Insert the title of your presentation here

The impact of parking measures and policies – what is the evidence base? Insert the title of your presentation here Presented by Name HereJob Title - Date Presented by Derek PalmerHead of Sustainable Transport Planning – May 2013

Table of contents The impact of parking measures & policies – what is the evidence base? 1 Introduction 2 Background to DfT project 3 Key parking issues 4 Parking Availability at Destinations and Parking Charges 5 Parking provisions at Origins (min/max standards) 6 Workplace Parking Levies, Parking and Congestion Charges 7 Impact of Parking Restraint Measures upon Local Economies 8 Results from Recent Studies Page 2

Who am I? Derek Palmer • Head of Sustainable Transport Planning at TRL • Degrees in economics from Liverpool and Birmingham Universities • Qualified transport planner and project manager • Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation • Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport

Table of contents Impact of parking measures & policies – what is the evidence base? 1 Introduction 2 Background to DfT project 3 Key parking issues 4 Parking Availability at Destinations and Parking Charges 5 Parking provisions at Origins (min/max standards) 6 Workplace Parking Levies, Parking and Congestion Charges 7 Impact of parking restraint measures upon local economies 8 Results from recent studies Page 5

Aim of DfT project • To support DfT’s analytical and modelling capability to improve its understanding of how economic activity is affected by transport investment and interventions such as parking • Policies and measures considered included: • Pricing (levels, structure and relationship with characteristics of vehicle or user) • Changes in the supply and location of on-street and off street parking • Park and Ride (P&R) • Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) • Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) • Illegal and legal parking • Controls on parking provision in new developments • Parking standards in new residential developments • Workplace Travel Plans • Congestion Charge and parking Page 6

Main area of interest for DfT • Impact of parking policy upon the following factors: • Reducing traffic flows and congestion • Reducing carbon emissions (CO2) • Encouraging use of sustainable transport • Improving urban design • Enhancing business activity and town centre viability • Improving landscapes and townscapes • Event planning • Role of parking technology Page 7

Page 8

Typology of policy instruments Page 9

Transport policy context at time of project - 1 • Support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks • Reduce transport’s emissions of CO2and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change • Contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health • Promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society • Improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment Page 10

Transport policy context at time of project - 2 Future of Transport White Paper 2004 set out long-term strategy for a modern, efficient and sustainable transport system supported by sustained high levels of investment over 15 years Effective management of the road network is a key part of this Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes duty on local authorities to manage their network to reduce congestion & disruption & appoint a traffic manager. It also provides scope to take over the enforcement of parking offences from the police Parking policies need to be integral to a local authority’s transport strategy Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans 2004 says local authorities should aim at tackling congestion and changing travel behaviour which could include restricting and/or charging for car parking Page 11

Transport policy context at time of project - 3 All local authorities need to develop a strategy for on- and off-street parking linked to local objectives and circumstances LA’s need Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to put it in place and appropriate traffic signs to show what the restrictions mean Parking strategy must take account of planning policies & transport powers Local authorities are responsible for managing all on-street & some off-street parking, either directly or indirectly Before 1991, police & traffic wardens were responsible for enforcement & income from Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) went to the Exchequer Road Traffic Act 1991 Act made it mandatory for London Boroughs but optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of non-endorsable parking contraventions Page 12

Local Authorities with CPE powers Page 13

London’s zones Page 14

Methodology for DfT project • Review of papers from peer-reviewed journals, and other sources (e.g. Guidance) using TRL KnowledgeBase (175 papers) • Coverage of UK and overseas research • Consideration of research in progress • Evaluation of quality of research • Consideration of the utility of the findings for the DfT Page 15

Parking • The infrastructure provided for the storage of vehicles whether on or off-street • Parking as an activity forming part of the overall process of car travel In the DfT study TRL reviewed research that covers both aspects. Page 17

Research information sources • Cross sectional – comparing travel responses of different individuals or groups at a single point in time to make inferences about behaviour • Time-series – using direct observations of such behaviour over a period of time Page 18

Parking issues • Parking supply (how much parking is provided in an area) • Parking prices (whether users are charged directly for parking, and the price structure used) • Travel patterns (the amount of vehicle traffic generated and use of alternative modes) Page 19

Roles for parking management policy • To meet specific parking system objectives (e.g. balancing supply and demand, generating revenues to cover costs etc) • To meet other policy area objectives (e.g. traffic management goals, accessibility for business and shoppers etc) Page 20

Parking management measures • Changing the supply of parking spaces • Changing the level or structure of parking charges • Motorists can respond by: • Changing the location of where they park • Changing the start time for the trip • Changing their destination • Changing the mode used • Abandoning the trip Page 21

Destination parking - locations • General town centres (including public/private car parks, P&R, controlled (paid) on-street parking, plus free parking) • Workplaces - Private Non-Residential (PNR) parking • Railway stations • Shopping centres • Stadia • Airports • Etc Page 23

PPG 13: Transport - 1 • Objectives of PPG13 were to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to: • promote sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight • promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling • reduce the need to travel, especially by car Page 24

PPG 13: Transport - 2 Local authorities should “Use parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys”. Local planning authorities should "examine critically the standards they apply to new development, particularly with regard to roads, layouts and car parking, to avoid the profligate use of land“. Local authorities "should revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for developments in locations, such as town centres, where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or public transport”. Page 25

PPG 13: Transport - 3 • Local authorities should: • ensure that levels of parking provided with development will promote sustainable transport choices; • not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish; • encourage shared use of parking, particularly in town centres; • be cautious in prescribing different levels of parking between town centres and peripheral locations, unless they are confident that the town centre will remain a favoured location for developers; • where appropriate, introduce on-street parking controls in areas adjacent to major travel generating development to minimise the potential displacement of parking where on-site parking is being limited. Page 26

PPG13: Maximum Parking Standards Page 27

Review of PPG13 implementation (Atkins - 185 local authorities) 29% fully compliant with PPG13 maximum parking standards 23% had maximum parking standards more restrictive 6% had maximum parking standards less restrictive 17% had a combination of standards which are both more / less restrictive depending on use class 13% were mainly compliant but their standards were limited, as they may not have standards for some use classes 8% were more restrictive on the standards which they have set but standards are limited, and may not have standards for some use classes in PPG 13 3% were less restrictive on standards which they have set but may not have set standards for some use classes in PPG 13 Page 28

North American approach - Litman Conventional parking standards in USA are intended to ensure that parking is abundant and cheap; reflecting a subsidy of driving and a stimulation of urban sprawl Conventional parking standards are often based on the 85th percentile (resulting in a situation whereby 15 out of 100 spaces will never fill even during peak periods) Most parking management strategies have modest individual impacts, typically reducing parking requirements by 5-15%, but their impacts are cumulative and synergistic An appropriate combination of cost-effective strategies can usually reduce the amount of parking required at a destination by 20-40%, while providing additional social and economic benefits. Shared parking reduces the parking requirements by 10%-90% of the original level Page 29

Parking availability at destinations • Three particular parking-related features affect the destination of a car journey: • The availability of parking spaces • The cost of parking • The location of parking spaces in relation to the desired final destination • Results of DfT survey: • 31% of car drivers and passengers said they had no problems with the availability of parking • 38% said parking availability caused problems when visiting a hospital • 30% said it was a problem when going shopping • 21% said it was a problem when they made trips for personal reasons (e.g. going to the bank or the doctor) Page 30

Workplaces • Workplaces • The provision of, usually free, PNR parking spaces is very important in determining travel behaviour • Workplace (Company) Travel Plans • Workplace parking regulation, pricing and cash-back schemes are likely to influence commuters‘ travel choices • Workplace Parking Levies (WPLs) • A workplace parking levy could potentially be an effective tool for changing behaviour, but is inevitably controversial • Much would depend upon the extent to which employers absorbed the costs rather than passing them onto their employees Page 31

Destination parking - results Availability of parking at destinations appears to be an important factor affecting car use and longer-term decisions about land use High levels of parking provision can lead to an inappropriate use of valuable land and contribute to car dependency Focus of parking restraint has been on city centres (Central Business Districts) where (peak period) traffic congestion has been highest and a viable transport alternative (mostly public transport) is generally available Parking restraint has focused on commuters as this group make up the majority of peak period travelers Page 32

Availability of parking spaces Parking policy is viewed as both an economic and a regulatory instrument Availability of parking — and hence both ownership and frequency of car use — is the most significant influence on car mileage (e.g. US household survey) Economic approaches are seen as being effective complements to regulatory instruments Halving parking spaces in central areas of cities would be even more effective than doubling charges in reducing car use (Acuttand Dodgson) The more time needed using public transport, the more people are inclined to use the car to travel to work. By contrast, the more time spent parking near workplace, the lower the probability of travelling by car to work (Lois and Lopes-Saez) Page 33

Railway stations and Park & Ride (P&R) Parking is potentially needed at railway stations as well as at appropriate drop off areas for kiss and ride commuters Parking provision may extract demand from other stations, create congestion around stations, undermine pedestrian and cycle access and use land otherwise available for sustainable development Much research has been undertaken into impact of P&R P&R is a popular policy for local authorities Research on benefits of P&R appears unclear: while it may extract traffic from town centres it may also encourage longer car journeys to access the facility Page 34

Town centres Data on PNR parking is non-existent in most areas or, at best, incomplete Controlled parking zones (CPZs) in city centres are a potentially important policy measure, although problems of enforcement arise, together with the potentially undermining factor of PNR parking. Page 35

Other destinations • Shopping centres • It is not just parking charges that influence shoppers‘ behaviour– the retail offer is very important • Stadia • Despite their importance as movement generators little independent research has been published into the impact of parking policies at stadia • Airports • Those with higher values of time, such as business passengers, tend to park closer to airport terminals; leisure travelers are prepared to park farther away Page 36

Watford match day parking zones - 1 Page 37

Watford match day parking zones - 2 • Prior to the scheme‘s introduction four surveys on match days showed that about half of the streets within the area were at least 50% parked and that some were consistently over-capacity. • Follow-up surveys showed: • nearly ¾ of respondents in the area were satisfied or very satisfied with the SPA scheme; • 2/3 considered enforcement to be adequate; • over ¾ did not want changes to the rules. • Review in 2001 indicated that the scheme had benefits on wider transportation, environmental and quality-of-life issues. Page 38

Origin parking • Private off-street parking (including PNR) • Public off-street parking (short stay, long-stay, contract) • Controlled (paid) on-street parking (e.g. parking meters, phone payment) • Uncontrolled (free) on-street parking Page 40

PPG3: Housing • Local authorities should revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for developments: • in locations, such as town centres, where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or public transport; and • involving the conversion of housing or non-residential buildings where off-street parking is less likely to be successfully designed into the scheme. • Car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments Page 41

Parking standards Research on impact of parking standards is limited Surveys about the flexibility of current behaviour will produce very different results to those which look at longer term trends, or revealed behaviour based on where people are living Travel plans could encourage the car-free concept making it more attractive to both developers and potential residents with benefits of reduced parking needs In car-free developments, improvements in other modes of transport have not always reached the levels which are seen as necessary to make such developments successful Little research exists on the effectiveness of types of demand management measures in residential areas, particularly with regard to longer terms impacts Car Clubs potentially offer an opportunity to reduce car ownership in densely populated areas Page 42

Origin parking - results Parking requirements alone do not create car dependency (Manville and Shoup) Parking requirements have often generated land use patterns that might otherwise not have arisen, and they have channeled significant funding and land toward providing for the car Page 43

Atkins review of existing research - 1 Restricting parking leads to a reduction in demand Parking is a more effective demand management tool than public transport fare reductions Travel Plans, linked with restrictive parking policy, can achieve significant modal shift Restrictive parking measures influence mode choice There is a clear link between parking availability and car use Travel Plans can reduce the number of cars travelling to a site by 14% Limiting parking availability is the most effective way to limit the number of cars arriving on site Page 44

Atkins review of existing research - 2 Parking restraint is a hallmark of high achieving travel plans Developers seek to maximise parking as they consider that it adds value to their assets Maximum parking standards have encouraged the uptake of sustainable transport modes and travel plans Maximum parking standards should take the form of national guidance which incorporates the flexibility to adapt to regional variations and local conditions Page 45

Atkins review of existing research - 3 Restrictive parking policy over a long time has had no effect upon economic development Maximum parking standards do not deter inward investment Developers see parking as key to being able to let offices There is no evidence that relaxing parking standards improves economic performance There is little or no evidence to suggest that maximum parking standards have a detrimental effect on inward investment There is no evidence that parking standards have a significant negative impact on economic development Restrictive parking policies will support business and the economy There is no evidence to suggest that parking standards have a significant negative impact on economic development in the existing economic structure within an urban context Page 46

Table of contents The impact of parking measures & policies – what is the evidence base? 1 Introduction 2 Background to DfT project 3 Key parking issues 4 Parking Availability at destinations and Parking Charges 5 Parking provisions at origins (min/max standards) 6 Workplace Parking Levies, Parking and Congestion Charges 7 Impact of parking restraint measures upon local economies 8 Results from recent studies Page 47

Parking costs and fees Much research has demonstrated the importance of parking costs to travel choices although the extent of the impact may vary A combination of parking charges and reducing or restricting parking availability is likely to be most effective in encouraging behaviouralchange Page 48

Elasticities and pricing Parking fees do not reflect the full externalities of car usage Elasticity ranges vary greatly – time, location etc - and must be interpreted within the context they are reported Elasticities provide an insight into the social and political acceptability of a range of parking policy measures Information on long-run elasticities is lacking as few time-series analyses have been undertaken; this is important since parking charges probably lag behind rises in income Further research is needed into the cross-price elasticities of parking demand with respect to public transport improvements Page 49

Workplace Parking Levies (WPLs) Free or cheap parking a major influence on decision to drive to work Private Non Residential (PNR) typically 40-60% of UK town centre spaces 3 million spaces at UK commercial premises (1996) WPL only applied in Nottingham in UK, rejected in Bristol Nottinghamis third least car dependent city in the UK; it was Transport Local Authority of the Year & is first East Midlands city to use a fleet of electric buses WPL applied in Australia: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth Page 50

Insert the title of your presentation here