Private Parking Charges

Private parking charges are, in the main, levied by local authorities on existing or future non-residential developments, e.g. office buildings. They are designed to help suppress the demand for car parking and thus traffic levels, particularly in urban centres where commuting to work makes up a large percentage of the traffic. Much less common are instances of private parking charges being introduced by individual companies as part of a conscious effort to either implement travel plans that reduces car use amongst their work force or to reduce land take costs associated with car parking.

When charges are levied by local governments the charge is levied on the company directly and the company can react financially, either passing on the charge (or a proportion of it) to their employees or absorbing the charge (or a proportion of it), or physically, by reducing the number of car park spaces available to its employees or by relocating to an area where such charges are not levied. The recent UK 10 Year Plan outlined such charges in the form of Workplace Parking Levies (WPL) and envisages them being introduced to the 12 largest cities and towns in England (plus London) by 2010 (DETR, 2000). Other cities in different countries have already introduced such charges, for example, Amsterdam (Netherlands) where residents and businesses have to purchase Parking Permits.

The success of WPL in achieving the transport objectives of local authorities is very much dependent on what proportion of the charges companies pass on to employees and also the response of employees to parking charges. If a firm decides to absorb the WPL then it will experience an increase in operating costs and may in the medium to long run decide to relocate to areas where WPL are not levied. If a company decides to pass on some or all of the costs of the WPL to its employees then may decide to switch to public transport, to share the journey to work with other employees, to park on the streets adjacent to their place of work or in the medium to long term move to a company where were parking is free. Their response will depend upon a host of factors, the most important of which will be the size of the parking fee, the availability of alternative transport (public transport and car share) and the availability of alternative employment. For these reasons the success of WPL will often depend upon its implementation as part of a range of measures, especially land use measures that prevent or discourage companies and employees moving to areas where WPL are not applicable.

Private parking charges can apply to both residential and non-residential parking, however this instrument considers them in a non-residential context. As such they are assumed to be charges for parking that are levied, by local authorities, on existing or future non-residential developments, e.g. office buildings. They are designed to help suppress the demand for car parking and thus traffic levels, particularly in urban centres where commuting to work makes up a large percentage of the traffic. Typically such charges require special legislation to enable a charge for the use or ownership of the parking space to be levied.

Very occasionally, private parking charges will be introduced by a company if that company is making a conscious effort to implement a travel plan that reduces car use amongst its work force or if it wishes to reduce land take costs associated with providing car parking. The bulk of this report however concentrates on private parking charges imposed by local councils.

Terminology

A number of instruments come under the umbrella of private parking charges and the terminology can be different from country to country. Two distinctions probably need to made between parking charges that are levied by local governments on firms and parking charges that are levied by companies on their own workers without pressure or legislation from local government.

When charges are levied by local governments the charge is levied on the company directly and the company can react financially, either passing on the charge (or a proportion of it) to their employees or absorbing the charge (or a proportion of it), or physically, by reducing the number of car park spaces available to its employees or by relocating to an area where such charges are not levied. The recent UK 10 Year Plan outlined such charges in the form of Workplace Parking Levies (WPL) and envisages them being introduced to the 12 largest cities and towns in England (plus London) by 2010 (DETR, 2000). Other cities in different countries have already introduced such charges, for example, Amsterdam (Netherlands) where residents and businesses have to purchase Parking Permits.

The latter can occur if a company is making a conscious effort to implement a travel plan that reduces car use amongst its work force or if it wishes to reduce land take costs associated with providing car parking. Some schemes operate a simple pay & display scheme, whilst others charge employees for a permit/pass which in some cases offers a guaranteed parking spot and in others a license to hunt for a parking spot (which may also be pay and display). On a different note some employees offer a cash-out scheme whereby employees are offered cash for relinquishing a parking space on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

Technology

The technology required for private parking charges relates to the method of payment and the enforcement methods used. This is covered by the parking charges instrument elsewhere on this website. 

Why introduce private parking charges?

The principal aim of charging for private parking is to reduce car traffic and so congestion levels, specifically within city centres. This will in turn reduce noise and air pollution, and encourage other forms of transport and the more efficient use of the private car (via company car sharing schemes).

A secondary aim of charging might be to generate revenues to improve current transport infrastructures and services within the charging area. Or for a private company it might be to save money by reducing land take costs.

Demand impacts

Demand impacts will relate directly to the type of charging scheme implemented. Most changes will decrease the popularity and convenience of car travel and encourage the use of other methods of transport such as the use of public transport, cycling, walking or the use of initiatives such as car sharing schemes. This will contribute to transport policies that are aimed at reducing car use and congestion and in turn reducing noise and air pollution and making the urban transport infrastructure safer.

Responses and situations
Response Reduction in road traffic Expected in situations
Departure times changed if form of transport changed i.e. commuters set off in time to use public transport/ car sharing etc.

Route to remain the same unless position of parking space changed i.e. forced to use on street parking or the company relocates.

If parking space moves or the firm relocates.
The introduction of car-sharing schemes and changes in working practises, e.g. tele-working will help to reduce the number of vehicle trips.
Use of public transport or car sharing.
Possibly if public transport fully adopted as a means of commuting.
Unlikely to occur.
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Short and long run demand responses

Demand responses
Response - 1st year 2-4 years 5 years 10+ years
-
  -



  Change job location



  Compress working week
- Trip chain
- Work from home
- Shop from home
 

Public transport

  -
  -
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Supply impacts

The introduction of private parking charges itself will not impact directly upon the supply of private parking, however indirectly it would be expected that some companies may reduce the number of parking spaces in response to any WPL that might be implemented.

Financing requirements

Administrative costs are likely to be low, with enforcement costs slightly higher.

Expected impact on key policy objectives

When considering how companies and individuals will react to the implementation of these scheme two main factors must be considered. Who will pay, will the company accept the charge or will the charges be passed on to the individual employees and if the company does pay how will the charging affect the firm and the firm's policy on workplace parking?

In a recent study only 15% of firms questioned said they would pass the charges on to the employee, whilst a larger number said they would consider reducing the number of private parking spaces they owned. Both of these actions would impact upon an employee's driving behaviour and they might decide to find parking spaces elsewhere, to share a car into work, to work at home or to travel into work via public transport. The hope of local authorities are that employees will chose the last three options in order to help them achieve their transport policy policies of reducing city centre congestion and pollution. Charging employees for parking at work may also make it harder for companies to retain employees.

If a company decided to absorb all the additional parking charges then it would experience an increase in operating costs and a reduction in company profitability. In the medium to long term companies may well consider relocating to areas where no WPLs are in place to improve both profitability and driver retention.

Contribution to objectives

Objective

Scale of contribution

Comment

  By reducing congestion in the inner city and discouraging non-essential travel into the city centre.
 
By reducing Congestion of inner city streets, however the scheme may encourage on street parking around the workplace.
  By reducing noise and air pollution by the reduction in congestion and city centre travel. Increasing use of public transport.
  By encouraging the use of public transport and the funnelling of funds back into public transport therefore improving transport infrastructure.
  By reducing the number of privately owned vehicles entering the city centre.
  It will increase operating costs for business who are charged and do not pass it on to employees. However the improvement in efficiency will assist in counteracting these costs.
 

Money generated by the scheme to be put back into improving the transport infrastructure.

Scheme is cost efficient way of generating revenues.

= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem

Scale of contribution

Comment

Congestion-related delay

Should result in a reduction in trips to the CBD and so a reduction in traffic levels and congestion along arteries leading towards the CBD.

Congestion-related unreliability

Reduction in traffic levels, particularly during the am and pm peak will help improve reliability.

Community severence

Not likely to have a significant impact on this.

Visual intrusion

Not likely to have a significant impact on this.

Lack of amenity

Not likely to have a significant impact on this.

Global warming

A reduction in traffic-related CO2 emissions will reduce this impact.

Local air pollution

A reduction in traffic will assist in reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants

Noise

By reducing traffic volumes.

Reduction of green space

By reducing pressure for new road building and city expansion.

Damage to environmentally sensitive sites

By reducing traffic volumes.

Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments

Not likely to have a significant impact on this.

Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups

It may disadvantage those car owners on low incomes.

Number, severity and risk of accidents

By reducing traffic volumes.

Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area

WPL may deter firms from locating in areas were they are located and may also persuade firms to relocate.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

The main winners of charging for private parking spaces would be the council who will have a newly generated source of revenue, the community as a whole who would benefit from a reduction of congestion and pollution and public transport operators as car commuters look for alternative ways of getting to work.

The main losers would be the companies and individuals who are inconvenienced by the scheme and have to pay the levies.

Winners and losers

Group

Winners/Losers

Comment

Large scale freight and commercial traffic

Unlikely to benefit greatly but may experience some benefit during the am/pm peaks.

Small businesses


If exempt from charges small businesses likely to benefit because of an improvement in their competitive position.

If not exempt from charges then will see an increase in costs and possible staff retention problems.

High income car-users

Will tend to benefit if charges are not passed on and a reduction in congestion takes place around the peaks.
People with a low income

If charges are passed on then car users on low income will see an increase in the costs from travelling to work.

If the charges are not passed on then experience reduction in journey times.

People with poor access to public transport


If charges are passed on then people who are dependent upon the car will have no viable alternative to their cars and will incur significant costs.

If charges are not passed on then these people experience a reduction in journey times.

All existing public transport users

If charges are passed on and congestion is reduced this will improve the reliability of existing public transport, especially during the peaks.

People living adjacent to the area targeted


If charges are pass on then residents might experience a reduction in traffic or/and an increase in on-street parking.

People making high value, important journeys

These journeys may still be made as solo drivers, but reduced congestion will result in valuable time savings, especially during the peaks.
The average car user

If charges are passed on then car users will see an increase in travel costs.

If charges are not passed on then car users are likely to see a reduction in congestion.

= Weakest possible benefit = Strongest possible positive benefit
= Weakest possible negative benefit = Strongest possible negative benefit
= Neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

Scale of barriers
Barrier Scale Comment
Legal May require new legislation, since it imposes controls on privately owned property.
Finance Raises revenue.
Governance Coordination needed between cities owners of private car parks.
Political acceptability Contentious, given expected opposition by businesses which own private car parks.
Public and stakeholder acceptability Any increase in the costs of motoring is seen as very unpopular, but users of private parking may be seen as being unduly advantaged.
Technical feasibility Some technical requirements for raising and enforcing charges.
= Minimal barrier = Most significant barrier

Case Study One - Amsterdam
Case Study Two - California
Case Study Three - UK (various)
Case Study Four (information purposes only) - Nottingham
Case Study Five (information purposes only) - Cambridge, Norwich & York

Case Study One - Amsterdam

Context

The most comprehensive study is a 2002 report on the parking policies of Amsterdam from the IMPRINT EU project (van der Schaaf, 2002). The parking pricing strategy is one part of an integrated strategy (including Park and Ride) to reduce the number of car kilometres in the central area by 20% between 1995 and 2005. The parking charges have been phased in from the city centre outwards since 1991. In October 2002, almost the entire area inside the inner ring-road was covered.

Residents and businesses pay parking tax by purchasing a permit. The permit tariffs for residents and businesses are linked to the cost of administration and enforcement. There is however a gap between permit fees and cost of enforcement. It would not be politically acceptable to close the gap so fee rises are in line with enforcement costs (i.e. the gap is not allowed to grow). Greater enforcement efforts go into the city centre and this is reflected in a higher permit cost. Business permits are 160% the cost of residents permits to take account of redeemable tax benefits so net costs are the same.

Impacts on demand

Where parking pricing is introduced it is, as a minimum from 9am to 7pm Monday to Saturday. Further extensions to Sunday and overnight are possible. The initial fee in the inner city was €1/hour. The current basis for the hourly parking meter tariff is €3.40 in tariff area A, €2 in tariff area B and €1.1 in tariff area C. The report states that “permit tariffs have no influence on parking behaviour but the parking meter tariffs do” (p9). After the introduction of paid parking, the majority of commuters either sought another parking place or chose another mode of transport, tariffs do not impact much on business travel but do on recreational travel. The author notes that people become accustomed to the parking prices after a while and prices have to be raised to maintain the effects seen shortly after their implementation. Pricing is set to try and achieve 90% use of parking spaces to reduce search time and to give transparency to the tariffs.

Gross proceeds from parking in 2001 were €40 million. Enforcement costs were about half of this amount. 16% of this goes to a central mobility fund with the remaining 84% going to the city district in which it was generated. All of the proceeds must be spent on measures that promote the mobility plan.

The paper notes that the growth in car mileage in the city has remained limited due to a slower rate of growth in jobs in the centre and reductions of traffic in the inner city and old town where the parking restrictions are in force. “The cause of this is the shifting of employment to the area around the ring road and (parking) policy in the inner city and old town. The lack of business location policy, paid parking and road tolls in the areas around the ring road has made a sizeable growth in car traffic possible in the area. The growth in outgoing commuting will lead to a growth in outgoing car traffic. Many of the employees working outside the conurbation have not experienced any limitation in the use of the car. Traffic jams are in the other direction, paid parking and business location policy are not under discussion outside the conurbation. Those who commute into the city choose more often for alternatives as a result of the car-restricting measures, the main alternative being public transport.”

Impacts on supply

There was no reduction in the number of parking spaces.

Contribution to Objectives

The Amsterdam case study suggests that private parking charges (permits) do not affect parking behaviour but that public parking charges do. However, the relocation of firms to the area beside the ring road would suggest that permits are influencing firms location decisions and as such are affecting traffic flows.


Responses and situations

Objective

Comment

 

The reduction in city centre traffic is likely to have a larger positive impact on congestion than the negative impact on congestion from an increase in traffic beside the ring road. There is therefore likely to be an efficiency gain.

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to a liveability improvement within the city centre.

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts globally and locally within the city centre.

 

There was no discernable impact on equity and social inclusion.

 

There was no discernable impact on safety.

 

Efficiency improvements might support economic growth. However, the relocation of firms away from the CBD would suggest that any efficiency improvements are outweighed.

 

The scheme was self-financing and more than covered the costs of implementation and enforcement.

= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Case Study Two - California

Context

The development of "cash-out" schemes for workplace parking has largely been stimulated by the 1992 parking cash-out law in California, introduced on congestion and air quality grounds. Essentially, free parking at the workplace is viewed as a subsidy and employees are given the option of keeping their space or receiving the cash alternative. In California this is mandatory for firms with over 50 employees subject to a number of provisos - the most important of which is that cash-out only has to be provided for rented (and not company owned) spaces (Shoup, 1997).

Impacts on demand

A survey of eight firms implementing cash-out in California found that the number of single occupancy commuting vehicles fell by an average of 17% with vehicle miles falling by 12%. Research from the US has made some attempt to quantify the impacts of parking pricing schemes on workplace parking. In 1982, employees classed as non-essential drivers (70% of employees) at a company in Los Angeles were asked to pay $57.50 per month to carry on using their parking space. Car poolers parked for free and other drivers received $28.75 (50%) to park elsewhere. Single car occupancy dropped from 42% to 9% whilst car pooling rose from 17% to 58%. Public transport use fell. (Feeney, 1989). Higgins (1992) reports reductions in single car use of between 12 and 40% at employers instituting parking pricing for employees.

Supply impacts

There was no direct reduction in the number of parking spaces.

Contribution to objectives


Responses and situations

Objective

Comment

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to an efficiency improvement.

 

The reductions in car use may have contributed to a liveability improvement.

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts both global and locally.

 

There was no discernable impact on equity and social inclusion.

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to an improvement in safety.

 

Efficiency improvements may support economic growth.

 

No cost information was given but it likely that the cost of implementation and enforcement were covered.
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Case Study Three - UK (various)

Context

In the UK, there is no formal requirement for such a scheme and no direct link between the provision of a car parking space and the sums offered for surrendering the right to that space. Enoch (2002) reviews a number of different parking cash-out schemes that have been introduced in the UK to varying effect. The main reasons cited for introducing such a scheme are: expansion of office space on a constrained site, limited parking provision as part of planning permission and concerns about staff retention in such constrained circumstances.

Impacts on demand

One option pursued with limited success is one off schemes to buy back parking spaces, tried by Derriford General Hospital and BAA. At Derriford General, regular parkers (3-4 days per week) were offered a one off £250 payment plus VAT to surrender their parking permit. Only 7 out of 3500 have taken up the option (although 25-30 have applied). In 1997, BAA offered employees £200 to forego their parking spaces at Heathrow. 33 employees (1%) took up the offer. In the summer of 2001, Stansted employees were offered £110 but again only a handful of employees took up the offer. The levels of financial rewards offered clearly fall short of employees valuation of their spaces.

Southampton General Hospital and Orange, Bristol, have tried annual incentive schemes to greater effect. At Southampton General, permit holders are given an initial £150 and an annual payment of £96 to surrender their space. Despite difficulties for shift workers in using alternative modes, take up is 9% (551 out of 5911). Orange was only allowed 105 spaces for 700 staff in its new offices in Bristol. Staff that worked at the previous office were offered a four year package to give up the car with £1200 in year one (reducing by £300 per year). The company budgeted £0.5m (~415 workers) for the measure in year 1. No data on travel responses to this is available.

Other, less permanent schemes are also in operation. Vodafone, Newbury introduced a monthly scheme in 2000 whereby any member of staff opting out of parking is given an extra £85 in their pay packet. So far, the incentive has attracted 1500 of the 4500 staff. The most flexible scheme in operation is the daily reward scheme offered by Pfizer, Kent. A £2 payment is given to staff for every day that they do not drive their car to work at the Sandwich site (£460 per year) [1] and £5 per day at the Walton Oaks site (£1150 per year). This is administered through the security card system. The estimated cost to the company is £0.5m annually. Around one-third of staff do not travel to work by car - however, it is not possible to correlate this directly with the parking cash-out scheme as it is part of a wider commuter travel plan.

Contribution to objectives


Responses and situations

Objective

Comment

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to an efficiency improvement.

 

The reductions in car use may have contributed to a liveability improvement.

 

The reductions in car use will have contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts both globally and locally.

 

There was no discernable impact on equity and social inclusion.

 

There was no direct evidence on safety but the reduction in car use would lead to a reduction in accident rates.

 

Efficiency improvements may support economic growth.

 

These schemes are not self-financing and the exact costs will vary according to the type implemented. The studies reported here are mainly voluntary and as such will have cost money to implement.
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Case Study Four - (information purposes only) - Nottingham

Context

A review of workplace parking charges in the UK was commissioned by Nottingham City Council (Rye and Ison, 2002). The study examined eleven large employers that have introduced parking charges for employees and visitors over the past decade. The sites are, without exception public sector sites with all but one being hospitals or universities. This perhaps reflects the more footloose nature of businesses and reflects the size (>1,500 employees) of the sites experiencing problems. The charges have been implemented for a variety of reasons:

  • Parking crisis on site with demand outstripping supply
  • Planning obligations
  • Part of a wider transport strategy
  • Raising revenues (one site)

The case studies are summarised in the Table below. However, the study throws up a number of different permit systems in operation. In some institutions, a higher fee guarantees you a parking space (often of higher quality). In many instances, the permit only allows a "license to hunt". Most schemes operate with an annual charge with some spaces available on the day as pay and display. Some charges are also differentiated by income.

The authors point to irrefutable evidence of overspill parking effects and note that "There is anecdotal evidence that staff will walk as much as 20 minutes from free on-street parking to avoid paying a charge; however, this is not quantified". In one instance, the employer was required to pay for the establishment of a CPZ around the site.

The authors conclude that whilst there is considerable opposition of parking charging in the first instance, most opposition dies away shortly after the scheme begins, echoing experiences in the Netherlands. Walters (1996) however reports on strong opposition to a scheme in York where employees were asked to contribute £16 per week to cover their parking costs. This is a substantially higher charge than the schemes reviewed by Rye and Ison.

The review above does not provide any quantification of impacts of the policies. However, given that the policies were almost entirely introduced to reduce parking pressure and, given the evidence on overspill effects, it can be assumed that the policies are impacting on mode choice and parking location choices.

Summary of case studies (Source: Rye and Ison, 2002)

  Years in place

Reasons

Speed of introduction

Length of intro

Install. Costs

Staff charge

Visitor charge

Choice of car park?

Income related?

Exemptions?

Part of wider TP?

Modifi-cations?

Overspill?

Use of funds?

Midlands Council

4

n/k

Big bang

1 yr

Low

£16/mth

n/a

Y

FT/PT

Disabled

N

Y

Slight

n/k

South east hospital

10

Congestion on site

Incremental

1 yr

n/k

40p/day

60p/hr

N

 

Disabled; vols.

Y

Y

Y

Parking; TP

NCH

6

Congestion on site

Big bang

6 mths

n/k

£55/yr

£1/hr

N

FT/PT

Disabled; vols.

Y

Y

YY

Parking; TP

QMC

6

Congestion on site

Big bang

1 yr

n/k

60p/day

60p/hr

N

N

Disabled; vols.

Y

N

YY

Parking; patients

Northern University

3

Lack of parking

Big bang

1 yr

n/k

£135/yr

£2/day

Y

N

Disabled

N

N

Slight

Parking; security

Grampian NHS Trust

2

Lack of parking; planning

Incremental

1 yr

£300k

70p/day

70p/day

N

Y

Disabled

N

Y

YY

Parking; security

Midlands University

N/k

Parking congestion

Bi bang

18 months

N/k

50p/day

50p/day

N

N

Cleaners

N

N

N

Parking; security

Robert Gordon University

0.15

Lack of parking; planning

B bang

2 yrs

£160k

£1.50/day

£1.50/day

Y

N

Disabled; car-sharers; essential users

Y

N

YY

Parking; TP

Scottish University

3

"Wild" parking

Big bang

18 mths

£280k

£80/yr

n/a

N

N

Disabled

N

N

N

Parking; security

Scottish Hospital

3

Raise funds

Big bang

1 yr

£300k

£80/yr

£1/day

N

Y

Disabled; vols

N

N

N

Parking; patients

Sheffield University

5

Congestion on site; lack of parking

Big bang

2 yrs

Signi-ficant

£6 - £30 per month

£2/day

Y

Y

Disabled

Y

Poss.

YY

TP; Parking; security

N/k = not known
Vols. = volunteers

Case Study Five - Cambridge, Norwich & York

Context

In 2000, 152 businesses in the Cambridge, Norwich and York areas were surveyed about their likely reactions to the possible introduction of Road User Charging and Workplace Parking Levy schemes both for general conditions in the city and in terms of impacts on their own businesses. The survey also investigated likely future responses to such schemes (e.g. relocation). In general, businesses felt that the Workplace Parking Levy would have a smaller impact on citywide issues than Road User Charging. As with charging, an overwhelming majority of businesses (72%) expect a negative economic impact from the Workplace Parking Levy compared to only 7% with a positive expectation. Most businesses indicated that they would absorb the costs of a Workplace Parking Levy rather than pass it on to their employees and/or reduce the number of parking spaces. This would appear to support the findings from the evidence on cash-out and workplace charging schemes described above. Just over one half of businesses surveyed indicated that their next location decision would be influenced by the introduction of WPLs. Businesses in the retail and distribution sector are found to be less likely to respond by relocating (Gerrard et al., 2001)

The introduction of parking restraint measures is a contentious issue. Available evidence shows that the strength of the relationship between parking restraint and urban economic vitality varies strongly with methodology. Attitudinal and behavioural studies suggest large changes and aggregate data suggests very weak relationships (Still and Simmonds, 2000). The relationship between parking policies and economic vitality is an under researched area.

Contribution to objectives

Contribution to objectives
Objective Amsterdam Califonia UK
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

 

Contribution to alleviation of key problems
Objective Amsterdam Califonia UK
Congestion-related delay
Congestion-related unreliability
Community severance
Visual intrusion
Lack of amenity
Global warming
Local air pollution
Noise
Reduction of green space
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups
Number, severity and risk of accidents
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Appropriate contexts

Appropriate area-types
Area type Suitability
City centre /
Dense inner suburb
Medium density outer suburb
Less dense outer suburb
District centre
Corridor
Small town
Tourist town
= Least suitable area type = Most suitable area type

Adverse side-effects

There are several possible adverse side effects from the introduction of private parking charges. If the charges are not co-ordinated with other land use policies there is a danger, as demonstrated in the Amsterdam case study, that companies may relocate to avoid the charge. This view is reinforced by evidence gathered by Gerrard et al (2001) and suggests that in the long-term private parking charges will influence land use unless the benefits to firms outweigh the disbenefits. If firms pass on charges to their employees this may disadvantage employees who work 'un-social' hours and have no alternative but to travel to work by car Such employees will incur additional penalties if they are also on low incomes.

ETR (2000) Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan, London: DETR

Enoch, M. (2002) UK parking cash out experience, and lessons from California, Traffic Engineering and Control, May

Feeney, B. (1989) A review of the impact of parking policy measures on travel demand, Transportation Planning and Technology , 13, 229-334

Gerrard, B., Still, B. and Jopson, A. (2001) The Impact of Road Pricing and Workplace Parking Levies on the Urban Economy: results from a survey of business attitudes, Environment and Planning A: environment and planning, 33, 1985-2002

Higgins, T.J. (1992) Parking taxes: Effectiveness, legality and implementation, some general considerations, Transportation 19 (3), 221-231

Rye, T. and Ison, S. (2002) Implementation of Car Parking Charges at Workplaces in the UK: Case Studies, Final Report for Nottingham City Council

Van der Schaaf, K. (2000) Parking is Manoeuvering, Proceedings of third seminar of the IMPRINT-EUROPE Thematic Network: “Implaementing Reform on Transport Pricing: Constraints and solutions: learning from best practice”, Brussels, 23-24th October 2002.

Shoup, D. (1997) Evaluating the effects of cashing out employer-paid parking: Eight case studies, Transport Policy, 4 (4) 201-216

Still, B. and Simmonds, D. (2000) Parking restraint policy and urban vitality, Transport Reviews (3) 291-316

Walters, D. (1996) Promoting staff parking seen as key to selling offices, Parking Review, January, 20.