Exploring the Social Value of Parking Booking Intermediaries

When having to drive to downtown Chicago or other parts of the city, the most frustrating detail is oftentimes finding a place to park your car. Like many other travelers, you may spend time roaming block to block, searching for an available, convenient and low-cost location.

Even when you act as a conscientious trip planner and, prior to departure, compare options posted on various parking facility websites, you are likely to find that most provide standard parking rates but not always options to reserve a space, extend your stay or check availability.

The Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development’s recent study, Driving Toward Efficiency, examines the impact of parking booking intermediaries–such as SpotHero, Parking Panda, ParkWhiz and Best Parking–and the degree to which these online platforms help foster the efficient allocation of parking.

Cover page of Driving Toward Efficiency report

The study begins with a review of common problems associated with private off-street parking and carries out various geographic analyses comparing the prices as advertised via these intermediaries with more traditional parking options in Chicago, including on-street parking meters. Overall, the study finds that parking booking intermediaries help operators maximize inventory, provide flexible, cost-efficient options for drivers and more closely align their decisions with public goals.

The study finds that parking intermediaries add to the quality of the parking experience by creating user-friendly platforms that ease the drivers’ selection and reserving of parking spaces. The table below shows conveniences and information available on booking intermediaries versus parking operator websites. For example, our analysis indicates that more than 20% of facilities listed on SpotHero do not offer the option to pre-purchase a reservation on the official website of the parking facility operator and some do not have websites at all. For these facilities, of course, various online conveniences are also not available, such as extending reservations without returning to the facility, obtaining a lost receipt by logging in to a digital account, or checking out customer reviews of the facility.

Conveniences and Information Available on Booking Intermediaries vs. Parking Operator Websites
Conveniences and Information Available on Booking Intermediaries vs. Parking Operator Websites

The study also utilizes datasets from different sources in order to visualize and compare both on-street and off-street facilities within the city. Researchers extracted parking price and location data from the SpotHero website for 499 listings. The Chicago Parking Meter API endpoint was also used to identify associated locations and rates for on-street parking. To compare on- and off-street prices, the weighted average of hourly rates were calculated for all parking meter spaces located within a 200m buffer of each facility listed on SpotHero. (Thanks to Steve Vance for guidance on how to access relevant Chicago Parking Meters, LLC data.) The map below shows the distribution of parking facilities listed on SpotHero and their associated prices relative to Chicago’s parking meters expressed in hourly rates. Facilities represented as red circles have hourly SpotHero rates greater than nearby parking meters whereas facilities represented with green circles have SpotHero rates that are less than parking meters.

Overall, the two options are rather cost competitive, with a slightly higher share of facilities shaded red on the map (50 percent) compared to green (44 percent). This suggests that, in some cases, on-street parking can still be a more cost-efficient option compared to off-street parking if the location and parking restrictions (i.e., all Chicago parking meters have a two-hour maximum stay) align with the driver’s trip.

Distribution of Parking Facilities Listed on SpotHero
Distribution of Parking Facilities Listed on SpotHero Relative to Parking Meters

For more information and findings, please read the entire report. We also encourage you to post your questions and comments below.

A Bold Proposal to Expand Divvy

The winter weather is almost behind us, and for your friendly neighborhood Chaddick team, that means it’s time to get excited about summer biking around Chicago!

Source: Flickr, Brent Roman

Apparently, Mayor Emanuel is thinking the same thing. He, along with the city’s Department of Transportation, is proposing amendments to the contract with Divvy operator Motivate International.

We at Chaddick are fully behind this proposal, which, if passed by City Council, would bring bikesharing to all 50 of the city’s wards and make hopping on a Divvy bike much easier for tens of thousands.

We feel passionately about this issue. Our report, Dimensions of Divvy, authored by C. Scott Smith and Riley O’Neil, traced the evolution of our docked bikeshare system through its first and second expansions to its current network of 600 stations and 6,200 bicycles. We found that Divvy has:

  • improved connections to public transit
  • made strides toward broadening access to lower-income communities; and
  • provided a time-saving travel option to private vehicle travel

Plus, thanks to Divvy For Everyone and other community-based programs, Chicago is regarded by many as a national success story when it comes to bikesharing.

This map shows the distribution of Divvy stations by level of economic hardship, with red community areas having the highest level of economic hardship.
This map shows the distribution of Divvy stations by level of economic hardship, with red community areas having the highest level of economic hardship. Source: Dimensions of Divvy (Smith and O’Neil, 2018)

But the road ahead is bumpy. The largest share of Divvy bikeshare stations remains concentrated in middle- to higher-income areas of the city. Much of the south and southwest sides are underserved, with little relief in sight.

The areas of greatest economic hardship in Chicago (shown above in red) tend to be on the South, Southwest and West sides. Our analysis shows that, although the share of stations in these areas has increased (see pie charts), these neighborhoods continue to be disadvantaged in terms of both the quantity and density of stations.

Also, usage in some areas across the city has plateaued, and future investments remain uncertain. A looming funding shortfall, coupled with Divvy’s chronic inability to return a profit, makes it imperative that the city find new ways to improve the system. We can’t afford to hit the brakes as technological advancements – such as electric bikes and dockless systems – change the way bikes are being shared nationwide.

These pie charts show the distribution of Divvy stations by level of economic hardship after initial rollout (2013) and after the second expansion in 2016. Source: Dimensions of Divvy (Smith and O’Neil, 2018)

The Mayor’s efforts to address these problems through an amendment to the contract with Motivate are commendable. It would grant Motivate, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lyft, exclusive rights to offer the sharing of bikes in the city over a nine-year period in exchange for assuming the financial burden of extensive expansion, operation, and maintenance.

Under the proposal, Lyft would add 10,500 bikes and 175 stations over the next three years to create a total system with approximately 16,500 bikes and 800 stations. Residents would see a 50 percent increase in bicycles over the first year alone. Excitingly, all new bikes would be “electric pedal-assist” with “hybrid-locking” capability, giving riders ready access to state-of-the-art mobility technologies. The agreement requires city approval when fares are increased more than 10 percent in a year, and the city retains approval over any new fare product, fare policy and fees as well as oversight via service level agreements.

Flickr, Danny Navarro

Are there risks? Of course. But the upside is considerable, making this a good deal for our city. Let’s make it so everyone can enjoy a Divvy bike year-round, including during our glorious summer seasons!

— Chaddick Team

Chicago’s Public Transit Accessibility Gaps for People with Varying Abilities

By C. Scott Smith, Assistant Director, Chaddick Institute, and Riley O’Neil, graduate student

One of the major advantages of living in Chicago compared to other US cities is having access to a broad range of transportation options.  The proximity of homes and workplaces to public transportation routes has contributed greatly to the success of Chicago’s transit system, which now handles about 600 million passenger trips each year.  We estimate that 1.1 million (close to 100% of total) workers and 1.3 million (about 98% of total) jobs in Chicago are within ½ mile of a bus stop or rail station.

For people with disabilities, however, access to public transportation can be limited.  Chicago’s enormous system of commuter rail lines, elevated rail/subways, and bus routes—not to mention other “shared use mobility services” such as e-scooter sharing, bikesharing, carsharing and ridesourcing (via Uber and Lyft, for example)— do not always accommodate people who experience disability situations (e.g., passenger traveling via wheelchair or with stroller attempting to access transit via train station without an elevator). This blog summarizes key accessibility gaps working people with varying abilities face in Chicago’s public transportation system.

Accessibility of Chicago’s rail stations

A simple way to gauge access for people with varying abilities is to tally the share of rail stations that fail to accommodate people with mobility limitations.  Presently, close to 20 percent (192) of all Metra commuter rail stations (239) and 33 percent of all ‘L’ stations are not fully accessible, or do not support wheelchair boardings.  The following figures show the proportion of stations for each Metra and Chicago Transit Authority ‘L’ line that is (not) accessible. On Metra, only three of the eleven commuter lines offer full accessibility and only half of the stations on the Metra Electric, in particular, have facilities that accommodate people in wheelchairs.  On the CTA, access on the Brown, Green, Pink and Yellow Lines is much better than that on the Red and Blue Lines.

Proportion of CTA ‘L’ Stations that are Wheelchair Accessible by Line

Proportion of CTA ‘L’ Stations that are Wheelchair Accessible by Line
Data sources: CTA website and GTFS data

Proportion of Metra Stations that are Wheelchair Accessible by Line

Proportion of Metra Stations that are Wheelchair Accessible by Line
Data sources: Metra website and GTFS data

This is not to say that these major transit operators have not taken steps toward making their infrastructure more accessible. According to CTA, when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed in 1990, only 6 percent of the agency’s rail stations complied with the legislation’s design standards; efforts by the agency over the past several years have grown this number to 67 percent. Further, just last year the CTA announced its All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP), which aims to make the entire rail system accessible by 2036. However, such changes could not come too soon for many of the area’s visitors and residents with physical, cognitive and sensory limitations who experience difficulties traversing by private automobile; which is still the dominant mode of travel within the Chicago region.

Working age people experiencing disability

Making the transition toward a regional ADA compliant public transit system is especially important for Chicago’s working age population experiencing disability. Recent census data indicates that about 53.5 percent of people who have self-identified in the census as having limited mobility in Chicago are of working age; that is, between 18 and 64 years old. And while nearly 50 percent of people with disabilities over 25 years of age have at least some college education, only 19.1 percent are employed and only 24.7 percent participate in the labor force. Further, more than half of workers reporting a disability worked less than full time (compared to 34.2 percent for their counterparts who reported no such limitation) and earned 30 percent less than those who did not report a disability (American Community Survey, 2015).

Previous research has shown that public transit is an important way to improve labor force participation among people with disabilities in part because it tends to be more affordable and accessible than other modes, especially private automobile. For adults with disabilities, lack of adequate transportation is one of the most frequently cited reasons for being discouraged from looking for work. As the table below shows, people with mobility limitations in the City of Chicago tend to use shared modes (such as public transit, taxi and carpool) more than other workers, albeit slightly. People with mobility limitations also work from home more than those who reported no such limitation.

Commute mode share by disability status
Data source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (Table S1811) 5-year estimates for the City of Chicago, 2011-2015

Estimating public transit employment accessibility for people with limited mobility

I used a variety of data sets to identify public transit accessibility gaps for working people with mobility limitations in the Chicago area. Most important were the public transit routes and schedules derived from general transit feed system or GTFS datasets provided by the three major service operators, Metra, CTA and Pace Suburban Bus. (It should be noted here that Pace’s GTFS data do not include information about wheelchair accessibility so, for simplicity sake, we assume that all 23,457 Pace bus stops in the dataset accommodate wheelchair boarding.) Employment distributions for all 2,014 census tracts in the metropolitan Chicago area were made available from the US Census Workplace Area Characteristics Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics dataset.

The employment accessibility estimates calculated as part of this research were also evaluated with respect to four scenarios, each representing a unique commuter mobility profile that is sensitive to maximum desired walking distance, average walking speed and whether commuters require wheelchair boarding accommodations. The estimates correspond to the average number of jobs that can be reached in a one hour journey during the peak morning commute period (i.e., 7AM-9AM at five-minute departure intervals) for each of the below profiles across Chicagoland.

Scenario Assumptions
Full mobility Worker walking at 3 mph pace a distance of up to one mile
Walk constrained Worker walking at a slower 2.1 mph pace up to ½ mile
Wheelchair unconstrained Worker with wheelchair traveling at a 3 mph pace of up to one mile
Wheelchair constrained Worker with wheelchair traveling at a slower 2.1 mph pace up to ½ mile

The figure below shows that merely being constrained by the speed and distance in which one can walk can substantially reduce the number of jobs that can be reached. The walk constrained model reduces average job accessibility by 22.3 percent, while the lack of wheelchair reduces it by 30 percent. Clearly, as mobility becomes more constrained, job opportunities dwindle.  Making matters worse, the number of jobs reachable diminishes for all transit users when you are not traveling during. This is especially problematic for mobility constrained individuals who are more likely to work part time, have flexible hours and, therefore, may not always benefit from the higher frequency public transit services during the morning and evening rush.

The average percentages I provide above are for the morning peak period. To show this variability across different times of day, I created an animation comparing job accessibility for the full mobility and wheelchair constrained scenarios mentioned above starting at 7AM from the close-in community of Forest Park. This animations shows the job areas that commuters can reach by walking and using all types of public transit in a one-hour period.

This animation shows the job areas reachable within an hour by a fully mobile worker (shown in blue) and wheelchair constrained worker (shown in orange) by public transit. This difference in number of jobs reachable is often more than 100,000 depending on departure time.

Fortunately, there is growing awareness that our present transportation system is inadequate for a growing share of the population. Station/stop improvements, assistive technologies, Universal Design, Complete Streets and travel training are just a short list of efforts that are improving pathways to transit access for all people. Check back in a few months as we report more results on this issue. I welcome comments on this blog post, our first on this topic!