Off Street Parking
- Summary
- Taxonomy & description
- First principles assessment
- Evidence on performance
- Policy contribution
- References
This measure was fully updated by AUSTRIAN MOBILITY RESEARCH (AMOR) in 2014 under the CH4LLENGE project, financed by the European Commission.
Off-street parking is a special facility (multi-storey) or area (surface) that is dedicated for parking. Its provision has a significant impact on car usage.
Off street parking provision has a substantial impact on on-street parking and thus on the quality of the public space. As the average car is idle (and thus parks) for 23 hours per day (or 95% of the time) – it occupies and most often dominates public space when on-street. Off street parking thus provides a remedy as parked cars can be taken off the street.
Off-street parking is expensive: 60-300 Euros per month per parking space. The price is dependent on location, whether it is surface parking, multi-storey overground or underground parking.
There is a variety of types of off-street parking, depending on the function of the off-street parking site:
- This article covers City Centre parking. It is most often as public parking – and is necessary as the demand for parking in city centres is very high
- In the entry on Parking Standards the following types of off-street parking can be found:
- Housing: for modern housing developments it is generally obligatory to provide parking.
- Workplace: parking at the workplace is regulated and often provided for free to the employees
- Shopping Centres and Entertainment: A large part of the competitive advantage of shopping centres and entertainment sites, especially in suburban settings, is their easy accessibility by car and their huge parking space.
- Park and Ride is a form of off-street parking at the city edges. Park and Ride is covered in another entry.
New off street parking can change travel behaviour – for better or worse. However, the impact depends on whether it replaces or adds to on-street parking, and what the charges are for both types of parking. Generally there is a dearth of research into its impacts.
The more integrated off street parking is into an overall parking and transport policy, the more positive its effects are. Two very positive case studies show this.
Taxonomy and description
Off-street parking is a special facility (multi-storey) or area (surface) that is dedicated for parking. Its provision has a significant impact on car usage.
Off street parking provision has a significant impact on on-street parking and thus on the quality of the public space. As the average car is idle (and thus parks) for 23 hours per day (or 95% of the time) – it occupies and most often dominates public space when on-street. Off street parking thus provided a remedy as parked cars can be taken off the street.
Originally off-street parking was “invented” to limit on-street parking. The first cars were parked just like horses or horse-buggies on the side of the street (kerb-side-parking). With the rapid growth of car ownership, there was not enough supply of kerb-side on-street parking and it became a huge problem. As a remedy, off-street parking was “invented” and made obligatory through zoning ordinances and land use planning.
In most developed countries the provision of off-street parking in new developments is part of the building permit process. A building permit can only be acquired when a certain minimum number of off-street parking places is provided. The rate at which parking is provided (the “parking standard”) is specified in planning policies. More recently several cities have switched to maximum rates of provision to avoid over-provision and encouraging car use. These issues are covered under Parking Standards.
Terminology
Types of off street parking according to construction
Costs
Costs depend on construction costs, capital costs, maintenance and land costs. Below are given rounded values for the construction costs per space and total monthly costs per space including capital, maintenance and land costs in a range from suburban to inner city. These are approximations and will vary even wider from country to country and city to city – but are still a good indication of the order of magnitude of these costs.
(http://www.vtpi.org/parking.xls provides a very helpful cost calculator, but based on 2002 US$. However, the conversion rate from 2002$ to 2014 Euros approximately leads to the factor 1 (0.96 on 27 May 2014), so the given $ values can directly be given in Euros – the estimates here are based on capital costs at 4% for 20 years)
Surface parking
Cars park on a large parking surface – there are access and exit points. They are the cheapest to build and maintain, but require the most space.
Construction costs per space: 3000-5000 Euro. Monthly costs per space: 60-300 Euro.
Multi-storey overground
A structure that has several storeys. They are much more expensive but take less space than surface parking. A big disadvantage in an urban environment is that they are aesthetically and functionally disruptive for a city street as public space.
Construction costs per space: 16.000-20.000 Euro. Monthly costs per space: 140-300 Euro,
Underground parking
Is the most expensive type of construction but the least disruptive in an urban environment and therefore often the preferred construction type there.
Construction costs per space: 25.000-40.000 Euro. Monthly costs per space: 200-300 Euro.
On street parking and off-street parking
Distinction between off-street and on-street parking supply
Off-street parking is a special facility (multi-storey) or area (surface) that is dedicated for parking. The availability of off-street parking can have a strong influence on the amount of on-street-parking. Public roads in cities provide a large part of the parking supply in the form of on-street parking. The location and availability of on-street spaces and their use can be regulated, priced and/or restricted by local authorities. They must work within central government guidelines, taking into account road safety, traffic flow, public transport provision and movement, local economy, needs of residents and access for emergency services and other concerns. In contrast to on-street parking, off-street parking can be publicly or privately owned and can therefore be more difficult to regulate.
Special circumstances in the City Centre
In city centres, the demand for parking is very high, as many destinations are located there (workplaces, shopping, entertainment). On the other hand, there is also the highest demand for attractive urban public spaces: mainly streets and squares – which requires a substantial reduction of on-street parking. At the same time, the available space is very limited and land property prices are the highest. A solution is most often sought in providing large underground car parks. These investments are very costly (see above) and thus lead to high parking tariffs if commercial operators operate these parking garages (monthly costs of 300 Euro require daily revenue of 20 Euro to break even, if average occupancy is at 50%).
Many city authorities have transformed long stay on-street parking to short stay parking to increase car access to important economic activities located in city centres. Long term parking then only becomes possible in off-street parking.
The European Parking Association recommends that on street parking and off street parking should be an integrated bundle of options, that the pricing should be based on the value of the parking facility and that parking costs should be time-based. This is particularly true and a very delicate issue for the parking policies and pricing in the city centre.
Technology
Guidance Systems
Cities more and more tend to provide park guidance systems – either via simple street signs or via elaborate systems of electronic variable message signs. Individual parking garages show the availability of free parking spaces with electronic on-street signs. An even newer trend is guidance via navigation systems, smartphone apps in combination with sensor monitoring of on-street parking. These are covered under Parking Guidance.
Automated Parking Systems
In automated parking systems, a computer-controlled system moves vehicles into vertically stacked slots. It has several advantages for parking operators and users: Cars have less risk of damage or theft, there are no exhaust fumes, and the facility uses considerably less space than a conventional parking garage. For these reasons and the scarcity of land and space in urban centres, it seems possible that automated facilities will become more prevalent in coming years.
See also:
Why introduce or require off street parking?
The main reasons to provide off-street parking are:
- To assure there is not too much on-street parking
If not enough parking is provided off-street, users, visitors etc. will search for parking space on-street. First this is not welcome as it clutters streets and second, on-street parking capacity is simply limited. The management of on-street space is covered under Parking Controls. - To upgrade public space on-street and provide an alternative for the parking spaces that have to be removed
This is quite common for city squares or streets that are turned into pedestrian zones or shared space zones – on-street car parking is severely reduced and this often only acceptable to the general public and local retailers when alternative off-street parking is provided. - To assure good access to a development
If users want to access a development by car, they need parking. This is especially important when there is no viable alternative mode (public transport, bicycle, on foot, delivery service). - To provide potential alternatives when there are restrictive parking standards
Users very often expect the availability of parking facilities – be it for housing, shopping, recreation, work. If no adequate and inexpensive parking is available, they will choose another development instead. If restrictive parking standards (low maximum parking allowances) are used, public off-street parking can provide an alternative. An advantage of this is that this public parking can be used by diverse users (e.g. shoppers as well as to provide for housing), thus limiting oversupply.
Why limit off street parking?
The main reasons to limit off-street parking are:
- To discourage the use of the car
Once car parking is provided, car usage is the logical consequence. The less car parking is provided, the less the car is used. This is of course only true when reasonably comfortable alternative modes are provided for: walking, cycling and public transport. - To save costs
Car parking spaces are very costly, therefore limiting the number of required spaces leads to huge cost savings for the developer (less construction and maintenance costs).
Indirectly it can also lead to cost savings for cities (less car travel means less pollution, less road space, fewer accidents, more healthy citizents and a more attractive urban environment). - To limit car travel in a city or city district in general
As city planners have started to recognise that providing excessive off-street parking generates car traffic, a paradigm change is approaching in transport planning: instead of planning to accommodate car travel and car parking, the opposite is aimed for: planning for people, attractive public spaces, low car travel: see for example http://www.aspern-seestadt.at/en/living-working/traffic-and-transport/
How to regulate off-street parking?
The question can be regarded as general management and regulations of off-street parking in a country, region, city or district – or as a specific regulation for a particular off-street parking site.
As integrative parking management concept
The optimum for off street parking regulation would be that all parking is regulated according to an integrative concept for an area: it should include on-street parking, caps on the number of parking spaces provided, estimates of the number of car trips generated by off-street parking and modal split targets for the area. This integrative approach is very uncommon but recommended by the European Parking Association http://www.europeanparking.eu/cms/Media/8_Image_Key%20messages%20from%20the%20parking%20industry.pdf and by the European Platform on Mobility Management in its MaxLupo guidelines http://epomm.eu/index.php?id=2748.
For good examples of integrative parking management concepts see the case studies from Zürich and Freiburg.
Pricing
Pricing is a powerful tool to regulate off-street parking – the more parking costs, the less it will be used. Pricing also leads to revenue – depending on location and competition parking can finance itself plus generate a profit. Pricing becomes problematic when there is substantial competition from free parking or very cheap parking. Therefore it is much better when there is an integrative concept that takes all parking options into account. For further detail see Parking Charges.
Taxing
A further regulation possibility is to tax all off-street parking spaces. The aim is to generate income and to provide disincentives for building more and more parking spaces. In 2012, Nottingham introduced a yearly £288 Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) which will grow in incremental steps to £381 in 2015. It could generate an income of over £10 Million per year. However, as there is no integrative concept for the tax, it led to additional on-street parking pressure – where parking is largely free. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10243004/Flagship-workplace-parking-levy-creating-chaos.html. In Austria – which has the highest shopping centre density in Europe, there is regular discussion on the introduction of a tax on parking spaces (see article in German http://stmv1.orf.at/stories/403583 ). However, the chamber of commerce has so far successfully opposed it. For further information see Private Parking Charges.
Regulating a single off-street parking site:
Entry and Exit capacity
Off-street parking should have sufficient capacity at access points to accommodate incoming traffic without back-up into the street and similarly, sufficient exit point capacity so there is no congestion inside the off street car park.
Large off-street car parks can generate considerable blocking back of traffic waiting to enter the facility and delays where vehicles re-join the road system. There may be a particular problem if the surrounding streets are narrow or the entrance to the car park is near to a junction. Conventional management is often used to facilitate one-way access/egress and reduce the disruption on minor roads. However, where the car park is located adjacent to a major arterial with fast-moving traffic, there may be benefits to providing storage lanes that would allow vehicles to enter/leave at lower speed to improve safety and reduce the disruption to passing traffic (Hobbs, 1979; O’Flaherty, 1996).
The location and access (and exit) arrangements of new private parking supply can be regulated and controlled through the planning process. See also Parking Standards.
Regulation of existing private off-street parking can be very difficult, as local authorities often do not have much jurisdiction over privately owned and operated car parks, though the same authorities are responsible for addressing the congestion caused by users.
Adverse side-effects
A new off-street parking site will generate more traffic and it might cause queues at access points. When locating new car parks, banning on-street parking or closing down existing car parks, there will often be some opposition from local business and possibly residents. However, it should be possible to overcome this by involving these groups in parking policy development and communicating the benefits especially with past examples of success.
Demand impacts
New off street parking can change travel behaviour. However, the impact depends on whether it replaces or adds to on-street parking, and what the charges are for both types of parking. Additional influences include the provision of public transport the strength of the retail sector and the competition from suburban developments (housing/shopping malls). As Marsden (2006) concludes, there is a dearth of research into the impacts of most of tehse factors. Therefore the following tables are only rough indicators.
| Responses and situations | ||
| Response | Reduction in road traffic | Expected in situations |
| In response to limited parking availability at and final destination, some drivers choose to leave early to guarantee a space. With provision of additional parking, this might become less. | ||
| With more parking in the centre, more cars will come. | ||
| Changes in destination will occur as the city centre is often more attractive than shopping centres and extra parking will motivate some shoppers to go the the city centre instead to the shopping centre. However, accessibility of city centres is a problem due to congestion at peak times. Positive development would be that city-edge shopping centres would become less competitive and in the long run close down. | ||
| Number of trips by car will increase due to a net increase in parking supply. | ||
| Mode change from bicycle or public transport to the car is encouraged. | ||
| Due to a net increase in parking supply car driving becomes slightly more attractive, cars will not be sold, but (very marginally) more will be bought. | ||
| If more parking is supplied, some people might choose to live in the inner city. | ||
| = Weakest possible response | = Strongest possible positive response | ||
| = Weakest possible negative response | = Strongest possible negative response | ||
| = No response | |||
Short and long run demand responses
See table and text above – a parking development in inner cities is most often a multi-year project. Long term effects are extremely dependent on framework conditions – it is thus not possible to make a distinction between short and long term effects in a simple table.
Supply impacts
See table and text above – new parking of course increases parking supply. All other supply effects are very dependent on framework conditions.
Financing requirements
See the section on costs under “terminology” above. Costs are most often underestimated or hidden in other pricing – see Shoup (2011). In general, multi-storey underground parking (the usual solution for inner-city off-street parking) is very costly – on the other hand, as parking demand can be very high, it can still be operated profitably in inner city locations of large cities: if more than 200-300 Euros per parking space and per month can be earned.
Expected impact on key policy objectives
The impact of increased off-street parking provision in City Centres
| Contribution to objectives | ||
Objective |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
Cruising for parking space (park search traffic) is reduced (provided there are good parking guidance systems and no free or much cheaper on-street parking competition) |
||
As off-street parking is increased, reduction of on-street parking is possible, however not guaranteed. If on-street parking is systematically reduced with the introduction of new off-street parking, then making more liveable streets is possible. |
||
Increased net parking space will lead to more car traffic in inner cities (but reduced cruising – see above). |
||
New off-street parking generates very high monthly costs per space. Parking will therefore become more expensive. These investments in car infrastructure will reduce investments in other modes that can be used by persons without a car. The inner city also becomes more car-friendly and therefore less friendly for the sustainable, more equitable modes. |
||
Safety will decrease due to more car traffic. Parking garages are also appear unsafe as women do not feel secure. However, safety can increase if on-street parking is reduced and liveable streets are introduced. |
||
Some motorists may divert their shopping and business activities to suburban areas where there is free or cheaper parking but this will depend on the attractiveness of those areas in comparison to the inner city. There is no evidence that introduction of new off-street parking reduces economic prosperity, but quite some evidence of the contrary. |
||
Very much dependent on the overall management scheme. Reduction in on-street parking results in revenue loss, but off-street parking can generate new revenue. Also, some business will thrive as they get mor customers. However, very substantial investments are necessary for the new underground parkings. |
||
| = 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 |
Search traffic can be reduced by reducing on-street parking and ban free or cheap on-street parking when providing extra off-street parking. |
|
Community impacts |
Depends: less on-street parking will have a positive contribution. More off-street parking, ugly park house entrances and exits and overground multi-storey parking as well as more car traffic can have a negative impact. |
|
Environmental damage |
Increased net parking space will lead to more car traffic in inner cities (but reduced search traffic – see above). |
|
Poor accessibility |
New off-street parking generates very high monthly costs per space. Parking will therefore become more expensive. These investments in car infrastructure will be missed for investments in other modes, that can be used by persons without a car. Inner city also becomes more car-friendly and therefore less friendly for the sustainable, more equitable modes. Positive effect only if substantial new livable areas are created. |
|
Social and geographical disadvantage |
Depends very much on circumstances (see accessibility above). |
|
Accidents |
Safety will decrease due to more car traffic. However, safety can increase IF livable streets are introduced. In balance neutral. |
|
Economic growth |
Better access to shops and facilities by more affluent persons PLUS introduction of livable streets will lead to increased economic activity. |
|
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Expected winners and losers
Defining winners and losers in respect to all possible impacts is difficult. It is also very largely dependent on the context: is on-street parking reduced or not.
| Winners and losers | ||
Group |
Winners/Losers |
Comment |
Large scale freight and commercial traffic |
Only if on-street parking is reduced. Then pedestrianized zones can be used for delivery in special time slots. |
|
Small businesses |
Better access through more parking space. |
|
High income car-users |
Better access through more parking space. |
|
People with a low income |
New off-street parking generates very high monthly costs per space. Parking will therefore become more expensive. These investments in car infrastructure will reduce investment in other modes, which can be used by persons without a car. The inner city also becomes more car-friendly and therefore less friendly for the sustainable, more equitable modes. |
|
People with poor access to public transport |
Limited impact, unless they have access to cars. |
|
All existing public transport users |
Depends very much on the effect of on-street parking reduction on public transport. Plus investments in car infrastructure will mean less money for and less revenue for public transport. |
|
People living adjacent to the area targeted |
Depends. Car traffic will increase but if liveable streets are created, this is a positive development and eases access for people in adjacent areas. |
|
People making high value, important journeys |
Time savings through reduced congestion and availability of parking spaces near to destinations. |
|
| The average car user | Suitable car parking or alternatives should be available where and when needed. | |
| = 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 | Legal barriers to parking location controls are likely to be small. | |
| Finance | Very high investment necessary to provide off-street parking | |
| Governance | Good integration of off-street parking in the city fabric is a complex task - and construction and financing is a large management task. | |
| Political acceptability | Off street parking is generally well accepted | |
| Public and stakeholder acceptability | Off street parking is generally well accepted | |
| Technical feasibility | No technical problems, just organisational. | |
| = Minimal barrier | = Most significant barrier |
Evidence on performance
Below, two innovative, successful, state of the art and well documented examples of an integrative approach for off-street parking are provided.
- The Zürich policy of stabilising the number of parking spaces offered within the central city by a commitment that each new off-street parking space leads to a reduction of on-street parking space
- The Vauban District in Freiburg (Germany) did not allow parking near houses and thus very successfully limited car ownership and car driving.
Zürich – parking supply cap
In 1996, Zürich introduced what is called the “Historical compromise” seeking a balance between the demands for more pedestrianisation and the interests of business to provide enough parking spaces. Since then, every introduction of new off-street parking spaces has to be balanced by taking away on-street parking spaces – this is valid for the inner city as well as a relative large area around the inner city (see adjacent map). From 1996 to 2013 about 800 on-street parking spaces have been removed and replaced by a more urban, liveable and high quality street space, while about 800 publicly accessible off-street parking spaces have been created. At the same time, business in general has thrived.
For more details see: https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/.../14_03_06_GesamtFaktenblatt_HistKomp2013.pdf (in German: overview over status 2013)
https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/.../Bericht_WEB_Der Historische Kompromiss.pdf (in German: overview of the history and details of the functioning in practise)
https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/.../006_European_Parking_U-Turn.pdf on page 68 a four page overview of Zürich’s parking policy including the parking supply cap.
Pic source: City of Zürich
Expected impact on key policy objectives
| Contribution to objectives | ||
| Objective | Scale of contribution | Comments |
Cruising for parking space (park search traffic) is reduced. |
||
| Excellent tool to systematically create more liveable streets. | ||
| Net parking space remains the same, however, walking and cycling become more attractive and are thus increasing. | ||
| Off-street parking becomes more expensive. However, as walking and cycling become more attractive, there are advantages for everyone. | ||
| Parking garages appear unsafe as women do not feel secure. However, safety increases as liveable streets are introduced. | ||
| In sum the inner city has become more attractive and better accessible. | ||
| There is some revenue loss due to reduced on-street parking, but some off-street parking generates new revenue, which is partly private. Business thrives as they got more customers. Substantial investments were necessary for the new underground car parks. In sum neutral. | ||
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Expected impact on problems
| Expected impact on problems | ||
Problem |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
Congestion |
Search traffic has been reduced and no additional car traffic is attracted. |
|
Community impacts |
On-street parking is reduced, social on-street life enhanced. |
|
Environmental damage |
Net parking space remains the same, however, walking and cycling become more attractive and are thus increasing – with ensuing positive environmental effects. |
|
Poor accessibility |
Improvement of cycling and walking, car access remains the same. |
|
Social and geographical disadvantage |
Better parking for the affluent, but also better walking and cycling – on balance neutral. |
|
Accidents |
Improvement of cycling and walking, less park search traffic. |
|
Economic growth |
Better access to shops and facilities by more affluent persons PLUS introduction of livable streets led to increased economic activity. |
|
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Low-car housing district in Freiburg-Vauban, Germany
Freiburg Vauban is a new city district for 5000 residents that was developed after 1992. It is conceived as a low-car-district. Most streets have no on-street parking: vehicles are allowed down these streets at walking pace to pick up and deliver but not to park. The normally obligatory minimum parking requirements were met in an elaborate way: residents in the low car zone could either choose not to have a car or to have a car. Car owners were obliged to buy a place in a separate parking garage. Non-car-owners were required to pay a one time fee to finance a piece of ground to build an additional parking garage and to sign a contract that if they bought a car, they would also buy a parking space in the parking garage. These arrangements led to a very low rate of car ownership (less than 50% of the households have a car) and a very high use of walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.
Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban,_Freiburg,
more accurate but in German language here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban_%28Freiburg_im_Breisgau%29
Some general background info on Vauban here: http://www.vauban.de/en/
Pic Source: City of Freiburg
Expected impact on key policy objectives
| Contribution to objectives | ||
| Objective | Scale of contribution | Comments |
Cruising for parking space is about zero. Costs for parking compared to traditional system is very low. |
||
| Excellent tool to systematically create more liveable streets. | ||
| More green space, much less car travel. | ||
| Housing is cheaper and more family-friendly, nice living environment for everyone. | ||
| Safer, liveable streets. Parking garage has its disadvantages, but is seldom used. | ||
| The new city district has a more than average number of shops and initiatives and is extremely popular – hardly any empty dwellings. It is an economic success story. | ||
| The costs for the municipality were in sum very low, there are hardly and social problems, maintenance costs are very low as there is only very little car travel. However, it is not directly generating income. |
||
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Expected impact on problems
| Expected impact on problems | ||
| Problem | Scale of contribution | Comment |
Congestion |
Zero congestion in the district, and less congestion in city due to low car ownership. |
|
Community impacts |
The district greatly enhances community cohesion and communal life. |
|
Environmental damage |
Green space (under urban conditions) is maximised, traffic-related pollution minimised. |
|
Poor accessibility |
Superb conditions for those without a car and those with mobility impairments. |
|
Social and geographical disadvantage |
In principle development is very well accessible for everyone – but some critics state that the development is dominated by “green-minded” persons (the green party made a stunning 73% of the votes in the regional elections 2011). |
|
Accidents |
Accidents are minimised. |
|
Economic growth |
The new city district has a far over average number of shops and initiatives and is extremely popular – hardly any empty dwellings. It is an economic success story. |
|
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Contribution to objectives |
||
| Objective | Contribution | Comment |
| Cruising for parking space (park search traffic) is reduced (provided there are good parking guidance systems and no free or much cheaper on-street parking competition). | ||
| As off-street parking is increased, reduction of on-street parking is possible, however not guaranteed. If on-street parking is systematically reduced with the introduction of new off-street parking, then making more liveable streets is possible. | ||
| Increased net parking space will lead to more car traffic in inner cities (but reduced cruising – see above) | ||
| New off-street parking generates very high monthly costs per space. Parking will therefore become more expensive. These investments in car infrastructure will reduce investments in other modes that can be used by persons without a car. The inner city also becomes more car-friendly and therefore less friendly for the sustainable, more equitable modes. | ||
| Safety will decrease due to more car traffic. Parking garages are also appear unsafe as women do not feel secure. However, safety can increase if on-street parking is reduced and liveable streets are introduced. | ||
| Some motorists may divert their shopping and business activities to suburban areas where there is free or cheaper parking but this will depend on the attractiveness of those areas in comparison to the inner city. There is no evidence that introduction of new off-street parking reduces economic prosperity, but quite some evidence of the contrary. | ||
| Very much dependent on the overall management scheme. Reduction in on-street parking results in revenue loss, but off-street parking can generate new revenue. Also, some business will thrive as they get mor customers. However, very substantial investments are necessary for the new underground parkings. | ||
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Contribution to problems
| Contribution to alleviation of key problems | ||
| Objective | Scale of contribution | Comment |
| Congestion | Search traffic can be reduced by reducing on-street parking and ban free or cheap on-street parking when providing extra off-street parking However, providing more car parking will lead to more congestion. |
|
| Community impacts | Depends: less on-street parking will have a positive contribution. More off-street parking, ugly park house entrances and exits and overground multi-storey parking as well as more car traffic can have a negative impact. | |
| Environmental damage | Increased net parking space will lead to more car traffic in inner cities (but reduced search traffic – see above). | |
| Poor accessibility | New off-street parking generates very high monthly costs per space. Parking will therefore become more expensive. These investments in car infrastructure will be missed for investments in other modes, that can be used by persons without a car. Inner city also becomes more car-friendly and therefore less friendly for the sustainable, more equitable modes. Positive effect only if substantial new livable areas are created. | |
| Social and geographical disadvantage | Depends very much on circumstances (see accessibility above) | |
| Accidents | Safety will decrease due to more car traffic. However, safety can increase IF livable streets are introduced. In balance neutral. | |
| Economic growth | Better access to shops and facilities by more affluent persons PLUS introduction of livable streets will lead to increased economic activity. | |
| = Weakest possible positive contribution | = Strongest possible positive contribution | ||
| = Weakest possible negative contribution | = Strongest possible negative contribution | ||
| = No contribution | |||
Appropriate contexts
Good parking management and appropriate provision (or limitation) of off-street parking is very important for all enviroments, however, the table refers to public off street parking that is mostly limited to city centres – other forms of parking are addressed in Parking Standards and Park and Ride.
| 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 |
References
EPA (2012) – European Parking Association: Key messages from the parking industry”, September 2012. Policy document defined by a group of international experts. http://www.europeanparking.eu/cms/Media/8_Image_Key%20messages%20from%20the%20parking%20industry.pdf
Marsden, Greg, (2006) the evidence base for parking policies – a review
Transport Policy, 13(69, pp 447-457
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2023/2/ITS15_The_evidence_base_for_parking_policies_UPLOADABLE.pdf
Michael Kodransky and Gabrielle Hermann (2011), Europe’s Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation, ITDP, Spring, 2011 https://go.itdp.org/display/live/Europe%27s+Parking+U-Turn%3A+From+Accommodation+to+Regulation
OEVG (2013) Seminar 28 October 2013 in Vienna: Paradigmenwechsel in der Verkehrsplanung:Macht die Siedlungsplanung die Verkehrsprobleme? (Paradigm-change in traffic planning: does land use planning cause the traffic problems?)
http://www.oevg.at/aktuell/veranstaltungen/2013/paradigmenwechsel/programm_neu.pdf
Donald Shoup (2011): The High Cost of Free Parking, Chicago, Planners Press, 2005 and 2011.