancy
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 5
information to the CMSs, which provide dynamic information ( i. e., the number of available
parking spaces) and static directions to the parking lots ( 9). The Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority ( WMATA) launched a pilot project in early 2007 to notify travelers about the
number of available spaces at the Vienna/ Fairfax- George Mason University station parking lot in
Fairfax, Virginia using two CMSs. The agency has future plans to display a message directing
travelers to another station parking lot in the event that it reaches capacity ( Patrick Smith,
unpublished data). In York, England, CMSs display parking availability and transit schedule
information for park- and- ride lots in the city ( 10).
Parking information also is accessible through mobile phones, PDAs, and the Internet;
parking payment can be facilitated through these interfaces as an added convenience for
travelers. Drivers in Vienna, Austria, can register with a private parking service, mParking, and
send a text message from their mobile phone to pay for parking using either a registered credit
card or pre- paid account. Customers of mParking are automatically sent a text message before
their parking session expires ( 11). mParking is also available in over 15 cities in Ireland,
Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States ( known also as “ mPARK”) ( 12).
Another parking system, RingGo, allows travelers in the United Kingdom to pay for parking at
First Great Western railway stations using a mobile phone. Travelers also receive a text message
reminder ten minutes before their parking reservation expires ( 13). A field test in Brussels,
Belgium, called e- Parking, provides travelers parking availability information and enables users
to make reservations and payments through a parking space optimization service ( PSOS),
accessible by mobile phone, the Internet, or PDA. Travelers gain access to parking entrances and
exits through Bluetooth technology in their mobile phones, and PSOS enables users to
automatically pay for parking through a registered credit card when exiting the lot ( 14).
The research project Stadtinfo Köln ( means “ City Info Cologne”) incorporated CMSs,
mobile phones, PDAs, the Internet, and in- vehicle navigation interfaces to provide traveler
information  from transit schedules to parking availability information and forecasts  to
participants in Cologne, Germany. Tested between 1998 and 2002, Stadtinfo Köln provided
parking information on 37 parking lots ( approximately 17,000 spaces) and 1,000 metered spaces
via 19 CMSs. Parking spaces also could be reserved using a license plate number or separate
unique identification number ( 15). Finally, a project in Toyota City, Japan provided parking
availability information to travelers through telephone, CMSs, and radio. An interim survey of
system users revealed that 95% of respondents saw the CMSs, and 71% used the information in
their decision- making process about what parking lot to use ( 16). Interestingly, during the smart
parking field test the CMSs were not found to be as effective due to uncertainty about count
accuracy, message clarity, and potential need for more signage on additional highway routes
traveled by participants.
Advanced parking management systems have been used to successfully inform travelers
of available parking across the globe. The majority of the experience in smart parking involves
CMSs, and activity has been most common in Europe. More recently, smart parking has
integrated mobile phones, PDAs, and Internet communication and reservations. The travel
behavior results from the Rockridge BART smart parking field test are discussed in the next
section.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 6
SMART PARKING TRAVEL BEHAVIOR IMPACTS
Travel behavior effects of the smart parking field test were evaluated through a before and after
Internet- based user survey. More than 30% of respondents indicated that smart parking
encouraged them to use BART instead of driving alone to their typical place of work or on- site
work location, and 55.9% stated the same for commutes to an off- site work location ( e. g., to
attend meetings) ( 17).
Furthermore, the program attracted a new user population to BART. Forty- nine percent
of respondents did not use BART to commute to work before smart parking and were
encouraged to use BART more because they could drive to the station. In addition, smart parking
resulted in sizable increases in BART modal share. On average, smart parking users increased
BART use by 5.5 trips per month for on- site work commutes and by four trips per month for off-site
commutes. Finally, the program reduced overall vehicle miles traveled by 9.7 fewer miles
per participant per month on average and decreased average commute time by 2.6 minutes ( 17).
In the next section, the authors provide an overview of the institutional lessons learned from the
project.
INSTITUTIONAL UNDERSTANDING
The smart parking field test provided a unique opportunity to document the institutional success
factors and lessons learned from a real- world smart parking field test. Institutional lessons
address the following areas: the public- private partnership, site selection, smart parking signage,
operating and encroachment permits, and enforcement.
Public- Private Partnership
A key success factor of the smart parking field test was the strength of the public- private
partnership. A collection of interagency agreements and contracts outlined specific roles and
responsibilities for each partner, which facilitated the use of private resources to implement
smart parking at a transit station. Furthermore, the project agreements documented that the
partners were willing to work together to implement and launch the field test at the Rockridge
BART station.
The strength of the public- private partnership resulted from the set of skills and resources
that each partner applied to the field test, such as Caltrans’ development of the smart parking
design and funding commitment, PATH’s research expertise, ParkingCarma, Inc.’ s technical
knowledge and equipment access, and BART’s parking facility and enforcement personnel.
Primary partners and subcontractors were identified while the project proposal was developed.
Periodic meetings and weekly updates helped to maintain these relationships throughout the
project. Researchers learned that it is helpful to anticipate project delays, such as refining the
project scope, coordinating numerous agencies, and addressing additional project variables ( e. g.,
parking payment policies). Approximately six months were allocated for the field test project
scoping phase. In the future, an additional three months is advised for this step.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 7
Site Selection
The criteria for selecting the smart parking transit site were as follows: 1) the field test should be
located at a station at or near maximum parking capacity; 2) the location should be near a major
freeway or arterial; 3) there should be structured access ( entrances and exits) to the parking lot
for placement of vehicle sensor technology to ensure accurate parking counts; and 4) agreement
among the BART District and other partners on the selected site.
Initially, the field test was envisioned to incorporate an overflow parking strategy for the
Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station in Pleasanton, California. However, an economic downturn in
the Bay Area lessened the parking demand at the station before the project began. Thus, a new
site was selected. This was an early lesson learned: changes in the economy can impact
congestion and affect parking demand and ultimately site selection.
Three additional stations were then considered based on the site selection criteria: 1) El
Cerrito Del Norte in the City of El Cerrito, 2) downtown Walnut Creek, and 3) Rockridge in the
City of Oakland. The Walnut Creek BART station was excluded based on city zoning laws that
prevented CMS use on roadways. An analysis of 1998 BART passenger survey data
demonstrated that of all the stations considered, the Rockridge station was among the least likely
to be accessed by auto. Researchers hypothesized that this might be the result of high parking
demand. Observational analyses conducted by researchers in April 2003 found that parking
demand was the highest at the Rockridge station ( between the El Cerrito Del Norte and
Rockridge stations). Thus, it was selected as the smart parking test site ( 4).
Smart Parking Signage
The smart parking CMSs were placed on Highway 24 before and after a heavily traveled three-bore
tunnel in the East Bay. Researchers examined the effects of the CMSs on travel times to
determine whether the signs impeded traffic by recording driving times at three checkpoints
before and after the CMSs were deployed in November 2004 and again in April 2005 ( 18).
Driving times varied due to different drivers, whether there was an unrelated traffic accident, and
changes in traffic flow. The limited analysis did not indicate sign- related traffic impediments. A
limitation of this evaluation, however, was that variables other than the CMSs could have
affected the observed traffic flow including: weather, driving behavior, and traffic conditions. In
addition, travel times on the highway were recorded to the nearest minute, and actual times could
have differed by as much as 30 seconds ( 18). A lesson learned is to plan and budget for a CMS
impact evaluation, if CMSs are to be used in future projects.
Fixed station and wayfinding signs for the smart parking service were installed on local
streets leading up to and at the smart parking site. Wayfinding signs directed vehicles from
Highway 24 to the Rockridge BART station and helped to address community concerns that
vehicles searching for the smart parking lot would create more traffic. This also provided BART
with additional advertising. Fixed signs located at the Rockridge BART station designated smart
parking spots and hours of operation. While the signs were a success factor of the field test,
focus group participants and final survey respondents indicated that better fixed signage would
have been beneficial to designate the smart parking spaces at the station. Existing artwork ( a
large- scale mural), however, made it difficult to install additional signs at the lot. The smart
parking project manager also suggested that better project branding ( i. e., a project name and
logo) and additional monthly reserved parking signs may have helped to distinguish the smart
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 8
parking spaces. Also, fixed signage in Spanish may prove beneficial in areas with diverse
populations.
Operating and Encroachment Permits
Both BART and the local Caltrans district require permits for installing and operating equipment
on their rights- of- way. The smart parking field test secured a construction ( Permit to Enter) and
an operation ( Concession Permit) permit from BART for the wireless sensors and associated
parking lot technology. An encroachment permit from Caltrans was required for the CMSs on
Highway 24. These permits addressed local site conditions, insurance, and the amount of time
the project was permitted to operate. The field test did not have a separate budget for permitting;
however, time to obtain the permits was built into the implementation project phase. Two months
were allocated for permitting; however, it ultimately took between six to seven months. A lesson
learned is that more time should be designated for the permitting process ( at least six months),
and a budget should be prepared for this stage of the project, including permit funds, review, and
safety fees. The cost to obtain the permits and safety inspection from BART was approximately
$ 2,000 US. Caltrans did not charge for the permit because they were the research funding agency
and exempt all public agencies from such fees. Otherwise, Caltrans charges $ 328 US to review
encroachment permit applications, and agency inspectors charge $ 82 US per hour to inspect
equipment installation. One Caltrans permitting engineer estimated that the installation of two
CMSs would require four hours of inspection time at a cost of $ 328, plus the application fee for a
total of $ 656 US.
Enforcement
Enforcement personnel, comprised of BART police officers and paid community service
assistants, used two methods to enforce parking reservations during the field test. First, a list of
license plate numbers for vehicles with reservations was faxed to Rockridge BART enforcement
officers at both 9: 30 and 10: 05 AM by ParkingCarma, Inc. Second, in January 2006,
ParkingCarma, Inc. decided to test PDAs as an enforcement tool. Two PDAs were assigned to
enforcement personnel to access registered smart parking user license plate information, which
enabled them to identify vehicles that did not have a valid reservation. ParkingCarma, Inc.
provided the necessary personnel training on accessing the registered vehicle data. One
ParkingCarma, Inc. staff member noted that the field test did not employ enough PDAs for every
enforcement officer to use because the initial budget did not include them. Due to enforcement
staff rotations, it was not possible to consistently implement this method of enforcement during
the research project. If vehicles parked in a smart parking space were not in the database, they
were issued a ticket. If they were in the database but did not have a reservation, their account was
charged. As part of the registration process, users entered a credit card that was charged a flat fee
of $ 30 US. Reservation fees were deducted from their account balance. An additional $ 30 US
was added automatically, as needed. Later, as the field test approached its end, users were
charged on a per- transaction basis.
Since free parking was offered at the Rockridge BART station at 10 AM, it made it
difficult to determine if an unreserved vehicle had parked legally using the faxed list of
confirmed reservations. One officer used chalk to mark tires at 9: 30 AM and issued a ticket if the
vehicle did not have a reservation by 10: 05 AM. One ParkingCarma, Inc. staff member indicated
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 9
that it was helpful to have a live operator available to assist users when parking tickets were
issued in error; an employee of ParkingCarma, Inc. assisted users as requests came in. The
provision of a live operator introduces additional costs of approximately $ 26,775 over 18 months
for a full- time employee ( estimating 40 hours per week and 255 days per year) to the service
( 18). The authors discuss lessons learned from the user perspective in the following section.
USER PERSPECTIVE
At the conclusion of the field test in 2006, there were over 13,000 successful smart parking
events ( 19). Users provided feedback on: the online reservation system, telephone reservations,
CMSs, and pricing.
Online Reservation System
More than 4,000 smart parking reservations were made through the online reservation system.
The ParkingCarma, Inc. website enabled users to register for the service and reserve parking
spaces up to two weeks in advance. Users also had access to account services ( e. g., billing
information), directions to the smart parking site, and pricing information once fees were
introduced. Through focus groups and a final survey, users expressed greater satisfaction with
reserving spaces online in contrast to the telephone- based IVR system. Furthermore, users
indicated that they wanted to make more advanced reservations than the limit allowed ( i. e., three
reservations every two weeks).
Participants noted that the online reservation system could be improved and indicated the
following concerns:
• It was not user- friendly ( e. g., one participant said she had to re- teach herself how to use
the reservation system every time she visited the website).
• Parking spaces could only be reserved before 10: 00 AM, and some wanted the time
extended later in the day.
• It was difficult to change the primary car listing ( e. g., if a user purchased a new vehicle).
Survey respondents also indicated they had difficulty creating an online account. One
ParkingCarma Inc. staff member noted that the website wizard  a tool created to help first- time
users  was underused.
Participants generally liked that they could access their reservation history and the
printout feature for advanced reservations. A few survey respondents noted that they did not like
having to print the advanced reservation receipt to post in their windshield, and one suggested
using a decal sticker instead. Another recommended a reminder of their parking reservation via
PDA. Overall, 75% of survey respondents indicated that their reserved space always had been
available when they arrived at the smart parking lot.
Telephone Reservations
Telephone reservations, facilitated through a customized IVR system, accounted for
approximately 9,000 reservations during the smart parking field test. Users dialed a
ParkingCarma, Inc. telephone number, displayed on the smart parking fixed signage in the
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 10
BART station lot, to make reservations. If they had previously registered with the service, they
provided their user ID and PIN. If it was an individual’s first time as a user, she entered her
license plate number to reserve a space. The user was then provided with a space number  a
unique number painted on the smart parking space  to indicate where her vehicle was parked.
Participants indicated that they liked the ability to call in reservations real time. The
majority of concerns with the reservation process involved the IVR system. They include:
• The IVR system voice, known as “ Kate,” did not repeat nor confirm information stated
by the user, and it did not decipher verbal commands consistently.
• Participants indicated that it was easier to make drive- in reservations than advanced
reservations via the IVR system.
• Survey respondents reported that the system had an introductory message that was too
long for repeat users, and no by- pass option was available.
• Other respondents were concerned about using the IVR in a transit environment that was
often noisy and had poor mobile phone reception.
• Respondents also indicated that the IVR space count was unreliable.
Respondents suggested that the system have a numerical keypad option, in addition to the IVR,
to address the concern that verbal commands were not well understood. Furthermore, a Spanish
language option might be helpful.
Finally, participants did not like that there was not an easily accessible phone nor kiosk
near the smart parking lot, making it difficult for users without mobile phones to make drive- in
reservations. It was suggested that a courtesy phone be placed closer to the smart parking area to
make it more convenient for users without mobile phones.
Changeable Message Signs ( CMSs)
CMSs located on Highway 24 in Oakland displayed real- time parking availability information
for morning commuters from 7: 30 to 9: 40 AM, Monday through Friday. The signs displayed two
alternating messages: 1) the number of available smart parking spaces at the Rockridge BART
station, which was continuously updated by the wireless counting system, and 2) static directions
to the smart parking site from the highway ( i. e., “ Exit College Ave.”). Expert interviews with the
smart parking project manager indicated that the CMSs were beneficial because they provided
general project awareness and, after seeing the parking availability everyday at the same time,
some travelers were encouraged to participate in the field test. CMS placement is important, and
the location should be on users’ commute routes.
Results from the focus groups and final survey indicate, however, that the signs were
underused. Only 39% of users reported seeing the CMSs on Highway 24. Of survey respondents,
58% reported that they had never used the signs in their decision- making process; among focus
group participants, this number was as high as 87%. Survey results also indicated that 35% had
found the information on the CMSs to be accurate, compared to 54% who were “ unsure,” and
11% who did not. Focus group participants generally expressed one of two concerns: 1) the
CMSs were not located on their commute route, and 2) the information on the signs was not
descriptive enough. Some participants indicated that travelers might not be sure if the spaces
would be available when they pulled off the highway, particularly as the number of available
parking spaces displayed on the signs did not change frequently. One suggestion from the focus
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 11
groups is that more public outreach could be developed to help motorists better understand the
purpose of the information displayed on the CMSs. Finally, participants indicated that they were
confused about what information the signs were trying to convey; in addition, some felt that only
project users would understand what the messages meant.
Pricing
The smart parking field test began charging users in October 2005, ten months after the initial
launch. This provided researchers with an opportunity to test the effects of pricing on smart
parking behavior. Users were charged $ 1.00 US per day for drive- in reservations and $ 4.50 US
per day for advanced reservations, as determined by BART managers.
After fees were implemented, reservation data from ParkingCarma, Inc.’ s central
computer revealed that drive- in reservations increased while advanced reservations decreased.
From January to March 2005, before charges began, “ drive- ins” averaged 57% of total
reservations. For the same time period in 2006, after users were charged to park, drive- in
reservations averaged 80% of total reservations, an increase of 23 percentage points.
Sixty- four percent of survey respondents reported that they continued smart parking use
when fees were introduced; however, nearly 75% of respondents noted that they would stop
using the service, if daily parking fees equaled or exceeded $ 5.00 US per day. Furthermore, 43%
answered “ yes” when asked if they made fewer advanced versus drive- in reservations when
parking fees were implemented, while 46% answered “ no” and 11% were “ unsure.”
Focus group participants agreed overall that they would be willing to pay for smart
parking, but that it should not be more expensive than monthly reserved parking  $ 84 US per
month at the Rockridge BART station parking lot, equivalent to $ 4.00 US per workday. Others
suggested that it should not cost more than nearby commercial parking. Commercial parking lots
within a three- mile radius of the Rockridge BART station have average parking rates as follows:
$ 3.00 US hourly, $ 13 US daily, and $ 158 US monthly.
Respondents indicated that their greatest concern with smart parking pricing was that the
cost of parking combined with BART fares was too expensive. Roundtrip BART fares average
$ 6 to $ 8 US, depending on the user’s end station ( 17). Using the smart parking reservation
service every workday, in addition to the cost of a roundtrip BART ticket, would range $ 147 to
$ 189 US monthly for drive- in reservations and $ 220.50 to $ 262.50 US monthly for advanced
reservations, assuming 21 workdays per month.
Others indicated that the smart parking fees were too expensive, particularly those for the
advanced reservations, and that they did not like the price discrepancy between the advanced and
drive- in reservations. Some suggested not charging for the service. There were also concerns
about charging flat increments of $ 30 US into an electronic account; some preferred a per
transaction charge. For instance, one respondent noted that she was borrowing a vehicle for a
short period and would not use all her balance because she did not own a car. At the end of the
field test, participants who had balances received refunds. A discussion of the operational
perspective is provided in the next section.
OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Smart parking relied on the successful installation and operation of an integrated network of
technologies. Since a majority of the hardware was off- the- shelf, there were numerous
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 12
challenges in customizing the equipment. Operational lessons learned were garnered from the
user interfaces and parking lot technology.
User Interfaces
Both the telephone and website reservation systems operated well and without significant
problems. Substantial testing of the user interfaces ( e. g., research staff testing phone and Internet
reservations) in late 2004 before the field test launched enabled researchers to have a high degree
of confidence that the system could perform accurately during peak periods ( 4). Since first- time,
drive- in callers made smart parking reservations by providing their license plate numbers,
technical experts at ParkingCarma, Inc. programmed the IVR system with California specific
Department of Motor Vehicle license plate regulations ( e. g., California license plates do not start
with the number ‘ 5,’ so the system would not recognize this as a first number), which
successfully conserved computer data space. The longest caller wait time was two seconds, with
peak load time occurring at 8: 30 AM. According to one ParkingCarma, Inc. staff member, it was
sometimes difficult for the IVR system to identify users’ accents, and for some users, English
was not their first language. Staff further indicated that it was helpful to have a live operator
available, especially during peak periods, to answer questions about the service.
Overall, the smart parking website performed well. One ParkingCarma, Inc. employee
suggested that less screens on the website would make it easier for users to navigate.
The project team encountered difficulties with the CMSs as both had intermittent,
unreliable operations due to electronic and communication problems. One CMS in particular had
trouble with mobile phone communication, which was the result of a defective modem and an
improperly configured sign controller that was later repaired by the vendor ( 17). Another
concern was that the CMSs were expensive to operate due to frequent real- time updates of smart
parking space availability. As a result, ParkingCarma, Inc. technical staff switched the mobile
phone standard used for the signs to the global system for mobile communications ( GSM) at the
same time that Quixote replaced the signs, which resulted in airtime data charge savings of
approximately 10 to 30%. One Quixote partner indicated that as the signs age ( the first two
CMSs used for the field test had been in storage for one year), repairs and firmware upgrades
make replacement more cost effective.
Parking Sensor System
Expert interviews revealed that the most difficulty arose from the in- ground sensors. Prior to this
project, the sensors had been used on highways and streets with traffic in one direction only.
Project partners modified the firmware to detect two- way vehicle movements, and testing at an
off- site location indicated that they worked well. At the BART station, however, the sensors
were unpredictable in their ability to accurately count vehicles moving at parking lot speeds. As
a result, the hardware vendors determined that changes were necessary for the counter software
( 18). Technicians and senior partner officials tried to fix the sensors and performed a number of
investigations, but they continued to miscount vehicles. Project partners noted that this problem
may have resulted from the magnetic field at the BART station, since the sensors work by
detecting the changing magnetic fields from vehicles passing over the sensors. Also, sensors had
difficulty accounting for atypical vehicle movements, such as cars driving into or out of the lot
the wrong way. Researchers tried to minimize such movements through the use of temporary
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 13
barriers. The sensors were eventually replaced during the field test with ones that were situated
aboveground, which were more effective and less expensive. The integration of the new sensors
with the wireless counting system resulted in communication protocol problems that were
resolved by ParkingCarma, Inc. technicians. Researchers ultimately maintained count accuracy
by using a proprietary algorithm developed by ParkingCarma, Inc. that corrected the sensor
problems and accounted for instances when vehicles queued above the sensors. See Table 1
below, which summarizes key institutional, user perspective, and operational success factors and
lessons learned.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 14
TABLE 1 Lessons Learned from the Smart Parking Field Test
Success Factors Lessons Learned
Public- Private
Partnership
The partnership was a success due to the
resources and expertise of each partner.
Three additional months ( nine months total) should
be allocated for the project scoping phase to account
for unexpected delays.
Site Selection Identifying a site that reflects project
criteria ( e. g., high parking demand,
potential to more efficiently manage
parking) is critical to project success.
Local economic conditions can change and affect
parking demand and subsequently site selection.
- Anticipate budgeting for a CMS impact evaluation,
if using the signs on highway rights- of- way.
Smart Parking
Signage
Wayfinding signs directing vehicles to the
smart parking site can alleviate concerns
that the project may create additional traffic
on local roadways.
- Additional fixed signage and project branding could
help drivers locate spaces better in the future.
Operating and
Encroachment
Permits
Obtaining operating and encroachment
permits from government agencies allowed
equipment installation and operation.
A minimum of six months should be allocated and
budgeted for the permitting process.
Enforcement A live operator helped assist users when
parking tickets were issued in error.
Increased investment in enforcement technology
( e. g., handheld PDAs) may be beneficial in the future.
Online
Reservation
System
- Users liked the ability to make online
reservations, and it was a popular feature of
the smart parking service.
- The reservation history and print- out
feature for advanced reservations were
generally liked.
- Websites should be user friendly, and the process
for creating an account should be simple.
- A parking reservation reminder via PDA would be
helpful.
- Consider another method for verifying reservations,
such as decals.
- A successful IVR system should repeat and confirm
information. Additionally, it should understand verbal
commands in noisy environments, such as transit
stations. A touchtone option may be used as an
alternative for users having difficulty with the system.
- Introductory messages should be informative but
concise. A bypass option should be provided.
Telephone
Reservations
The telephone reservation system enabled
users to make en- route and on- site parking
reservations.
- A courtesy phone or kiosk could enable travelers
without mobile phones access to the service.
- CMS placement is important, and the location
should be on users’ commute routes.
- Enhanced project publicity may increase confidence
in the CMS messages.
Changeable
Message
Signs
After seeing the CMSs everyday on their
commute route, some travelers were
encouraged to try the service.
- Further study of message wording is necessary to
ensure travelers understand sign communications.
Pricing The majority of users continued using the
service after fees were implemented.
Fees could be charged per- transaction for users who
wanted to use the service only in the short term.
- Substantial testing before the field test
began ensured the technology worked well.
- An IVR system that recognizes accents and is
available in Spanish could be beneficial.
- IVR system data space was conserved by
programming California specific license
plate rules.
User Interface
Operations
- A live operator helped answer questions
users had about making reservations.
- Changing the mobile phone standard used for the
CMSs saved money.
Parking
Sensor
System
Operations
- The local base units, master base unit, and
computer server operated well.
- Temporary barriers can help direct
vehicles over parking lot sensors.
Above- ground sensors that can identify vehicles
moving at parking lot speeds and can account for
atypical vehicle movements ( e. g., wide turns) should
be used.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 15
CONCLUSION
It is important to review the success factors and lessons learned from the smart parking field test
so that they can be used as a guide for planners and practitioners interested in implementing
smart parking projects in the future. The BART smart parking field test was the first of its kind
in the U. S., which was preceded by a handful of international projects in Germany and Japan.
Over the last decade, the majority of past smart parking projects have focused on CMSs,
particularly in Europe. Parking payment via mobile phone has developed more recently. The
Rockridge field test is notable for its integration of numerous smart parking technologies,
including Internet reservations and billing and mobile phone and PDA communications.
The smart parking field test successfully increased BART use by 5.5 trips per month for
on- site work commutes and by four trips per month for off- site commutes. Participants reduced
vehicle miles traveled by 9.7 miles per month on average, and a decrease of average commute
time of 2.6 minutes ( 17).
A review of the institutional issues associated with the smart parking field test indicated
some key success factors including the strength of the public- private partnership and the use of
static wayfinding signs to direct travelers to the BART station smart parking lot. Lessons learned
include the following:
• Allocating additional time for the project scoping phase and permitting process;
• Anticipating and budgeting for an impact evaluation on highway traffic flow due to the
CMSs;
• Project branding for additional publicity and user understanding; and
• Increased investment in enforcement technology.
Users noted a preference for the online reservation system over the telephone IVR
system, despite more reservations having been made via IVR throughout the field test due to
project parameters. The majority also continued to use the service once fees were implemented,
but indicated that the service should not cost more than nearby commercial parking nor monthly
reserved parking at the BART station. Lessons learned include:
• Making the website more user friendly;
• Improving IVR system communications ( e. g., ensuring it can repeat and confirm
information);
• Installing a courtesy phone or kiosk in the parking lot for users to make reservations;
• Increased lot signage, including signs in Spanish, to help travelers find smart parking
spaces;
• Charging parking reservation fees on a per- transaction basis instead of carrying a
balance; and
• Installing CMSs on all nearby, popular commute routes with access to the transit station.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 16
From an operational perspective, initial testing of the user interface technology ensured
that the systems worked well prior to the project launch. The wireless counting system, with the
exception of problems associated with the in- ground sensors, also performed well during the
field test, and temporary barriers helped direct vehicles over the sensors. Lessons learned
include:
• Using an IVR system that is better able to understand all users ( e. g., those with accents
and who speak Spanish);
• Selecting a mobile service standard that will keep the costs associated with the CMSs
low; and
• Employing sensors that can account for a range of parking lot vehicle movements.
As smart parking for transit projects move beyond the testing phase to pilot
programs  including an upcoming PATH and Federal Highway Administration Value Pricing
Pilot Program initiative at five stations in conjunction with the San Diego Coast Express Rail
( COASTER) to launch in late- 2007  careful consideration of success factors and lessons learned
from the Rockridge field test should be factored into the design. In addition, ongoing
documentation of lessons learned, behavioral impacts, and cost effectiveness should be
continued to further advance the knowledge of this promising parking service.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the California Department of Transportation, California Partners
for Advanced Transit and Highways ( PATH); the BART District; ParkingCarma, Inc.; Quixote
Corporation; Intel; and Microsoft for their generous contributions to the smart parking field test.
We would also like to acknowledge the invaluable input of Linda Novick, Caroline Rodier, Judy
Liu, Melissa Chung, Cynthia Phan, and Kate Reimer of California PATH and the Innovative
Mobility Research Group of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center of UC Berkeley
in support of this paper. Thanks also go to Rick Warner and Donal Botkin of ParkingCarma, Inc.
for their numerous technical insights from the field test. The contents of this paper reflect the
views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented.
REFERENCES
1. 2007 American Community Survey Data. U. S. Census Bureau. www. census. gov/ Press-
Release/ www/ 2007/ Pub_ Trans_ Tables. xls. Accessed June 25, 2007.
2. Shirgaokar, M., and E. Deakin. Study of Park- and- Ride Facilities and Their Use in the San
Francisco Bay Area of California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board No. 1927, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C.,
2005, pp. 46- 54.
3. Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association Planners Press,
Washington, D. C., 2005.
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 17
4. Shaheen, S. A., C. J. Rodier, and A. M. Eaken. Smart Parking Management Field Test: A Bay
Area Rapid Transit ( BART) District Parking Demonstration – Final Report. UCB- ITS- PRR-
2005- 5. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
5. Roden, A. City Gets Real as Signs Show Drivers Way to a Parking Bay. Edinburgh Evening
News, Mar. 28, 2006. www. edinburghnews. scotsman. com/ index. cfm? id= 479982006. Accessed
June 8, 2007.
6. Ferguson, B. Electronic Parking Signs Arrive at Last. Edinburgh Evening News, Mar. 9, 2007.
www. edinburghnews. scotsman. com/ index. cfm? id= 377482007. Accessed June 8, 2007.
7. Tignor, S. C., et al. Innovative Traffic Control: Technology and Practice in Europe.
Publication FHWA- PL- 99- 021. FHWA, U. S. Department of Transportation, 1999.
www. ntl. bts. gov/ lib/ 8000/ 8500/ 8540/ innovtce. pdf. Accessed May 10, 2007.
8. Gillam, J. The Public Need Information, But How Much Is Too Much? Traffic Engineering &
Control, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2004, pp. 166- 167.
9. Advanced Parking Management Systems: A Cross- Cutting Study. Publication FHWA- JPO- 07-
011. FHWA, U. S. Department of Transportation, 2007.
www. its. dot. gov/ jpodocs/ repts_ te/ 14318_ files/ 14318. pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007.
10. Space Hunting. Highways. Jan.- February 2003, pp. 41- 42.
11. Arnott, S. Parking Tickets by Text, Smartcard Driving Licences, and ETicketing. Computing,
Oct. 20, 2004. www. vnunet. com/ computing/ news/ 2071148/ parking- ticke... rivinglicences-eticketing?
vnu_ lt= vnu_ art_ related_ articles. Accessed March 7, 2007.
12. mPARK Homepage. www. mparkusa. com. Accessed June 14, 2007.
13. RingGo Parking System, First Great Western Stations, United Kingdom. Road Traffic
Technology. www. roadtraffic- technology. com/ projects/ ringgo/. Accessed June 15, 2007.
14. Halleman, B. Europe’s Space Program…( Parking Space, Naturally). Traffic Technology
International, Feb.- March 2003, pp. 46- 49.
15. Stadtinfo Cologne Traffic and Parking Data System, Germany. Road Traffic Technology.
www. roadtraffic- technology. com/ projects/ stadtinfo. Accessed March 5, 2007.
16. Sakai, A., K. Goto, T. Sugimoto, and T. Okuda. Smart Parking in Toyota’s Motown. ITS:
Intelligent Transport Systems, March 1996, pp. 89- 90.
17. Rodier, C. J., and S. A. Shaheen. Transit- Based Smart Parking: An Evaluation of the San
Francisco Bay Area Field Test. Transportation Research Part C, 2007 ( Forthcoming).
Shaheen and Kemmerer. August 1, 2007 18
18. Shaheen, S. A., and C. J. Rodier. Smart Parking Management Field Test: A Bay Area Rapid
Transit ( BART) District Parking Demonstration – Interim Working Paper. UCB- ITS- PWP- 2006-
10. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2006.
19. Acme Innovation, Inc. Smart Parking Field Operational Test at Rockridge BART. Acme
Innovation, Inc., 2006.